1988-12-14

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the sound of disappointment, anger, and even despair on the part of citizens who discovered to their dismay that they were not empowered to vote on election day because the deadline for being placed on the voters' list had expired still rings in my ears.
Thousands and thousands of voters across Canada could not exercise their right to vote because they were not on the list. It is on behalf of each and all who were disenfranchised on November 21 that I urge the Government, with the co-operation of all parliamentarians, to change the Canada Elections Act to provide for registration up to and including polling day regardless of whether one lives in rural or urban Canada.
Let us make sure that Canadian citizens will never again be denied the right to vote. Our fine democratic system will thus be made stronger and fair to everybody in rural as well as in urban Canada.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Three years ago, Mr. Speaker, the McDonald report came out strongly in favour of freer trade relations with the United States.
Today's high technology means that we need more time and money to build up our industrial concerns, so it follows that they must seek wider and longer-term markets.
Through the Liberal non-elected majority in the Senate the Liberal Official Opposition blocked our free trade initiative and forced us to call an election on the issue.
Mr. Speaker, the people gave us a clear mandate. Liberals and New Democrats, for heaven's sake show respect for democracy and the choice made by Canadians, let this House work in peace and dignity for the well being of Canadians!


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT INCREASED BUSINESS INVESTMENT
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, the socialists and the Official Opposition are quick to condemn the Free Trade Agreement. They are reluctant to mention the great news of plant openings and expansions throughout Canada. Here are some examples. Campbell Soups will spend $50 million; Cargill, $50 to $400 million; General Foods, approximately $5 million; Nestle, $38 million; Pillsbury, approximately $12 million; Quaker Oats, $15 million; and Unilever, $5 to $15 million. There is more, Mr. Speaker.
In the east, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, National Sea Products will spend $2 million; on the Prairies, High Water, Alberta, there is the building of a $50 million slaughter house. Such an operation will lead to significant export sales.
In the west, the president of Prudential Bache Securities Canada in a speech reported on December 1, said:
Investment in Canada from industrialized Asian countries is likely
to increase significantly because of the Free Trade Agreement.

December 14, 1988


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is in the process of closing rural post offices including one in Mont Nebo, a rural community in the Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency. In doing so it is moving the services offered to private sector contractors, corner stores, cafes, and even grain elevators.
During the past year the communities affected and the contractors involved have found the practice unsatisfactory and inadequate. One year ago the organization, Rural Dignity, was formed to protect the rights of people living in rural Canada from the uncaring attitudes of Canada Post.
I want to pay tribute to Rural Dignity today as it celebrates its first anniversary, and again request that the Minister responsible for the Post Office ask Canada Post to review its plan of operations, to commit itself to a system of strong post offices in rural Canada, and to begin the process of finding ways to improve the income side of Canada Post rather than trying to remove the postal deficit by cutting back on the delivery of services to Canadians who live in the rural areas of our country.

[ Translation]


HUMAN SOLIDARITY
Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, as the newly elected Member for the beautiful riding of Ahuntsic I want to thank all my constituents who voted for progress and the future, namely for the Progressive Conservative Party. Their democratic action shows that they did understand our message in support of elderly people, women and ethnic minorities whose future is directly tied to the early passage of the free trade legislation.
Though my election is a source of joy for the residents of Ahuntsic who voted for me, Mr. Speaker, some of my constituents are now experiencing infinite sadness. I am referring to Canadians of Armenian ancestry who are living through yet another tragedy in their eventful history. I share their sorrow and thank my Government for rushing to their help. Human solidarity did not require anything less than that.



Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, human solidarity is fine as far as it goes, and attentiongetting announcements concerning the tragic events in Armenia may be welcomed, but I think action is needed as well.
Last Friday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a $5 million donation to help the Armenian victims, but I am very disappointed by the fact that the Canadian Red Cross which is expected to deliver medical and other supplies to the Armenian people has yet to be told whether funds will be available to buy medical supplies.

I certainly commend the Government for the $5 million assistance to the Armenian people. I would suggest, however, that, as well as making the announcement, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should tell the Canadian Red Cross so it can go ahead immediately to secure the necessary medicine, dialysis machines and other machines. Five days have elapsed since the Prime Minister made his announcement. There has been no money forthcoming to the Red Cross. I ask the Government to act in the most expeditious way to address this necessary issue.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, the case of Charles Ng has brought to light problems in our system for dealing with fugitives who come to Canada seeking refuge from foreign authorities.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has ruled there is sufficient evidence to extradite Ng from Canada to face 19 charges in California, 12 for capital murder. Ng has appealed this decision by way of a habeus corpus application. He has a further appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal, along with other legal manoeuvres which are available to him.
Ng not only has our appeal process to exhaust but there is also the possibility that the Minister might refuse extradition because of Article 6 of the Canada-U.S. Extradition Treaty of 1976 which provides Canada

December 14, 1988

with the right to refuse the surrender of fugitives who face the death penalty.
We must ensure that, in our attempt to uphold justice, Canada does not become the destination for desperate fugitives attempting to seek a safe haven here.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament for Hamilton Airport, my attempts over the years to encourage the Government of Canada to re-route traffic to Mount Hope have been well known to successive Ministers of Transport.
More recently, with the crisis at Toronto International Airport, I have made public statements in my community, and privately pleaded with the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin), to regard Hamilton as Toronto's third terminal for the time being. I am delighted to see another Hamilton Member of Parliament playing catch-up and offering support in the House yesterday.
We are talking about a $52 million federal government investment. It is an hour by ground transportation from the tarmac at Mount Hope to the Royal York Hotel.
Our colleagues from Metro and the Peninsula are asking what is going on. Hamilton Airport is the best kept secret in southern Ontario.
I know the Transport Canada policy of not ordering airlines to fly into certain airports. But I am asking the Government to make an exception and make Hamilton Airport fly.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT SPECIAL LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS ADVOCATED
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, one thing that was absolutely clear in the
__________________________45
recent election was the overwhelming support by Canadians for special adjustment programs for those hurt by the Free Trade Agreement. This was the case even among those who supported the agreement.
Earlier this year every provincial Premier requested special adjustment programs. The Economic Council and the Macdonald Commission made similar recommendations.
No one accepts the Government's response that the Canadian Jobs Strategy is adequate for free trade adjustment or that we should wait for the de Grandpre Commission next summer. Since 1984 employment and training programs have been cut by 32 per cent from $2.2 billion in 1984 to $1.5 billion in 1988. Right now thousands of Canadians cannot get into training and retraining programs and there is a shortage of skilled workers in some parts of Canada.
Already many Canadians have been hurt by the Free Trade Agreement. Gillette workers in Montreal are a good example. We absolutely need special adjustment programs for free trade disruption. When will the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) start listening to Canadians?


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT INCREASED BUSINESS INVESTMENT
Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is determined to focus solely on any business closure, attributing all to the Free Trade Agreement.
But there is a whole lot of good news out there and once again the burden of telling the whole story falls upon the shoulders of government Members.
For example, a recent announcement by Dupont Canada, with a plant in my constituency of Sarnia- Lambton, commits a 50 per cent increase in capital spending in 1989 as a result of the opportunities the company is ready to seize under the Free Trade Agreement.
This means an additional 375 person-years of external employment in engineering, 600 person-years in field construction, and 600 person-years in equipment fabrication. These jobs are in addition to ongoing new job creation inside Dupont.

December 14, 1988
Oral questions
I want to let all Canadians know that the Free Trade Agreement will bring us new opportunities, new jobs, and a new and better future in Canada.


TAXATION
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has once again seriously misled the Canadian people. Last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) promised tax fairness under his tax reform. He promised that average Canadians would get a tax break and corporate taxes would be increased. Figures released by his Department last week show the opposite has occurred.
Since April of this year individuals' share of the tax burden has increased 11 per cent to $26.8 billion while corporate income tax revenues had actually decreased by 10 per cent to $4.7 billion. So much for tax fairness and the closing of corporate loopholes!
Before the Minister attempts to reduce his deficit, let me advise him to look at his corporate friends and the tax rip-offs right under his nose. Canadians will not stand for paying more taxes while rich and large corporations take advantage of a rotten tax system.


WELLAND CANAL-OPPOSITION TO SUGGESTED SALE OF CANAL LANDS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines- Thorald):: Mr. Speaker, the Welland Canal Parkway Commission came into being in the early 1980s to develop the use of the old Welland Canal proper and the lands adjacent to the water itself.
Over the years a succession of board members, led by Mr. Willard Wright, the first Canal Commission Chairman, and Mr. Andy Carse, the present Chairman, strove to carry out this mandate.
It has been brought to my attention that the commission members will receive a report in the very near future that suggests that the canal lands, should be sold to developers so that condominiums and/or apartments
can be built. Further, it is suggested that these developers be sold this land right down to the water's edge.
I am categorically opposed to the sale of even as much as one square foot of the canal lands, and I respectfully advise the House that I will be keeping surveillance on these developments and will be keeping my constituents fully informed of any attempts to sell these lands.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, in the very first Question Period of this new Parliament, as reported at page 37 of Hansard, the Minister for International Trade said that it was "a great pity", using his words, that President Reagan was not advised to do away with the red cedar shakes and shingles tariff. Why did the Prime Minister not advise President Reagan directly to do away with that tariff?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. President-Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. President, that is right.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Here we go.


John Carnell Crosbie: Of course that is French for Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister and other members of the Government made vigorous representations to the United States authorities, including by letter to Mr. Yeutter and to the President himself. We made strong representations in connection with the shakes and shingles issue, as did our Ambassador in Washington, as one would expect. Of course, there was some small improvement made in connection with that matter by the President.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: "Yes sir, Mr. President!"
December 14, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DECISION MADE BY UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade also said yesterday that the decision to impose a tariff on shakes and shingles could not have occurred under the trade deal signed by the Prime Minister. That statement is patently ridiculous. Section 301 of the agreement allows for just such tariffs.
If the Minister for International Trade were to be right, why did he not call upon the Prime Minister to explain why President Reagan did not eliminate that tariff completely from 35 per cent down to zero, when he made his decision this month? Putting the question to the Prime Minister again, does he have a commitment from the President that on January 1 that tariff will be eliminated?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, even the Leader of the Opposition has to concede that the shakes and shingles matter is entirely unconnected to the Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It occurred in 1986 before there was a free trade agreement executed and signed. The hon. gentleman's question would have a lot more value if he were more supportive of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and in fact more supportive of a positive policy toward the United States of America rather than campaigning up and down the country, criticizing the United States of America for every conceivable thing he could think of.


