1988-06-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (mo)

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved: for leave to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to proclaim Raoul Wallenberg to be an honorary citizen of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
PRESENTATION OF FIFTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING	Some JJon Members' Agreed
COMMITTEE	'	'


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to its order of reference dated January 29, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has considered the report of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy and has the honour of presenting its fifteenth report to the House in both official languages.
This unanimous report presents the committee's findings and recommendations on a comprehensive range of broadcasting policy issues, including public and private radio and television, the distribution of broadcasting signals and such matters as the ownership of broadcasting undertakings and copyright issues in broadcasting. The report emphasizes that the broadcasting system must address the needs and interests of all regions of Canada, of French and English speaking Canadians, and of native Canadians and other groups in society. Our report stresses the importance of Canadian programming and makes recommendations for measures that are designed to encourage more and better choices for Canadians. This report builds on the committee's earlier fifth and sixth reports which dealt primarily with the legislative provisions for a new Broadcasting Act.
On behalf of the members of our committee, I wish to thank all of our witnesses for their contributions. In preparing this report, the committee held hearings in 18 cities across Canada, received 234 oral presentations and 170 briefs.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Members of all three parties for the work that went into the drafting of this unanimous report, and all those who provided invaluable assistance. The Committee requests the Government table a comprehensive response to this report, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2).
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


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. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not vote.


An Hon. Member:: We noticed!


George Albert Proud: Yes, I know you noticed. My dear friend noticed, and others may have noticed, and the reason is very simple. We have already proclaimed Mr. Wallenberg an honorary Canadian citizen. I participated in the debate. It was a motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Eglinton- Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), and of the the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard), and it was voted by this House. It was sent to the Senate. Approval was not given the first time. The Senate was adjourned and it was called back urgently the same day to proclaim Mr. Raoul Wallenberg an honorary Canadian citizen.
This country has two honorary Canadian citizens. I say this for those who like history. I do not understand why I should vote a second time. I have already voted for it, and I do not understand why all of you voted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I do not want to argue against my friend, who has been here a lot longer than I have, but I want to make two points. Any Hon. Member has the right to introduce a Private Member's Bill in this House. I want to remind the House that when this came before the House in the past there were two Private Member's Bills which were both withdrawn and replaced by a motion.
The motion was passed in this House and it was also passed in the other place.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, a motion itself does not have any legal effect. This Bill would have legal effect if it were to pass both the House of Commons and the other place. For that reason, I think it is appropriate on this issue. We are dealing with Raoul Wallenberg, and in order to send a very clear signal to the Soviet Union, I think it is appropriate that a standing vote in this House of Commons be taken.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, they say that a great man, if he wants to be recognized as such, should not hesitate to correct himself. So I stand by what I said, subject to correcting myself tomorrow and apologizing to the House if I made an error.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


George Albert Proud: You are very kind, Mr. Speaker, but I am chairing a legislative committee at the moment, and I owe that to Your Honour. I am returning there. I do not want a debate. I just said that if it were the first time, I would have voted for the Bill, but I have already voted for it. It was the subject of unbelievable debate in the Senate. So I stand to be corrected tomorrow, but I have already given my consent to making him an honorary Canadian citizen, because he was a great man. That was my speech. We tried to pass that so fast in the House that nobody knew who was Raoul Wallenberg. Would you like me to make an hour's speech on how great he was?


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend has made the point. It is very dangerous to play politics with something as serious as the efforts of Raoul Wallenberg. The actions of the New Democratic Party are completely irresponsible. The NDP House Leader's own Members denied him the right to introduce this Bill and forced a vote.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this was done only so as to delay procedural debate on a motion to extend the sittings. It is one thing to say to Canadians, "We do not want to sit in to the summer"; it is very much another thing to say, "we do not want to sit in June".


Mr. Rodriguez:: Oh, sit down!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: This is completely irresponsible. My friend should talk to his own Members and explain to them that it is the right of every Member to introduce his or her own Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
June 9, 1988
COMMONS DEBATES___________________________
Introduction of Bills


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:: May I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


John R. Rodriguez: No. Mr. Blaikie: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not have consent to dispense with the bells and, as a consequence, I will have to make the usual statement and say, call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but perhaps not everyone was able to hear what was said by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). Perhaps he could now proceed.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.
I went all over the place, to the Senate, to my office and to the House of Commons, and the fact is that on December 9, 1985, there was a big debate in the House during Private Members' Business. There was a bill and a motion by two Members, Mr. Ricard and Mr. de Corneille.
The two were merged, there was a debate, and at about 5.40 p.m., before the 6.00 p.m. deadline, we decided we would ask to have Raoul Wallenberg made an honorary citizen. The next day, on December 10, the Senate was sitting, and it received a message from the House of Commons, asking that Raoul Wallenberg be made an honorary citizen of Canada.
It seems that at the time, on December 10, 1985, one senator refused his consent, so they decided to postpone the debate on Raoul Wallenberg, and the Senate adjourned.

The Senate adjourned on December 10, 1985, as shown in Minutes of the Proceedings of the Senate No. 98. I do not know what happened that day, but later on that afternoon, the Speaker of the Senate was convinced that there was an urgent matter and he recalled the Senate, and that is shown in Minutes of the Proceedings of the Senate No. 99. It is known as the second distinct sitting. It is unique in the sitting of the Senate.
What did they discuss? A message from the House of Commons humbly requesting the Senate to proclaim Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen, on a motion of the Hon. Senator Nurgitz, seconded by the Hon. Senator Marsden, that the Senate do agree with the House of Commons in the said resolution by filling in the blank space, et cetera, and that the message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly. Ever since then, Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat who helped to save so many thousands of Hungarian Jews, was proclaimed an honorary citizen of this country.
I spoke on that Bill while others were trying to rush it through the House because I thought Canadians should know who Raoul Wallenberg was. If I made a mistake, it was only one. I said there are two honorary Canadian citizens. That is not true. I made a mistake. In the U.S. there are two honorary citizens, Sir Winston Churchill and Raoul Wallenberg. Why
nil/none

