1988-06-06

Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on today's Order Paper there is a motion for allocation of time on second reading of Bill C-129 to be offered by the Minister of State for the Treasury Board and Deputy Government House Leader.
Subject to your guidance as to when this point should be argued, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order that this motion is improperly before the house at this time, by reason of the fact that the consultation required by the relevant Standing Order, at least with the Official Opposition, did not take place.
I would be prepared to make further comment in that regard, but I would like your guidance as to whether you would like me to argue this point now, or whether I should argue the point when the motion is called, as I understand it will be at an appropriate point during Routine Proceedings.
If you say that I should argue this point when the motion is called, Mr. Speaker, then obviously I would say that it would be without prejudice to the point that 1 intend to make.
I also want to state that it is my intention to raise as a point of order and as a point of privilege the acceptability of the notice of motion the Government placed on the Order Paper to suspend our Standing Orders with respect to the days and hours of sitting in order to facilitate the Government's legislative program which, through its own mismanagement and incompetence, has so far proven unable to fit in within the rules of this House as adopted by this House pursuant to the parliamentary reform for which the Government takes such credit every time it can.
I raise this now, Mr. Speaker, because when I raised a point of order about the acceptability of another motion by the Government to suspend the rules of the House in order to facilitate its approach to bringing the abortion issue before the
House, you allowed Members to make comments, but you stated that, as far as you were concerned, this matter had to be dealt with if and when the motion was called formally.
Therefore, I wish to say that I am certainly prepared to argue the acceptability of the Government's notice of motion on today's Order Paper to suspend the rules not only with respect to one matter, but to throw them out of the window entirely for a purpose which I think is unacceptable to the country. If it is your wish, Mr. Speaker, and I suspect that may be the case from what you said the last time the Government put down a motion of this sort with respect only to the question of abortion, I would not be surprised if you informed me and the other Members of the House that the point should be argued in detail if and when the motion was called. I wished to ensure that I was not in some way waiving my rights and those of other Members of the House to argue the acceptability of the motion, by not raising the matter at the first opportunity this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West for his intervention. Dealing with the two points he has raised, first with respect to Bill C-129, I certainly understand his position. It would be better if that were left until after we have gone through Routine Proceedings, and I will hear the Hon. Member then, depending on what the Government does.
With respect to the point of privilege or the alleged point of privilege the Hon. Member has raised with respect to the notice regarding summer sittings, the Hon. Member has certainly read the Chair's mind correctly, and that should be postponed until we see whether or not that is going to be proceeded with.
With respect to the so-called abortion motion, it is true that I felt that, under the circumstances given the particular matter, it was probably in the interests of this place to allow some preliminary comment at that time, which I did. I would prefer, for the better order of things with respect to the second matter the Hon. Member for Windsor West has raised, to hold that off until such time as we see if, in fact, it is actually going to be brought forward. But I want to assure the Hon. Member that I have notice of his concerns and I will make sure he is not in any way prejudiced by not insisting on proceeding at this time.

June 6, 1988
Committee Reports
[DOT] (ii10)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting the nineteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, in both official languages. The report recommends substantial changes to the Bank Act and regulations. Later this morning, a Private Members' Bill will be introduced complying with the terms of the report, and introducing an appropriate Bill.
The Bill will deal with how bank charges are to be imposed. It will limit the ability to impose charges under certain circumstances and will provide stiff penalties for non-compliance with the Bank Act.
[Editor's Note: See Votes and Proceedings.]


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
The Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Philip Derek Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Pari-mutuel betting).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-292, an Act to amend the Bank Act (fair banking practices).


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. McCrossan, seconded by Mrs. Collins, moves for leave to introduce a Bill entitled, an act to amend the Bank Act (fair banking practices).


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: I would like to point out that we had arranged that the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) would second the Bill. I am sorry if that was not communicated to the Table.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very pleased to ask the House to permit me to change that accordingly, and I thank the Hon. Member for Trinity. Mr. McCrossan, seconded by Miss Nicholson, moves for leave to introduce a Bill entitled, an act to amend the bank act (fair banking practices).
Is it the pleasure of the House that the Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, this Bill will provide a means of implementing the nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. It is the result of some months of hearings into bank service charge practices. I would like to indicate that the regulations in the Bill will allow the prohibition of the common practice of having consumers waive their consumer rights when they open bank accounts. It will also allow the Government to set disclosure standards for future banking practices as well as prohibit certain bank service charges which the committee unanimously feels are not in the public interest.
I would like to thank all the Members of the committee, both government Members and Opposition, for their support with respect to this Bill.


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

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition in accordance with Standing Order 106. The petition is signed by a number of residents in the constituency of Spadina and the City of Toronto who are concerned that the Conservative Government, having no mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, has in fact undertaken to do
June 6, 1988

so, largely only through negotiations between the heads of state.
Whereas this agreement will hinder Canada's ability to develop our regional, cultural and economic needs and not only denies Canadians secure access to the U.S. market but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from residents of Spadina and the City of Toronto with respect to the immigration policy. On one point the petition has met a promise of the Minister to be granted next month concerning unmarried sons and daughters of all ages, but the second point of the petition is that it is now two years since the then Minister of Justice promised to delete or remove the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or more when they are sponsoring their parents. Canadian citizens have a right to sponsor them at less than 60 years, which the residents do not. This promise has not yet been fulfilled, the distinction not removed. Therefore, the petitioners ask Parliament to ensure that the Government will now fulfill its promise.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a duly certified petition from a number of Canadian residents pointing out that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. While the Prime Minister promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, the trade agreement negotiated does in fact threaten the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
The petitioners point out that the agreement would deny Canada policy freedom and secure access and will result in a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: I want to remind Hon. Members that a short explanation of a petition is one thing but a long argument in favour of the petition is something else again. I know the Hon. Member will want to conclude his remarks.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada
Petitions
the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition under the provision of Standing Order 106.
This petition is from residents of Winnipeg who say that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society different from that of the U.S. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
1 have a petition complying with Standing Order 106 from residents of Canada from Glenbain, Saskatchewan and Neidpath, Saskatchewan who point out that the Government had no mandate to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, that the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) promise that sovereignty would not be affected has not been kept. The petition goes on to point out that the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty is being affected by this deal because future Governments will not be able-


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I hesitate to interrupt but the rule is quite clear. The House wants to hear what the petition is asking for, not all of the arguments that might be mustered in favour of it. There is some complaint obviously in the House this morning with respect to the length of explanations and I think the Chair has to recognize that. The Hon. Member will conclude his remarks.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The petitioners list eight or ten very cogent arguments as to why they are opposed to the free trade agreement, Mr. Speaker, but the main thrust of their argument is that Parliament should be dissolved to call an election so that Canadians may make the decision since they have not yet been granted such an opportunity.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table petitions signed by residents of Trois-Pistoles, Saint-Fabien, Saint-Cyprien, Notre-Dame-du-Portage, Saint-Arsene, Biencourt, Lac-des-Aigles, Cabano, Riviere-Bleue, Degelis, Saint-Eleuthere and Riviere-du-Loup.
The highway safety campaign continues in Quebec because the petitioners hope for changes and they are aware that since 1974, the highway safety regulations allow the installation of air bags for drivers of passenger cars and they believe that this device would reduce the number of serious injuries on the roads.

June 6, 1988
Order Paper Questions
For these reasons, the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to require air bags in the front seat of cars and adjustable seat belts with shoulder straps for rear-seat passengers.
[English)


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today to present to this House a petition signed by more than 1,900 residents of Lake Bonavista who object to the closing of Sub-post Office No. 102 located in the Lake Bonavista Promenade Shopping Mall and whereas Shoppers Drug Mart, Lake Bonavista Promenade Shopping Mall, is willing to have the said post office relocated in that store, and whereas Canada Post has refused to transfer the said sub-post office, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to re-establish a sub-post office in the lake Bonavista shopping mall.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House of Commons and through it to the Government of Canada.
The first one comes from Canadian citizens and residents from the Cities of Mississauga and Brampton in the Metro Toronto area. They complain and petition the Government to change the fundamental aspects of Bill C-55, the refugee determination Bill which is currently before the House. They argue that the Bill is largely unchanged, that there is still a prescreening stage, that there is still a third safe country concept to be established by the Government and that the weak appeal system to the Federal Court is completely unacceptable. These petitioners are asking the Government to reconsider these three major objections that have been the source of much aggravation in our country.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my second petition deals with the question of the embassy that was in Ecuador. It comes from petitioners in Oshawa, Toronto and the City of Etobicoke.
These petitioners in three different petitions ask the Government of Canada to reconsider the closing. This is causing extreme hardship with waiting periods of as long as six months, and people have to go to Bogota, Colombia which is the closest Canadian Embassy office. They ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to reconsider his decision to close the embassy.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (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:: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Friday, the Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) got to his feet, and, as recorded at page 16127 of Hansard, purported to give the notice required for an order to be made under Standing Order 117 of the Standing Orders with respect to time allocation for the completion of the debate on second reading of Bill C-129, a Bill to enable the privatization of Air Canada. According to Hansard, the Minister of State and Deputy Government House Leader said:
Mr. Speaker, a question or comment. I wish to advise that since an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 115 and Standing Order 116 with respect to an allocation of time for the second reading of Bill C-129-
He then went on to say:
I therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 117, give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allocating a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the second reading stage of the said Bill.
I want to draw your attention, Sir, to Standing Order 117. It provides the basis for the notice purported td be given by the Deputy Government House Leader on Friday. It says in part:
A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 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 to do so-
And so on. This means that in order to determine whether Standing Order 117 can be invoked in the way intended by the Government we have to look at Standing Orders 115 and 116. Standing Order 115 says, in part:
June 6, 1988

When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all Parties to allot a specified number of days or hours... the Minister may propose a motion, without notice ... and every such motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.
Standing Order 116 provides that when a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the Elouse, states that a majority of the representatives of the several Parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days, then there is a provision in the Standing Order for putting that agreement into effect.
It is clear, on reading these three Standing Orders together, that in order to found a motion for time allocation under Standing Order 117 properly, the representative of the Government must have specifically consulted with representatives of the other Parties as to, first, whether or not there could be unanimous agreement on a motion to allocate time to complete the stage of debate of a Bill then under consideration, and, second, whether it has been possible for an agreement to be reached among a majority of the Parties for a motion to allocate time for the same purpose, and that there has been an agreement for that purpose.
The rules in effect say that there has to be consultation between representatives of the Government and representatives of the other Parties, specifically for the purpose of seeing whether the kinds of agreements made possible by Standing Orders 115 and 116 could be reached before the representative of the Government can rise in the House to give notice of an intention to move a motion for time allocation under Standing Order 117.
The rules do not say that it is enough for the Government House Leader or his or her representative to go to members of the Official Opposition and members of any other Parties in the House and say: "How many more speakers do you have," or, "Is the debate going to go on for a while," or, "Do you think we can finish this today". That is not what the rules say. The rules are very clear.
The representative of the Government has to come to representatives of the other Parties and say specifically, "Can we reach unanimous agreement to allocate time," and if that is not possible, he then has to say, "Can a majority of the Parties reach agreement on the allocation of time". I submit that if that has not been done, any attempt to move a motion under Standing Order 117 is not based on the foundation required by Standing Order 117, and therefore, in this particular case, this notice of motion that was given on Friday and the motion itself on the Order Paper are both defective. Under the rules, you cannot, Mr. Speaker, I say with all due respect, allow the Government to present its motion.
I further point out that the Standing Order speaks of an effort to reach agreement, when it comes to Standing Order 115, involving representatives of all Parties, and when it comes to seeking agreement with respect to the provisions of Standing
Air Canada
Order 116, there must be a consultation between and an agreement among a majority of the representatives of the several Parties. I submit that this must mean, in the case of the Official Opposition and any other Parties in the House, people who have been formally designated by the Leaders of their respective Parties to engage in consultations for such purposes, the purposes of these three Standing Orders, or at the very least, people designated by such representatives to act on their behalf.
It is not enough for the Government House Leader or the Government Whip to come back to the opposition lobby or to go out into the hall or into the restaurant and, coming upon a member of the Official Opposition or a member of any other Party, engage in some conversation, and then return to the House and purport-and I am not saying that it would not be done with complete good faith-to offer to the Chair the view or the belief that the consultations required by these three Standing Orders have been duly carried out with representatives of the other Parties.
There will be others speaking to this point of order on behalf of the Official Opposition, but I want to say that the facts of the matter do not support the requirements of Standing Order 115 and 116 that before there can be a motion properly offered to this House under Standing Order 117, there must be an effort by way of meaningful, open and obvious consultation to seek either an agreement among all Parties to allocate time to complete debate on the stage of a Bill then before the House or at least agreement between the majority of the Parties for that purpose.
If you look in any recognized dictionary, I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that it is very clear, and I am sure the courts have ruled upon this on many occasions, that agreement must mean a clear and obvious meeting of the minds on the point at issue. The people on both sides of any such supposed agreement must realize and understand what they are entering into on the basis of what is being sought from them. This is what is a meeting of the minds or an understanding in a formal sense, as the term "agreement" has been defined not only in recognized dictionaries but, very often, in our courts of law.
If, as I think the facts will confirm, there may have been some conversation between the Government House Leader or the Government Whip and members of the Opposition, or the Official Opposition at least, with respect to the number of speakers yet to be heard on the Official Opposition's side on Bill C-129, this is not what is required by our Standing Orders. There must be a clear statement, first by the Government House Leader or the Government Whip, that he is approaching the recognized and accepted representatives of the other Parties for the purpose of seeking an agreement specifically on whether there can be a unanimous order to allocate time, and if that is not possible, to see if there can be an order supported by the majority of Parties in the House.
I submit that that has not taken place with the motion now before the House, so the motion is defective. It has not been

June 6, 1988
Air Canada
founded on the basis required by the rules, and the House cannot proceed on it. Therefore, I respectfully submit that this motion is not in order and cannot be received by you and placed before this House at this time.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. On Friday last, the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) did consult me about speakers. He knows that we were standing right here at that particular time. If I recall correctly, he asked me how many more speakers I had on the Air Canada Bill, and I said several. He asked how many, and I said I was not quite sure, but that there would be several. He said: "Thank you, that's all I have to know".
The Minister did consult me about speakers, but my point is that you and the Table Officers should think about setting precedents. The Minister did not indicate that he was consulting me regarding the possibility of time allocation under Standing Orders 115 or 116. He consulted me about how many more speakers we had. I wonder if we want to set that kind of precedent.
My understanding is that when these rules were drafted, going back to the days of Stanley Knowles and Ged Baldwin, the practice at that time was that the House Leader from the government side would come across and say: "Look, we want to see if there is an agreement to allocate time, would you agree to some kind of an allocation of time for such and such a Bill, and if so, fine, we will do it together". That is under S. O. 115 where you require all Parties to agree. If one of the Parties did not agree, there is S. O. 116 where a majority of Parties can decide to allocate time.
That is the way it happened in the past. As far as I understand it, the House Leader would be up front about it and say he was consulting under S. O. 115 or S. O. 116. If we in the Opposition say no, then the Government House Leader has the right, under S. O. 117, to give notice of a motion, which he did on Friday afternoon.
I want to make the point that we were consulted about how many more participants there would be in the debate. In the absence of my House Leader I was in charge of communicating with the Government, so the proper procedure was followed. However, at that time I had no idea he was thinking of time allocation and using S. O. 115, S. O. 116 or S. O. 117.
I make the point that we should be up front about those things. If you are thinking about time allocation, come across the way and ask if we would agree to one more speaker or two more speakers or two more hours or four more hours or one day or two days, and then the onus is upon us.
The last point I want to make is also very brief. At no time whatsoever would I agree on behalf of our Party to time allocation on the Air Canada Bill.


Mr. Lewis:: Thank you.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We take that position because Air Canada is a Crown corporation which is a very important part of this country.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Thank you.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We do not agree to time allocation on that Bill. That aside, we were not consulted specifically about time allocation.


Mr. Speaker:: Out of an abundance of caution and patience I am going to hear further arguments, but as to whether or not there is any need for consultation, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) seems to have almost eliminated that from consideration. In any event, I shall hear other Members, but I will now hear the Hon. Minister for State (Mr. Lewis).