John Napier Turner: I just want to remind the hon. gentleman that I am elected to the Parliament of Canada, not to the Congress of the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROVISIONS OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this action of the President proves what we have been saying all along, namely, that under Article 1902 and Article 1904 of the agreement signed by the Prime Minister, to be implemented by legislation in this House, all the remedies enjoyed by the United States by way of countervail, by way of duty, by way of quota, surtax and all those remedies, are incorporated
Oral questions
into this agreement and are still available to the American industries affected. Therefore, I ask the Minister to come clean and admit that this agreement changed nothing for Canada in terms of our exports to the United States.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the Leader of the Opposition ask a British Columbia question for a change. I suppose he is following the precedent that was set yesterday.
With reference to the FTA, had it been in effect the steps taken by the United States to counteract Canada's exports in the shakes and shingles matter could not have been taken. The FTA would have prevented that. In addition, we would have had a different dispute settlement regime in effect and therefore the kinds of actions taken by the President of the United States and the administration could not have occurred.
I do not have time in Question Period to go into all the details as to just what way the results would have been different but, believe me, this shakes and shingles problem would not have arisen in this form under the Free Trade Agreement.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister visited the Quebec side of the Ottawa Valley on November 8, he took the opportunity to call me a hypocrite because I had left the Government of Quebec, which was for free trade, and joined the Liberal Party of Canada, of which I am very proud, because it was against free trade.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that I have always been in favour of freer trade, but not for the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question now.


Gilles Rocheleau: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Prime Minister and concerns the Northern Telecom

December 14, 1988
Oral questions
plant in Aylmer, in my riding, which will close its doors in September 1989. One may wonder whether the Government was not already aware of it.
I would like the Prime Minister to tell me what his Government intends to do to prevent the Aylmer plant from closing down, since it is the principal industry, and what measures he intends to take to protect the workers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members would want to be sure that, with a larger Opposition, all of their colleagues can get a chance to ask questions. The Hon. Minister.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to tell you that we have been in touch with Northern Telecom and that in our opinion, there is absolutely no connection between the proposals concerning the Free Trade Treaty that are before this House and the rationalization which the company must do because of increasingly competitive world markets in order to provide Canadians jobs, to ensure that the company remains viable and one of the world leaders in its field.
We are satisfied that the company is setting up adjustment programs for its employees so that they can relocate and retrain, as much as possible.


QUERY WHETHER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS
Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is still for the Prime Minister. One of the essential conditions of the Government of Quebec was that the federal Government recognize the need for adjustment programs for worker retraining.
That being so, does the federal Government intend to fund the adjustment programs?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think is important to note is that Northern Telecom is providing some considerable retraining assistance of its own. My Department stands by, as it always does, to assist workers in any affected area, whatever the reasons for layoffs.
Northern Telecom has been very sensitive to the needs of its employees. It has provided a $2.5 million fund to retrain its workers, to provide the kind of training that will ensure that within other industries in the area its employees will be fully competitive in their ability to get new jobs.
In addition, the industrial adjustment services are ready to stand by in case there are further needs, and my colleague, the Minister of Labour, and members of my staff have met with them. Let me say that they have been very successful in the past in retraining and upgrading employees that have had a problem, and I think we will wait and see if this program works.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Minister that the workers affected do not want to stand around and wait to see if it works. They want something that works right now.
On the same subject, the Minister will probably know that the union representing the workers affected at Northern Telecom has very strong reasons to believe, reasons which it has mentioned publicly, that the production jobs affected in Aylmer will be transferred to Atlanta, Georgia, where they are already producing a similar product for export into the Canadian market.
I want to ask the Minister, considering that Northern Telecom has a quasi-monopoly market guaranteed for its products in Canada and that it has already received from the federal Government, that is from Canadian taxpayers, millions of dollars in grants and assistance, does the Canadian Government simply intend to stand back and let these jobs be transferred to the U.S., or will the Government intervene directly to keep those jobs in Canada where they belong?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first of all, Northern Telecom, as my colleague has said, is a globally competitive company and I think its employees are very proud of its record of job creation in Canada as well as around the world, and it intends to remain competitive.
Let me say as well in terms of the restructuring the company is doing that there will be more job reductions
December 14, 1988

in the United States than there will be in Canada, so I think the Leader of the NDP should get his facts straight.
Let me say as well that there will be the creation of more jobs in Canada, in Winnipeg and Montreal, as a part of this. I said that we wanted to see how the company's program worked, and it has taken the responsibility in terms of retraining. We will ensure that their programs work because we will stand behind Canadian workers every time.


STATE OF GEORGIA ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said that the company intends to remain competitive. I say to the Minister that the company is already making a profit on those plants that exist in Canada. It is not losing money, it is making money, and the Canadian taxpayers subsidize that as well.
I have here an ad from the State of Georgia I am sure the Minister saw that appeared in the middle of the election campaign that said to such companies: "Come to Georgia because only 18 per cent of our labour force is unionized. We have no minimum wage and don't worry about the environment". Will the Government of Canada say that even with companies that are getting subsidies from the Canadian taxpayer, it will stand back and watch these jobs shift to the United States because of the trade deal? Do you care about the jobs?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the Hon. Member has been taking his advice from the United States. I do not read the Georgia papers; I read the Canadian papers.


John Edward Broadbent: That was The Globe and Mail.


Barbara Jean McDougall: There is absolutely not one shred of evidence-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, Nortel has 22,000 employees. It has been a growth company and it has been creating jobs in Canada for a long time and will continue to do so. The workers who are affected by these layoffs are workers we care about. The company has made some plans for them in terms of retraining. We will ensure that those plans work.
Oral questions
I do not know how often I have to say this because the Hon. Member clearly does not listen. If the programs Nortel has do not work, we will stand behind the workers. There is no evidence, repeat, n-o evidence that the jobs are moving to these U.S.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The workers affected do not want the Minister to stand behind them, they want the Minister to stand with them and keep the jobs in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEASURES TO ASSIST AFFECTED WORKERS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, he spoke about the blue ribbon committee which intends to examine the situation of workers who will lose their jobs. But since this committee does not intend to present the Prime Minister with a report, and a secret report at that, until June, what does the Prime Minister say now to the workers who are losing their jobs? Do they have to wait until June?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: No,
Mr. Speaker. I said that the committee chaired by Mr. Jean de Grandpre is composed of leaders from all segments of Canadian society and that its reports will surely be most interesting and most valuable for workers. Nobody is talking about waiting until June and the fact is that Mr. de Grandpre is scheduled to meet with the ministers responsible as early as Friday of this week to discuss an interim report.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. On September 5 the Government signed an agreement-in-principle with the Dene-Metis of the Northwest Territories to settle their longstanding aboriginal claim, which included a commitment to

December 14, 1988
Oral questions
provide additional funding to the Dene-Metis in order to conclude a final settlement in two years.
After the election, the Dene-Metis were advised that they would get only one-fifth of what was budgeted in pursuing the final settlement. If the Government is really serious in settling this claim, will it not reconsider this funding and honour its commitment made before the election and bring forth an agreement to provide the Dene-Metis with adequate funds?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on her election to this House to represent her people and all the people of the Northwest Territories.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member's family and 1 have had discussions. Part of those discussions resulted in an agreement-in-principle being signed between the Government of Canada and the Dene-Metis people. The commitment made by the Government of Canada in the agreement-in-principle was to provide funding.
The Dene-Metis asked for $1.5 million in funding for travel. Just so the House understands, Mr. Speaker, on signing $2 million was transferred to the Dene-Metis people; $1.2 million will be provided for land selection; $500,000 was sent in October to assist on debts that had been accumulated during the negotiation process, and $300,000 has been provided in response to the request of $1.5 million.


Mrs. Finestone:: What does that mean in English?


FEDERAL FUNDING
Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that stability and progress in the North require a settlement of the Dene-Metis claim. If the Government really wants a final settlement in two years, then surely it must provide the Dene-Metis with adequate funds to prepare for that settlement.
Will the Minister make a commitment to do that today?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Government of Canada and the Dene-Metis people have
shown a commitment to the settlement of a long outstanding obligation so that development can take place in the Northwest Territories.
This year $4.9 million has been provided to the Dene-Metis for claims negotiations. That brings the total to $30 million that has been provided for claims negotiations during the time period in which they took place.
We believe that there is an opportunity to settle a long outstanding claim in the Western Arctic and we, the Government of Canada, and the Dene-Metis people, over the next two years I am sure will succeed.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new Environment Minister. In view of the fact that the Canadian public is now aware that between 150 and 160 American garbage trucks from the Boston area deliver their loads every week to the Eastern Townships area, more specifically to Saint-Denis de Brompton and the Magog Township, could the Minister tell the House what he intends to do to prevent Canada and Quebec, more specifically the tourist oriented Eastern Townships, from becoming the garbage dump of the United States?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec and federal governments, working closely together, are taking drastic measures in their effort to control the situation the Hon. Member has described.
We are all aware that under the shared jurisdiction which governs this type of situation, the provincial Government is responsible for the disposal of all waste on its territory, while the federal Government is entrusted with overseeing the transportation of dangerous materials.
We have the necessary powers to ensure the safe transportation of matters deemed dangerous or toxic, and the Quebec Government has the powers to control the disposal of all waste material on its territory, and especially with regard to burying it.
According to our investigations, these wastes happen to be neither toxic nor dangerous, so that we have put
December 14, 1988

together a three-stage process with the Quebec Government. First, beginning with last weekend, we have been making sure that federal inspectors are permanently in the field and carry out extremely thorough and strict investigations, to make sure that the existing regulations are strictly adhered to and that the wastes presently disposed of are neither dangerous nor toxic.
Second, the Quebec Government is now trying to ascertain ...


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Lucien Bouchard: ... it is busy adopting legislation and devising ways and means to control the transportation of these matters in that area. Third, ... the Government. . .