June 9, 1988
Introduction of Bills
was Raoul Wallenberg chosen in the U.S? Because a Hungarian person of Jewish faith was saved by Raoul Wallenberg. He later on became a Congressman and for years and years begged his colleagues to proclaim Raoul Wallenberg an honorary American citizen. He succeeded, and today in the U.S. you have two honorary citizens, Sir Winston Churchill and Raoul Wallenberg. This country is unique because there is only one.
I remember the debate because at that time I was asking everyone how one becomes an honorary Canadian citizen. I wanted to propose Mother Teresa, who would also qualify very well as an honorary Canadian citizen. I was not told how to do it and I am still working on it. Some day I will come to the House and ask for the indulgence of the House to accept her. I do not think technically I am wrong in saying that Raoul Wallenberg is already an honorary Canadian citizen. If this was the first time, I would vote the same way for the same reason I did on December 9, 1985.
If I may make a very personal comment, I did not very much appreciate the last comment of the Hon. NDP Member who profited from that occasion to make a little bit of what I call Soviet-bashing, and I do not like Soviet-bashing when you are talking about a very important issue like this one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, first I want to indicate to my hon. friend that he is correct. He described the process that the House of Commons and the Senate went through back in 1985 in a rather extraordinary session of the upper House. As he indicated, that motion on that day proclaimed Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of Canada. What that means in essence is that from that point onward, if Raoul Wallenberg decided to become a Canadian citizen he would not have to go through the normal process. He would simply apply and become a citizen. The Bill that I introduced today takes that further. As a result of a new statute it makes Mr. Raoul Wallenberg a citizen of Canada. He does not have to apply. Upon passage of this Bill he becomes a citizen of Canada, an honorary citizen of Canada.
The comments made by my hon. friend were correct, but Raoul Wallenberg is not an honorary citizen of Canada today and I want to make that very clear. If he applies, he can forgo the usual process and become a citizen. This Bill is not what some Conservative Members would want us to believe. This Bill becomes a statute of Canada and makes Raoul Wallenberg a citizen of our country.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself and I think government Members with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I do not think Canadians will be interested in all the technicalities but everyone realizes the great service that Raoul Wallenberg rendered for civil rights throughout the world. I would just suggest that it is a shame that the NDP has seen fit to denigrate his memory.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I take considerable offence at that suggestion questioning my motives. As you know, I filed this Bill on the Notice Paper some time ago. I gave ample notice to all Members of the House that at the appropriate time I would be rising to introduce the Bill for consideration. As an executive member on the Committee on Soviet Jewry I take considerable offence at the suggestion made by the Government Deputy House Leader.


Mr. Holtmann:: Why did you force a vote?


Mr. Reimer:: Mr. Speaker, I just want it noted that I was in the House and in my seat when the second vote was called. I did not get up to vote a second time.
I want to associate myself with the comments of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I think he has reminded us of something very important. I also want to say that if the intent is simply to get a Private Members' Bill forward, that is done every day and very simply. It does not call for these kinds of votes. I refused to vote, not because of the issue at hand. What we are doing now, which is why I refused to get up, is playing silly games in order to deny the Government an opportunity to get on with its business. That is why I refused to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: This might go on for quite a long time and I think I might exercise some good sense here and move on to other matters.
All Hon. Members and the public ought to know that the Bill voted on this morning, dealing with a matter of importance, has been on the Order Paper for a long time. The votes which took place this morning are procedurally correct and I do not think it is for the Speaker to comment beyond that. However, I do not think it is in the interests of the House to proceed with any more points of order on this particular matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I need some guidance. Is it at this point that I have an opportunity to explain briefly the content of this Bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, that should have been done earlier. It could only be done now on the basis of unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I would be happy to give unanimous consent to allow the NDP House Leader to explain his Bill. It is clear from what has been said in the House that we consider this Bill to be very important, and I think we would be denying the importance of the matter if the House Leader for the NDP were not allowed to put on the record briefly the reason he introduced the measure.
June 9, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move concurrence in the Fourth Report of the Committee on Official Languages, which, if I am not mistaken, was tabled in the House on June 25, 1987.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Gauthier, seconded by Mr. Gray (Windsor West), moved that the Fourth Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, tabled in the House on Thursday, June 25, 1987, be concurred in.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the House is aware that the Liberal Party and Members of the Liberal Caucus have an abiding interest in official languages, and especially in the work of the Standing Joint Committee of the House and the Senate, whose Members see this as a very important issue.
The report tabled by the Committee on June 25 last year was, by a strange coincidence, tabled on the same day as Bill C-72. The Chairman of the Legislative Committee will admit this was a good omen, and I for one think the Committee is to be commended for its work on matters dealing with the application of the Official Languages Act, the old Act, as it were, the 1969 legislation, and I hope that Bill C-72, the new legislation, will soon be adopted, so that we can update and harmonize all the language policies of this Parliament and the Government, the purpose being to provide for equity, justice and fair representation of the linguistic interests of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, on October 24, 1985, the Government responded to the Committee's second report through the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Nielsen. The Government promised at the time to ensure that the equal status of both official languages would be respected, both in law and in fact. Those were the words of the former Deputy Prime Minister.
The Government also reiterated Treasury Board's responsibility for language programs. Furthermore, it promised that the President of the Treasury Board would ensure that language programs of departments and agencies were satisfactory and that existing mechanisms to monitor their implementation were effective.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments at this point. I referred to the Deputy Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board. We also have the Secretary
Motions
of State who, as you know, plays a very important role in this area. I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had many statements lately from the Secretary of State who is running for election in Lac-Saint-Jean, and the Conservative candidate in that riding gets a kick out of making statements to the press that in our opinion are just electioneering and do not have much to do with the facts.
This morning, I was able to pick up a bunch of press clippings where we see the Secretary of State talking about official languages and Bill C-72 and saying-let me just read the headlines:
PQ accuses Remillard of weakness on Bill C-72 English dealt another blow on language
... by William Johnson, regarding the same subject of languages.
"Official languages: Remillard optimistic." And I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and read you an article on Lucien Bouchard "On a hard road home" by Daniel Drolet. And there is more. Regarding Bill C-72, a headline reads, "Ottawa's proposal satisfies Remillard," Quebec's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. In La Presse of June 9, 1988, "Liberals want Bouchard to explain himself." And on that point, Mr. Speaker,
I am a Liberal and I want the Secretary of State to explain himself. I want him to explain himself to the Committee first and then perhaps to the House one day. Let him tell us what he wants, what he wanted to accomplish by saying that in applying Bill C-72, the provinces would first be consulted and that there would be a memorandum of agreement signed with the provinces for the implementation of Bill C-72.
You will recall that Section 42 of Bill C-72 causes some problems in Quebec. This section allows the Secretary of State to promote-that is the key!-linguistic minorities in the provinces and in particular to help them exercise their rights and survive. I consulted several organizations and I also received telephone calls this morning from representatives of minority associations because that statement bothered me a little and I wondered why the Secretary of State was using such an important issue for petty politicking in Lac-Saint-Jean. I wonder why Remillard and Bouchard are quarreling, or if it is not a political bluff to attract the attention of journalists and get them to talk about the candidate in the riding. We know that Mr. Remillard, like many Members of this House, knew that Section 42 was in Bill C-72. This Bill was published on June 25 1987.
At that time there was a good understanding at the provincial level, at least with respect to what was meant by clause 42, and I fail to understand why Mr. Remillard and Mr. Bouchard all of a sudden decided to launch this kind of verbal warfare, publicly questioning guarantees and general agreements between Quebec and Ottawa, although they both know perfectly well that this type of agreement was acceptable. After all, the federal Government signed this type of agreement with New Brunswick and is in the process of doing so with Prince Edward Island. So why not have one with Quebec,