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my hon. friend from Yorkton-Melville for his considerable assistance to my argument without even having heard it.
I want to say first that if the Canadian people ever wanted evidence of the delays being perpetrated by the Opposition, the filibuster of my hon. friend, the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray), is proof positive. I want to put this Bill in perspective and say why we did what we did on Friday afternoon.
This Bill was debated on May 24, May 25, May 27, June 1 and June 3, for a total of five days at second reading. Some 20 Members have spoken on the Bill. In an effort to freshen the list of speakers there have been two reasoned amendments put forward. The Opposition even forced a deferred division to a following day in order to stall for time. There were some eight point five hours, including the first one point five hours, spent in debate. I submit that that was the condition under which we were looking at the situation on Friday.
Having said that, I want to explain, within the bounds of what I am able to say about consultations, exactly what happened on Friday afternoon. My hon. friend from Windsor West made a very good point about meeting and discussing this with formally designated persons in the Opposition. That is very easy when the formally designated people are here. One cannot always find the formally designated people. Since it is inappropriate to point out that certain people are absent from the House, I will not point out that the formally designated people of the Official Opposition were not here. However, I will suggest that the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) was here. Knowing he has an interest in this Bill I went to him as one of the two members of the Official Opposition in the House, the only one around formally or informally designated, and consulted with him. That is all I can say because I think those consultations are private and I have no intention of laying them out on the floor of the House.
I then went to the NDP and my hon. friend from Yorkton- Melville, whom I took to be officially designated. He and I had discussions as laid out by him this morning and I confirmed by
June 6, 1988

his empathic remarks that no agreement was possible. That is what happened.
I suggest that my hon. friend from Windsor West wishes to structure the words "I say, you say, she says, he says", as we go through this consultation. I have been on both sides of these consultations. My friend, Mr. Yvon Pinard, had them on several occasions when I was Deputy House Leader and House Leader of the Official Opposition. They were not structured discussions. He followed through with a motion under S. O. 117 or whatever number it was at that time and we never raised this specious argument that we had not worn a red tie and bowed or been officially designated. That is a specious argument.
We have had discussions with respect to the debate on this Bill. We have brought forward the motion. I submit that nowhere in the Standing Orders does it lay out exactly how these discussions are to take place, as my hon. friend from Windsor West suggests they should be put forward.
Lastly, I want to say this. There is a time to protest and make your point and that time was Friday afternoon. If you look at Hansard and the comments I made, they were not made after two o'clock or at two o'clock. There was plenty of time for the Official Opposition or their formally designated representative, whoever he or she might have been, to protest. They had time to say, "Wait a minute, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister has given notice under the rules but he has not consulted". When would this protest take place? Surely it would have had to take place at the time I gave the notice.
I say with respect that the other arguments I make are valid, but I also say that my hon. friend is too late. If that protest had any validity at all, it should have been made on Friday afternoon by the House Leaders of the Opposition or the people they formally designate to represent them when they are not here, and I understand Members sometimes have to be elsewhere. If they did not make that protest on Friday, then they are too late.
To sum up, I submit that the consultations took place. They were not as fruitful as I would have liked them to be. However, my hon. friend from Yorkton-Melville was as forthright on Friday as he was this morning. There is obviously not going to be any consultation, and I understand that. That is why we are moving under S. O. 117. I submit that the Government is fully entitled to move that motion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we have dealt, at least in part, with the specific situation, but I think it is important to put on the record the Government's view about S. O. 115, S. O. 116 and S. O. 117. Those Standing Orders all deal with the issue of time allocation. The basic difference between S. O. 115 and S. O. 116 as a package and S. O. 117, and the most important difference for the House to be concerned about, is the giving of notice. S. O. 115 and S. O. 116 define the conditions under which notice can be waived, and you can proceed immediately in the case of S. O. 115 to the putting of the question. In the
Air Canada
case of S. O. 116, you proceed immediately to the two-hour debate followed by the putting of the question.
S. O. 117, on the other hand, requires notice of the time allocation procedure. I suggest to the House that this is the essential difference between the three Standing Orders. Indeed, the Government gave notice on Friday.
The House Leader for the Official Opposition has taken the words "agreement could not be reached" and somehow attempted to turn them into "consultation is required". Our House Leader has indicated that it is a pattern of the Government, which I think operates frequently in the best interests of the House, to ensure that consultation takes place. However, consultation taking place and the requirement for consultation to take place, are phrases somewhat different and ideas somewhat different from the notion that agreement could not be reached.
Agreement cannot be reached for many and varied reasons. All you need do is to put your imagination to work. You cannot reach agreement because a particular Party in the House has not named an official representative at the moment in time when you would like to do something. You cannot reach agreement when, as I think the Member from Saskatchewan has made clear, from the beginning of dealings on this particular Bill it has been clear that the third Party in the House would not agree to any kind of time allocation.
You can reach the conclusion that agreement to waive notice on time allocation, with which Standing Orders 115 and 116 deal, would not have been forthcoming in this particular case and in many cases in the future.
You can have intransigence within the government Party on the issue of agreement to waiving notice. Surely it is a dominant principle in the Chamber that the business of the Chamber, for the most part, proceeds on the basis of advance notice. That is where our privileges are very much affected. If we have advance notice, we can be present for the debates and the votes. In the best interests of the smooth functioning of the House we have seen the wisdom, over time, of providing procedures for the waiving of the notice. Those procedures, in all instances, tend to have the characteristics of some degree of agreement.
Standing Order 115 suggests agreement of all Parties and it is silent on independence in the Chamber. Standing Order 116 deals with a relationship between the Government and the Official Opposition as a way of proceeding more quickly despite the objections of a third or fourth party.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of motion may come back on the table occasionally in the next few weeks or in the more distant future. I think it important, in whatever statement you make about it, that you pay attention to the basic difference between the three Standing Orders. The first two deal with the waiver of notice under specific conditions,

June 6, 1988
Air Canada
the third one is the procedure to be followed when notice is given. It does not require consultation, it requires a conclusion of the Minister that agreement could not be reached on the allocation itself and, in particular, the waiver of notice.


Mr. MacLeilan:: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy House Leader said that these instances of delay are occurring far too often. The situation in which we presently find ourselves is certainly not one of delay but a bona fide disagreement on the procedure and the rules of this House. We on this side have a bona fide position which we want to state.
The Deputy House Leader has said that it is too late to make an intervention, and I will return to that later. First, he said that he held consultation with Members of the Official Opposition, that he consulted the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and that the Member for Papineau said there were going to be other speakers.
The Member for Papineau is this Party's critic on External Affairs. I know what the Deputy House Leader asked the Member for Papineau because I was sitting right next to the Member for Papineau and I am this Party's designated representative on privatization, the heading under which this Bill is before the House of Commons. When this matter goes to committee I will also be this Party's representative on that particular committee. The Deputy House Leader obviously did not bother to check to see whether the proper representative of this Party was in the House at the particular time in question.
To go back to the suggestion that the objection had to be brought up at that particular time, the Deputy House Leader gave absolutely no indication that he was going to be moving tittie allocation. As far as I was concerned and, evidently, as far as the Member for Papineau was concerned, he wanted to know how many more speakers we were going to be presenting. There is no indication that there had been or had not been discussion among the House Leaders of the three Parties in the House of Commons. The House Leader spoke to the Member for Papineau quickly and then was gone. He asked one question and then was gone. That certainly was not a consultation, it certainly was not-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Is that the only time I talked to him?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The only time that I know of. The Deputy House Leader certainly did not indicate more than one meeting with the Member for Papineau. I was here all Friday afternoon and he never asked me whether we could negotiate time allocation.
Standing Order 115 specifically says, "people who have been officially designated by the Party". There were not discussions among officially designated representatives of the three Parties in this particular case. As the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has said, the Party designates its official representatives. The Government does not pick the official representatives in the opposition Parties and there were not official representatives designated by this Party. The Deputy House Leader
asked that question, presumably moved on to the New Democratic Party, and then proceeded to move his motion.
He says that this is being dragged out, he says that there have been 20 speakers on this particular Bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not even 10 per cent of the Members of this House. We are dealing with a Bill which is very important to this country, the privatization of a Crown corporation which has existed in this country for 51 years. This is a very important Bill to which both opposition Parties have expressed their opposition and to which other Members wish to express their opposition. There has been no attempt, certainly by this Party, to try to delay debate on this Bill.
I submit that Your Honour has been fair to Parties in this House, but there comes a time when the rules have to be enforced. If the rules can be so liberally interpreted as is suggested by the Deputy House Leader, then the rules will become meaningless. There has to be a format upon which all Parties in this House can rely. If that format does not exist, the good will which we in this Party hope to engender among all Parties in this House will certainly break down. It cannot help but do so because we cannot find a reference point. We cannot go to the texts and get our interpretation and know what Your Honour will favour.
The motion put forward by the Deputy House Leader is completely out of order and should be so stated by Your Honour.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal very briefly with some points raised by the Deputy Government House Leader and his Parliamentary Secretary. First, the Deputy Government House Leader has argued that our point of order is not valid because it should have been raised at the time he gave notice on Friday. I am informed that Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled in 1971 that the time to raise the kind of point of order which we are currently arguing was not when the notice was given but when the motion was proposed. I am sure you have advice as to whether my recollection of Speaker Lamoureux's ruling is correct, and you will so inform us.
The rule in question refers to agreement, and the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary defines agreement as follows:
mutual understanding; covenant, (law) contract legally binding on parties;
accordance in opinion.
If one accepts this definition, it is impossible for there to have been any attempt to ascertain whether the agreement contemplated by the rules in question could have been reached, unless the Deputy Government House Leader went specifically to representatives of the Parties and said: "First, are you willing to agree unanimously on a motion to allocate time? If you are not willing to agree unanimously, can there be an arrangement among a majority?"
June 6, 1988

There is no way there can be such a thing as an agreement or an effort to determine whether there is agreement if what happens is entirely within the mind of one party, in this case the Deputy Government House Leader. There has to be some open verbal communication which the others involved can either hear or see.
It is not enough, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Government House Leader says, for the Deputy Government House Leader to conclude personally that no agreement is possible. That is not what the rule says. Standing Order 117 does not say that when a Minister of the Crown informs the House that he or some other Minister is of the opinion or has reached a conclusion that the opportunity for agreement under Standing Order 115 or Standing Order 116 is not possible he can then move the motion contemplated by S. O. 117.
The Minister of the Crown has to tell the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 115 or Standing Order 116. A Minister cannot honestly do that unless there had previously taken place the steps which human beings recognize are necessary in order to reach or attempt to reach agreement. That means open communication, not within the mind of one of the parties, but among and between the minds of all the parties who are supposed to be taking part in the agreement which the rules in this case contemplate.
I respectfully submit that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Government House Leader is in error if he says that the only purpose of Standing Order 117 is to provide a way of getting time allocation without having to give notice. It goes much beyond that. It says that in order to get an order for time allocation under Standing Order 117, other steps have to be carried out. The rule states that the steps have to be carried out pursuant to Standing Orders 115 and 116. This did not happen.
I say that even if it could be argued that at least the Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) could be looked upon as a representative of the Liberal Party, as the privatization critic, he was not approached for the purpose of seeing whether there could be the agreement contemplated and required by Standing Order 117, based on Standing Orders 115 and 116, in order to invoke Standing Order 117.
Finally, there seems to be the view on the part of the Government that there is something specious, as suggested by the Deputy Government House Leader, about asking you, Sir, to determine whether the rules of the House are properly followed. I ask you to make clear to the Government that the rules are an important foundation for the operation of this place and for our parliamentary democracy. If Members of the House raise points of order for the purpose of asking that the rules be followed, they should not be attacked for doing something which is the very foundation of our parliamentary system.
Air Canada
As I pointed out in the House on another occasion, parliamentary authority cited an old parliamentary maxim which reads:
That nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of Administration, and those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, these rules-that the forms of proceedings, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of Ministers; and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority, against the attempts of power.
I have no quarrel with the Deputy Government House Leader or his Parliamentary Secretary saying that the arguments I made in support of my points of order are not well founded, contrary to the words of the rules or precedents of Speakers who interpret these rules. That is fair game.
However, it is wrong to try to intimidate-we will not be intimidated-Members who try to raise points of order because they believe the rules should be invoked, on the basis that there is something wrong or specious about asking you to ensure that the rules are upheld.
We already have indications that the rules do not matter to the Government, and that what it wants to do is all that counts. However, Parliament must be more than that. If that is not the case, our democratic system is gone. I do not think that that is what you want. I do not think that, on reflection, even members of the Government want that. I know for certain that it is not what the people of this country want.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless some Hon. Member is impelled to further the argument, I think the Chair has enough information to make a ruling. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is on her feet. I will hear her briefly.


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, when I was listening to the Deputy Government House Leader set the framework for the necessity of bringing forward the motion he incorrectly introduced it under Standing Order 117. I understood him to say that the reason he was moving this motion was the extensive debate we have had. He cited the debate that occurred over five or six days, and the number of people on all sides who spoke.
I have consulted with the Table Officers to look at the number of people who have actually had an opportunity to speak on this very important matter of Air Canada privatization, which goes to the heart and soul of the direction we want this country to take. In fact, only six government Members have spoken, seven Members from the Liberal Party and six or seven Members from the New Democratic Party. They have used seven hours, less than a total working day.
When one considers the salaries and expenses of Members of Parliament, it costs at least $200,000 per Member to keep us in business around here. That includes salary and expenses totalling approximately $75,000, plus the amount of money involved to run our offices, which is approximately $130,000. Surely, if we are spending $200,000 per Member to keep this place operating, we should at least have an opportunity to rise and have a say on the most important issue of the day. For the Deputy House Leader to claim that because six Members out

June 6, 1988
Air Canada
of 210 on the government side have spoken that is sufficient is absolute balderdash.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not for the Chair to rule on whether it is or is not. The point that I have to determine is whether consultation is required under the rules. That is the exact point that I am faced with. I have heard both the Minister of State and Minister of State, Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) and the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on whether the argument is properly in front of me, on the point that is being raised. I want to indicate that I am certainly accepting it at this time whatever arguments might ensue at another occasion. That is the specific point that I have to determine.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) could conclude.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have had the opportunity to look up one of your rulings, Mr. Speaker, on April 14, 1987, when you were talking about time allocation in relation to Bill C-22 and you stated, in part:
There are circumstances in which obstructive tactics can be an abuse of the rules of the House. Equally, notice of time allocation motions after only a few hours of debate at any stage of a Bill can also be an abuse.
You further stated, Mr. Speaker:
... I submit that this is a legitimate use of Standing Order 117. Both time allocation motions and dilatory motions are open to abuse. When such tactics are entered upon by either Government or Opposition the balance of democratic parliamentary government can be easily upset. The maintenance of that balance is a fundamental responsibility of the Speaker.
That ruling was made on April 14, 1987, and you were concerned then about the premature use of time allocation. Usually time allocation is not moved before the eight hours is up when the 20-minute speeches have been made. This Bill has been debated for some seven hours. Therefore, I refer you back to your very sensible judgment, Mr. Speaker, in April, 1987. Once again, the same situation prevails here.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I have a brief intervention, Mr. Speaker. On May 25, 1988, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) moved the motion normally referred to in this Chamber as a six-month hoist on this particular Bill.
If you do decide, Mr. Speaker, that consultation is an issue,
I direct your attention to the operative phrase that "agreement could not be reached". The motion moved by the Official Opposition early on in the debate was a rather clear indication that it would not be prepared to waive the notice and allocate the time.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank all Hon. Members who assisted the Chair. The point in front of me here is clear and it is specific. It is whether or not, under time allocation rules that were originally brought in to this House in 1968 and, as I understand it, are essentially unchanged, under what is now Standing Order 117 it is incumbent upon the Government, if it gives notice of time allocation, to indicate whether or not there
was consultation between the Government and representatives of both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, it being the other opposition Party.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West has argued with persuasive force that, if one looks at Standing Orders 115, 116, and 117 taken together, then the rule contemplates that there had to have been some type of consultation because in Standing Order 115 and 116 there could not have been agreement without some consultation.
It is an argument which is intriguing, and which I do not think is in any way specious or frivolous. Unfortunately, while it is an argument that might very well carry extensive weight if we were considering making some clarification or change in the rules, it does not help me very much at the moment. What the Chair has to consider is what Standing Order 117 does, in fact, state. The words are very clear and are as follows:
A Minister of the Crown . . . has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 115 or 116 ... .
This, of course, is why the Hon. Member for Windsor West states that surely the rule must have contemplated some type of consultation. The difficulty is that the rule does not state that. As Hon. Members will have noticed, and I hope others watching and listening to this will have noticed, there was some dispute raised by Hon. Members speaking to the best of their recollection as to what conversations, if any, did take place. The difficulty that the Speaker is in is that the Speaker does not sit in judgment on that type of thing. Standing Order 117 seems to state, whatever wisdom or lack of it was there on those who drafted it, that it is for a Minister to come in front of the Chamber and say that there is no agreement.
I invite Hon. Members to consider whether or not some change in the rule might very well make it easier for a Speaker. It might also do much to facilitate things in this place. But I am afraid that I am bound by the rule as it is.
I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members some comments of Speaker Lamoureux on December 1, 1971, as recorded on page 948 of Votes and Proceedings. He stated the following:
That is exactly the point which was made by the honourable Member for Winnipeg North Centre. He suggested that the Chair has to rule on the Standing Order as written, and as it is before me for interpretation. Standing Order 75(c)-
That is equivalent to Standing Order 117 in front of us:
-says that if a Minister has given notice of his intention so to do, he could "propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage." This, 1 suggest, is what the Minister has done at this particular stage. I do not see how it is open to the Chair to go beyond this. Perhaps the Standing Order should be rephrased and presented in another way.
There again is the difficulty that is facing the Chair.
More recently, on September 9, 1987, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) raised a point of order, and this is what he said, as reported on page 8801 of Hansard:
June 6, 1988