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I feel, regretfully, that the reply is much too long. I therefore recognize the Hon. Member for Shefford.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am most interested in what the Minister has to say, so that as a supplementary, I should like him to go on explaining his third point.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can finish my reply.
I talked on several occasions with the Quebec Minister of the Environment. I met as recently as this morning with the members of "La Coalition de l'Estrie" and the federal Government is contemplating several legislative measures to stop the dumping of these American waste materials in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we will make sure that Canada does not become a garbage dump for anybody.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT CHAIRMANSHIP OF COMMISSION EXAMINING LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister informed this House of the appointment of Mr. Jean de Grandpre to a
Oral questions
blue ribbon committee, and described him as one of Canada's most distinguished people to chair a blue ribbon committee that will examine programs that exist around the world.
Was the Prime Minister aware at the time of this appointment that among the many distinguished accomplishments of Mr. de Grandpre was that of chairman and chief executive officer of Bell Canada Enterprises? Was the Prime Minister aware of the fact that during his role as chief executive officer of Bell Canada Enterprises, Bell Canada Enterprises held 52 per cent ownership in Northern Telecom?
Can the Prime Minister tell us how can the Canadian employees of the multinational corporations expect this fox-in-the-hen-house appointment to benefit them?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, only an NDP'er would think that success in the private sector represents failure in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course I am fully aware of the facts reported by my hon. friend. I am also aware of Jean de Grandpre's great achievements in his career, like those of the other members of this important commission which I think reflects the best interests of all Canadians.
So if the Hon. Member would kindly wait until Friday and then for the final report, I think that he will see the result of the work done at the national level by Canadians who seek the national welfare and who are playing a vital role for Canadian society.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, while I thank the Prime Minister for his well worn cliche answer about what we recognize, I raise this question, in return. Is the Prime Minister still not yet able to recognize a conflict of interest when one is put before him in this House?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMMISSION MEMBERS
David Barrett: In
the same vein, is the Prime Minister aware that the board of directors of this same corporation includes the Hon. Peter Lougheed, who was-

December 14, 1988
Oral questions


An Hon. Member:: -who was a provincial Premier who was successful in getting re-elected.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Members for making me feel right at home. Their behaviour is as poor as that of the "Zalm" Socreds.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question, please.


David Barrett: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Lougheed is on the board of directors-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nystrom:: Don't heckle a new Member.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Lougheed is also on the board of directors, and is he aware that the current president of Northern Telecom is the second Vice-President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in which capacity he played an aggressive role in campaigning for the free trade deal; and how can the Prime Minister expect-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that shocking conflict of interest situation, and I thank the Hon. Member for bringing it to my attention. He may be interested to know that, along with all of the other nefarious types who are on that commission with Mr. de Grandpre, is Dr. Wagner, the President of the University of Calgary-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh no!


An Hon. Member:: Shocking!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is shocking in itself; but worse still, an immediate cohort and collaborator of Mr. de Grandpre's is James McCambly, President of the Canadian Federation of Labour.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You are safe, Ed. You need not fear, Ed.


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration.
If there is one policy area that was grossly mismanaged by the Government in the previous Parliament, and which continues today, it is that of Canada's refugee policy.
The backlog has increased from 9,500 in 1984 to over 70,000 today, and during all of that time the Government failed to take the necessary measures to alleviate the backlog problem.
Given the lack of concrete action on the backlog itself, irrespective of reforming the over-all refugee system in Canada, I would ask the Minister to inform the House-and, through the House, Canadians in general-when and what action the Government will take on the refugee backlog, a backlog that has grown to an alarming number and one which now threatens the viability of the entire refugee processing system.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, if there has been an increase in the backlog over the past couple of years, there isn't one person in this Chamber who doesn't know whose fault that is, given that it took two years to get the appropriate legislation through Parliament.
I am getting a little tired of the rhetoric from the Hon. Member about the refugee backlog, a backlog which began to build before we arrived in office and which continued to build as a result of opposition-caused delays in the passage of the appropriate legislation through Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: I can report to the House that, with the procedures that will be in place on January 1 next, the process will be a much improved one. My departmental officials have worked very hard on this problem, and I feel certain that the procedures which will be put into effect on January 1 will be exemplary.
December 14, 1988

We are considering various options in respect of the backlog, and I shall report to the House on those options as soon as possible.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister fails to tell Canadians that it took three years before the Government introduced legislation, and it still, after four years in office, fails to recognize the difference between the system and the backlog, and the fact that both are in need of action at the same time.
This Minister continues to speak to the House of options-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: He thinks he is Dave Barrett.


Sergio Marchi: Take it easy, Joe; you have more than enough on your own plate.


ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW-MINISTER'S POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I ask my question again of the Minister. Given that she has ruled out a general amnesty, something which we advocate and support-because it is not an answer; it does not distinguish between right and wrong-and given that there are rumours afloat about a mass deportation, would the Minister not agree that the most logical, humane and effective response would be to establish an administrative review process whereby refugees would be judged upon certain base criteria, with the Government retaining the option of refusing refugee status for security, health, or other reasons?
Does she not consider such a review process to be the best option?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the options we are looking at, as the Hon. Member knows- and I very much appreciate his advice on how to deal with the backlog. But there are other ways to deal with the backlog, and we will consider all options.
Oral questions


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration, who is also the Minister responsible for the status of women.
As the Minister is no doubt aware, Canadian employers frequently hire workers overseas using criteria which are inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights. In particular, the Manitoba Fashion Institute hires female workers only if they declare themselves to be single. If they are married, they are not hired.
Does the Government continue to condone such practices, which discriminate against single and married women and which are counter to the Charter of Rights?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Government has never condoned any kind of selection on the basis of marital status in the way that the Hon. Member has described.


An Hon. Member:: Come on! You sent her back. You discriminated against a married woman.


Barbara Jean McDougall: The answer to the question is that the Government has never condoned such practices.


REQUEST THAT DEPORTATION PROCEDURES BE STOPPED
David Walker: As a
supplementary, there are women in Manitoba who are now suffering terribly because of this practice. When the Minister refused in August to intervene, despite pleas in this House to do so, Sally Espenelli was deported. Now, Violag Juay Yong faces the same fate in the next few weeks.
Will the Minister stop all deportation procedures, review these cases, and address this discriminatory practice immediately?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there are other issues at stake in this case, as the Hon. Member well knows. We review every case which comes to us on a case by case basis and I stand by the decision that was made in my office.

December 14, 1988

Oral questions FISHERIES


BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON AND HERRING INDUSTRY REGULATIONS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. As he knows, Canada will be presenting replacement regulations for the B.C. salmon and herring industry to Peter Murphy in Washington next week.
Since a number of GATT member countries such as Great Britain have import requirements that fish be graded and eviscerated for entry into their markets, will the Minister assure this House that the replacement B.C. regulations will provide for landing, grading, and eviscerating in Canada?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct, we are refining proposed new regulations to ensure effective conservation, management and quality control of fish and fish products exported from Canada. These regulations were prepared with input by a working group representing the fishing industry of British Columbia. They were submitted to my office in mid-September. They are being reviewed by trade lawyers and experts in the Government, and at the appropriate time the form of these regulations will be made clear. Further discussions are presently under way jointly with my colleague, the Minister for International Trade.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister for International Trade. He must be aware that if we do not have grading, landing, and eviscerating provisions for the B.C. industry, our salmon and herring industry will be destroyed.
Will the Minister be specific and assure this House that the Government will advise the United States that we are a sovereign country and one of the rights we have is the right to gut fish, and that means to gut salmon in British Columbia?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that the Party the hon. gentleman represents is a tremendous supporter of the GATT system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That Party knows, of course, that this is a problem originating as a result of the work of a GATT panel, the organization that his Party supports. That panel found certain practices in British Columbia, in connection with the regulation of the catching and
processing of fish, to be contrary to fair trade rules as enunciated by GATT.
Our response to the GATT panel will have to be GATT consistent in order to have the support of his Party. In due course he will know what that response is and I am sure that the B.C. salmon and herring industry will remain a healthy and productive one when our decision is announced. However, our decision will be GATT consistent, c-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-t.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton-Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy and again concerns the Auditor General's Report as it relates to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Development Fund.
In that report the Auditor General lists the approval of funding for the Stellarton to Sheet Harbour highway as questionable with respect to its applicability to criteria established for the disposition of this fund.
Could the Minister please provide this House with the background information given his Department by the Province of Nova Scotia which led him to approve this $20 million project, which is obviously in contradiction to the legislative purposes of this fund?
Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but the question was getting awfully close to being out of order. However, the Hon. Minister may want to reply.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, the Hon. Member is opposed to the Government of Canada, in agreement with the Government of Nova Scotia, spending money to improve the infrastructure so that when offshore development takes place, Nova Scotians can fully benefit from it. Is that the Hon. Member's position, Mr. Speaker?


REQUEST FOR DETAILED REPORT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. Leblanc (Cape Breton-Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has the responsibility to approve every one of these projects and to check that they meet the criteria clearly stated in the
[Stage Direction]
*
*
.

December 14, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Act establishing the fund, will the Minister take his responsibilities seriously and provide the House with a detailed report explaining how these abuses could have occurred?
Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources decides on the basis of the Act already passed by the Parliament of Canada and reports every year on the use of this fund. This Act recognizes the province's responsibility in these matters and we in this Government, unlike the previous Government, take account of the reality of the provinces of Canada and we develop the territory with them. It is in this spirit that we make our decisions, Mr. Speaker, and the Canadian people have twice expressed their agreement with this interpretation of federal-provincial relations.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Farmers in the three western prairie provinces as well as B.C. and Ontario suffered the worst drought in living memory recently. On November 9 the Deputy Prime Minister promised some $850 million in compensation for those farmers, based on $45 per acre. There are still no criteria, no guidelines, and no application forms have been made available.
To top that off, the Prime Minister's good friend, the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Devine, as well as other prairie Tory Premiers, said they have no money for the program. Can the Minister give a commitment today that the $850 million, or more depending on the amount of damage, is going to be provided to these hard-pressed farmers?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a question similar to that in the House of Commons yesterday. The same answer applies. I know the Hon. Member and others were disappointed that we announced a drought program to meet the needs of farmers who were very seriously affected by this drought.
Oral questions
As in the past, when the need has arisen for support from this Government for farmers, we have been there. We have been there in the past, we are there today, and we will be there in the future. I can assure the Hon. Member of that.


DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATION FORMS AND CHEQUES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Tory Premiers are not going to pay for the Prime Minister's election promises.
In any event, the drought occurred last spring and summer. Thousands of farmers had no crop this fall. The program was announced on November 10. When are application forms going to be made available, and can the Deputy Prime Minister make a commitment today that the cheques will start to flow by January 1 so these farmers will have the funds available this winter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows this is the fourth chapter of the drought program announced for the year 1988. The first was a $12 million water related program; the second was a $153 million livestock drought program; the third was the $900 million crop insurance pay-out; the $850 million is supplementary to that.
That totals close to $2 billion. That is the kind of support this Government has given in the past and that is the kind of support it is going to give in the future.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for forestry. The Auditor General states that unemployment is increasing in the forest industry, that the backlog of unreforested land is increasing, and that forest resource development agreements with the provinces have few clear guidelines and little or no evaluation, citing five examples from coast to coast. What immediate action is the Minister prepared to take to address these very serious issues?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology) and Acting Minister of State (Forestry)):: December 14, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the Auditor General's findings. After all, what we were trying to do was to redress a decade of deliberate neglect of our forests.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: What we have done is we have increased by four times the federal commitment. Some regions of the country have not yet caught up with the backlog in our forest land. In my own province that is not the case. Some 250,000 hectares have been restocked there.
The question now is how quickly can we move to a more intensive forest management regime which involves not just the planting of trees but the farming of our forests. Our commitment is quite clear, something which has been demonstrated by the establishment of a full Department of Forestry.