June 9, 1988
if we can have them with the other provinces? I fail to see why they want to make such a big stink about the fact that Quebec demanded a firm commitment from the Secretary of State that he would sign a general agreement with Quebec on the application of Bill C-72. I called the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, and I asked them whether they were against a general agreement. They said of course not, as long as it wasn't compulsory.
Otherwise, the federal Government would be restricted in its ability to intervene in a province that refused to sign the agreement. It is not compulsory under the Bill. Nothing in Bill C-72 obliges the federal Government to sign agreements, but if it is possible to reach an understanding on the implementation of a policy or on a general agreement with the provinces, I don't see why this should not be done.
As I said before, there is no legal obligation to sign an agreement. However, the law must be respected, and if Bill C-72 is passed, any agreement will have to comply with the provisions of the Act. Our conclusion: There is no problem, and the Secretary of State is trying to get political mileage out of this very important issue. It is just a lot of rhetoric, and, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is right to take advantage of this situation to try and score political points.
Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, and I see you are signalling that my time is running out, the Committee's Fourth Report asked the Government, pursuant to Standing Order 99, to table a response. I recommend that Hon. Members read this response, because in it the Government makes a commitment to support certain recommendations made by the Committee with respect to the administration of the official languages program: Language of service, language of work, equitable participation, all those important subjects we discussed in Committee and which Committee Members would be well advised to read.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Fourth Report ought to be recommended reading. Read the Government's response as well. It is very enlightening and may be a positive contribution to the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair till two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to remind us that for too long, unfortunately, the people of Haiti have been going through hard times. But with the departure of Presidents Franqois and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Haitians expected much more freedom in a more democratic state.
Unfortunately, elections were held recently despite the boycott by a very large part of the population. The people did not want to take part in this travesty of democracy and they clearly showed their deep desire for democracy in that country.
A group of parliamentarians recently visited that country, began a dialogue with the present leaders and made recommendations to the Government for assistance to the Haitian people who are suffering and need help, but also for something most basic and important-the respect of individual rights and freedoms.
Now, I must regretfully observe that the Government has not yet officially followed up these recommendations made by Members of Parliament. I trust that the visit here in Ottawa by a distinguished politician from Haiti, Gerard Gourgue, one of the leaders of the Front national de concertation that is trying to establish democracy in that country, will open the Government's eyes and lead it to take concrete action on behalf of the Haitian people and for the establishment of true democracy in that country.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on June 12 Canadians of Filipino origin will celebrate an important turning point in the history of their homeland. It was on June 12, 1898, that General Emilio Aguinaldo, leader of the revolutionary movement, declared the independence of this former Spanish colony. While the Treaty of Paris ceded the islands to the United States and the Philippines did not become an independent republic until 1946, Aguinaldo's declaration began a process that would lead to the independence that the Philippine nation had long sought.
In the years following World War II, many Filipinos chose to immigrate to Canada in search of a better life for themselves and their families, making a tremendous contribution to the growth and development of Canada in the process.
June 9, 1988

The history of the Philippine nation has been difficult and troubled, fraught with political conflict. Through it all, the Filipino people have survived and their dream of democracy remained intact.
I urge all Members of the House to join the Filipino community in Canada and around the world in celebrating this important anniversary and in sending a strong message of support and hope for the future of the Philippines.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have told the House and the Government before about the problems of the Fermi II nuclear reactor in Michigan, close to my constituency.
Now I have to tell the Government of yet another accident at that reactor, a steam leak which affected five workers, all of whom had to be decontaminated.
This is yet another argument for the Government to act and request an independent joint review of this trouble prone reactor.
Next week I will join Greenpeace, along with other Members of Parliament, in a protest news conference on their vessel, Beluga, at Fermi II. I urge the Government to act, and act fast, to respond to the concerns of thousands of Canadians for their safety, and to ask the Government of the United States to permit this joint review to take place. It is time for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to show that he really cares about the safety of Canadians.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the political left was saying that right wing Nicaraguan Contras should not be allowed to come to Canada as refugees. Not long ago the political right was voicing the same concerns about left wing Nicaraguan Sandinistas.
The Geneva Convention on Refugees that Canada signed in 1951 does not talk about left wing or right wing refugees. It defines a refugee as a person with a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Are we concerned about refugees, or is our real concern their political philosophy?