Madam Speaker, this is a rather unfortunate turn of events at a crucial point in this very important debate. I think Your Honour will find that in fact the motion is defective in that in its introductory comment it states that agreement could not be reached. As previous speakers have already indicated, there was no attempt to reach an agreement.
To be fair to my colleague, the following questions were put to us: "Do you have speakers? Can we expect a vote on this Bill today?" My response was that as far as I knew we had enough speakers interested in participating in the debate that we would not likely be voting before six o'clock.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap further stated:
The motion before you, Madam Speaker, states that an agreement could not be reached. I know that my hon. friend knows that we had no discussions with respect to whether or not an agreement could be reached.
The Acting Speaker at that time stated:
The Standing Order does not state exactly what consultation or discussion it should imply.
The Acting Speaker adjourned the matter for some minutes and returned and ruled that the notice was in order.
Having stated that, the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville made some comment about comments that I had made in the past with respect to precipitous closing off of debate, and nothing I say in this ruling should in any way be taken as any diminution of a caveat that I gave in that ruling. In view of the fact that we are going to have a busy time around here, I want to make it very clear that I am conscious of that ruling and will keep it very much in mind.
I want to thank Hon. Members for their intervention at this time. I have to say quite frankly to the Hon. Member for Windsor West that he may very well have a point that ought to be dealt with because it seems very hard, I think, for members and for the public to understand how it is that these Standing Orders left out some mention of whether or not any consultation had taken place. I must say, as Speaker, that I think the rule could be adjusted in such a way that it did not put the Speaker in a position of having to determine on the weight of a lot of evidence whether or not a satisfactory discussion had taken place.
I have taken the point of the Hon. Member for Windsor West very seriously. I think I am coming down with a ruling that is proper procedurally and that closes off the matter.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like some clarification from you, Mr. Speaker. I take it you are not saying that no contact by way of consultation whatsoever with opposition Parties is necessary in order to found a motion under Standing Orders 117. I take it you are not ruling that the form of contact the Deputy Government House Leader in fact carried out on Friday, or prior to the point of order which the Chair cited in its ruling, does not have to be carried out.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to be very clear. What I am saying is that at least in my view at the moment on the present wording of Standing Order 117, and having taken into account Standing Orders 115 and 116, I do not think the Speaker has
Time Allocation
the authority, in view of the Speaker's responsibility to rule on procedural matters, to inquire as to what consultation did or did not take place.
There might be some occasion when the question of whether or not consultation had taken place on some matter comes before this Chamber. I am not in any way suggesting what I have heard today either amounts to sufficient consultation or no consultation or any kind of consultation at all. I am just pointing out that, as I read the rule, it is not for me to get into that. I would not want any comments I made today in any way to take away from the ability of the Hon. Member for Windsor West to argue whether a certain set of conversations did or did not amount to consultation at some future time if the Hon. Member wanted to raise the matter again under this Standing Order or any other.
I am saying that I think I am bound by the rule as it is and that I cannot investigate whether consultation took place because, frankly, the Standing Order is silent as to my authority to do that.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, just on a further point of clarification, you have discussed what may or may not be consultation and the Speaker's dilemma in that respect. I wonder if Your Honour could perhaps give a clarification as to what your position would be with respect to who that consultation should be with with respect to particular parties?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I may have indicated that if I had my way, and all Members wanted me to do so, I might make some adjustments in the rules. The question is an interesting one. I invite the Hon. Member perhaps to come to my Chambers and discuss it further. However, I do not think, in the interests of procedural law here, that any more speculation on my part will be helpful.


ALLOCATION OF TIME TO CONSIDER SECOND READING STAGE OF BILL C-129
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That, in relation to Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, one further sitting day be allotted to second reading stage of the Bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings before the Flouse shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and,
in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
I appreciate the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to address this motion. 1 want to say that I think the debate which took place on the procedural aspect of this motion was helpful and instructive. I think we can all perhaps learn from the contributions made by all Members who spoke, as well as the ruling of the Chair, and can go forward from here.

June 6, 1988
Time Allocation
With respect to this motion for time allocation, I regret very much that it has become necessary because of the delaying tactics of the Opposition to go this far. I have myself consistently argued that extension of the hours of the House was a better method of allowing for debate and getting through Bills, and we have done that. On Friday, Madam Speaker, we tried to extend hours, to work a little longer on a Friday afternoon. Certainly, government Members were predisposed to work here.


Mr. Tobin:: Say that with a straight face, Doug.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: All government Members with straight faces enjoy working on Friday, and we were prepared to do the business of the nation.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You did not want to go back to your constituency?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: When we called for extension of hours and suggested that we were prepared to work so that this Bill could go to committee, it was blocked by members of the Opposition Parties. It was blocked with some glee. So if the Canadian public wants to know where the minds of opposition Members are on a Friday afternoon, they are elsewhere than in the Chamber, because they were not prepared to work beyond two o'clock.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that several Canadians, hundreds of thousands of Canadians, were working beyond two o'clock on Friday afternoon. We were prepared to join them-


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: You were the only one, if you were.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -but the opposition Members were not.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Your nose is growing.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: As I indicated earlier, Madam Speaker, the Bill was debated on May 24, May 25, May 27, June 1 and June 3, five days at second reading. Some 20 members have spoken on the Bill. I was corrected by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that it has been our tactic, when government Members have made the point of the Government on a Bill, to see no need to filibuster the Bill in the way the opposition Members do. For that reason, our interventions have been circumspect in nature.
We have had two reasoned amendments. The reason for the reasoned amendments is that there are simply not enough Members here in the Opposition parties interested in debating this Bill. In order to freshen the list, not to have reasoned debate but to freshen the list so that the same person can speak over and over again, we have accepted two reasoned amendments from the Opposition. We have had some 8.5 hours' debate on this Bill. We submit that that is ample time to make one's point.
We have tried on other occasions, and we were successful on one occasion, to have extension of hours. We tried again on Friday, as I indicated, to move this matter along, but we are
continually being stalled by the Opposition in an effort to stall a very good Bill.
I want to spend the second part of my argument, if I may, just referring to this Bill and what it is about to do. We have embarked on a campaign to privatize Crown corporations for which there is no longer a public policy or for which we can operate the public policy in a different way at a saving to the taxpayer. We have done this with several companies so that the Canadian taxpayer is no longer in the gunpowder business, no longer in the communications business, and no longer builds planes. We are out of the hotel business. Guess what, Madam Speaker, the Canadian people are now, thanks to our moves, catching up with the rest of the world. Privatization is the way Governments around the world are moving.


James Douglas Manly: Margaret Thatcher?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No. France, for example, and Japan, not Margaret Thatcher. I knew my hon. friend would clutch that weapon of Margaret Thatcher to his breast. I knew that. But it is in France. Catch up with France. We have dinosaurs in the Opposition. We have the dinosaur Liberal Party and the status quo New Democratic Party whose members say, "No privatization. Privatization may be happening around the world, but we are not going to let it happen in Canada because we like being in the business of building airplanes and losing money. We like being in the business of running hotels and losing money. We like being in the business of gunpowder". All of these things they like. They like losing money. We have turned business over to the private sector, and guess what, Madam Speaker, in de Havilland alone there are an additional 1,000 Canadians working because it was privatized.
I know my friends in the New Democratic Party object to those 1,000 Canadians working. Many, I would point out, are paying union dues as well. When companies are privatized there is more employment, more growth and more vitality. And that is what this Bill is all about and what the Government is doing.
We intend to proceed to put this Bill through second reading and we intend to see our program of privatization proceed. Canada will then be catching up with the rest of the world. The dinosaurs may cling to the status quo of public ownership and an attitude of, "Don't worry about it". But they will find when they get into the election, which they want so badly, that they will be out of step, not only with Canadians but with the rest of the world. We have things to do, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I think it is deplorable on the part of the Government to want to use its overwhelming majority of 208 Members as well as the Standing Orders of the House which, as we know, are open to interpretation because they were drafted in good faith by Members of this House who, in their negotiations with
June 6, 1988

the Government in power, acknowledged that a modicum of order was necessary and that we had to adopt procedures that would be fair and equitable to all...


Sheila Maureen Copps: ... and reasonable.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: ... and reasonable, as the Hon. Member said, and that the House must be able to dispose of debate quickly. That, Madam Speaker, we can accept.
Today however, they would have us believe that after seven hours of debate ... I am not making this up. If we look at the Order Paper, it indicates ... I may remind Hon. Members that we normally have eight hours of debate on second reading, and after those eight hours of debate broken down into 20-minute speeches, we have 10-minute speeches.
Today, in the Projected Order of Business, we read: Bill C-129:
-20-minute maximum during the next hour of debate: speeches are subject
to 10-minute question and comment period.
There was one hour of debate left before starting on the usual eight hours for considering this Bill.
The Government has used this procedure to cut off debate, which amounts to strong arm tactics, to prevent Members of this House from speaking to the important subject matter of Bill C-129, which is the privatization of Air Canada.
Madam Speaker, I have not had a chance to speak to the Bill yet, and only seven Liberal Members have spoken so far. I would, however, like to take part in the debate, and I would like to give the House the benefit of the views of my constituents, who feel that today's privatization of Air Canada is a bad thing, and I want to let the Government know that we are against privatization, but being against the Bill does not mean that I will consistently oppose and obstruct. Certainly not!
We have a Government that is making proposals with which we cannot agree. We have only sixteen days of debate left, and we are being asked to pass forty-one bills between now and the end of June!
Madam Speaker, let's stop playing games! The Government is playing games because it doesn't know how to manage its time. It never learned how in the three and half years it has been in power, and it never will. But asking Members, after seven hours of debate, to forget it, to say: "It's over, no more debate!" . . . and to vote on the Bill. . . They can say it, and they can do it, but I can't agree with this way of doing things, Madam Speaker. This is using the majority like a sledgehammer. This is a Government that doesn't know how to manage its affairs, that is incompetent in the way it administers the House, or should I say in the way that it administers the business of the House, because fortunately, running the House is not the Government's responsibility, but the Chair's. The Government, however, is responsible for the business of the House, and as the Government proposes, we, considering our small numbers, must try to dispose, through sensible debate.
Time Allocation
Madam Speaker, I have an important speech to make about Air Canada. There are clauses in this Bill that upset me. There are a number of things that upset me a great deal. Like many Members, we are exposed to a certain amount of lobbying.
Air Canada is now lobbying me very seriously about clause 10 of the Bill. I wanted to mention this in the House because I think it is important for Members from Quebec and those who support the French fact to know that Air Canada does not agree with Bill C-129 and Clause 10. It wants to get rid of clause 10.
Never! I will never agree to any changes in Bill C-129 that would release Air Canada from its obligation to comply with the Official Languages Act.
I wanted to say this, and I will, if I have a chance, Madam Speaker. All Members of this House should realize there is a lot of scheming going on within the establishment of Air Canada. That doesn't sit well with the Government which may have bitten off more than it could chew, as it does, from time to time.
In any case, I don't agree with this business of being told after seven hours of debate that the debate is over with. There are many Members on this side of the House who don't agree either and who would like to speak and who will, Madam Speaker. If we have to, we will use the Standing Orders to show the Government we don't agree with its sledgehammer policy, with its constant pushing and shoving of Opposition Members, trying to get them to be . ..


Mr. Rossi:: Accommodating.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: . . . accommodating, as the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) just said. They are acting like dictators, Madam Speaker.
I repeat that last Friday, the Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) (Mr. Lewis) tried to use a motion to extend the hours of debate on Friday in order to finish second reading. He said earlier that if the proposal was not acceptable on Friday, objections should have been raised right away.
Madam Speaker, I watched when the Minister came back a little later in the debate to move that the House limit the debate on Bill C-129 to one additional day. He did so at 1.35 p.m., only twenty-five minutes before the House adjourned. And he expects us to accept his argument that if we didn't agree, we should have asked the Chair for a ruling at the time, to find out whether the motion was in order.
Madam Speaker, I submit that this argument is as specious as his argument that there has already been enough debate at this stage. I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary, who has just entered the House, will try and rise again in this debate and will move, at one o'clock or even before then, that the House continue sitting during lunch time and that the additional time be used to debate the motion pursuant to Standing Order 117.

June 6, 1988
Time Allocation
Madam Speaker, this Government will stop at nothing to push the minority around in this House. However, I leave it to the Chair to decide.
The Parliamentary Secretary let us know earlier that we have not heard the last of this Government's attempts to push and shove and use Standing Order 117, because as far as they are concerned, that is their policy. Well, this is no way to create a climate that is conducive to obtaining the co-operation of the Official Opposition. It makes things extremely difficult for the Official Opposition, Madam Speaker, since there are so few of us. We can hardly be expected to be available at all times to do our work in committee, in the House and all the other business we have to accomplish in a day's work. After all, we want our contribution, both in committee and in this House, to be worthwhile.
Personally, I didn't have time to speak to the Air Canada Bill because the Committee on Official Languages is sitting three times a week: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I would have liked to be in the House when the debate took place, but I could not, because I had business to attend to elsewhere. Many Members would like to speak to Bill C-129, and although they may not be here in the House right now, they certainly do want to take part in this important debate.
I suggest that the Government be careful if it is up to its old tricks, because the Opposition knows a trick or two as well. There are a few chapters missing in their book on dirty tricks, Madam Speaker, and if they want to start playing this kind of game, they better watch out.


An Hon. Member:: The Nielsen bible.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Nielsen bible.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, the Nielsen bible, the book of dirty tricks written by the so-called specialist. He did not write all the dirty tricks. There are still some unwritten, and we may use some of them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the motion before us today is a motion under Standing Order 117 to allocate time on the Air Canada Bill. I want to oppose that motion very strenuously on behalf of our Party.
We have been dealing with the Air Canada Bill in the House for only some seven hours, and after some seven hours only, the Government has moved to allocate time, to bring down the guillotine. That is probably without precedent, or certainly it is very, very rare for a Government to use its majority this early in a debate on a very important, fundamental issue. Where is democracy? Where is freedom of speech when the Government moves that quickly and ruthlessly to allocate time?
The Deputy House Leader said that we are railing about an issue that is now popular around the world. He is talking about
privatization. He is worshipping Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Jacques Chirac. I would remind the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) that Jacques Chirac was clobbered in the presidential election campaign in France, and one reason for that was his policies.