GOVERNMENT POSITION-PROVISION OF INFORMATION
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that the Minister is saying that he is not surprised. The question is this. What specific action is he prepared to take? I include in that information to Parliament, since there is no way that we can monitor this matter without having enhanced quality of information. As the Auditor General points out, information presented in Part III of the Estimates is inaccurate and at times confusing. Thus it is impossible for Members to monitor the expenditures adequately.
Will the Minister state what he intends to do about this specific issue?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, we must be cognizant of the fact that the principal responsibility for keeping the inventory lies with the provinces. After all, it is a provincial resource.
The federal role in this area has in the past been exercised through research, as well as assistance, protection, maintenance, and enhancement of our forests. It is in that area that we will continue to play our role in co-ordination and co-operation with the provinces.
We are negotiating with the provinces about these matters to see how best we can develop a national inventory and how best we can redress some of the serious problems that have occurred as a result of this neglect in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: That will be the last question of Question Period.
I have an application on privilege. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Skeena.


PRIVILEGE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted Beauchesne's, and 1 believe I have a question of privilege that meets the two tests, the first being a prima facie case and the second being the fact that I am raising the matter at the earliest opportunity.
The matter involves the dumping and location of 450 tonnes of mustard gas somewhere in the vicinity of Victoria and Esquimalt. On December 5, 1988, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) wrote to a researcher who was at that time working for the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, and who has subsequently been doing some work for my office. In that letter the Minister of National Defence states:
Thank you for the letter of October 4, 19S8 in which you inquired
about the dumping of World War II shells containing nerve gas and
mustard gas in the Pacific in 1947. There is no record of such an
operation.
That letter is signed by the Minister of National Defence.
There is a very brief chronology which follows that. On December 8, 1988, CTV National News reported that National Defence dumped chemical weapons into the Pacific Ocean following the Second World War.
On December 9, 1988, Colonel Conrad Mialkowski, Assistant Director-General for Research and Development, National Defence, stated that the Canadian military never dumped artillery shells containing mustard gas into the Pacific Ocean. On that date I asked for a public inquiry into the matter because of the evidence that had been given by Canadian ex-servicemen regarding this matter. I point out that these were servicemen who were at Suffield when it was loaded, who were at Esquimalt when it was unloaded, and who saw it loaded onto a scow.
On December 13, 1988, the Times-Colonist of Victoria reported that by its own account of the 1947 dumping, it contradicted the statements made by the Canadian military spokesman and the Minister of
December 14, 1988

National Defence, and say not only artillery ammunition but mustard gas was dumped into the Pacific Ocean.
In a front page story on September 17, 1947, the Victoria Times-Colonist reported:
Four hundred and fifty tons of gas which was developed for chemical warfare is now lying at dockside at the government drydock, Esquimalt, waiting to be loaded aboard a dump scow which will take it out to the Pacific Ocean for dumping.
A photograph of military personnel wearing rubber gloves and loading material from a railway car accompanied the story.
On December 13, 1988, Colonel Conrad Mialkowski admitted that the Canadian military did dump shells containing mustard gas, but the new claim with the suddenly found records is that it was dumped 160 kilometres off the coast of B.C. What fails to be mentioned is the same evidence of one of the same exservicemen who pointed out that the scow sailed at dusk and returned at dawn. Again, this was a serviceman who was at the site. There is not a scow made, even if it was towed by hovercraft, which could in that time go 160 kilometres off Victoria for dumping.
This is a very serious matter. The Minister of National Defence advised there were no records. Senior people in his Department advised that there were no records. When they are caught by the media, caught by exservicemen and Members of Parliament, suddenly there are records. Suddenly, they claim that they know exactly where the mustard gas is located, exactly when it went there, and how it got there and so on.
This is a serious matter. Mustard gas that was dumped off the coast of France in exactly the same year, 1947, was subsequently picked up in fishing equipment, brought on board a fishing vessel and blinded 12 fishermen.
I would like to hear from the Minister of National Defence. Prior to doing that, I believe I have proven a prima facie case that I have been misled by a Minister of the Crown, and that I have been misled intentionally or otherwise by senior officials in the Department of National Defence. I am prepared to move the necessary motion that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
I do not think that Members of Parliament, their researchers or the media should be misled on matters that could affect the health and well-being of Canadian citizens or anyone else.
Privilege-Mr. Fulton


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence and Acting Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, what we witness here this afternoon is the Hon. Member, who was recognized during Question Period and chose to raise a question with a totally different Minister of the Crown, now getting up following Question Period, not to raise a bona fide question of privilege but rather to attempt-


An Hon. Member:: Let the Speaker decide.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you will have the opportunity to decide, as soon as you have all of the facts as opposed to the misinformation and partial information that has been given to you by the Hon. Member, who has a track record in that respect, as he demonstrated in the case of Suffield earlier this year.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members opposite might extend the same courtesy to me that I extended to the Hon. Member when he was making his false allegations.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Tell the truth.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member opposite says: "Tell the truth". Let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, from the letter that was quoted by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind both sides in this discussion that it is an application on a question of privilege. I am not interested in hearing allegations about each other. I hope that other Hon. members will keep that in mind.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member quoted from the first paragraph of a letter which I sent to a person who is now a researcher for him. Curiously, he ended his quotation before going on to the second paragraph. He quoted this section:
Thank you for the letter of October 4, 1988 in which you inquired about the dumping of World War II shells containing nerve gas and mustard gas in the Pacific in 1947. There is no record of such an operation.
There the quotation ends. Had he had the courtesy to continue, Mr. Speaker, you would have heard the following:
If you are aware of any evidence that such dumping did occur, I would be anxious to receive it. As you probably know, surplus Canadian World War II stocks of mustard gas were dumped in the Atlantic in 1946; the gas was not in shells but in sealed metal drums. This operation was the subject of a number of articles in the press in

December 14, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
1984 and I am attaching two clippings from that time. The method of disposal used was considered at the time to be the easiest, safest, and most economical means of getting rid of the mustard gas. It would not now be permitted.
As the letter very clearly indicates, we have been unable to locate anywhere in the Department of National Defence, notwithstanding the efforts which we made, any record of surplus stocks being dumped over 40 years ago into the Pacific. What I indicated to the Hon. Member's researcher was that if he had any evidence whatsoever suggesting that was the case, we would welcome it being brought forward. That continues today.
There was no attempt, nor was there any action which would mislead the Hon. Member. The facts that were stated in the letter were accurate. We had no record. We could locate no record. We have continued to search during that time and can locate no DND record indicating such a thing.
Earlier this week, the Victoria Times-Colonist was contacted by an individual who brought to its attention an article which appeared in the Victoria paper in 1947, including a picture under the headline: "War gas brought here for dumping at sea". That was the first time-and it was this week, not last week or the previous week-that it was brought to our attention that there was a document on the public record, not in DND's records, which indicated this.
The Hon. Member makes a great point of the fact that Colonel Mialkowski indicated that the dump would appear to have been 100 miles offshore. Why does he say that? He said that because the article in the Times-Colonist of Victoria on Tuesday, December 16, 1947, states that some 600 tons of mustard gas and other chemical warfare ammunition "will be sunk 100 miles off the British Columbia coast, army headquarters announced here today". Where did the Colonel get his information? He got it from exactly the same source as the Hon. Member apparently got his from, that is, the Victoria newspaper of September 16, 1947.
Was there an attempt to mislead the Hon. Member? No, there was not. The Colonel simply referred to what was in the newspaper in 1947. Did Colonel Mialkowski indicate that there had never been any dumping off the West Coast? Not according to the article I have in front of me from the Victoria Times-Colonist under the byline of Paul Mooney of the Canadian Press. The individual who indicated there probably had been no
dumping of chemicals was Mr. Fred Hassell who worked as a supervisor in the laboratory at the Colwood Naval magazine during the period in question and stayed until 1973.
It was Mr. Hassell who said:
I am absolutely positive there was never anything like that (shells containing chemical agents). We had to handle everything that went through there, and we would have known about something like that.
Colonel Mialkowski did say quite correctly, and I quote this from the Canadian Press article:
Mialkowski said the Canadian Forces dumped hundreds of tonnes of high explosive shells at a site 90 to 100 kilometres west of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, in a trench weil off the continental shelf.
The site was more than six kilometres deep. That is what the Colonel said. Has the Colonel confessed that we have done this or, to use the words of the Hon. Member, admitted that 40 years ago the Canadian Forces dumped mustard gas? No, what was said by the Colonel in the last 24 hours is that on the basis of the newspaper article there would appear to be reason to believe this might have happened. It was not a confession or admission on his part, but rather that it has been brought to his attention now that newspaper records of the day indicate that mustard gas might have been put in that area.
The Hon. Member also goes on at great length to talk about threats to public safety. Had the Hon. Member consulted navigational charts for the West Coast of Canada, he would know that those dumps are marked on navigational charts precisely to warn people to stay away from them.
The practice of dumping excess war stocks after World War II was quite common around the world, and that includes Canada. It would not be done today, but it was done during that period. Because it was done, navigational charts were clearly marked to indicate where those dumps were precisely to avoid the sort of incident referred to by the Hon. Member. In particular, in the two large dumps that are marked on the map, we are talking about dumps which go to a considerable depth. I think the depth is as great as 8,000 feet. It is unlikely that fishermen would have a line down that low. However, if the Hon. Member has any information with regard to that, we would be glad to get the information from him.
If, Mr. Speaker, you still believe for a minute that the Hon. Member has presented any evidence whatsoever of a prima facie case of privilege, let me simply review the key facts. The Hon. Member alleges that presumably an
December 14, 1988

attempt was made to mislead a Member of Parliament. The facts indicate just the opposite. The letter that was sent to the researcher indicated that no records had been found but invited the researcher to come forward with any evidence, if he had it, so we could pursue it, as we are continuing to do today.
Second, the Hon. Member, albeit, I am sure, unintentionally misrepresents what Colonel Mialkowski said and makes an attack, a very serious attack, on a distinguished member of the Canadian Armed Forces who is not here in this House of Commons and able to defend himself. I consider that sort of attack reprehensible.