FISHERIES


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, under the Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan for 1988, fishermen with vessels under 45 feet in Zone 4T received a separate quota. For instance, these fishermen were allowed to catch up to 3,450 metric tonnes of codfish between April 22 and July 31. This allocation has now been caught and today is only June 9. Fishermen now want an additional quota to hold them over for the next two months.
Prince Edward Island fishermen, especially those from western P.E.I., are very worried because they did not catch their fair share of the 3,450 metric tonnes quota due to poor weather conditions. These fishermen have made a sensible request for an extra cod quota and they are willing to accept daily trip limits and mandatory gutting at sea. I would urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and his officials to approve this request as soon as possible.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS CO-OPERATION WITH QUEBEC

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the $1 billion agreement signed today by Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier Bourassa heralds a new era of co-operation between Canada and Quebec.
Firstly, we bring Quebec back into the Canadian fold.
Secondly, we carry out, with the dynamic Quebec team, the Free Trade Agreement.
Thirdly, we allow the various Quebec regions to reap the social and economic benefits from the Meech Lake Accord and the Free Trade Agreement.
Only the Conservative Party could have succeeded in those three endeavours.
Only the Conservative Party could do it.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, last evening on the CBC Journal special attention was paid to the

June 9, 1988
problem of the greenhouse effect and the effect this may have on Canada and, indeed, the entire globe if nothing is done. One thing that disturbed me greatly about that program was the comment that it was time the greenhouse effect became a political issue.
I went back through the records of Hansard and I find that colleagues of mine and myself have been raising the greenhouse issue in this House for at least five years, going back to 1983, at the very least.
I am sure I speak for all Members of Parliament when I say that an issue does not just become an issue when the media discover it is an issue. An issue should become an issue when the elected Members of Parliament bring things up in Parliament, trying to call the attention of Parliament and Canadians to issues. That was something that was been done with respect to the greenhouse effect but attention was never paid to it when it was raised.
We often hear complaints that Parliament is not relevant. Parliament has been relevant on this issue for some time now. It is others who have not been paying attention. It is about time everyone paid attention to the greenhouse effect.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, now that the capital punishment debate is over, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, of which I am a member, has crossed the country, from Vancouver to Halifax, hearing witnesses on the most important matter of parole and sentencing. Clearly, most Canadians have expressed concern that those who have committed violent and sexual crimes are not receiving sentences that are commensurate with the crime committed, and violent criminals are being released too early on parole.
I asked the very excellent research staff of our Justice Committee to research the length of sentences for attempted murder, manslaughter, and criminal negligence causing death.
I would like to share a bit of this information now.
Offenders released each year for conviction of attempted murder and manslaughter have served an average of three to four years. Those convicted of criminal negligence causing death served an average of one year to 1.3 years in penitentiary. Those convicted of rape and aggravated sexual assault served an average of two years to 3.5 years. Although each sentence has its own mitigating circumstances, this over-all record speaks for itself and is totally unacceptable.
Although the information available on parole and sentencing was limited, I still believe it confirms what myself and most Canadians believe.



NARCOTICS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, Canada needs an effective law to prohibit the production and distribution of illicit drug paraphernalia. Drug abuse is a very serious and tragic problem in our society, especially with young people. Not long ago a very young person in Toronto, a teenager, died as a result of drug abuse.
As Assistant Commissioner Stamler of the RCMP pointed out to a Legislative Committee today, the excessive production of illicit heroin, cocaine, cannabis derivatives, and other dangerous drugs, coupled with the ever sophisticated and diverse trafficking channels to Canada, continue to rank drug abuse and drug trafficking among the most critical problems facing the nation.
Drug trafficking is the most prosperous and widespread organized criminal activity in Canada today. I call upon the Government of Canada to introduce immediately legislation into the House to prohibit the production and distribution of drug paraphernalia. In Canada today there are over 500 head shops from one end of the country to the other that are selling this drug paraphernalia. We need a law to close down these head shops.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a project announced a few days ago during National Environment Week, the "For healthier cities" project.
Nearly 80 percent of Canadians are city-dwellers. It is therefore very important that municipalities rehabilitate their social and physical environment to prevent disease and to improve public's health.
I am proud to say that Quebec City is one of the 16 municipalities which have decided to do something to make their urban environment healthier.
I would also like to congratulate the various volunteer organizations in Quebec-East who are working to that end.
Mr. Speaker, I will do my utmost to make all relevant information on this project available to interested groups.
June 9, 1988



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 Toronto Police arrested and jailed homeless men during the visit of the Pope, no doubt so that His Holiness would not ask whether Toronto has beggars. Now with the Economic Summit in view Toronto Police are apparently cleaning up again.
Recently, police officers approached street kids near the Eaton Centre and said: "Be off the street soon or we will crack your heads". Homeless men and prostitutes are already being harassed for the edification of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and the Prime Minister's other guests.
The Prime Minister's guests will not be planning for the
10.000	homeless in Toronto, nor for the millions of homeless in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. They will not be planning for the thousands who must use Toronto's food banks, nor for the hundreds of millions around the world who go to bed hungry. They will be planning to make the wealthy countries wealthier, to collect external debt from the poorest in the world, to protect the seven wealthy summit countries from the desperate peoples of Europe's former colonies, our present debt prisoners.
Shame on all who try to hide from the poor. Inasmuch as we turn away from these poor, we turn away from God.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's free trade legislation is a milestone for Canada. It marks this country's coming of age. Some people of other political persuasions would have us believe that we are not ready for it-that is ridiculous.
Since the Foreign Investment Review Agency was disbanded and replaced by Investment Canada, the Canadian economy has outperformed all other western industrialized nations. Canadian independent businessmen have responded with enthusiasm to the Government's incentives. Canadians are investing more money in this country than anyone else. This type of enthusiasm means jobs for Canadians.
During the last federal election the promise of jobs was a cornerstone of the winning political campaign. By improving the business climate for both Canadian and foreign investors
1.223.000	jobs have been created in Canada over the last three years.
According to well respected, non-partisan sources, such as the Economic Council of Canada, 150,000 more jobs will be created once the free trade agreement comes into effect.