He was rejected by the French people, Madam Speaker, and he was trounced by the President, Franqois Mitterand, during the presidential elections in France six weeks ago. A week from now, at the second voting round, France will have a majority socialist government. And this is also thanks to Mr. Chirac's domestic policy, Madam Speaker. It's not just Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Reagan. We also have Mr. Chirac, in France. Another Conservative. And we have exactly the same problem here in Canada, Madam Speaker with the guy from Baie-Comeau!

We will fight as hard as we can to make sure that we keep Air Canada Canadian, to make sure that we protect this great Canadian institution which is part of the heritage of Canada. It was fought for and defended by many Conservative leaders over the last 50 or 52 years. We will not have our freedom of speech thwarted by a Conservative majority that wants to implement in Canada the political agenda of Jacques Chirac, Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan.
The Minister says that the Government is being very generous in terms of the debate it is allowing on the Air Canada privatization Bill. I wish he would think back to four or five years ago when he and his Party were in opposition and the Liberal Government brought in time allocation. What did the Party across the way say then? It said it was a denial of free speech, that it was the guillotine, that it was the Government of Mr. Trudeau using its majority. Does the Minister remember that? Of course, he was making speeches on this side of the House about the unfair use of time allocation.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Just quote Stephen Lewis's speech.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have been told to quote Stephen Lewis's speech. Instead, I will quote the speech of the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie).
On June 9, 1981, he said the following:
Mr. Speaker, this is a continuation of the philosophy of the government. For example, first, the English Parliament must adopt any dog's breakfast the government sends over to them as a Constitution, and must hold its nose and pass it.
Another illustration of that attitude is that we have to hold our noses and pass whatever this government brings to the House, and pass it quickly. This comes from a closure-crazed government, a government which suffers from the crime of parliamentary bestiality.
Whatever that is, Madam Speaker. That was the Minister for International Trade talking about parliamentary bestiality when the Liberal Government brought in time allocation on one of his favourite Bills in 1981. He went on to say:
June 6, 1988

It cannot wait to force these kinds of things through the House... The same little group comes in here on every closure motion. The same little group of parliamentary eunuchs, the same group of parliamentary assassins-the House leader, the assistant House leader, the hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres)-are in here all the time, assassinating this House and removing the good from the House. That is why I call them the parliamentary eunuchs.
Those were the words of one of the leaders in the Conservative Party, the Minister for International Trade and the former Minister of Transport. When he was on this side of the House, he was complaining about time allocation and about closure when it was imposed by the Liberal Government of the day.
It is no wonder the Canadian people say that the Conservative Party's Government is the most unpopular Government in the history of Canada. It says one thing in opposition and another thing in government, and it says it time and time again.
The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) is shaking his head in disgust right now. As a new Member, he cannot understand why the great Minister for International Trade would say one thing in opposition and another thing in government. That is why the Canadian people do not trust that Government across the way. That is why the Government will lose the majority of its parliamentary seats when the election is called. It says one thing in opposition and another thing in government.
Once again, the Minister for International Trade said in 1981 the following:
This is an illustration of what has happened to Canada. Today we have a parliamentary system of government without any checks and balances and without the separation of powers. The Prime Minister has a group of docile sheep in his caucus-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Bleating.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If we call the Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) docile sheep, what name do we have for the people sitting on the backbenches of the Conservative Party today? They are not even docile sheep. They cannot even bleat. They will not even stand up on their hind feet and speak their minds. They are willing to be puppets on the end of the string of the Prime Minister's Office, trying to impress him because they want to be Parliamentary Secretaries or chairmen of committees or perhaps even Ministers of the Crown. That will just not happen.
The great Minister for International Trade said in 1981:
They just say, "Baaa, sir, baaa, sir, pass it through the House, sir". As long as they do that, he has absolute power. This Prime Minister has absolute power as long as the majority in his caucus give him that unlimited power. They are so busy with their noses in the patronage trough and the power trough that they neither know nor care what happens to this Parliament, and we can expect nothing from them.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West was talking about patronage, time allocation and docile sheep in the old Government. I can think of no better way to describe the present Conservative caucus, a caucus that would allow, after seven
Time Allocation
hours of debate on a very important Bill, the government House Leader to move time allocation.
I see sitting across the way the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). I looked up a quote in Hansard from February 12, 1981. That Hon. member is quoted objecting to time allocation and closure and using some pretty strong language about the former Government. I ask him now to rise and say the same thing about this Prime Minister who is abusing his majority. The Hon. Member for Simcoe South said the following:
This chamber should be the embodiment of free speech. It should be the epitome of all those basic rights we have come to hold so sacred in this great country of ours. I personally will not stand idly by and be gagged by a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has nothing but contempt for Parliament and who has said so.
I cannot believe those words. They are so beautiful. They sound like intelligent words coming from an intelligent Member. I ask that Member now, with seven more years of parliamentary experience, to rise and say the same thing about this Prime Minister that he said about that one, because this Prime Minister is doing exactly the same thing in gagging Parliament and free speech.
That Hon. Member went on to say:
There are no marionettes on this side of the House. Where are the voices of protest in the government ranks? There has to be one person who will speak the truth. Have government backbenchers become the trained seals about which I spoke? Are they so browbeaten that they are afraid to speak out in defence of the freedom of this House?
If we lose freedom of speech, as we have started to lose freedom in our economy-
And so on. If the Hon. Member for Simcoe South could say that in 1981, 1982 or 1983, why does he not have the courage of his convictions and the consistency in his state of mind to say the same thing now? I ask him to rise and explain that to the House. That is another reason why this Party across the way is losing power and popularity with the people of Canada.
The people of Canada want from their politicians honesty and consistency. I say: Where is the Minister for International Trade? Where is the Hon. Member for Simcoe South? He made these speeches in opposition that misled the Canadian people in September, 1984. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), sitting across the way in his sanctimonious, pious, parsimonious manner-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Parsimonious?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -gets up and talks about the Government being free, benevolent, and offering all kinds of time for debate. Where was he a few years ago in opposition when time allocation was brought in after 15 hours or 12 hours or 10 hours of debate? He called that a denial of freedom of speech. He called that an abuse of Parliament.
There are very few Bills as important as the Air Canada Bill before us today. It represents a fundamental change in the way

June 6, 1988
Time Allocation
we as a country want to go. Yet here is a Government allocating time for debate after only seven hours. I am sure that if you were on the floor of this House instead of in the chair you, too, would get up and protest this abuse of majority, this denial of freedom of speech. That is what the Conservatives did in opposition over much less important clauses at times. I am sure that if some of them had the intellectual honesty to get up and speak their minds they would say the same thing today that they said some seven or eight years ago.


Brian Vincent Tobin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, in view of the remarks made by the Hon. Member who just spoke, and given the presence in the House of the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), I would like to move:
That the Hon. Member for Simcoe South be now heard.


Mr. Rodriguez:: I second it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I think you may find unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) to speak.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) rising?


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think that what has been happening in this Chamber in the last few weeks and months is well known to all Canadians. We have seen stonewalling tactics. The fact is that the important Bills coming from this Party are not the type of Bills I was referring to at that time. Not in the least.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are turning red.
Mf. Stewart: Nothing like your tie. Are you a cousin of David Peterson?
This Government has provided more good legislation in three and a half years than was ever put before this House in its history. Right now there is a backlog of the most important legislation that Canadians will ever see. We believe in the free enterprise system. We believe that Air Canada can be run properly in the free enterprise system. It will be, too, whether the socialists like it or not.
There are certain times when time allocation is a necessity. Such was not the case when I made this statement. This Government is dedicated to bringing forward over the next few months the policies that the Canadian people were promised. We are going to fulfil that promise regardless of the stonewalling.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the Government would like to acknowledge the generosity of the Opposition in putting an extra government Member up, but I think I am the next to speak.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No, you alternate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You had your turn. It is our turn.


Brian Vincent Tobin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, if you are going to recognize me for debate I will carry on with my speech. Otherwise, I raise the point of order that the Hon. Member has spoken and it is now our turn.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) is recognized on debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I found it fascinating that a Member who went on forever six or seven years ago on the principle of parliamentary democracy, who spoke with great vehemence, great passion, and right from the bowels of his being about this cruel, unparliamentary, undemocratic gesture, this kind of motion, could only speak a minute or two in defence of the present Government. A few years ago he had to be restrained. The Sergeant-at-Arms had to be brought in to sit him in his place because he said he was going to stand and fight the battle for democracy, to prevent this kind of scurrilous, terrible motion being presented to the House of Commons. I have never seen such a spectacle of a Member standing and swallowing himself whole-a tragedy, not only for democracy, but for the Hon. Member who finds himself sitting in this House seven years later almost to the day when the same kind of motion was moved. Now he, suffering the threat of the lash of the whip of government Members across his back, had to stand and swallow himself whole.
I offer my sympathy, having witnessed the spectacle of a man melt before us in this House, having to swallow his words, having to take back everything he stood for seven years ago. I apologize for even forcing him to his feet to speak today.
The sad reality is that the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), who managed to bleat out a few words to try to justify his position, is unfairly targeted in this House today. There he sits next to his colleague, beaming, the redness in his face but a glow, like a beacon of embarrassment. Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, being seen from all parts of Canada. The tragedy is he is but one, because he is surrounded by his colleagues, many of whom have made the same kind of speech but who were not unfortunate enough today to be singled out.
What did the Hon. Member say? He said he stands behind this legislation. He stands behind the Government. He stands behind this measure to bring the guillotine down. You can hear the jack-boots beating in the background, echoing off the walls of this great democratic institution, coming to shut us up. What did he say? He said:
If we lose freedom of speech, as we have started to lose freedom in our economy and as did Petrofina, we will lose individual freedom, because that is what happens when economic freedom is lost. If we lose freedom of speech by closure, the right to oppose, the right to criticize, the right to scrutinize public business and public accounts, what reason is there to sit in this House of Commons?
June 6, 1988

We ask him that question again today. What reason is there to sit in the Elouse of Commons when a government majority takes away from a minority, those who speak on behalf of the people of Canada, the right to bring accountability to the work of the Government? In a parliamentary system, whenever a Prime Minister has a majority, that Prime Minister, if he chooses, becomes an elected dictator. When a Government piles up, through mismanagement, the kind and number of Bills the Government has piled up on the legislative agenda because of mismanagement and incompetence, and chooses to cut off the right, indeed the responsibility and duty of the Opposition to bring accountability to the work of the Government, that Government becomes an elected dictatorship. That is what is happening.
That supposed kind of gesture seven years ago had the Hon. Member for Simcoe South in a proper snit, and today it turned him into-no, I cannot use the word. He has suffered enough so I will contain myself. At page 7193 of Hansard of February 12, 1981, he says:
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we cannot be stopped with closure... But today hon. members opposite are sitting with a comfortable majority. I for one refuse to stand silent and see the rights of Parliament abused, frustrated and strangled. I believe in open covenants, and 1 believe they should be arrived at openly. We, as elected Members of Parliament, hold a public trust. That trust is being abused when a parliamentary majority seeks to withhold the rights of the opposition minority.
Those were the words of the Hon. Member for Simcoe South. When confronted with similar circumstances, he stood as a Member of Parliament, beholden to no one but his conscience to defend the rights of Parliament, and today he sits as a defeated man, a man who no longer believes in democracy. Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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, as time goes by the issue of nuclear submarines is becoming more and more controversial amongst Canadians for several reasons.
By purchasing nuclear submarines we would be breaking the spirit, if not the letter, of the Nuclear Weapons Non-proliferation Treaty which Canada promoted so well in past decades.
Second, we can establish our presence and sovereignty with less expensive and more creative means than by introducing nuclear technology in our Armed Forces.
Third, there are other more urgent items which require federal dollars.
For instance, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities every year implores Ottawa for help in the construction of badly needed sewers for the protection of our water. Or take the need for a national high quality day care program, an urgent matter.
Surely the children of this nation, our future, should command the greatest attention in the spending priorities of any Government, even this hopeless Government. Sink the idea of nuclear submarines.



UNIONVILLE VILLAGE FESTIVAL


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend my wife Sandy and I attended the nineteenth annual Unionville Village Festival along with 30,000 to 40,000 other people. It is a family oriented festival with events and fun for all.
Saturday's festival parade was a great success. On Sunday I entered the 5K run along with several hundred people of all ages and am pleased to say that I finished the run in a record time of 22 minutes and 19 seconds. Later in the morning we attended an inter-faith open air church service in Crosby Park which was sponsored by six local churches.
The festival not only increases the residents' pride in this century-old community, but increases everyone's commitment to work hard to preserve its uniqueness.
To organize such a successful event requires an army of enthusiastic volunteers. Cathy Escott, the chairperson, expressed her sincere thanks to all these volunteers, and special thanks to vice-chairman Rick Newell, and for the help of several past chairpersons such as Joan Homer, Bob McCullough, Fred Cox, Paul Heney, George Shepherd, and Glenn Crosby.



ADVERTISING


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, a television advertisement for Diet 7-Up is currently receiving air time in Canada. The ad depicts two police officers, one male and one female. Having stopped a car for speeding, the

June 6, 1988
female officer begins flirting with the male driver, letting her hair cascade out of her hat; then she writes out her telephone number on the ticket rather than a fine.
This ad denigrates the professional role of women in the police force. It is a blatant example of the kind of sexist attitudes which continue to permeate our culture and to create barriers for women in all professions and all walks of life.
We must actively oppose advertisements like this, which treat women as sex objects, by writing and expressing our objections. By monitoring and complaining, and praising when appropriate, we can work constructively to change images of sexual stereotyping.
As women claim power in our society the whole human race is empowered and we move one step closer to eradicating the other symptoms of sexual inequality so prevalent in our culture, like inadequate child care, unbalanced political representation, and job ghettoization.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence is to be congratulated on its initiative in planning to open a recruiting office in Yellowknife next fall. This will be the first recruiting office north of 60 and will service the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Arctic Quebec, giving northerners the same opportunity to join the Armed Forces as presently enjoyed by southerners.
In addition, the Northern Native Entry Program, which gives a three-week military course to potential recruits before they are obliged to sign up formally, is most helpful.
We thank DND for acting on the advice of northerners with respect to recruiting in their region.

[ Translation]



THE HANDICAPPED


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, National Awareness Week for the Disabled is now past. I rise today to call on all Canadians throughout the country who took part in this campaign for independence last week to continue their efforts to improve the quality of life of our handicapped citizens.
You will recall that the United Nations proclaimed 1980 the International Year of the Disabled. It can be said that some obstacles have been smoothed in some areas like human rights,
employment, income, housing, access to transportation and public buildings. But we are still very far from the two main objectives of the International Year of the Disabled. As you will recall, they were (1) full integration and (2) complete independence.
Handicapped people are not asking for charity, Mr. Speaker; they want to be full-fledged citizens. I therefore call on associations of the disabled, businesses, self-help groups, labour unions, the federal and provincial Governments and all municipalities to join together, as Rick Hansen asked us, to meet the legitimate demands of the handicapped.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last week's announcement by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) that $110 million in federal funds will be spent to help clean up pollution in the St. Lawrence River is welcomed indeed. However, the waters of the St. Lawrence which come from the Great Lakes system will never really be safe until we stop the seepage of deadly chemicals from the Occidental Chemical Corporation dumps on the American side of the Niagara River.
In spite of the Canada-U.S. agreement to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals flowing from these dumps, the levels have been increasing rather than decreasing. When will the U.S. clean up its act? Have we no alternative but to pray for the election of someone with a good environmental record, like Mike Dukakis? See you in church, Mr. Speaker!