James Ross Fulton: I have two very brief points, Mr. Speaker. I think what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) has done is worse than what this began as. The Minister of National Defence fails to point out what Colonel Mialkowski has in fact said to the press. I quote from a Canadian Press story, as the Minister of National Defence just did.
The Canadian military has never dumped artillery shells containing chemical agents into the Pacific Ocean, Forces spokesmen said Friday.
Col. Conrad Mialkowski, assistant director general for research and development at National Defence Fleadquarters, said Friday the Forces dumped surplus high explosive shells in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans until the early 1970s.
But no shells containing chemical agents were ever disposed of in that way,-
He had no qualification on that. Second, in The Globe and Mail today it says very clearly:
The Canadian Forces acknowledged yesterday that shells containing mustard gas were dumped off the coast of British Columbia...
. .. National Defence spokesman, Col. Conrad Mialkowski said that the shells are in an ocean trench about 2,500 metres deep about 160 kilometres offshore.
From whence does the Colonel get this new information? There were no records.


Henry Perrin Beatty: From the Victoria Times-Colonist. I just read it to you.


James Ross Fulton: Oh, he gets it from the Victoria Times-Colonist. How is it that a serviceman who was there said he loaded it in Suffield, he unloaded it in Esquimalt onto a scow which sailed at dusk in September and was back at the dock at dawn? It cannot get 160 kilometres offshore to the deep water to which the Minister alludes.
All I am asking in this case is that information that was false, intentionally or otherwise, was provided time and again to a Member of Parliament, time and again to
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
the media in this country, and there may well be a situation where the lives of Canadian fishermen or others could be endangered. If there are no records, admit it and conduct an inquiry.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says if there are no records, admit it. The original letter about which he is complaining said specifically that we could find no records with regard to that. What we are doing is attempting to find any information we can that is relevant to the situation. If the Hon. Member has any concrete information, instead of making wild allegations and instead of attacking the character-


John Edward Broadbent: It wasn't wild allegations. Fisten to what he has to say.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister may be able to help the Speaker in deciding on a point of privilege, but it is not necessary to get into further argument. The Hon. Minister may want to close off his comments.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I quote today from the Ottawa Citizen. What the Colonel is quoted as saying today by the Ottawa Citizen, is:
"It appears that the shells are down there and although I can't confirm it, it appears they're probably artillery mortar rounds filled with mustard", Mialkowski said.
This hardly constitutes an admission that he was withholding information. What it does indicate is a recognition on his part that since the original statement, someone has brought to his attention the article from the Victoria paper of 1947 and he says that based on the information included in the Victoria article from 1947, it appears that the material is down there and it appears it is mustard, based on the article. However, the central fact still remains that to date we have been able to locate no information within Canadian Forces' files related to this. We continue to invite the Hon. Member or anyone else in Canada who has relevant information to tender it.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the Hon. Member previously made wild allegations with regard to Suffield and the work being done there, the Department set up a hot line to enable anyone who was involved with that, and who had concerns about those tests, to call in. I can indicate that in none of those calls or in none of the letters we received was any reference made to chemical dumps of mustard, for example, on the West Coast.
Again, if there is any evidence that anyone in the House or outside the House has that would be of

December 14, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
relevance to us in searching back 40 years ago, we certainly would welcome that and would be pleased to pursue it, but all of us have an obligation not to unfairly accuse distinguished members of the Canadian Forces who cannot respond.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party rises and, of course, I will hear him. I might indicate to him that I think I have heard enough to consider the matter which, of course, I will, but I will, of course, hear the Hon. Member at least for a few minutes.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I listened with care to what the Minister had to say, as I usually do. And I heard the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I rise at this point to respond to the last point the Minister made which is a repetition of one he made earlier, namely, if anyone has any evidence on this very important matter potentially affecting the health of Canadians, they should bring it forward.
My suggestion very concretely, and I would like to hear the Minister respond to it this afternoon before we complete this very important question of privilege which has been raised, is that there is an individual, living in Calgary today, who claims he had direct involvement and direct knowledge about the situation at hand, and he is describing his facts not relying on a newspaper article from Victoria.
He was actually there. Has his senior staff talked to him? If not, if he wants to get to the bottom of this, the truth, why does he not talk to him?


Mr. Speaker:: I will let the Hon. Minister reply shortly, but I do not think any further discussion will help the Speaker very much.
I might indicate to Hon. Members that while there clearly seems to be a difference of opinion as to facts, and there may be very good reason why there is a difference of opinion as to facts, I have some difficulty seeing that it amounts to a breach of privilege. I will hear the Minister shortly.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, essentially the Leader of the New Democratic Party is extending Question Period under the guise of a question of privilege. I can indicate
to him that immediately after the individual in question was on CTV-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Minister can assist the Chair, I will hear him. I am not having any further arguments between the two sides.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to respond to the question that was posed to me. After the matter was raised on the CTV National News, I asked my staff to contact the individual in question. I do not know whether they have succeeded in doing it to date. They had difficulty initially reaching him. I will verify as to whether or not they have been able to reach him to date and will get in touch with Members opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard enough. This is a question which is in the public domain. Clearly the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) received some information, and in some cases did not receive other information which came to light at a later time.
There has been concern raised by the Hon. Member for Skeena that this might have been a deliberate attempt to keep information from a Member of Parliament. If that was the case and clearly there was evidence of that, then it would indeed be a very serious matter and understandable why the Hon. Member has raised this matter in this Chamber.
However, I have listened to the Minister and I have to take what Hon. Members in the House say as clearly in accord with the facts as they can know them, as I certainly did when listening to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).
I have listened to the Hon. Minister. There may very well be an argument under another proceeding as to what happened within the Department of National Defence. The whole question of why there were not records, if there are not, is something that can be pursued.
I must say to all Hon. Members that, in my view at least, listening to this as I have very carefully, it does not get into a question of privilege. It is essentially an argument over allegations of facts. While the matter as raised by the Hon. Member for Skeena is of course an important matter and it may be quite proper to pursue it in Question Period or at another time, I have to rule at the moment that it does not reach a question of privilege.
December 14, 1988

HOUSE OF COMMONS	[DOT] o*o)


APPOINTMENT OF INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that Jim Hawkes and Bill Kempling have been appointed as members of the Board of Internal Economy for the purposes and under the provisions of Chapter 42, First Supplement, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, entitled an Act to Amend the Parliament of Canada Act.
Introduction of Bills
(.Division No. 4)
++YEAS
Members



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. And more than five Members having risen:
Allmand	Gray	NaultAlthouse	(Windsor West)	NunziataAngus	Guamieri	PagtakhanArseneault	Harvard	ParentAssad	Harvey	ParkerAxworthy	(Edmonton East)	Phinney(Saskatoon-Clark's Heap	PickardCrossing)	Hopkins	ProudBarrett	Hovdebo	Prud'hommeBelair	Hunter	RideoutBellcmare	Jordan	RiisBenjamin	Kaplan	RobichaudBlack	Karpoff	RobinsonBlackburn	Karygiannis	Rocheleau(Brant)	Keyes	RodriguezBlaikie	Kilger	RompkeyBlondin	(Stormont-Dundas)	SamsonBoudria	Kristiansen	SimmonsBrewin	Langan	SkellyBroadbent	Langdon	(North Island-PowellButland	Laporte	River)Caccia	LeBlanc	SkellyCallbeck	(Cape Breton High-	(Comox-Alberni)Campbell	lands-	Speller(South West Nova)	Canso)	StewartCatterall	Lee	StupichComuzzi	MacDonald	TaylorCopps	(Dartmouth)	TobinCrawford	MacLaren	Vancliefde Jong	MacWilliam	VolpeDionne	Maheu	WaddellDuhamel	Manley	WalkerFerguson	Marchi	WappellFinestone	Marleau	WhittakerFisher	Martin	WoodFlis	(Lasalle-Emard)	YoungFontana	McCurdy	(Gloucester)Foster	McGuire	YoungFulton	McLaughlin	(Beaches-W oodbi ne)-Funk	Mifflin	109Gaffney	Milliken	Gardiner	Mills	Gauthier	Mitchell	Murphy


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


John Carnell Crosbie: that the Bill be read the first time		
and printed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House		
to adopt the motion?		
Some Hon.	Members: Agreed.	
Some Hon.	Members: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those		in favour of the
motion will please say yea.		
Some Hon.	Members: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please		
say nay.		
Some Hon.	Members: Nay.	
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: I will take the Hon. Member's intervention under advisement and will report back to the House.
* *
*


CANADA REFERENDUM AND PLEBISCITE ACT
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-201, an Act respecting referendums and plebiscites in Canada on questions of public importance.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is one that is enabling legislation for the holding of a national referendum or plebiscite in Canada on issues of transcending national importance.
Briefly, this constitutes a complete code for the holding of such votes. Several of the provinces have legislation along this line. All of the municipalities are able to consult their citizens directly, and the purpose of this Bill would be to provide the Government of Canada with this democratic instrument for the occasional questions of transcending national importance that ought to be put directly to the people for an expression of popular will.


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

Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I will make my point very briefly. It concerns the bells in the South Block. It is still not possible to hear bells on the south side of the South Block. We can hear faint bells ringing in one corridor but not in the other, Mr. Speaker. I bring this matter to your attention and hope that we will not have to experience this situation again.


PETITIONS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition signed by 4,500 citizens of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who want to bring a very serious matter to the House of Commons.
They are asking Parliament to intervene in the very important issue of child abuse.

December 14, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: There is a motion for an emergency debate. I would ask the Hon. Member for York Centre to address the Chair.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the disastrous deterioration of service to the travelling public at Canada's largest airport, Pearson International Airport, caused by the failure of the Government to do its duty to administer the airport and to make proper provision for its needs and growth. The present situation amounts to a crisis to which no adequate solution has yet been brought.
It is difficult for anyone to exaggerate the seriousness of this problem-and no one is more familiar with it than are Members of Parliament. Delays of up to three hours are not unknown on a daily basis at Pearson International Airport.
Given that we are now in the holiday season, and given the tremendous economic damage which has already been suffered by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding region, as well as to the industries involved in carriage through that airport, something has to be done.
This is a situation, Mr. Speaker, which is clearly and totally the responsibility of the federal Government to solve. One of the considerations you should bear in mind in considering this matter is the availability of other opportunities in this session to deal with it. I remind you that although we are engaged in the Throne Speech debate, it is not necessarily the case, or perhaps even likely, that there will be days devoted to the Throne Speech debate, with the result that the normal alternative times available to discuss this crisis might well not be available during this session.
I urge upon you, Mr. Speaker, the serious nature of this crisis for the entire region of southern Ontario and to permit this emergency debate to take place.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte on the same point.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, with the Chair's permission, I should like to take a minute or two to illustrate the crisis nature of the situation described by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Come on, you guys. Don't you want to hear about the problem?