MINERS MEMORIAL DAY


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the celebration of a very special day for the people of Cape Breton-Miners Memorial Day which will be celebrated on June 11.
Miners Memorial Day is an important day. It is a day of reflection, time to remember the hardships, sacrifice, and personal danger that are part of the lifestyle of a coal miner in Cape Breton. It is a day to pay tribute to those who lost their lives in our coal mines. In addition, it is a day to salute all miners and their families for their outstanding contribution to the coal industry and to our community.
The history of Cape Breton is a history of hard work and sacrifice deep under the ground in the coal mines. Although the industry has been on the decline for the last number of years, it still remains a vitally important part of our history, both past and present.
On behalf of all my constituents, may I warmly congratulate and salute the miners of Cape Breton on Miners Memorial Day.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP have long argued that they oppose the free trade agreement in principle. That I respect. However, in registering its opposition to the FT A this morning, the NDP resorted to unprincipled measures.
On recorded vote Members unanimously supported the NDP's House Leader's Private Member's Bill to designate Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of Canada. However, when the question was put orally before the recorded vote I heard only NDP Members, led by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), shout "No". Furthermore, only NDP Members, led by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, stood up to demand a vote, even though they intended in the end to support the Bill.
The irony is tragic. Raoul Wallenberg was a man willing to sacrifice his freedom and even his life for principle. How would he react to this unprincipled use of his name to delay and to abuse the rights freely given by the House to private Members to introduce Bills?

June 9, 1988
Oral Questions



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Tory Government to put its money where its mouth is.
Over recent weeks the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has been telling the few people who are still willing to listen to him that he wants to clean up the environment. Now we can put this empty rhetoric to the test.
The Green Creek sewage treatment plant here in Ottawa-Carleton needs major upgrading and expansion which will cost $399 million. This expenditure would result in a tax increase of 50 per cent for serviced households and businesses in the Ottawa-Carleton area.
Yesterday the Chairman of the RMOC met with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in order to obtain federal assistance in a similar manner to other projects some time ago. Unfortunately, all he got from the Minister was "sympathetic consideration".
Sympathy is not enough. I call upon the Tory MPs from Ottawa-Carleton, especially the Associate Minister of Defence (Mr. Dick), to put their feet down and to tell the Minister of Finance that we need this money for a major environmental project. Otherwise, we will be forced to continue to believe what we already know, and that is that the Tory MPs from the Ottawa-Carleton area are as impotent as they have been in the past.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade may I direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Government with its customary arrogance intends to close down debate on the Prime Minister's trade deal at the very time that it is still being negotiated with the Americans.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Not true.


John Napier Turner: I assume, in putting this question to the Deputy Prime Minister, that he and his Ministers have finally read the trade deal and the piece of legislation that they have deposited in Parliament and are prepared to answer some specific questions about the deal and the legislation.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That's true.


John Napier Turner: The Deputy House Leader nods and says "That's true", and we will see how we get along.
Article 1904.2 of the agreement states that any future antidumping law or countervail law of the United States becomes incorporated into the agreement between Canada and the United States. Clause 8(2) of the legislation tabled here in Parliament states that any Canadian who contravenes the legislation, or contravenes the accord, is guilty of an offence.
The Interpretation Act and the Criminal Code of Canada state when there is no other fine or no other imprisonment listed, the offence is a summary offence subject to a conviction of up to six months in jail.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister seriously expect Parliament to pass legislation which subjects Canadians to prison terms, not for violating Canadian law but for breaching American law, including future American law that we have not even seen yet?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the assertion by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is totally untrue. What we have put before opposition House Leaders is a proposal to deal with the trade Bill and other Bills in an orderly and co-operative fashion. The House Leaders of the other two Parties have seen fit not to accept our proposal, and our House Leader today has written another letter to the House Leader of the Liberal Party, copy to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, opening the door for further negotiations.
With respect to the specific points which the right hon. gentleman has raised, if he want to make a second reading speech on the free trade Bill, C-130, he will have an opportunity next week.


John Napier Turner: The Deputy Prime Minister can count on it, Mr. Speaker. I will be here for second reading and I will be making a speech.


PROVISION FOR IMPOSITION OF FINES
John Napier Turner: am asking a specific question. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister ramming through this legislation, the five-day limit on debate, forcing summer sittings, when this Bill includes fines and imprisonment, not for breaching Canadian law but for breaching the accord and for breaching future American trade law which has not even been passed by the Congress?
That is an absolute invasion of Canadian sovereignty. The Member from Brampton can laugh. He ought to read the agreement. He ought to read the Criminal Code. He ought to read the Interpretation Act. What I am saying will be borne out by a reading of those documents.
June 9, 1988

I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister about prison terms and about potentially huge fines that can be imposed upon Canadians for violation of future American trade law which has not yet even been passed.
Clause 77.26 of the Canadian Government's legislation tabled in Parliament says that any person who fails to comply in Canada with a protective order made under American law is guilty of an offence and is subject to conviction on indictment of a fine up to $1 million.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain how he can justify ramming through Parliament legislation which subjects Canadians to fines of up to $1 million not for a violation of Canadian law but for a violation of protective order under American law? That is an outrage, and I want the Deputy Prime Minister to explain it to this House.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I think he is getting bad legal advice. This is a Canadian law. This is a law which has been presented to Parliament. This is a law which has been subject to debate and discussion over the course of at least two years. This is a law which will now receive intensive examination.


Mr. Kaplan:: He is making a speech.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is not talking about that-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is a trade agreement that is before the Canadian public.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is not talking about-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister is attempting to answer a question that has been asked. The Hon. Minister is being interrupted by other Members who do not have the floor. I would ask that the courtesy extended to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition be extended also to the Minister when he gives his answer.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. I was simply making the point-and I think Canadians who observe this debate will find the fairness of the proposition put forward-that what we want to do is have a full and adequate debate on this matter. There will be an opportunity to examine the legislation in detail before a committee of the House of Commons which will be allowed to examine it clause by clause.
If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will look at the provisions of the Bill, these are consistent with respect to Canadian laws that have been passed by previous Liberal Governments. If the right hon. gentleman wants to look at some of the penalties that have been imposed with respect to important combines investigation legislation-


John Napier Turner: Canadian law.
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is Canadian law, Mr. Speaker. We in this Government legislate on behalf of Canadians in the Parliament of Canada. We make the laws here and we want to get on with the job.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I find that a very curious position for the Minister of Justice to take. If he would read the documents that I have been reciting, the trade agreement and the Bill before the House, he will see that by the way they are framed and drafted future American trade law is incorporated in the agreement. It is an offence to breach either the agreement or the law in the legislation that his colleague has tabled before the House.
What he is asking this House to do, under lengthened time allocations and under closure rules, is to impose on Canadians a potential fine of up to SI million for one particular article, and a prison term of up to four years for another article, not for a breach of Canadian law but for a breach of American law automatically incorporated into the agreement, whether present or future American law. That is a breach of Canadian sovereignty and the Minister of Justice really ought to be protecting sovereignty.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister how he can explain this Government's need to strengthen its Bill and the Agreement with the United States? Any clause... well, six months' imprisonment, another unlimited fine, a million dollars, another four-year prison term for a specific clause. How can he justify that in the tradition of Canadian law, imposing fines and prison sentences on Canadians for violating a future law that the U.S. Congress has not even passed yet?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is because this is not American, but Canadian law.