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, today the delegates to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference in Halifax will learn whether they have been jilted at the altar once again.
Already Canada's largest cities have been turned down once by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on their proposal to regenerate the streets, bridges, and water and sewer systems of our cities. However, their case remains persuasive.
The physical plant in our cities is running down and delayed repairs now will be ever more expensive the longer we delay. The Government also knows that the proposal will create
June 6, 1988

80,000 direct jobs, the work will be socially and economically useful, the federal government contribution will be cost effective, and the broad consensus among federal, provincial and municipal levels of government favours this proposal.
Indeed, it is hard to find any reason for opposing this proposal except the Government's fear of further budgetary deficits. We can only hope that the Government will finally see the merit in a proposal that the federal New Democratic Party has already endorsed, and will act to make our cities more modern, more safe, and better places for many Canadians to live.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CONGRATULATIONS FROM EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from the sixteenth annual meeting of the European Parliament. The European Economic Community is the world's largest market with over 320 million consumers, with a Gross Domestic Product larger than that in the United States.
The 12 member countries differ in language and culture yet their success story in rebuilding Europe, even to a grain surplus, through free trade is legend. They now contemplate removing all customs posts at their borders.
When I spoke about our free trade agreement with the United States, they who are our second largest trading partner acknowledged and lauded our success.
When I told them of the opposition to the free trade agreement from across the House, for reasons such as the loss of sovereignty, they scoffed and asked: "Have any of us sold out our nations? Have any of us lost sovereignty?"
The Germans, the Italians, the Irish, the Greeks? Of course not! They have created a booming market and better jobs through free trade, which is exactly what will happen here.
Hans-Jurgen Zahorka, one of the most respected Members of the European Parliament, congratulated us as a Government for what we accomplished in our free trade agreement with the United States. He told me that many doctoral papers have been written in Germany confirming our good fortune.
Free trade means continued good fortune, better jobs, and a great future for our children. Let's get on with it.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the mayors of Canada's major cities are now in Halifax for the annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
They have launched a call for help to the federal Government, faced with disintegrating municipal infrastructures. It would take $15 billion immediately to upgrade these infrastructures. Faced with this colossal expenditure, the mayors are asking Ottawa to help them.
The Mulroney Government is turning a deaf ear, but this program would create 60,000 jobs. I repeat: 60,000 jobs. We in the Official Opposition will not let the municipalities down. Not long ago, I presented a motion in the House, supporting the municipalities and their call for renewal of their infrastructures, and I got the support of all the provinces. Now the mayors want our support, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has already promised a three-way shared cost program to create these jobs in this country.
I say to the Conservative Government: Canada needs a municipal infrastructures program. We need it now! Submarines, nuclear or otherwise, are not a priority!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the earth's ozone layer is under attack by man-made chemicals and by man physically destroying the environment. In the past weeks there has been some positive news. Brazilian researchers have found that the burning of an area of the Amazon Rain Forest as large as southern Ontario, each year, will have a disastrous effect on life by weakening the ozone layer. Brazil has recognized the importance of the Amazon to the world, and it is hoped that action will be taken.
Canada has decided to ban all non-essential uses of chemicals that destroy the ozone. The Minister is to be congratulated for his tough action, which goes beyond the 50 per cent agreed to by the countries which met in Montreal last September. As more nations become aware of the impending disaster, I am confident that they will follow Canada's lead in taking measures to halt the destruction of the ozone layer.

June 6, 1988
16158_____________________________
5. O. 21 EDUCATION



FUNDING REQUIRED BY UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, to those who insist that Canada's educational system remains strong and internationally competitive, the Ontario Federation of Students Report called "Cut to the Bone" provides a graphic rebuttal with these examples of a crisis of neglect: a university where bake sales are needed to buy books and supplies; another where students wear coats and sweaters to class because there is no heat; a technical university where students have used for 16 years equipment that has a six-year life span; a psychology class so crowded that it mocks fire regulations; and buildings infested with rats and dead mice.
The message is clear. Our universities and colleges are being killed a slow death as some provinces cut funding and others even pilfer federal funds.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the rescue with another promise-he will insist that the provinces use federal funds for education. In the meantime, what about the sins of his Government which is draining $1.5 billion from postsecondary funding?
When will the federal Government take the lead so both it and the provinces treat post-secondary education as an investment in Canada's future? When will the rhetoric stop and the broken promises end? When will the Government stop playing games with the future of our young people and act to ensure the only route to a competitive future is a well educated population?

[ Translation)



PORTUGUESE NATIONAL HOLIDAY


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, this week, more specifically next Friday, everywhere in Canada and especially in the wonderful riding of LaSalle-Emard, people will be celebrating Portugal's national holiday. Our sizeable Portuguese-Canadian community has preserved and enhanced its rich, ancestral traditions, to the delight of those Canadians who appreciate the benefits of Canadian multiculturalism.
Mr. Speaker, I hope our Portuguese immigrants who have given us such marvellous families will have a wonderful day, which will be a time for joyful reminiscing.
Our fellow citizens from Portugal, from the Algarve coast, the beaches of Estoril, and the Douro valley, have found a new
home along the banks of Lachine Rapids, and we hope they will accept our best wishes on their national holiday.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for some time now the Government has been making promises to the immigrant community to have a more generous policy of family reunification. Yet we find out from lawyers in Winnipeg that the Department of Immigration is presently making it much more difficult for families to sponsor adopted children, parents, and grandparents. The Department is putting roadblocks in the way when the Immigration Appeal Board has already said that these roadblocks must be removed.
It is time for the Government not only to make promises to immigrants, but to take some action and tell the Department that, when the Immigration Appeal Board says it is okay to sponsor a relative, the Department ought to allow it to happen.



HOUSING


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian population is aging all the time and according to statistics, it is predicted that in 2030, one Canadian in four will be 65 or older.
This results in a growing problem of housing for the elderly. It is not realistic to uproot someone from his community when he reaches retirement age. It is unthinkable to break the family ties between young people and their grandparents on the pretext of giving them security.
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, other solutions to this problem must be found. The nuclear family, this bond between young and old, must be preserved. This wisdom that comes with years must be put to use.
I ask the Minister responsible for housing to deal with this important issue and to discharge his responsibilities by issuing the appropriate orders to CMHC to develop programs and make them available to beneficiaries.
June 6, 1988



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. This weekend the Government's own Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Stephen Lewis, joined the succession of other important voices such as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the former Chief of Staff, Mr. Theriault, the Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr. Roche, and other leading defence specialists, in condemning the Government's decision to proceed with the purchase of a fleet of nuclear submarines, especially at a time when the superpowers themselves are engaging in important efforts to disarm their nuclear arsenals.
Will the Government finally admit that this costly and ill-considered nuclear sub program is the wrong initiative and there are far more constructive and productive ways for Canada to secure its security and provide for the defence of the sovereignty of our nation? Is it not time that the Government admitted, considering this overwhelming evidence and contradiction of its own officials, that it has embarked on the wrong course?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to that question, I believe Ambassador Lewis himself, during his speech on Saturday to the Congress of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, noted he was "neutered" until August 1, but that he endorses everything Mr. Broadbent said about the plan to acquire nuclear submarines. Well, while he was neutered, he was endorsing a neutered policy. It is not our policy. This is a private opinion of the Ambassador to the United Nations who had noted that his term was drawing to a close-


Mr. Broadbent:: Like yours.


David Orlikow: You have a few more months than he does.


John Carnell Crosbie: The term of the NDP has never come and never will, Mr. Speaker.
Ambassador Lewis' views and ours on this question do not coincide. We believe, and we advocate, that Canada should have the means to defend its territorial sovereignty. We should be in the position to exercise control over the Arctic. We can do this with the nuclear propelled submarine policy outlined in our defence White Paper. We are going to stick to it. We will put the question clearly before the Canadian people and see if they want the neutered policy of hon. gentlemen opposite.


John Edward Broadbent: Do that!
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if it is the Minister's conclusion that the Ambassador of the UN is neutered because he is coming to the end of his term, I suggest that puts him in exactly the same position as the Minister himself.


COST OF SUBMARINE PROGRAM
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question on the same topic to the Minister of Finance. Last Thursday in the House in response to a question put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau, the Minister of Finance said that the precise numbers on the cost of submarines would be compiled after the country of origin for the submarines is chosen. That was compounded by statements by members of the Department of Defence admitting the $6 billion of operating costs have not been included in their estimates, so that no one knows what the final exact cost will be.
Is this a new way for the Government to do business, to make a decision before it even knows what the costs will be? Is that not a foolhardy and unwise way to proceed with a major expenditure of taxpayers' dollars on an ill-founded policy when the Government does not even know what the cost will be? Is it not time the Minister of Finance stepped in and took some control of this matter and tried to save this country from a disastrous decision?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is drawing too precise conclusions to things that have been said. What we are facing right now is a decision on the country of origin for the submarine purchase. We have a fairly good idea of the cost of this program at this point. It is not until you can get into the detailed discussions, which come only after you make the decision on country of origin, that you are able to define the cost of the program with the degree of precision that would be necessary before a final decision is taken. That is the position we are in right now.


Lloyd Axworthy: That reminds me of that saying, "What's a billion or two", Mr. Speaker. Is that the new position of the Finance Minister?


POSITION OF AMBASSADOR TO UNITED STATES
Lloyd Axworthy: I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister speaking for the Prime Minister.
A speech this weekend by Ambassador Lewis to the United Nations, I think it would be fair to say, has left considerable confusion on the question of the Government's foreign policy. The Ambassador over the last four years has accepted and articulated government policy on a wide range of issues from nuclear arms to foreign aid. Either the Government has radically changed its position, or the Ambassador has decided that the policies no longer warrant his support.

June 6, 1988
Oral Questions
If the Ambassador's statement of this weekend on such crucial matters as Cruise missile testing, foreign aid, and nuclear subs does not contradict the Government's position, and considering he is one of the chief spokespersons for government foreign policy, does this not call into question the entire premises of that foreign policy, causing major confusion and doubt on the part of other countries and our allies as to exactly what the foreign policy of this Government really is?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt whatever about what our foreign policy is, particularly in this area. I quote from the Canadian Press report of this story. It reads:
Mr. Lewis stretched the bounds normally observed by Canadian diplomats,
who are supposed to stay out of domestic politics.
Mr. Lewis is an Ambassador and his job is to carry out the policy of the Government. In these remarks he was neither articulating the policy of the Government nor carrying it out. As he said himself, he is
-entitled to a little bravery at the eleventh hour of his tenure.
I would have thought he might be entitled to a little bravery throughout his tenure, Mr. Speaker, and that he should keep the rules in mind for the remainder of his tenure as our representative at the United Nations, so this kind of advantage cannot be taken of him or of us by the Official Opposition.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, My question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that the Minister has received the Standing Committee's report on financial service charges, is it his intention to facilitate passage of the Private Member's Bill introduced this morning, or to introduce government legislation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will understand that this report has just been tabled. It is a very good report. As she knows, we have waited for some while with some anticipation for the report.
What I would like to do with my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, is to review the propositions in the report. At that point we can make a decision as to how we might proceed from here.


APPLICATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the publicity about the report has focused on charges by banks, but the report itself deals with all financial institutions regulated by the Government of Canada.
Is the Minister able to say that whatever measures he takes will be applied not only to banks but to other federally regulated institutions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that that is a logical question that the Hon. Member might want to ask. Again I would say a response would be premature.
We want to look at the implications that that might have as far as provincially regulated institutions in the same field of business, such as trust companies, are concerned. As I indicated in my first response, we are quite interested in the conclusions that have been drawn here. I do not want to make any early statement for fear of prejudging what a more considered point of view might be. It is something we will be studying at some length, and we will be back to the House at an early date with some response.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who, I understand, is playing a part in the review of the reckless and costly nuclear submarine decision.
The Minister knows that military experts in Europe, Canada and the United States have all said that when it comes to surveillance in the Arctic there is a much more effective, much less costly way, of going about it than embarking on, as I say, a reckless and much more costly decision of having nuclear submarines.
Since the Minister is involved in a reassessment of the policy over-all, will he confirm that for every $1 billion that would be saved on nuclear submarines, we would have enough money to support 250,000 child care spaces for one year, 10,000 hospital beds for one year, 40,000 transitional homes for one year, and we could feed one million of Canada's poor children one lunch a day for three years? There is an alternative use of $1 billion in each of those items. Would the Minister confirm that those estimates are accurate and, in so doing, would he add his voice to sanity and say that he will oppose this reckless and irresponsible submarine decision?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have learned from three and a half years of hard experience never to take the Hon. Member's figures at face value. They are normally twisted out of some measure of reality, going back to the very first time he opened his mouth in this Parliament and said that we would lose 200,000 jobs because of actions we were taking. Clearly we did not lose 200,000
June 6, 1988

jobs. We gained many, many hundred thousand more than that.
I think the proposals that have been set out in the defence White Paper stand for themselves. They are the result of a very extensive review by the Government, working with the Department of National Defence and the military advisers, on the approach that we should be taking as a Government. I think the Hon. Member will understand that those questions are more appropriately put to the Minister of National Defence who will be back in the House shortly.


INDIAN RESERVES-SOCIAL CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Minister of National Defence will have the information we want on alternative spending in the social field, for example. Again, the Minister has been cited as one of those who is trying to bring some common sense to cabinet decisions.
At a time when we have in virtually every Indian reserve in Canada what can only be described as disgusting and unacceptable poverty, at a time when there are one million Canadian children in poverty, at a time when we have a need for child care spaces, at a time when there are all kinds of real social needs that have to be met, why does the Government not embark on a sensible surveillance military policy and use the saved billions of dollars for needed social spending in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member understands the importance of balance in public policy. The Hon. Member has mentioned our spending on Indian affairs, and I should point out to him that that has increased by 42 per cent since we came into office.
What we have done, on a range of social policy initiatives that I have outlined many times in the House, speaks for itself. Just to remind the Hon. Member, I will tell him that we have increased the child tax credit, we have provided for the prepayment of the child tax credit, we have introduced a refundable sales tax credit, and we have introduced a number of changes that have improved the lives of veterans.
The changes we have made in a range of social policy areas have, I think, been a good balance between what is needed on the economic development side, on the regional development side, on the international affairs side, and on the side of defence policy, all of which combined represent what is needed in good government.
It is very easy for the Hon. Member to pull out of the air some ideas that he would like to put into operation, something which he probably will never get a chance to do, so I understand his frustration in that way. I think it is important to look at the balance and recognize that we are coming off a period when the defence affairs of this country were seriously neglected.
We are trying to generate a greater degree of balance so that the men and women who represent us in the Armed
Oral Questions
Forces know that they will be properly equipped and that there is a Government that stands behind them.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that what is being objected to is wasteful spending. He knows that Canadian military experts as well as British, French, and American have said that this nuclear submarine policy is an absurd one, and Canadians understand that.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: My last question is simply this: Would the Minister confirm that the Government is now considering its options on this policy? Is it possible that the Canadian Government intends to reverse its policy and to adopt an approach that does not include purchasing nuclear submarines?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the Hon. Member is trying to fool. His colleague sitting right beside him said a matter of weeks ago that the NDP would not introduce nuclear submarines but would put that same amount of money into surface vessels.


John Edward Broadbent: Not the same amount.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The NDP Leader is saying they were not going to cut back on the defence budget.


John Edward Broadbent: He did not say that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You cannot have it both ways. You say you don't want to have nuclear submarines but you want to keep defence spending at the same levels. You cannot fool the Canadian people, they are too smart for that.


IMMIGRATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Immigration. It concerns today's reports that Nicaraguan Contra rebels requested and received refugee status in Canada as early as last year.
Following statements made last November by the Secretary of State for External Affairs who said that Canada might have to admit Contra rebels as refugees, the Minister for External Relations assured this House on November 24, in response to questions from the Opposition, that:
We have never admitted terrorists or persons guilty of war crimes, and that
policy will not change.

June 6, 1988
Oral Questions
Two days later in the House the then Minister of Immigration said:
-all those accused of violence, whoever they are, will not be accepted.
I ask the Minister a very simple and straightforward question. Why did the Government break its commitment to the House and Canadians by allowing Contra rebels to enter this country when many of them have horrible records of human rights violation and, as such, violate Section 19 of the Minister's Immigration Act?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first, I stand by those statements made by my colleague. As the Hon. Member knows, these cases are all considered case by case. People with war crimes records and terrorist records are not considered as refugees in Canada.
The best way to resolve this is through the proposals we have before the House in our two Bills. They will help keep out claimants who should not be here. In the meantime, we continue to look at each case on a case by case basis wherever they are from. As the Hon. Member knows, this is only one of the countries with which we have some difficulties.