An Hon. Member:: He is just trying to be helpful.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all Hon. Members will understand the situation faced by the Chair. While the matter raised by the Hon. Member for York Centre is a serious one, it is not in order for other Hon. Members to speak to it at this stage. While I am sure that all Hon. Members take the matter seriously, I must restrict any comments on the matter to the Member presenting the application.
I have listened carefully to the presentation of the Hon. Member for York Centre, and as I had some notice of his application, I have had the opportunity to give the matter some considerable thought.
The Hon. Member, in his presentation, states that something may or may not transpire, such that there will not be another occasion to raise the matter in the House in this session.
I assure the Hon. Member that I consider the matter to be an important one, and certainly I will watch carefully to see how matters unfold. However, I do not think it appropriate to make an order permitting an emergency debate at this time.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, under the provisions of Standing Order 52, to move a motion calling for an emergency debate in respect of lay-offs arising out of the free trade deal.
Since the November election, Canada has witnessed some 2,400 lay-offs by a number of companies, including Northern Telecom, Gillette, Pittsburgh Paints-


An Hon. Member:: And how many new jobs have been created?


John Edward Broadbent: In respect of the lay-offs in question, a case has been made that there is good reason to believe
December 14, 1988

that they are the result, either directly or indirectly, of the free trade agreement.


An Hon. Member:: The campaign is over, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Also, we have now had the reimposition, by the President of the United States, of an unfair tariff on Canadian shakes and shingles going into the U.S.-a tariff which, when originally imposed, resulted in a loss of jobs in Canada, and which, if continued, will result in further job losses.
In saying that there is a case for an emergency debate, Mr. Speaker, I have in mind that, since then, we have had a Throne Speech which specifically excluded the establishment of legislation that would provide for an adjustment program in the case of lay-offs and which specifically excluded the possibility of the establishment of a committee to monitor the impact of the free trade agreement, and all of this in the context of the Government saying that once we complete consideration of the free trade implementing legislation, Parliament will embark upon an extended recess, a recess extending, perhaps, into March of next year.
I say that the workers who are laid off now, Mr. Speaker, cannot afford to wait. We have an emergency that has to be addressed now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Oshawa for having given me extensive notice of his application. The formal application, in its written form, is much more extensive in detail than the oral summary provided by the Hon. Member, and certainly I have read it very carefully.
While the matters raised by the Hon. Member in his application for an emergency debate are serious matters, it is, I feel, premature for the Speaker to order an emergency debate at this time. Again, I am always ready to reconsider these matters should circumstances change.
There is the potential for some opportunity for Hon. Members to discuss the matters raised in the application.
To reiterate, while I consider the matters raised to be serious, I do not consider it appropriate to order an emergency debate at this time.
Orders of the day.
House of Commons



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: A point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Mazan-kowski, moves-the Hon. Member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think that it is appropriate if I recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor West. I think it was quite clear that he was rising on the same point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An Hon. Member:: Free trade is good for Windsor, Herb.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Government has given notice of a motion which proposes to suspend, and in fact drastically suspend, the rules of this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: To summarize the motion, it appears to say that the House will sit continuously for an indefinite period, exclusive of December 26, 1988, and in fact will not adjourn on December 21 to resume in January, as is provided for by the Standing Orders. The motion also states that the House will not adjourn at 6 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays but will sit, without a break, until midnight on those days.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the wording of the motion does not state that the House shall sit for these hours only for consideration of the legislation to implement the Government's trade deal with the U.S.; rather, it states that the House will sit "for Government Orders". In other words, for any business that the Government puts on the Order Paper. The Government, therefore, could put anything it wishes on the Order Paper and use this motion to get it through.
Looking at the third paragraph of the motion, it goes on to state that for the duration of this session or until otherwise ordered, the provisions of Standing Order 73(1) and (2) respecting committee stage of Public Bills

December 14, 1988
House of Commons
be suspended, and all such Bills be ordered for referral to Committee of the Whole.
What this means is that the provision in our rules calling for every Bill to be sent to a committee separate and apart from this House would be suspended. The Government, through this motion, is attempting to take away a concept that has been a part of the procedures of this House for some 20 years.
It has been a long time since Bills generally have been considered in Committee of the Whole rather than by a committee separate and apart from this House, where Members can question officials directly and summon before it witnesses from the private sector, witnesses from outside of this House of Commons.
I also want to point out that this paragraph is not limited to the trade legislation but applies to all Public Bills. It speaks of staying in existence for the duration of this session until otherwise ordered. I want to point out that this session does not end January 1. The way our rules are structured it can go on for several years, in fact for the entire term of Parliament.
The final paragraph of the motion says:
That immediately upon the House returning from the Senate after the first Royal Assent of this session, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice or debate, a motion to rescind this order.
The motion does not use the word "shall". There is no requirement that a Minister has to come into this House and propose a motion to rescind the order. If a Minister does not do that, the motion continues in effect indefinitely. Under the guise of taking a special measure to force the trade legislation through this House, it would appear the Government is bringing about a permanent and drastic change to our rules, our Standing Orders.
However, the Government now has given itself credit for the adoption of our current rules, our current Standing Orders. It has said before and likely during the election campaign that these Standing Orders are one of its paramount achievements, a supreme achievement of parliamentary reform, and has claimed it came about through its efforts, although this is not really so since it was an all-Party effort.
These reforms include confirming the House no longer sits at night. We have reasonable hours so there is quality debate and not legislation by exhaustion. This is a reform for which the Government takes credit. It has taken credit for us not sitting at night.
The reforms also provide that each Bill goes to a legislative committee for detailed and quality study, more quality study, the Government argues, than was possible in the old Committee of the Whole procedure where the House sat as a committee and witnesses could not be heard, whether they were officials or members of the public. As well, while the House sits as a committee, everything else before it is held up.
The Government has shown how little it really cares about parliamentary reform because it is saying through this motion that in order to get itself out of a tight corner, because it cannot live within the rules, the Government is ready to throw key elements of the rules out the window. Parliamentary reform means nothing to the Government so long as it can achieve its purpose of forcing this legislation through the House.
Last June the Government presented what appears to be a similar motion to this House, to suspend the rules, including those on the parliamentary calendar and the usual hours of the sitting of the House. When that motion was moved, arguments were made by myself and others that it was not in order and should be rejected by you. Of course, I have to say immediately that after hearing arguments, very patiently, with great considera-ton and attention, you gave a lengthy and detailed ruling in which you in effect ruled the motion was in order and debate on it could proceed.
I ask you to consider whether the motion before us now, and the motion you considered last June, are essentially the same, such that the ruling you made last June is equally applicable to the motion we are considering today. I submit this motion is different in substantial and important respects from the motion before this House last June, and therefore the ruling you made on the motion last June is not a precedent for the motion just called and which I am arguing should not be received and accepted by you.
The motion last June had a fixed expiry date, the date the House was to resume last September. The motion before us applies for an indefinite period.
Paragraph 1 of the motion before us appears to extend the days the House would meet for an indefinite period.
Paragraph 5 suspends the rules providing that Bills be considered by a legislative committee, for a period which is in effect indefinite. It has no fixed termination. You will note it also applies for the duration of this session or "until otherwise ordered".
December 14, 1988

Paragraph 6 of the motion says that "immediately upon the House returning from the Senate after the first Royal Assent of this session, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice or debate, a motion to rescind this order".
This motion goes much, much further than the motion last June. It is drastic enough because, like the motion last June, it sweeps away parliamentary reforms requiring that the House does not sit at night, and also sits according to a fixed calendar. This motion goes further. It sweeps away not just the concept of legislative committees, something relatively new, but also entirely casts aside the concept that legislation be considered in small committees apart from this House with report stage in this House following such consideration, something which has been a fundamental part of our parliamentary process for over 20 years.
It is relevant to note, Mr. Speaker, that you pointed out in your ruling of last June, if I may summarize, that the motion did not do anything drastic to the rules of this House. However, I submit this is not the case here. Quite the contrary. As you said on June 13, 1988, as reported at page 16378 of Hansard, referring to the motion of last June:
-I should also reassure Hon. Members that its passage would not throw out the rule book, nor would it destroy the major recent reforms.
That is not the case with the motion before us. I have already pointed out that this motion would destroy a very important recent reform, that is the concept of the legislative committee.
Your ruling last June was based on two key citations from Beauchesne's, Citation No. 21 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, and Citation 10 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. It I may quote them very briefly, Citation 21 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition refers to the rules of procedure generally:
The most fundamental privilege of the House as a Whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them. A few rules are laid down in the British North America Act, but the vast majority are resolutions of the House which may be added to, amended, or repealed at the discretion of the House. It follows, therefore, that the House may dispense with the application of any of these rules by unanimous consent on any occasion or, by motion, may suspend their operation for a specified length of time.
I also want to quote Citation 10 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which you also used as a foundation for your ruling. It says in part:
Standing Orders may be suspended for a particular case without prejudice to their continued validity, for the House possesses the inherent power to destroy the self-imposed barriers and fetters of its
____________________________________67
House of Commons
own regulations. It may even pass an order prescribing a course of procedure inconsistent with the Standing Orders. A motion for such temporary suspension requires notice-but in urgent cases the notice can be waived-
I draw your attention to the words "for such temporary suspension".
You used these citations as a foundation for your ruling of last June, and I will and do argue here that they clearly apply only to a temporary suspension of the rules, a motion by the Government for a "temporary suspension" of the rules, to quote Citation 10, or a motion which is for "a specified length of time", to quote Citation 21.
This motion today is clearly not for "a specified length of time", or to bring about "a temporary suspension" of the rules. Nor, by the way, is it limited to dealing with "a particular case", to use another phrase from a citation. Instead, it applies to any and all Bills that the Government may choose to put on the Order Paper.
Again, as I have said, unlike the motion of last June, it does not end after a specified length of time.
By way of conclusion, I want to say that with this motion the Government gives the appearance of trying to smuggle in a drastic change in the rules, a permanent change in the rules, under the guise of forcing passage through this House of its trade legislation.
It has done this without having first had the advice of a parliamentary committee to study the matter, which has been the case in the past, or even without any consultation with the Opposition, which has also been the case in the past. In fact, this change in the rules is a reversion to an old, outmoded process, and the Government itself has in recent months been taking credit for helping bring about its elimination.
Therefore, relying on the Standing Order requiring you to rule on the acceptability of any motion or measure before it is debated or voted on, I call upon you to reject this motion before us. I call upon you to reject this motion, not only because, in effect, it is not within the ambit of your ruling of last summer, but it is also not covered by the citations on which you founded your ruling, inasmuch as it does not deal with a specific case. Nor does it attempt to bring itself to an end after a specified length of time or last only for a temporary period.