The right hon. gentleman is indulging in sophistry. He is indulging in this kind of not half-truth but untruth. He is saying that this is not Canadian law. This is Canadian law. It is an agreement which was entered into by Canada and the United States. We have it before Parliament. It is available to the right hon. gentleman and to Members of Parliament. If they feel that the provision is not adequate and that the fine should be increased, they can move to increase the fine, or if they want to decrease it, they can do so. This is a Canadian law and the right hon. gentleman, as a former Minister of Justice, should understand these things.


CONDUCT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says it is Canadian law but it is written in the Congress of the

June 9, 1988
Oral Questions
United States and it can change it. What is happening is unprecedented.
In proposed Clause 77.26, this Bill creates, for the first time in Canadian history that I can find, a Canadian offence which can be committed entirely in Canada and tried in a Canadian court for breaking an American law, present or future.
I ask the Minister of Justice, if a Canadian is charged with such an offence and tried in front of a Canadian court of violating American law, will he here in Canada have American defences? Will he be able to plead the Fifth Amendment? Will he be able to plead the U.S. Bill of Rights? If an American is charged with violating that American law in his own country, he will have those defences.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, opposition Members, in their attempt to justify their opposition to this very worthwhile treaty which is in the interests of Canadians, are really stooping to some depths in order to make invalid points.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Answer the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The justice critic of the Liberal Party asks me to give an answer. The answer is the question is stupid, that's the answer. There is no basis in fact. This is Canadian law, and if the hon. gentleman feels that the Charter of Rights of Canada should not apply, maybe he would want to make that a point in debate, but he has absolutely no foundation to his question and he should go back to his researchers to get a good question.


REQUEST THAT ELECTION BE HELD ON ISSUE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think that was a question that needs an answer, and I certainly did not get it. I would like to turn again to the Deputy Prime Minister and ask him this. We know that in spite of what the Government is saying, the agreement is falling apart and portions of it are being renegotiated. In light of that, will he take the advice of the Canadian people as demonstrated in the polls and take this issue to the people before renegotiating this terrible trade agreement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member's assertion is absolutely false. The latest poll I saw says most Canadians agreed with the trade initiative signed with the U.S. That is very simply because it is good for Canada, good for all Canadians, and good for the regions. It will provide progress and prosperity for the Canadian economy. The Hon. Member, rather than trying to find ways and means to kill the initiative, should be the first to support it to ensure that Canadians will have jobs and new opportunities. That is what the exercise is all about.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He and the Prime Minister have time after time defended the costly and foolish decision to spend billions of dollars on nuclear attack submarines in order to protect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. The Minister was on television again this morning offering this curious argument, to understate it.
Very serious alternative proposals have been made to deal with sovereignty in the Arctic. They involve updated sonar and other equipment, and could be undertaken without any threat of violating the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty and without extending our involvement in a potentially aggressive strategy. Given that, why has the Government come down on the side of nuclear attack submarines costing billions of dollars instead of a much less costly and saner alternative?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there are so many false premises to the hon. gentleman's question it is hard to know where to begin.


John Edward Broadbent: Give it a whirl.


Henry Perrin Beatty: All right, let us start first with the premise that the reason for the submarines is simply to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic. That is false. One of the questions I put to the Navy in the Common's defence committee was if the Government had decided not to allow the Navy to go into the Arctic, what would be its recommendation with regard to protecting our Atlantic and Pacific responsibilities? The answer was to purchase nuclear-propelled submarines, a second batch of frigates, and anti-submarine helicopters.
In addition to the sovereignty issue, they will give us for the first time the ability to go into our Arctic. The NDP proposed to shut Canada's Navy out of Canada's North and leave it open to others.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is exactly what it would do because no other vessel the Navy has can go there. Conventionally propelled submarines cannot do it. Frigates cannot do it.
The hon. gentleman suggests that instead of defending the North we should simply put in underwater surveillance systems. That would be similar to building the North Warning System to warn us of long-range bombers coming over the Pole, but getting rid of the CF-18 whose job it is to intercept them. It would be similar to saying we will put a burglar alarm in the bank but we will not bother with guards.


Some Hon. Members:: Strike one, Ed.
June 9, 1988


MONITORING OF SOVEREIGNTY IN ARCTIC
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister to deal with the question. The question is this. Will he agree that not only experts in his Department but those in other countries, including the U.S., agree that there is a technologically adequate alternative? If our task is to find out what is going on in the Arctic, under the ice, there are alternative means of doing so that would cost much less and would not involve us in a potentially aggressive strategy. At precisely the time the superpowers are coming to their senses, our Government is the only one that wants to go the other way.
Why does the Government not do the sensible thing and have a strategy that would monitor our sovereignty but not get us into a potentially aggressive posture in any way whatsoever?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is simply confused and confusing in what he suggests. I suppose if our only goal in our defence policy was to know if someone was trespassing, without having the ability to defend ourselves, we could also scrap our CF-18s. We could wind down the responsibilities of the Army as well.
The responsibility of the Canadian Armed Forces is to defend the territorial integrity of Canada; to be prepared to ensure that if there is a trespasser in our airspace or in the maritime approaches, we are capable of doing something about it. This is consistent with the NPT. It is consistent with Article 14 of the agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, as the Hon. Member should know.
The time has now come for the NDP to begin to come clean with the Canadian people. This week the hon. gentleman suggested taking that money and spending it on a range of social programs and giving it to CUPW, among other things. What is his proposal for the defence of Canada? What is he proposing that we do with the Navy? Does he disavow what the Hon. Member for Brant said about buying conventional powered submarines and-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Strike two, Ed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I get very clearly what the Minister is suggesting to the people of Canada, indeed everyone around the world. On the one hand there is a system that could be used to find out if there have been incursions on our sovereignty and then report back so we can take diplomatic action to deal with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: All right.
Oral Questions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is great, Neville.