Sergio Marchi: The statements of the Minister of State for External Affairs and the then Minister of Immigration fly in the face of government policy and the Immigration Act which makes these individuals inadmissible. That is not to suggest they should not be helping legitimate refugees. The Minister irresponsibly ignores that very important point.


PASSPORT FORGERIES
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, regarding the network of passport forgeries which facilitates the entry of these Contra rebels, the Minister's senior immigration official, Jean Roberge, said:
-we don't see that as a major federal offence as far as Canada is
concerned.
How can the Government justify an official position which essentially condones this criminal activity? Since the Government knew of this plot since April, why has it not halted this operation, which is clearly illegal under existing legislation, and brought these culprits to justice?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is I who speak for the Government and this Department and I do take this very seriously, and so does the Solicitor General. In fact, there have been international meetings as recently as last week in which the Solicitor General was involved, which included the very large international problem of false documentation. We do take this very seriously and it relates once again not just to Nicaragua but to people who are in the country. He can see by the police action on the weekend that we do take these things very seriously. I am getting a little tired of the Hon. Member suggesting that I do not take my job seriously.


FINANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs has just tabled its report, which concludes that consumers' frustrations and anger with the banks are founded and justified. Will the Minister immediately follow up on the Committee's recommendations and more particularly on those contained in the NDP's report, which called for creating the position of financial services ombudsman, whose role would be to act as a referee?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have essentially responded to the Hon. Member's question. I indicated we will study the report of the committee in detail. I had a quick read through it already but I want to reflect further on it before I make any statements. That particular comment must apply to the question the Hon. Member just posed.


SUGGESTED FREEZE ON SERVICE CHARGES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in the report tabled today the committee clearly comes down on the side of consumers who complained vociferously to the committee and this House that they have been dinged and donged on bank service charges. The one thing missing in the report was any immediate redress for Canadian consumers.
Is the Minister prepared to consider in a positive way the recommendation of NDP members of the committee that there be a freeze on bank service charges for one year in light of the fact that the Royal Bank has already done that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the point of view expressed. I think we have all had such representations from our constituents. I have indicated a few times in response to questions that we were looking forward to the work that the committee was doing on the question of bank charges to give us some guidance on how we might proceed. However, I am sure the Hon. Member is not so impatient that he would expect I would have an immediate considered response in a matter of two or three hours after the report is tabled.
For that reason I think he will understand that we want to review this carefully. We do not want to delay long in coming up with conclusions, and I am sure, once that is done, the point of view expressed, the importance of the interests of the consumer, will be taken into account in arriving at our conclusions.

June 6, 1988


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Is it true that those applying for Canadian citizenship now have to wait up to a year to receive their security clearances before they can become Canadian citizens? Is it also true that there is such a backlog of people waiting for security clearances that applicants in the family immigrant class are no longer being added to the waiting list by CSIS?
If that is true, when in Heaven's name are we going to do something about it?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite correct in that there certainly is a delay with the processing of security clearances. We are certainly well aware of the problem and we have taken a number of steps to try to alleviate the situation, such as doubling the number of CSIS officers assigned to the screening process. We are reviewing the requests for security processing.
I would point out that in the past year we have had an unprecedented number of requests with respect to Le sommet de la Francophonie, the Commonwealth Conference, the Calgary Olympics, and the Toronto Economic Summit. For example, for the Calgary Olympics alone we had to process an additional 50,000 clearances. Indeed, we are aware of the problem, we are working on it, and we hope to have it resolved within the next several months.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-CHICKEN IMPORTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Last week we heard that the United States health care companies will be able to come into Canada and take over health care clinics here.
There is a report today in the press that the Prime Minister's trade deal will allow an additional two million chickens to come into Canada, raised under unsanitary conditions compared to those in Canada, and carrying high levels of residues of antibiotics.
Why is the Government endangering the health of Canadians by massively increasing the imports of this poultry carrying high levels of residues of antibiotics?
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has been in a knowledgeable position for a long enough period to know that the free trade deal does nothing of the sort. The only thing done under the free trade deal was to increase the quota of U.S. chickens allowed into Canada from 6.3 per cent to 7.5 per cent of Canadian production because it turned out that that was the quota level of the average of the last five years. In other words, what is permitted is what has been the average permitted under our quota system of the last five years.
The supply management system in connection with chickens remains in effect. Our health standards remain in effect. The whole situation remains unchanged. The Hon. Member knows that full well and should not attempt to spread a canard about the chicken situation.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade knows that the drafting instructions by the two congressional committees call for the administration to remove all barriers to imports of Canadian food as soon as possible. He also knows that when that happens that will allow a flood of poultry meat to come into Canada.
This morning a press report quotes Dr. Tom Feltmate of Agriculture Canada as saying that virtually no testing of antibiotics in U.S. poultry coming into Canada is carried out.
Why is the Minister increasing these imports? He knows that the recommendation of the United States congressional committees on the free trade deal is to remove all those barriers. Why is he playing Russian roulette with Canadians' health?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is this kind of gross exaggeration, completely bizarre exaggeration, which so damages the opponents of the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement does not permit an increase in the number of chickens being imported into Canada. The quota system remains in full effect. Our supply management system and the quota system remain in full effect.


Some Hon. Members:: Not true.


Some Hon. Members:: Wrong.


John Carnell Crosbie: The attempt to yell me down doesn't change the truth. The truth stands no matter how much hon. gentlemen opposite cackle about chicken or whatever they want to cackle about.
I repeat that the quota level set is the quota that has in actual fact been the average of the last five years. No amount of obfuscation or bizarre misrepresentation can change that.

June 6, 1988
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


SELECTION OF GUATEMALAN AND NICARAGUAN REFUGEES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows from her Department's figures, between January, '87, and March, '88, her Government sponsored only 568 Guatemalan refugees, that is from a country with civil war, guerrilla war, and death squads, but 1,177 from Nicaragua, a country with a declining war, a much better human rights record, and no death squads.
Will the Minister explain why, out of a limited allocation of refugees in total for Central America, her Government sponsors more than twice as many Nicaraguans as Guatemalans?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that Nicaragua is a country which does have refugees. There are refugee camps with Nicaraguans in them. It is not only our country which determines that there are people in Nicaragua in need of our help.
The Member also knows that we look at all of these things on a case by case basis. Each one is determined on its merits one at a time.
The Member also knows that people arriving at our borders and claiming refugee status themselves take far too long to get through our system. We need help with some of those things from the Hon. Member.


SELECTION CRITERIA
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my colleague on my far left has asked me to give the Minister some help. I will point out to her that I am not referring to people coming to our borders but people being selected by our embassy in San Jose and other such embassies.
The Minister also knows that Jean Roberge, the senior immigration officer at San Jose, has been quoted in the press as saying that refugee status does not depend on a person's being in danger. He said that we look at their settlement ability in Canada.
Will the Minister admit that these Nicaraguans are not being selected as refugees but are being selected as immigrants? Will she take them out of the allocation of 3,400 refugees for Central America and make room for genuine refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I did not find the Hon. Member's question singularly helpful, any more than I find his approach on our refugee Bills singularly helpful.
Our process of selection abroad includes some other things. In our selection abroad we are able actively to screen out terrorists and people who have been involved in war crimes and war situations in their countries. That is why we have the screening process abroad.
We do the same thing once people arrive on our shores. But I can assure you that before people come to this country as selected refugees the dangerous ones are excluded.


AEROSPACE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Conservative Government about the way it is treating Quebec. I often hear people complaining on behalf of Quebec. On the weekend, Premier Bourassa cried foul, accusing the federal Government of dragging its feet, and he was referring more specifically to the long-awaited decision on the space agency . . .
Just listen to those Conservative Members who never bother to complain interrupt anyone who spears up for Quebec!


Mr. Hudon:: Oh, oh!


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry may eventually get up enough courage to demand Quebec's due.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he could explain to the House what the President of the Treasury Board meant when he said on March 24, after he had been asked at least fifty times about the decision on the space agency: "The space agency is coming and it's coming fast!". What was that supposed to mean, when two months later we still have no decision and no hope that the Government is going to take any action soon?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member did not say is that the President of the Treasury Board at the time also said that, as soon as a decision was made about the space agency's location, a number of things would happen. We know that decisions have been made by the Government in this respect. However, the Government is still considering the matter, and as we have said many times, I can understand the Hon. Member's frustration about not getting an answer as soon as possible, but as soon as the Government is in a position to make a decision and to announce it, it will do so.
June 6, 1988


PUBLICATION OF AEROSPACE RESEARCH REGIONAL CONTRACTS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it's not just a matter of frustration. The fact is, while we are waiting for the decision, Quebec's share of space research contracts is steadily decreasing.
I asked the same question a month ago, quoting Le Devoir which said that Quebec did not receive a single contract in the month of March for space research. I was told: "You picked that month on purpose". Well, in April, Quebec got 1.4 per cent of all contracts awarded in Canada. That is what is happening. Why won't the Government put its cards on the table? A year ago, the Department of Supply and Services stopped publishing the regional monthly breakdown for space research contracts. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether once and for all, he will ask the Minister of Supply and Services to publish the breakdown so we know what is going on.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard a more childish approach to the issue of awarding contracts. First of all, if the Liberal Party would make its position clear on space research contracts... If we follow the logic of the Liberal Party, according to which we should get rid of the objectives that have been set, namely, 35 per cent for the entire space program, this would mean that at the communications level, such as MSAT, a program under which 77 per cent of the contracts were awarded to Quebec, if we follow the logic of the Liberal Party, we should limit communications companies in Quebec to only 35 per cent of those contracts. I don't think this position would make the Hon. Member very popular with the communications industry in Quebec. Well, that is what he is arguing. Overall, our objective is to award 35 per cent to Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the other point I want to make is that companies that bid on contracts do so wherever they happen to be located. The Liberal Party is upset-because there aren't enough companies in Quebec! What did the Liberal Government do during the sixteen years it was in power to develop an industry in Quebec that would be able to take advantage of these contracts?


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-HEALTH CARE SERVICES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade
Oral Questions
who today again warned us against exaggeration. On Friday the Minister said, as reported at page 16106 of Hansard-.
The free trade agreement has nothing at all to do with the health care system...
I have obtained from the free trade negotiator's office a list of activities covered by the trade deal. That list includes commercially provided medical and other health laboratories, including x-ray labs, public health labs, blood bank labs and so forth.
Is the Minister now prepared to withdraw his comments of Friday and make it clear that in fact health care services are a part of this trade deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I tried to outline the position last Friday. The free trade agreement does not affect the health care system or health care services. There is only one possible area where it has any effect at all, in any way related to the health care system. It is in the provision of management services in the health care area.
We happen to have in Canada some of the best firms in the world in the provision of management services in health care facilities. Extendicare is one example. They were interested in our getting the right for them to be able to operate in the United States and to be more competitive in the United States. We have nothing to fear from U.S. companies in the field of health care management services.
If a province does not wish to have private management in its health care facilities, it can simply pass the necessary legislation to prevent it. There is nothing whatsoever in the free trade agreement that forces any province to have a private health care facility in the province. Provinces can have all public facilities. They can have non-profit facilities. Nothing forces anyone to do anything in the Canadian health care system under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


LABORATORIES AND CLINICS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this document comes from the trade negotiator's office itself. The Minister is right that it makes quite clear that there are a great number of management services that are covered, but there are also commercial health services which include those labs that I noted. In view of that fact, is the Minister prepared to withdraw his statement and, second, admit that part of the consequence of this trade Bill will be to import much of the profit oriented health system from the United States in these laboratory and clinic areas, to change the Canadian health system in a serious and significant way?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. gentleman. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will not assist in an invasion from the United States of care-for-profit hospital or health services or whatever. If Canadians do not want profit involved in their health care system, if they only want government owned and

June 6, 1988
Ora! Questions
operated and non-profit institutions, every province can make laws to that effect.
With respect to the legislation introduced into the Ontario Legislature on Friday, the Premier of the province himself said: "I do not think we are flouting the deal". He is absolutely correct. He is not flouting it. He is not even tickling the deal. He is not harming the deal or aggravating the deal. Opposition Leader Bob Rae told reporters that the legislation is: "A complete cop-out as a free trade gambit". Your question is a complete cop-out as a free trade slander.


COMMERCIAL BLOOD BANKS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade who apparently accuses everyone who does not agree with him of slander and every other kind of name.
I am pleased that today he changed the story he gave to the House on Friday with respect to the application of the free trade deal as it affects private and non-profit health care in this country.
For the first time in Canadian history, his Government has approved the private establishment of a for-profit blood bank in Montreal. Will the Minister tell us why commercial blood banks were included as part of the deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat for the edification of the Hon. Member, who quite obviously does not take in anything the first time one says it, that there is nothing at all in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement that forces or causes Canadians to have a commercial blood service.
The Canadian system can and will continue. The Canadian Red Cross free supply of blood for those who need it will continue.
However, provinces can allow commercial blood services if they wish to have it or permit it. It has nothing to do with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. I believe one is operating in Montreal at the present time. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is not even yet in effect. How could this commercial blood clinic in Montreal have any connection with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement? Why does the Hon. Member persist in these bizarre and grotesque allegations?


MARKETING OF BLOOD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of blood, we know very well that a private blood bank has already been established in Montreal; this ties in with the Government's policy of privatization.
I would like to know precisely from the Minister, without the rhetoric that usually characterizes his statements in the House, why commercial blood banks are included in the schedules to the Free Trade Agreement. Why?


An Hon. Member:: That is a good question, an excellent question!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let me look up my book here.
At page 502 of these briefing notes it states: "The free trade agreement creates no new rights for the establishment of commercial blood banks. In Canada this function is carried out mainly on a voluntary basis by the Red Cross, and blood is distributed freely to Canadians. The principle under which the Red Cross operates in Canada is that blood is a gift from one Canadian to another. There is nothing in the FTA which would undermine that principle. There is nothing in the FTA to prevent the Government from introducing regulations in the future to protect this principle". That is the blood situation, no matter whatever the lady wants to spread.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why isn't it in the deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: If you want to read it yourself, come over here and get it.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the Hon. Member for Hamilton East crossed the floor and obtained a document from the Minister for International Trade.]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Transport. The Department of Transport decided to close down the economy parking lot at the Edmonton Airport currently held by Park 'n Ride which has successfully competed against the Department's parking lot at the airport. When the Minister took over the portfolio he announced that he would take another look at the situation.
Can the Hon. Minister tell the House today if he has yet made a final decision?


Sheila Maureen Copps: He won't give it to me. He is a big phoney.