December 14, 1988
House of Commons
I am not going to take the time at this stage to point out to the House, as I did last June, that if this continues to be the practice of this Conservative Government then it means that nothing is safe or sacred when it comes to the basic process of democratic government in this House.
Last June it was simply suspending the calendar of sittings. Now the Government is throwing out the window our committee process. Next we may see this Government trying to force a motion through this House to get rid of the Question Period, or any type of debate in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, you are the protector of the minority of Members in this House.
You are the protector of this institution as a foundation of our democratic process. Therefore I call upon you to be very conscious of these responsibilities in taking into account the arguments I have made and the precedents I have cited which I submit would lead to only one firm conclusion, that is, this motion is not in order and must be rejected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise today both with a sense of sadness and with a sense of outrage. I am saddened by the spectacle of our parliamentary institutions being treated as little more than an irritant or a nuisance to this Government, something which must be tolerated at best. As a parliamentarian and as a Canadian I am outraged at the unashamed arrogance of a Government that shows absolutely no respect for the rights of the duly elected Opposition, a Government that does not think it has to disguise what is an open, naked act of aggression against democracy and our democratic institutions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: With this motion the Government has once again shown its complete and utter disregard for the traditional rights and freedoms that can be exercised by opposition Parties. When it does not like what we say or do, it simply changes the rules.
This is the Marcos and Pinochet approach to democracy. As a Canadian, I find it despicable and I find it disgusting.
Citation 1 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law,
have always been kept steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament;
these are: To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or
tyranny of a majority;
Clearly, what we have here is a case of the tyranny of the majority running roughshod over the rights of the minority.
As you are aware, this is not the first time that this Government has proposed suspending the rules without the consent of opposition Parties. As the House Leader for the Official Opposition has indicated, last June the Conservative Government brought forward a similar motion to suspend the rules and the parliamentary calendar, something that had not been done since March 16, 1883.
At the time, in June, the Government said: "Do not worry, this is a very exceptional circumstance. It will not happen again". It has happened again. It is just a few short months and here we are with this band of parliamentary assassins back to their old tricks. Their justification is that the Opposition has the unmitigated audacity to want a thorough and comprehensive study of the free trade legislation. We all recognize that this legislation will obviously change the very structure of the Canadian economy. All the Opposition is asking is that we have a complete, thorough and comprehensive debate and consideration of this important legislation.
We recognize of course that the Government has a mandate to govern-no one is disputing that. The Conservatives fail, however, to recognize that they did not receive a mandate to make Parliament little more than a rubber stamp. As opposition Members our role- indeed our duty-is to hold the Government accountable for those actions. We have the right and the duty to demand a full and thorough parliamentary review of this legislation, especially in view of the large number of plant closings that have taken place since November 21.
I think all of us in this House would have to admit that thousands of Canadians now find themselves facing a bleak Christmas of unemployment with the impending passage of the trade deal before them.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sees the situation, in his own words, as nothing more than a problem. We on this side of the House see it as much more than a problem. We see it as nothing less than a tragedy. The responsibility for this tragedy must be placed squarely at the feet of the Prime Minister and his trade deal.
December 14, 1988

I must say that there are several reasons I believe Your Honour should rule this motion out of order. First, the Government has said that it requires the House to sit beyond the normal day of adjournment because the trade legislation must be passed by January 1. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the United States implementing legislation does not require this, there is a provision in the Standing Orders at the moment which allows for the House to be recalled when it is in the public interest. Standing Order 28(3) states:
Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that being so satisfied the House shall meet, and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
We on this side of the House are quite prepared to let you, Mr. Speaker, make the decision whether or not it is in the public interest rather than leave it to the parliamentary assassins across the aisle.
In Your Honour's ruling of June 13 earlier this year you stated the following:
Does such a motion require the unanimous consent of the House or a simple majority decision?
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the House can amend or suspend its rules by unanimous consent. That is a given.
Often, we do that in this House to make it more convenient for Members on rather insignificant aspects. However we are talking now about a major piece of legislation.
Your Honour went on to state in your ruling:
A review of our present Standing Orders reveals that they are, unlike those in the Australian House, totally silent on the manner of suspension.
You went on to state that if the Speaker rules that the Standing Orders should only be suspended or changed by unanimous consent of the House, the situation could arise where the House could be in jeopardy of becoming procedurally the hostage of a single Member.
You continued by saying:
The unique flexibility of the British parliamentary system, a flexibility which has allowed for adaptations to an infinite variety of circumstances, would be jeopardized. Clearly that is undesirable.
I agree that we cannot allow the House to become the hostage of a single Member, but I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot allow the House to become simply a rubber stamp where the rights of the Opposition are trampled by the tyranny of the majority.
House of Commons
I think all of us as serious parliamentarians must ask the question: Where does this stop? In over 100 years of government suspension of the rules without the consent of the Opposition has virtually never occurred. In the last six months we have now had two attempts by this Government to do just that. When will it stop, Mr. Speaker? Will we find on the Notice Paper later this week a motion to do away with Question Period? Will we find a motion to do away with committees or to fundamentally alter the process of our debate? When will these parliamentary assassins stop? That surely must be the question you must weigh heavily today.
I return to Citation 1 of Beauchesne's. A fundamental principle upon which this House of Commons rests is the protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
Here we have two competing concepts: the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority. 1 put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you as the Speaker, whose job it is to protect the rights of all Members, must be the final arbiter between the two competing tendencies.
In light of your decision, however, of June 13 last, and in the light of Citation 1 of Beauchesne's, I would suggest that in this case there is a clear abuse by the Government of our rights as a minority. It is our contention that given this situation you must exercise your authority and rule this motion out of order.
I want also to add that the parliamentary rules, as I indicated earlier, permit you, Mr. Speaker, the option of recalling the House at any time the Government convinces you it is in the nation's interest. However, I do now want to conclude by saying that democracy as it expresses itself in this House is not a neat and tidy thing. Oft-times it is a tiresome affair, yet it is fundamental to our system. Without the recognition of the rights of the minority, we have no democracy. It is in that spirit that I make this intervention and ask you to rule against this particular motion.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) and Acting President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add some comments with respect to the procedural acceptability of this particular motion. The House will know that the Government has placed a motion on the Order Paper, the essence of which is to suspend the parliamentary calendar so that the House will not have the customary Christmas recess from December through to the middle of January. Instead,

December 14, 1988
House of Commons
the House will sit Monday through Friday with the exception of Boxing Day.
The motion also expands the hours of debate so that an extra six hours of debate is added to each of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. It also provides that the legislation will be sent to Committee of the Whole House rather than to a legislative committee.
The Government takes the position that this motion is procedurally correct and in accordance with the precedents established in this House. I intend to keep my argument to the procedural aspect rather than engage in any rhetoric which can perhaps more better be put in a debate on the actual motion.
I want to examine very briefly the elements of the actual motion. The first element is to suspend the parliamentary calendar. That will mean that we will sit through what is referred to as the Christmas break. It does allow for three days at Christmas. We make no apologies for trying to expedite the legislation to implement the free trade agreement. We have a commitment in the free trade treaty with the United States to pass implementing legislation as soon as possible. We like to think that no matter what Party is in government, we are a country which keeps its international commitments, and we want to keep this one.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that members on the government side are prepared to work through the Christmas break in order that we keep our commitment. I am also pleased to note comments in the media of members of the Liberal Party, to be accurate, the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin) who is quoted in The Gazette of Montreal as saying: "MPs are feeling pretty aggressive". That is fair. It continues: "We have people who do not even have Christmas on their minds. Some are even prepared to stay through some crucial holidays".
The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) made the same offer. He said: "We are not prepared to bend the rules to facilitate the Government having an early Christmas, but we are prepared to continue sitting". We took them up on that commitment, Mr. Speaker, when we drafted this special order in order to facilitate passage of the Bill which flows from the Throne Speech. I point out that there is only one Bill flowing from that speech. It is the Bill before us, the Bill which was introduced today. It is our intention to rescind this special order once the free trade legislation is passed and has received Royal Assent.


Mr. Gauthier:: It doesn't say that.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Wait for it, if you would. Out of respect for what we understand to be the conventions expected by the Chair in such motions, we have not specified the Bill in the motion since at the time of the giving of the notice of the motion the free trade Bill had not yet been introduced. To specify the Bill in the motion would have been anticipatory and open to procedural questions. The point to note, Mr. Speaker, is that this motion, like the similar motion accepted last June, is generic in its provisions.
The second element is the special House order to extend the sittings from 6 p.m. to 12 p.m. Monday through Thursday. The effect of this, obviously, is to provide an extra 24 hours of debate a week. I do not understand why any Member would object to us expanding debate time to allow them to get their comments on the record. I am prepared to offer an additional time for debate if my colleagues opposite want to get on the record. We are prepared to sit through the next weekend. We would suggest we waive the quorum requirement and allow Members, on the basis that we waived the quorum requirement-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is negotiating on the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is a comment that has already been made in House Leaders' meetings. In any event, we are prepared to add that extra fillip to allow colleagues, and I can understand it, to have their comments reported in Hansard so that their constituents will know exactly where they stand on this. We are prepared to do that and we could enter into those negotiations.
The third element of this special order is to send all legislation passed during its force and effect to Committee of the Whole House rather than to a legislative committee. That will allow all Members to participate in the committee process rather than just the seven Members who sit on a legislative committee. What could be more fair?
For those who want extensive hearings and witnesses, I would suggest that there were extensive committee hearings held last summer. Many witnesses declined to appear, and the committee sittings were actually cut short from the recorded reporting date. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that no government Bill in modern history has been subject to so much witness testimony and was so spectacularly well covered by the media as this Bill. Day after day there were the rebuttals of expert and
December 14, 1988

layman critics. Obviously it was also a matter of considerable debate in the country during the recent general election.
I would like to read into the record so there is no confusion just exactly what did happen on the subject of free trade. In the last Parliament there were eight opposition days, thirty-five hours. The Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What has that got to do with the acceptability of this motion? Tell me.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: One might notice that I did not interrupt Mr. Gray when he was speaking, nor Mr. Riis when he was speaking.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You promised you would stick to the motion. Stick to the issue.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade had 24 days of consideration, totalling 120 hours. There were government motions, four days of consideration for that, some 18.5 hours. Second reading of Bill C-130 took five days, some 30 hours. The legislative committee sat for 16 days, some 87 hours. Report stage of Bill C-130 took five days, and that took 30 hours. Third reading of Bill C-130 took two days, some 15.5 hours.