Mr. Andre:: We will throw the book at them!


John Napier Turner: What did you want to do about St. Pierre and Miquelon? Send in the gunboats!


Harvie Andre: Gunboat Broadbent.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Now that we have heard the intellectuals in the Tory caucus-


Mr. Nystrom:: Which one?


John Edward Broadbent: -there is the other alternative, and this was the thrust of the Minister's argument, that if we should find any incursion on our sovereignty we are going to attack.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Is that what the Minister is saying? They are the only two options. We proposed an alternative which could monitor and report incursions and we would then follow it up diplomatically. The other alternative is to spend billions of dollars on attack submarines. Which option are you choosing, and explain why?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the hon. gentleman I do not know whether to laugh or cry because it is so sad. He says that if Canada is attacked all we should do is stand by and protest.


John Edward Broadbent: Listen to the argument.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. gentleman asks a question but does not allow an answer. I do not blame him because the question was so fatuous.
The role of the Canadian Armed Forces is to be prepared to defend Canada. We have never occupied or coveted a square centimetre of anyone else's territory. The sole time that we use military force is to defend ourselves and protect freedom. We threaten no one. We certainly threaten no one by saying we are prepared to defend Canada. The NDP says we should not be prepared to defend Canada and they are dead wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Strike three, Ed.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. A confidential portion of Canada Post's corporate plan obtained by Canadian Press, a copy of which I
COMMONS DEBATES____________________June 9, 1988
Oral Questions
have in my hand, states that the Government will be rationalizing-that means shut down-5,221 rural post offices by 1996. Given there are 10,000 employees in rural post offices, 83 per cent of whom are women, how does the Minister feel about firing 8,300 women, which is likely the largest firing of women in the history of Canada? What is he trying to do, outdo his boss when he shut down Schefferville?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that document or article about which the CP story was written said that in the last fiscal year 269 rural post offices were supposed to be rationalized. In fact, last fiscal year 119 rural post offices were privatized. They were put into local general stores.
Incidentally, during the last fiscal year 218 new rural postmasters were hired and I understand that 80 per cent of them were women. Therefore, new postmistresses are being hired, not fired. The Hon. Member should get his facts right and not make such stupid statements.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Government will be rationalized out of a job after the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Don Boudria: My
supplementary question deals with the shutdown of 5,221 rural post offices. The document suggests that the Government could close this year 387 post offices, an average of one a day, and if-Heaven forbids-it were returned to power, it could close next year 858 post offices, an average of two a day.
When are the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister going to assume their responsibilities and order the Minister to end this sad joke and stop once and for all this discriminatory practice? What has the Government got against Canadians living in rural areas?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, on May 12 the corporate plan for Canada Post was issued by the president. The press was there and perhaps members of the Opposition were there. I can send them the kit.
Over the period of time about which the Hon. Member is talking there will be an increase from the current 5,200 rural post offices to 7,000. There will be an increase. That means up, that doesn't mean down. That means people added, not fired. That means the Hon. Member should try to stick to the truth.
The fact of the matter is that service is going to be increased in rural Canada. The Hon. Member, as usual, knows nothing of what he speaks.


PROJECTED NUMBER OF CONVERTED POST OFFICES
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. The Minister has just said that although the newspapers are reporting today that the conversions of post offices for 1987-88 were to be 269, in fact there were 119 conversions.
Is the Minister telling this House that the Government has been slowed down in the implementation of its corporate plan for converting rural post offices because of the protests that are being held across the country, and that the way to reduce the number of conversions included in the corporate plan is for Canadians to make their voices heard and say no to this corporate plan?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. However, I wonder whether the Hon. Member would really like us to do that. In his Province of Manitoba a survey of people who are now being served by these converted post offices indicates that 86 per cent think the service is the same or better. Is the Member saying that his constituents should not get that better service?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is simply going to continue to quote a survey which gave people the alternatives of "keep it here through a local retailer" or "move it to another town", I think he is simply trying to mislead people.


EXISTENCE OF CORPORATE PLAN
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm to this House that this confidential document, this corporate plan, exists and outlines the number of conversions which are going to take place year by year? Will he confirm those numbers and will he tell us which will be the next 300 communities to be converted?
Will it be Boat Harbour in Newfoundland, will it be Weston Shore in Nova Scotia, or will it be St. Tite in Quebec? Just which communities are on the corporate plan for conversion?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is often difficult to know where the NDP is coming from. The other day the Leader of the New Democratic Party talked about scrapping nuclear subs so that we can put up post offices. Yet their resolutions book, in Resolution A.4.3 says:
An NDP government would put full employment as its primary goal...
(would)
(3) accelerate other public works, but only after re-evaluating their social usefulness. New post offices may not be nearly as important as new convalescent or nursing home beds.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It says "new post offices".


John R. Rodriguez: What's the matter with you?


John Edward Broadbent: Can you read?
June 9, 1988


Mr.   de Jong@: Is that all you can come up with, Harvie?


John Edward Broadbent: You're really sick.