Mr. Dick:: Stupid witch.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Don't call me a stupid bitch.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that Hon. Members MJuld want to hear the answer the Hon. Minister would want to give. The Hon. Minister.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the officers of the Department of Transport were instructed to extend the lease for a few months until we could go to tender. We believe it is fair that the interested parties
June 6, 1988

should be allowed to compete on those tenders as soon as it will be possible to do so.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier today in Question Period the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in referring directly to me, stated that I had somewhere said that the savings to be made from going to conventional powered submarines as opposed to the very expensive nuclear-powered submarines would be spent by an NDP government in other ways in the defence portfolio.
I have never made that statement anywhere. I ask that the Minister of Finance withdraw that remark that he made during Question Period.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the Hon. Member has stated. My understanding is that the NDP defence policy is to spend new money on helicopters, patrol aircraft, frigates, minesweepers, and diesel submarines.
If all of these are put together, and the Hon. Member may wish to debate this with us at any time, the costs of this range of new capital expenditures under the NDP defence policy would be about the same as the cost of a nuclear submarine.
The only point that I was making was that the pious approach of the Leader of the New Democratic Party saying if we did not spend our money on nuclear submarines we could spend it on this was a red herring. The NDP defence policy is designed to spend just as much money, and therefore the comparisons that the Hon. Member is making are totally fallacious.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: No way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt both the Minister and the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). What has happened here is that the Minister had said something in reply to a question during Question Period. The Hon. Member for Brant has risen on an alleged question of privilege saying that at no time did he ever say that.
We are getting into a matter which is not privilege but a matter of debate. I think it could be more properly sorted out between the Minister and the Hon. Member.
In any event, the Hon. Member for Brant has it clearly on the record, and it is now clearly on the record, that he disagrees with at least part of what the Hon. Minister said that he had said at another occasion, and I think that that ends the matter.
Time Allocation OBJECTION TO COMMENT


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the course of an interchange the Associate Minister of Defence (Mr. Dick) called me a witch. Originally I thought he said something else. He actually called me a witch. Frankly, it is going to be a rather long summer around this place, if people are going to characterize others with those ugly and sexist comments. I would ask the Associate Minister of Defence to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Minister said what is alleged, I know that he would withdraw.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in all candour, I must admit that I did not say what the Hon. Member first indicated I said. I said she was a stupid witch, and I do withdraw "witch".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Greater graciousness would make it easier for the Chair.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)


POINT OF ORDER
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, earlier during Question Period the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) was quoting from his briefing book. It is the practice when a Member quotes from a document in the House that that document tabled. I wonder if it is possible to have the Minister do that.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) had retrieved at least a part of the book, but maybe I am mistaken.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, having made the point, could wait for an appropriate time for the Minister to respond. I have the Hon. Member's point.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, in relation to Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, one further sitting day be allotted to the second reading stage of the Bill; and
[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1988
Time Allocation
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Speaker:: When the Elouse rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) had the floor.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue my remarks, which are an attempt to show that the Government has moved in a manner reminiscent of the echoes of jack-boots of days gone by to deny the fundamentals of democracy by putting a closure motion on the Air Canada privatization Bill. I suspect that it is setting the stage for many more such motions in the weeks ahead.
The people of Canada are asking themselves what a closure motion is. In a Parliament that has 211 Members on one side versus approximately 70 on the other side, in other words an overwhelming parliamentary majority, closure is a decision by the Government of Canada to limit the number of hours of a debate that can be given to any one piece of legislation.
After seven hours of debate, a mere pittance of debate, the Government has brought in closure to shut off debate on this Bill which will privatize a Canadian institution that is 50 years old. The Government will bring in that closure motion after only seven hours of debate when notice of this privatization was only brought to the people of Canada one month ago. There has been hardly any measure of public debate or discussion, let alone any thorough discussion in the Parliament of Canada, the people's House, about this Air Canada privatization measure.
When we examine the record of this move by the Government we find it is resplendent in, and surrounded by, hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative Party which, when similar measures on financial Bills years ago were brought in after much more debate, in fact five or six times more debate, stood up and said it was a travesty of justice, a denial of democracy to bring in closure to limit the amount of time that parliamentarians can spend in debating the people's business.
There was one Member, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South, (Mr. Stewart), who made quite a speech in the House back on February 12, 1981, about closure, about the evil designs of closure, who today demonstrated all the nerve of a toothache, all of the might and will of the face of a robber's horse. Of course, we all know what part of the robber's horse we see when it is running away. He stood up today in the House and said that closure was appropriate, that it was a responsible measure, that it was the majority doing the will of the people of Canada in a responsible fashion. But what did that same Member say about closure on February 12, 1981? He said that closure was a denial of democracy, a loss of freedom of speech. He said:
What could Caesar have us become, eunuchs in his court? What would the emperor have us be? Spear carriers I suppose, strewing olive branches at his feet as he enters this Chamber. Is the emperor afraid to be told he has no clothes? Is he afraid to meet Parliament face to face? Is he afraid to look us in the eyes? Is he afraid to involve us in the process of developing progressive legislation which will advance the ideals and goals of this nation?
Who is the emperor today? Is the emperor the man who sits at the head of the Party which has 30 seats in a Parliament of 282 seats? Is the emperor the man who sits at the head of a Party which has 40 seats in a Parliament of 282 seats? Or is the emperor in this Parliament the gentleman who has a commanding, decisive 211 seat majority in a Parliament of 282 seats?
Who is the leader who is giving the orders that Parliament shall not have the right to act in a democratic fashion? Who is the leader who, hearing the faint echoes of jack boots, knows how effective is the system of ramming legislation through? Who is the leader who is giving the orders today to shut down Parliament? Who is that leader? Is it the leader of the Liberal Party? Is it the leader of the New Democratic Party? No, it is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada who is now unveiling the election scenario of this Government. It is a Party with 211 seats out of 282 seats, an overwhelming commanding majority, which is trying to convince the people of Canada that a mere 70 Members of Parliament are holding up the work of Parliament, that a mere 70 members of the Opposition are thwarting the will of the elected majority.
That is poppycock. That is an attempt to set the stage for a Government which cannot manage its own agenda. It has not properly managed the work of Parliament and it now wants Canadians to believe that a mere 70 Members out of 282 have made it impossible for the decisive majority to do its work.
Closure is a denial of democracy. This institution is the voice, the heart, the soul and the conscience of the people of Canada. That is why it is called the House of Commons. The people of this country want to be heard on the nation's business. We cannot accept, nor will we, this closure motion. We warn the Government that we will not accept the tyranny of the majority. We shall ensure that the will, the words and the vision of the people of Canada are felt on all important business before this Parliament and this country.
If the Government had any sense-more important, if it had any backbone and conscience to go with that common sense- it would withdraw this closure motion and allow democracy, as painful, uncomfortable and inconvenient as it sometimes might be, to function properly. Democracy is not perfect, but it is the best of all the imperfect systems this planet has offered so far. We would do well to emulate democratic principles by withdrawing this closure motion today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). He talks about backbone and conscience. It takes a little backbone to stand up in this House and deal with reality and the facts. It
June 6, 1988

does not take nearly as much backbone to stand up and deal in rhetoric and inflammatory words that attempt to mislead the Canadian public.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What do you mean mislead?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He asks me what I mean. We have had five minutes of flamboyant rhetoric about closure. We are debating the motion under Standing Order 117 which deals with time allocation. The Opposition calls it closure. That is dishonest. It is especially dishonest in terms of this particular motion. This Government consistently offers the opportunity to expand debate. The Government should be commended for not using Standing Order 117 for many, many months. On Friday last we offered members of the Opposition the opportunity to continue debate for hours, for the entire weekend, on this particular piece of legislation.


Brian Vincent Tobin: With no notice.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: With no notice. What a big heart. What a hypocrite.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We offered up front in this Chamber the opportunity to debate. Where does time allocation come from? We saw that Hon. Member at seven minutes to one o'clock today do a procedural manoeuvre to avoid what is called a 9(4)(a). What is that? It is an expansion of debate, an expansion of democracy, and those Members opposite used procedural tricks. They used secrecy, the antithesis of backbone. Backbone deals with honesty-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Secrecy is the opposite, and it is not a quality I personally like very much. I want to retain my place.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker was in the Chair today before the lunch hour and will verify that this Member proposed that the Member for Simcoe South be allowed to speak. The Member who is now on his feet rose and seconded the motion and asked for unanimous consent. How he can now describe it as a procedural trick or dishonest tactic is beyond me. But, of course, nothing should surprise me about this Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You can see how the rhetoric arises and how fact gets overridden.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Don't let facts stand in the way of your story. Carry on.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Member attempted to move a motion which would not have been found in order and would have led to procedural debate, potentially to the ringing of the bells and the denial of debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Wrong!
Time Allocation


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On this side of the House I rose to say they would find unanimous consent on this side of the House for the Chair to recognize the Hon. Member for Simcoe South. I seconded no such motion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You gave unanimous consent.


Carlo Rossi: You gave unanimous consent. Why don't you be honest and tell the truth?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I seconded no such motion because the motion itself would have been out of order. But it tells you a lot about the accuracy we receive from the other side of the House. If this time allocation debate, and the two hours spent on it, end in a vote today, I expect the vote to carry. There will be one more day of debate on this Bill at second reading. The closure on debate will have been caused by the Opposition, not by the Government.
The Government asks the Opposition right now, do we have unanimous consent to continue today beyond the normal hour of adjournment to debate this Bill for 10, 15 or 20 more hours starting at six o'clock this evening? Do we have unanimous consent?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No deal with you at any time!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If they tell me that we do not have unanimous consent, they are telling me right now that they prefer three hours of debate under time allocation. They want three hours instead of 10, 12 or 15 hours.
We should examine the behaviour of the Opposition on this Bill at second reading. It has already been debated for five days in the House. This debate will take up the sixth day. The time allocation will take up the seventh day. If we put that into context of the year's workload on Government Orders in this House, we are talking, on a single stage of a single Bill, the utilization of 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent of the normal time available in this Chamber for debate on all business such as pensions, proceeds of crime, environment and tax reform.
This is the thirteenth privatization in the life of this Government. Privatization of companies works. Companies produce better products, lower prices, better and more jobs. That is the record of our Government on privatization. Privatization does not serve the Opposition's purpose very well. Opposition Members want to go into an election with high unemployment rates and run-away inflation, all of the things from which they could get political advantage, so they do not like it when we manage the economy and the House well.


Carlo Rossi: Why don't you call an election?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Opposition Members accuse us of cutting off debate.
There is time allocation in this Chamber five days a week. Today is a Monday. At one o'clock the House shuts down.

June 6, 1988
Time Allocation
When six o'clock comes, the House shuts down. Time is allocated.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: By unanimous agreement.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I took over the responsibility I have now in January, and day after day during Routine Proceedings we hear opposition Members making lengthy comments about their petitions. When the petitions are finally tabled we see that they have been certified six or eight months before, even one and a half years beforehand. What are Members doing with this extra 30, 60 and 90 seconds? They are eating into the time allowed for debates in this House. Canadians sent us here for reasoned debate on public issues and to bring them to a vote.
Let us look back at our recent history. In the mother of Parliaments in Britain it is unusual for one full day to be spent on a single subject. What has the Opposition done? On the environmental protection Bill, the most amended Bill in parliamentary history, the most carefully examined in committee, at third reading stage alone the Opposition used up several days of debate, the equivalent of three full days on something vital to the young people and to all of us in the nation.
On Bill C-121 the Opposition used 15 hours, the equivalent of five solid days of debate on second reading alone. Bill C-121 was privatization legislation. On the excise tax Bill on second reading alone there were nine hours of debate. When we started this morning we had almost nine hours-


An Hon. Member:: Seven hours.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Member says seven hours but he forgets about the first three speeches. We have had eight and a half hours of debate, the equivalent of three full days in this Chamber at second reading stage before the Bill goes to committee, before report stage and before third reading stage. What have the opposition Members done with the Atlantic Bill, the borrowing Bill and the western diversification Bill? They do not like free trade. Canadians do.


Carlo Rossi: Call an election then.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Opposition Members are using closure twice a day at lunch time and at the end of the evening. We have tried on 14 separate occasions to extend hours to complete debate to help democracy and to get things thoroughly aired. On a Friday afternoon, 27 of them slink out from behind the curtains to stop a motion that would serve democracy and allow debate to continue.
The Opposition will close off debate this evening at 6 p.m. We are here and could debate for six more hours tonight. We could debate until two or three o'clock in the morning. If opposition Members want debate, we make the offer. Do we have unanimous consent in this Chamber this evening to continue debate until we conclude an opportunity for everybody to speak on the Air Canada Bill? Or do the opposition
Members want time allocation to take effect at 6 p.m. this evening? Which is it? Do we have unanimous consent or do we not?
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to put the question whether or not there is unanimous consent to continue debate this evening on the privatization of Air Canada. If that is the case, we can abandon this motion and move on to other Government Orders and have the debate this evening. If not, we will ensure that the voters of Canada get one more day of debate on Bill C-129 because that is the best we can achieve. With unanimous consent opposition Members can have more hours of debate, but if they will not consent to the additional hours, we will take what we can get, which is one more day's debate.


Carlo Rossi: Let Canadians speak up. You are the worst filibusterer in this House, Hawkes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. A question has been put to the House by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary which I must put to the House at this time.
Is there unanimous consent for debate on this Bill to start at six o'clock p.m.?


Brian Vincent Tobin: The answer is no right now. Debate.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I have a point of order, Madam Speaker. It seems quite an unusual procedure for a second motion to be put before the House when we currently have a motion that was moved, seconded and is being debated. The mover of the motion has not proposed taking away the motion that is currently being debated. If he has, I did not hear anyone second it. In short, I am not sure that the motion has been properly put, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think we may save the House time if I say that I felt it was my duty to ask the House if there was unanimous consent. I am a servant of the House. If the House had decided to go back to Government Orders at this time and resume debate on Bill C-129 at six o'clock, the House would have been right in doing so. It was my duty to ask whether there was unanimous consent for the proposal. Obviously there is not. We are resuming debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We on this side of the House appreciate your concern and understanding of the need for any good Speaker to be a servant of the House and put a question that you thought we might have missed.
The responsibility of the Speaker, as you have properly just pointed out, is first and foremost to enforce the rules of Parliament. Indeed, the rules of Parliament are such that a second motion cannot be put while one is being entertained. Furthermore, the Member did not formally put a motion. Now that we are all clear on the subject, we can continue with debate.


Carlo Rossi: You can't always have it your way, Hawkes.
June 6, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his remarks. Nevertheless, I would like to add that in the close to four years that I have been in the House now I have seen many times when, on consent, the House has decided to put aside some of its rules and move in a different way. I wanted to make sure, as I think it was my duty, that such was not the desire of the House at that point. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar).


Marion Dewar: Madam
Speaker, my major concern this afternoon is what I would almost consider sleazy behaviour on the part of some of our colleagues. There has been all sorts of manipulation. I was in the House this morning. I did not hear any suggestion of extending debate over the lunch hour and I have heard accusations flying back and forth.
The basis of this whole debate is to limit debate on a very important issue, the taking away from the people of Canada of their own airline and putting it into some so-called private sector that very likely could be controlled with all the manipulation by a foreign power. Because of that we need to have an extensive debate.
I become very concerned when I hear people talk about how we are holding up the business of the House. Granted, I have not been here for very long, but I do recognize the fact that this House has been sitting for over three years now. Come fall, it will be four years. All these Bills have now been listed. Did it take the Government until this last year to put these Bills on the legislative agenda? If that is the case, I hardly think it is fair to be accusing the other side of the House of holding things up.
I am also very concerned about the fact that this heavyhanded approach is being taken. There should be a broad discussion not just about what is happening to a major asset of Canada but about how the people of Canada feel about the implications of what could happen. Some of the statements made have been authoritarian and non-democratic. Certainly, a Government that is holding about 206 seats should not be backward about allowing us to put on record the feedback we are getting from our ridings.
I hear all this grandiose talk about extending debates, about the ability to extend debate but that no one is doing it. When I was not a Member of Parliament but an ordinary citizen, my understanding was that parliamentary reform was brought in so that there could be thoughtful consideration and serious debate on issues, so that there would be no night hearings and so that the regular timetable for the legislature could be followed so people could be responsible about their duties as Members of Parliament. Since I have been here, every now and then I hear that we need to have 15 people in the House or else they will extend the debate and shut off another Bill or we will be sitting all summer because the Government has not
Time Allocation
been able to get its legislative agenda together. That is certainly not the kind of Government Canadians thought they were getting when they saw that parliamentary reform was coming in. It really does make a farce of this structure that was supposed to make us responsible, make us thoughtful and help us bring issues forward, issues that we feel are important to our constituents and indeed important to the whole of Canada.
Certainly some of the words of the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) which were quoted today were embarrassing. It certainly helped me to recognize what has been going on. Hon. Members are simply saying: "You did, you didn't, you did, you didn't," but are not really addressing the fact that we are supposed to be able to look at the whole issue of the privatization of Air Canada and its implications on isolated communities.
This country was brought together by transportation networks and systems. Yet this Government wants to use less than eight hours of debate and allow about 20 people to speak in the House and then say that is it, we know what is good for you and we will do it. Surely that is not the kind of democracy that we should have in the year 1988.
We do know that there has been more and more of a desire on the part of Canadians to know what is happening here. There have been many requests to ensure that we use technology so that people can know what is happening. Certainly, the televising of the House of Commons debates has given Canadians access to what is happening here, but on a day like today, I think what they are hearing and seeing is rather tragic.
This Government wants to railroad things through. There would be some excuse for it if it were a minority Government. As a minority Government, it would be a little more sensitive to procedure. If it were a minority Government, it would feel that it would have to do this and that in case the House falls. However, after having a great majority for three and a half years, the Government is now trying to rush everything through at the last minute and it is saying that it is the Opposition's fault because we will not allow debate. Where were the Bills? Just 10 days ago, we received a Bill that amends 27 statutes. It is absolutely ludicrous that the Government is doing that while saying that we are holding up debate. I think this is a real tragic day for democracy.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is very good at making a joke of everything. However, when he was in Opposition, he said some things with which we agree. He said, when he was on this side of the House, the following:
Where are all the defenders of the people on the other side of the House? They are going to come out of their trough in a few minutes. They will hear the bell and will have to break away from whatever trough they have their noses in at the moment. They will have to come into this House and says "Oink, oink". They will have to say "Aye, aye". They will have to say "Yes" to the stampeding of Parliament, to rushing this bill through the House. They will have to say "Yes" to the gutting of Parliament. They have to do the dirty work that the parliamentary assistants, assassins and eunuchs have asked them to do.