Mr. Cooper:: What is the total?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am pleased the Hon. Member asked about the total. It is a total of 64 days of committee and House of Commons time, some 336 hours.
The Bill that has been introduced and printed today is virtually identical in content to the old Bill C-130.
The procedural precedent for this House order is the Chair's ruling of June 13, 1988. The Government of the day sought to suspend the parliamentary calendar in order to complete certain government business.
The major points in the ruling, which were all answered in the affirmative, were as follows: First, was it proper for the Government to give notice under Government Notices of Motions? The answer is yes. Can the Government initiate a motion to suspend the provisions of the Standing Orders? The answer is yes. Does such a motion, if in order, require unanimous consent or simply a majority decision of the House? The answer is yes. If the motion is in order according to precedents, has the recent parliamentary reform
House of Commons
changed our practice fundamentally and rendered prior precedents inapplicable? The answer is yes.
I submit that the motion on the Order Paper is on all fours with Your Honour's ruling of June 13, 1988. I urge that the Chair rule the motion to be in order.
In closing, I would give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the Order of the Day is called for resuming debate on the motion, that is Government business No. 1 on the Order Paper, and on any amendments proposed thereto, I will move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member in just a moment. Perhaps all Hon. Members will let me consult with the Clerk for a moment.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say to the House that the Minister has attempted a procedure which was to put before the House something which cannot be done at this time. The Standing Orders of the House-and they will remain the Standing Orders of this House until they manage to destroy them-state at Standing Order 57 .. .


Some Hon. Members:: Ah, ah!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Standing Order 57, read it, take them out of your desk, the Standing Orders are there:
Immediately before the Order of the Day for resuming an
adjourned debate is called . . .
So the debate must have been adjourned. In addition, the debate must have begun, but all we are doing today is beginning the debate on procedure, on the acceptability of the motion. The debate has not been adjourned, Mr. Speaker, so the Minister cannot table in the House a notice of motion concerning Standing Order 57. That is strictly against the Standing Orders and I submit to the Chair that it must tell the Minister to go back to his books, learn the Standing Orders, and then come back to the House once he has done that.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, in two minutes I would like to comment on the submission by the Government House Leader about committee hearings and the number of hours spent. As I recall, no travelling was done. There was extreme limitation on those who could appear. Many could not appear because any hearings that were held were in Ottawa only. There is more to this country than just the City of Ottawa.

December 14, 1988
House of Commons
Let me also suggest that the Government's main reason for proposing such a motion concerns a January 1 deadline. There is no such thing. That is only a target or an objective of the Government of Canada and the United States administration.
I believe there is an understanding and an exchange of letters that the implementation date of January 1 can be a later date.
There is also much made of doing this before Committee of the Whole and of the opportunity for all Hon. Members to speak. As I understand what is proposed by the Government, it allows for one day for 295 Members to participate. Surely it is a sham, as I hope you can easily conclude, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, it is incumbent upon you to decide when the Government is abusing the rules or when the Opposition is abusing the rules as they pertain to the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority. I urge upon you that if ever there were a classical example of an abuse of the rules and the rights of the minority, this is one of those occasions. I hope you will consider that when making your ruling.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise briefly to make comments and to participate in this point of order. First, I want to comment on the use of Standing Order 57 which was proposed in the closing remarks of the Minister when he attempted, erroneously I submit, to cut off the debate on this motion or give notice that he wanted to cut off the debate on this motion and even the acceptability of the motion.
I submit that Standing Order 57 states clearly: "Immediately before the Order of the Day for resuming and adjourning debate is called". Clearly we are talking here only about resuming a debate which has been previously adjourned. Right now we are speaking to this point of order regarding the acceptability of the motion. We have not yet debated the motion, therefore we have not adjourned the debate nor resumed it. Of course it has not been adjourned; it has not been started. We have not seen any of those criteria. Therefore, the use of Standing Order 57 is inappropriate.
Let me speak briefly to the acceptability of the motion proposed by the Government. The Minister promised to speak to the procedure and promised to demonstrate the precedents making his motion acceptable. I submit that the Minister has done neither. First, he spoke about a variety of things, some of which had nothing to do with procedure. More important, he
promised that he would demonstrate the acceptability of the motion based on parliamentary precedents. He admitted later that his motion was deficient. He chose to add further assurances to the House, hoping that it would satisfy the deficiencies that are in the motion offered to us.
Second, and even more important, there was only one precedent he utilized to make his point, which was the ruling of Mr. Speaker on June 13, 1988. Of course, the Minister failed to mention that the main criteria for that ruling on June 13 had not been satisfied this time.
It has been said previously, and you yourself said it on June 13, 1988, that Citation 10 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition was quite specific when it talked of a temporary suspension of the rules.
When discussing the temporary suspension of the rules, it is important to read the last paragraph of the Government's motion, the acceptability of which we are discussing right now. I read to you the last paragraph:
That immediately upon the House returning from the Senate
after the first Royal Assent of this session, a Minister of the Crown
may propose, without notice or debate, a motion to rescind this
Order.
We have to remember that there is no obligation on the Government to rescind this motion or to propose a motion to rescind this motion at any time during the session, a session which could last up to five years. There is no compulsion, no obligation to do so.
First of all, there is no obligation to propose the cancellation of the motion and, second, there is no obligation then for the government majority to accept what the government Minister proposes if indeed he proposes it to start with, and there is not even an obligation to do that, so it is very clearly deficient in those two areas.
Assuming that there was an obligation on the Government to rescind that motion immediately after the first Royal Assent, I would submit to you that this motion would still be deficient because of course the Government could move and adopt any number of Bills. It could adopt its next Budget, it could adopt the Throne Speech, or it could adopt any number of things and not give Royal Assent to any of them and then give Royal Assent to all of those put together at some point in the future, enabling it to keep this ruling in force until that time. It does not matter because the "may propose" feature is offensive to the traditions of this House.

December 14, 1988

In closing, I submit that the Minister himself has probably now recognized that his motion is deficient. He has more than recognized it; he has actually admitted it in the House by offering certain corrective measures. I submit that the motion is so badly flawed that on the basis of those flaws themselves, the motion should be unacceptable to the Chair.
The assurances that the Minister has tried to provide to the Speaker and to the House in no way make the motion any more acceptable. I know the Speaker will rule on the motion as it has been put and as it is printed in its present form, not on good intentions expressed by the Minister after the motion has been put. After all, we know the record of this Government on keeping its word, and even more important, the Speaker, of course, has to rule on what is printed and what is offered to the House at this point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have now added a new wrinkle to this procedural debate. When we began this, we were all aware of what the government order of business was for the day, and as you were rising, about to put the question, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and I rose, you recognized us and we began a procedural debate on the acceptability of the government business of the day. However, my recollection is that the question was never put by Your Honour, that the question itself was never on the floor.
I would contend that the Deputy House Leader of the Government cannot give notice of closure on something that we are not even debating, yet I think that is what he has attempted to do. It is further abuse of the rules, traditions, and practices of this House.
I contend that for two reasons, this is out of order. The first is the nature of the motion of the Government under government business on the Order Paper and the second is what the Deputy House Leader has just done, which is to attempt to give notice of closure on a question that has yet to be put.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some very brief submissions on this matter. I would submit, Your Honour, that the motion of the Government would result in a very serious and marked departure from the rules of this House. I would submit to you, Sir, that you ought to consider in the circumstances what the extenuating circumstances are that would warrant such a serious departure from the rules of the House.
House of Commons
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the so-called January 1 deadline is not so sacrosanct that in the event that this Parliament does not rule on the free trade agreement by January 1, the result will be serious in nature. In fact, we are told by members of the Ministry that the January 1 deadline may in fact be extended.
Having said that, Sir, I would ask you to take into consideration the rights of the newly elected members of this Parliament. As you know, approximately 130 Members of the House are newly elected. In other words, the new Members did not participate in the debate in the Thirty-third Parliament on Bill C-130. This particular issue, the free trade agreement signed by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, was a central issue in the election campaign. In fact, it was a dominating issue in the campaign itself.
The people have in fact decided. Needless to say, a majority of those who decided and who cast their ballots in fact voted against the Government, against the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. Sir, the 130 newly elected Members, including members on the government side, have a right to express their points of view and to fulfil the mandate given to them in the election campaign, that is, to speak out in a full and complete discussion of the free trade agreement here in the House of Commons. To accept this motion and to deny the new Members of Parliament their opportunity to speak and to express their points of view on this particular piece of legislation would be to deny them their right to fulfil the mandate given to them in the general election of November 21, 1988.
In closing, might I say to you, Sir, that as the Speaker of the House you have an obligation to protect the rights of the newly elected Members of Parliament and to give them the opportunity to discuss this matter. Sir, might I remind you that a few short days ago, they put their trust in you to protect their rights, so I would ask you, Sir, to keep in mind my submissions when you deliberate on this most important point.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I originally indicated my intention to speak on the motion in the name of the Minister of State for Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) of December 12, 1988. However, the latest effort by the Government to have closure on a debate we have yet to start, I think, enhances what I wished to say in the first place. Not only are we in a situation where the Government is willing to suspend the rules for a specific piece of legislation, but we are now in the

December 14, 1988
House of Commons
situation where even before we start debating a piece of legislation, the Government indicates that it wishes to use the closure motion, a motion which has almost never been used in the House of Commons. Its use, historically, has been restricted to such debates as the pipeline debate of 1957, and even in 1957, there is no question but that the pipeline debate had actually started in the House of Commons.
We now have a situation where the Deputy Government House Leader is rising before we have heard one word of debate on the topic and saying: "Before you start that debate tomorrow, Members of Parliament, we are going to bring in closure".
If we do not have any defence with regard to the Government's ability to change the rules at any time, what defence do we ever have?
I recognize that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I wish to continue my remarks tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is my obligation at the moment to close the House, but before doing so I think it is appropriate to say that I have been listening with very great care to arguments. There is, of course, an argument on the motion. There is, of course, an argument raised on the secondary matter, that is the motion for closure.
I want Hon. Members to know that I am aware there are two issues which I have to address. I shall do the best I can to return to the House as speedily as possible after proper deliberation.
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 15, 1988