June 6, 1988
Time Allocation
The Hon. Member for St. John's West said that on June 9, 1981, when he was in opposition. In witnessing the kind of behaviour we have seen today, we have become witnesses to great hypocrisy. If there is cynicism on the part of the public, it is because members of the public know that politicians say one thing to them one day and do the opposite the next day.
Though I have not been a Member of the House for very long, I was certainly on the doorsteps of the people a year ago during the long by-election campaign. I had much opportunity to get a good sense of what the people of my constituency were saying and feeling. I got a feeling of a great sense of powerlessness from the people of my constituency. They felt that the Government would do whatever it liked, that it did not really care what was happening to any of us. We have witnessed that today.
We have heard the Government say that time allocation is not closure. For goodness sakes, who is it kidding, and what kind of procedures is it trying to play with? We know that the Government is limiting the time for debate on this particular Bill. I think that is unacceptable, particularly when it comes to such a serious Bill.
We know that the direction of air transportation policy will change, and it will be a major change. Some might think that that will be a benefit and others might think it will not be a benefit, but surely it is the role of the House of Commons to discuss that, have a full debate on it and have a vote on it.
The Government is terrified that there might be some actual facts that come out instead of a lot of gobbledegook. Government Members are terrified, so they want to stop the debate. They know that as soon as Canadians start to get a good sense of what is really happening in the country, they will not put their support behind the Government.
A few moments ago, government Members were saying that Canadians all supported free trade. They were talking to different Canadians than I have been talking to. Again, they do not want to talk about the substance of these Bills. As soon as we get into any substantive debate, we hear that we are trying to delay the business of the House of Commons.
I notice that my time is up. I think it really is a sad day for democracy when the Government is trying to push through a Bill like this and is terrified to let the facts come out.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, much has been said with respect to the activities of this Government in attempting to stifle debate on this very important Bill. It is just ludicrous that the Government is attempting to choke off debate on this vitally important matter. Air Canada has been a Crown corporation for 51 years, yet the Government is apoplectic because we have debated this Bill for seven hours on second reading. It does not want to give the people of Canada the opportunity for the facts to come out. That is disgraceful. It is reprehensible. That is the kind of Government we have been getting for almost four years.
The Deputy Government House Leader said he had to put a limit on the debate because we would not sit extended hours on Friday. We were not prepared to oblige the Government in sitting well into the evening on Friday. He acted as though this was some kind of chastisement of the Opposition. This House adjourns on Friday afternoon for a very good reason. It allows Members of Parliament to get back to their constituencies.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What about tonight?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Now we hear from the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) whose constituents do not want him back in his constituency.
What happened is not only an abuse of the rights of Members of Parliament, but it is completely cutting the support out from underneath the Government's own proposition. It was that Government that brought forward the rule to adjourn on Friday afternoon at three o'clock. It was part of the Government's change to the rules of the House of Commons.
We have heard, of course, with great interest and amusement the comments made by the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) and the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). I was just reading the Hon. Member's comments who said on February 12, 1981:
Is the reasoning behind closure that we have an 83-cent dollar-
As ludicrous as it was then, it is even more ludicrous today because the dollar is even lower than it was then.
This Bill is of vital importance to Canada. If it passes we will privatize one of the major Crown corporations, certainly one of the oldest. It has been in existence for 51 years. The Government, as we said, allowed Parliament to speak for only seven hours. Of course, the Conservatives are not willing to debate this. They just want to get it passed. They have presented only six speakers, less than either of the two opposition Parties, so they are not interested in presenting their side of the case because they really do not have much of a case to present. They want to make sure that the opposition Parties are unable to present their side of the House and we feel we do have a case.
Not only has the Government limited debate to approximately seven hours, this Bill was introduced for first reading on the Thursday before the long weekend in May. On Tuesday, when the House returned, the Government brought this Bill forward for second reading. It allowed one sitting day between first and second reading. The Government is adamant that the people of Canada not hear debate on this measure. It does not want the people to realize what this is going to do to transportation in Canada. It does not want the people to know what they are going to be losing through the giveaway of of this very valuable Crown corporation.
The Government does not want the people of this country to know that if it had done the same thing last summer when the market was higher, the country would have got millions of
June 6, 1988

dollars more for it. The Government is not only literally giving away this company to the private sector, but doing it at a time when the market is low.
The Government says it is not going to sell all of the shares of Air Canada, but it is not saying when it is going to sell any of the shares. It is going to sell some of the shares as soon as it possibly can. If it sells even one share of Air Canada, that Crown corporation stops being an arm of public policy to be used by Government or Parliament to the betterment and advantage of the people of Canada.
This is just a ludicrous situation. The Government said it had to give notice and limit the debate because, first, we would not sit extended hours on Friday. I have already mentioned that. Then it came through with this notice of motion on Friday, 15 minutes before we moved to deal with Private Members' Business. What the Government called consultation was to ask the opposition Parties how many speakers they proposed to put up. That is supposed to be consultation. There was no indication at all that it was going to limit debate.
The Government did this at a time when most Members were in their ridings, and no notice was given to either Members in the House or the various House Leaders. It waited until the last possible minute, knowing that as many Members as possible would be out of Ottawa. It is just incredible. Then the Government comes forward with the most ridiculous, most inane reasons for circumventing the rights of Parliament and the people of Canada. The new House rules may be an advantage but there are certain large gaps, and Standing Order 117 is one of them. In any event, the Government will not respect the spirit of the rules. It will use every little deficiency it sees in the rules to circumvent the rights of Parliament. That is a travesty and the Government is doing it more and more every day.
The Government expects goodwill from members of the Opposition. Certainly this opposition Party is prepared to give it if the Government has any sense of decency and any sense of acting in the best interests of Parliament and the people of this country. However, it has shown clearly it has not. Yet it will cry. It is the whiniest Government you will ever see. Any time members opposite feel someone steps on their toes, any time their noses are twigged, there is a wailing and hollering and beating of breasts and pounding of heads, a scene like you have never seen before. Yet we in the Opposition are supposed to be able to take that. We are supposed not only to have our rights trampled upon by the Government but we are supposed to allow the rights of the people of Canada to go undefended.
We are not going to do it. If we have to sit here all summer, every day, we are not going to do it. We are not going to do it because to do it would be a breakdown of the democracy which has existed in this country since it was founded.


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I will refrain from talking about parliamentary procedure because, like most Members here, I have not
Time Allocation
had the benefit of 15 or 20 years to learn all about it. To be quite honest with you, I do not believe that a lot of the people who have spoken today learned an awful lot in the time they have been here.
What I hear being debated now, does not make any sense. I thought everyone in the Opposition wanted to express their views about why Air Canada should not be privatized. Yet I have not heard anyone saying anything today about why Air Canada should not be privatized. They are talking about the rights of which they are being deprived by not being able to speak about it. Why do they not use the time they have today to talk about what a great disservice will be done to the people of Canada if we allow Air Canada to be privatized?
The reason I have not spoken on the Bill to date is because the people in my riding are saying that we should get it over with, that the mistake the Government is making is that it is not going all the way and allowing all the shares to be bought by the public.
I do not know what all the argument is about. I do know that if the motion before us is passed there will be another full day of debate. There have already been eight and a half hours of debate. Even then the debate will not be over.
I have heard Members talk about parliamentary reform. It certainly was not the Official Opposition that brought in parliamentary reform, it was the Progressive Conservative Government which brought in the parliamentary reform to which everyone is referring now. We saw the results of parliamentary reform last week when a private Member's Bill was passed in the House with Members on the government side voting in favour of Bill C-204. It does not seem that this Government wants to implement a dictatorship in the House of Commons. It is clear to me that the Government wants private Members to have a say in what is being passed in this House.
As I said, there would be another full day of debate and the Bill would then go to a legislative committee, which is another part of parliamentary reform brought in by the Government, where it would be debated by whichever Members are appointed to sit on the committee. The Bill would be debated in that committee for a number of days. I hear that some legislative committees have gone on for months, partly because the Opposition has used stalling tactics, similar to what they are doing today, so that the legislation would not come back to the House where it could be debated again at report stage.
After that, Madam Speaker, it will be debated again at third reading. When it leaves this Chamber and goes to the other Chamber, it will be debated once more.
Opposition Members obviously know that there are many Bills presently before the House and more Bills which will be brought in which contain good legislation for the country. They do not want them to come forward. They are hoping that after a while Members will get tired of the long hot summer

June 6, 1988
Time Allocation
and the legislation will be put on the back burner to be brought up later in the fall.
They talk about democracy. I was of the opinion that the people spoke in a democratic way when they elected the majority which the Government enjoys on this side of the Chamber. All the Members hear what their constituents tell them when they go home and they come here and act accordingly.
I think the Opposition is getting on with a lot of nonsense. What is the point of talking about what happened five years ago and ten years ago when Members who are no longer here argued back and forth about pieces of legislation? As far as I am concerned, we must now look to the present and the future, a future which is good for this country.
I believe that the privatization of Air Canada will be good for the country. That is what the people of Canada want. We should get the debate over with, get the legislation to committee, and let the people start buying shares in this government operated Crown corporation which they want to have privatized. I am sure that, the same as the other corporations which have been privatized, it will be good for the country.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it passing strange that there are not more Conservatives in the House for this important debate. We might as well call quorum until they get some more Members here.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.
And the bells having rung:


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is an unfortunate habit creeping into the Chamber of calling quorum as a way of wiping out a debate. In the context of the present discussion, where we have made an offer to continue debate on this Bill for many, many hours, this further attempt to cut off debate is not appreciated by the Government. I suggest that the Opposition has some responsibility, on opposition days, to provide this Chamber with a quorum. I would just like to say on the record that perhaps they should remember that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, we sometimes have trouble hearing your voice over the shouting in the House. I rise to speak on this motion under Standing Order 117 moved by the Government to restrict debate on the Bill to privatize Air Canada. This motion has forced the House to discuss whether or not debate should be stifled and has taken away entirely from the debate on the Bill to privatize Air Canada.
I raise that to remind my friend on the government side who has just spoken that that is the reason for this debate. It is not in order to be discussing Air Canada as such or to make representations for or against that government Bill because the motion before the House at this time is whether or not we should restrict debate according to the government order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I apologize to the Hon. Member for having to interrupt him. However, it is impossible to hear the Hon. Member when there is a conversation taking place at full voice across the House. I would appreciate if all Hon. Members would pay a little more attention to what is going on in the House. My apologies to the Hon. Member.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The guidelines of this new Government and this new Parliament were very simple and very straightforward and were very much appreciated by Canadians in general who gave the Government the majority it currently has as a result of a promise of national reconciliation through the introduction of consultation, co-operation, consensus and general civility. That has been disappearing very much over the last three and a half years. It has been disappearing, not only because of the actions of a few people in the opposition but because of the actions of the 206 Members who are now left on the government side.
We have seen a lack of consultation which has generated the particular brouhaha which we are into today. The Government House Leader and the House Leaders of the other two Parties failed to have meetings concerning the progress of the Air Canada Bill. Very few words even passed between them, let alone real consultation and valuable communication.
There has been a lack of co-operation because it is very difficult to co-operate if people do not communicate. Instead, we have degenerated to the point where the Government House Leader uses his substantial power in the House to move motions like those under Standing Order 117 to restrict debate on a particular piece of legislation. In this case, it is an Act to privatize Air Canada.
I suppose one can only expect that when there is a lack of consultation and co-operation, civility and consensus will soon disappear. We are now at the point where the House had almost fallen into total discord, as you pointed out and brought back to order again, Madam Speaker. The Mouse came back to order partly because many Members abandoned the House.
The Government is having great difficulty organizing its own business. There are some 41 uncompleted Bills that are on the Government's priority list of Bills which it would like to have debated and passed before the end of June, some 16 debating days from now. I do not believe that this House has ever generated that kind of productivity in passing legislation.
There were some productive days last week when I believe some four or five Bills dealing with Indian rights passed
June 6, 1988

through the House, some through all stages. That can happen when there is consensus and co-operation. However, that can only take place when it is accompanied by consultation.
Not only are there some 41 Bills on the priority list of the Government, there are another eight to ten Bills that it intends to introduce. Two Bills dealing with agriculture that were introduced today had been promised for some months. The legislation dealing with horse-racing had been discussed well before Christmas, and another Bill amending the Western Grain Stabilization Act was promised before Christmas. We are still waiting for amendments to the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act which the Minister has been talking about since last summer. We have yet to see that Bill.
It is difficult to generate the kind of production the Government would like when it has not even completed the first stage of introducing and printing the Bill. Once Bills are before us, it is the right and duty of parliamentarians in opposition to look at them in a critical manner and see whether the proposed legislation is in the best interests of Canadians. If we have doubts or questions, it is our duty to present those arguments and those questions. That is why we are called the Loyal Opposition.
We began that process in the case of the Air Canada privatization Bill. We have been trying to find out why the Government wishes to begin the privatization process of a Crown corporation that has functioned efficiently and has served the country well for more than 50 years. That corporation has had profits exceeding its losses in the last 10 years amounting to $279.3 million.
Air Canada is not involved in a declining industry. The service provided by Air Canada is among the top 10 in the world according to all international objective observers. They recognize it as an efficient, well-managed and modern airline. It is recognized as among the most favoured airlines worldwide.
However, we are being told that this is not good enough and we must find another means of financing this corporation. We understand that it needs more equity to buy more equipment. There are a number of ways that this can be done, including the public issue of shares as decided upon by the Government. It could also be done through a commitment from the federal Treasury of another $200 million or $300 million and by expanding the equity shareholdings so that the corporation could borrow money that way. It is my understanding that even with the public issue of shares, the corporation's intention and requirement will be to go to the market to borrow money to make the necessary equipment purchases.
There is also the option of leasing equipment. We are not sure at this stage whether the Government and management of Air Canada fully investigated this alternative.
Apart from our concern about whether the Government has made the right choice in privatizing Air Canada, there are some aspects of the legislation that do not seem to make sense
Time Allocation
in terms of ownership and control. The Government is proposing to give control of 45 per cent of the shares to outside investors. We are told by Ministers involved with this legislation that the people who control the 45 per cent of the shares will have control of the corporation. That makes no sense to us. We believe it is undemocratic and not the proper way to give control.
At the same time, I believe the use of Standing Order 117 in this particular case is not the proper way for the Government to use its power. We believe that seven hours of debate on this very important matter is not enough. I urge the House to reject this motion to close the debate and to permit true democracy to continue functioning in a co-operative way which will provide a much better solution for the operation of the House and the country in general.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria)-Trade-Promotion campaign- Contract with John Laschinger/Request that contract be tabled; The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)- National	Revenue-Evaluation	of used agricultural
machinery; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Disasters-Air-India crash-Request for public inquiry.