Mr. Orlikow:: You need a new researcher, Harvie.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF LIONS INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of his Honour Judge Brian Stevenson, President of Lions International.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to Members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mrs. Ann Hanson, Deputy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who is certainly aware that over the past five years, direct federal spending in the various Quebec regions amounted to nearly $1 billion. The Minister of Finance is aware that the federal Government invested $453 million under the Industrial and Regional Development Program, $264 million under the Eastern Quebec Plan, and over $200 million under the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board. Could the Minister of Finance explain why, for the next five years, federal spending in the various Quebec regions will be cut by nearly 50 per cent or over $500 million? Why this reduction from $1 billion to $500 million in these five Quebec regions?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the Figures to which the Hon. Member has just referred. There was an announcement today, I believe, which provides for a substantial increase in regional development spending.
If the Hon. Member looks at the record of the Government over the last little while he will see that there has been a significant increase in regional development spending, not only
Oral Questions
in the Province of Quebec but in other parts of the country which we want to ensure have access to funds for regional development.
That which the Hon. Member just said is quite contrary to my understanding of the situation.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I certainly challenge the Minister of Finance to check the figures I have just quoted. He will have the clear demonstration that direct federal spending in Quebec will be cut by at least 50 per cent as a result of the grandstanding announcement which the Prime Minister is making today in Quebec.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATIONS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance how he can justify that 50 per cent reduction when we know that the Prime Minister is only bragging and that in fact, $1.2 billion were injected in Western Canada, that Atlantic Canada will get $1 billion while Quebec will only obtain half a billion of federal funds when it got $1 billion during the past five years? Why such a reduction and why resort to deceitful propaganda?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, some do bragg and others got an awful cropper. If the Hon. Member looked at the figures, and I have them in hand, Mr. Speaker, he would realize that the commitments made by the federal Government in Quebec under its regional development programs are comparable. I would be embarrassed if I were a Liberal to rise today in this House to say that this Government has done less in Quebec. With those commitments, Quebec will get under regional development and other departmental programs 28 per cent more than what was previously spent. Those are the facts.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development).
Mr. Speaker, after the unfortunate events last week at the Kahnawake Indian Reserve, my constituents are now very concerned about further developments.
Mr. Speaker, the chief of the Kahnawake Indian Reserve sent a letter to eight municipalities in the riding of Chateauguay, in which he claimed that eight municipalities adjacent to the Kahnawake Indian Reserve belong to the Seigneurie de

June 9, 1988
Oral Questions
Sault Saint-Louis and that the Seigneurie is now being claimed as having legally belonged to the Indians.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians, and especially the residents of these eight municipalities in Chateauguay expect the Government of Canada to do something to allay their concerns.
My question today is a question all residents are now asking: What will happen to the territory of the municipalities around the Kahnawake Indian Reserve as a result of the Indians' land claim?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises an important question.
First of all, the claims made by the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake that they have legal title to the former Seigneurie de Sault Saint-Louis were considered by the federal Government in the seventies, when the claim was rejected.
We have been advised that the Mohawk Council is preparing a new claim, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, the policy with respect to specific land claims has never been to expropriate third parties to settle a claim. Normally, such claims are settled by compensation in specie or some other consideration. Our policy is not to settle land claims by expropriating people who own and occupy the land.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On Monday this week, Mrs. Clara De Gruchy of Ottawa walked into the Bank of Nova Scotia at Fourth Avenue and Bank Street with a $20 bill and asked for two $5 bills and $10 in quarters. The clerk gave her two $5 bills and $8 in quarters. When she asked for her other $2 she was told that was the service charge because "too many people were requesting quarters". This is simply an exchange of Canadian money for Canadian money. Does the Minister not agree that this kind of service charge ought not to be allowed?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if the facts are accurate, and I do not mean to be disparaging or suggest they are not, I find that outrageous, particularly if there was not a big sign that said: "We charge for making change". If there was a sign and someone did it anyway, that would certainly be wrong. I find it objectionable. Certainly, if I were that customer, I would have
no further dealings with that bank. I suggest other consumers take the same action.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that the Minister's responsibility is consumer affairs, I hope he will follow this up and report back to the House.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that this happened on Monday, the same day that the Finance Committee tabled its report on bank service charges. It is clear that the banks are doing to consumers what Bonnie and Clyde did to the banks.
Is the Minister prepared to do something to protect average Canadians like Mrs. De Gruchy, or is he simply prepared to be the Government's Charlie McCarthy to the bank's Edgar Bergen?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the committee of which the hon. gentleman was a member made its recommendations and its proposal to the House. The Government has that under consideration.
My colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, has indicated that-


John R. Rodriguez: You fiddle while Rome burns.


Harvie Andre: I gather that the Hon. Member suggests we should have had the necessary legislation in here before the committee reported.


John R. Rodriguez: You should have had a freeze.


Harvie Andre: Then he would stand up in outrage at showing contempt for Parliament by not waiting for the committee's report before acting. The Hon. Member knows that is a bit unreasonable.


John R. Rodriguez: You should have had a freeze on the charges.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton-East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, when the Federal Court of Canada confirmed what the Liberal party has been saying for a long time, all of Canada realized that the Unemployment Insurance Act is unconstitutional since it does not recognize the parental rights of fathers.
*i-i
HnmniHHHnm
June 9, 1988

I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he can ensure this House that he will not appeal the decision of the Federal Court and, also, that he will introduce as soon as possible amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act so that fathers benefit from parental leaves and that, at the same time, mothers keep the benefit of maternity leaves.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the judgment was made two days ago. I think the Member would agree that the Government ought to give a studied response rather than a spontaneous one. I hope she would agree with that.


REQUEST THAT COURT DECISION NOT BE APPEALED
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to study. The issue has been studied by several parliamentary committees, including an all-Party committee which recommended more than two years ago that parental leave be granted to the fathers. Frankly, when the Federal Court of Canada speaks, I think the Government should listen.
Will the Acting Minister assure the House today that he will not appeal this decision? If he does appeal this decision, he is flying in the face of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. Will he not ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to proceed immediately with a new law to recognize parental benefits for fathers as well as maternity benefits for mothers? It is as simple as that.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the committee may have studied the subject but it has not studied the judgment. I think the Member owes it to us to do that.


REQUEST THAT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT BE AMENDED
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It also concerns parental leave which we believe is a vital component of child care.
I think we all welcome the decision of the Federal Court that natural fathers should be eligible for parental benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, just as adoptive fathers are, but also the confirmation that maternity benefits have a different purpose and therefore the position of the father must not deprive the natural mother of maternity benefits.
In view of this important decision, when will the Government introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to offer a separate period of parental leave benefits so that fathers may have the opportunity of caring for an infant following the maternity leave period?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, for once the
Oral Questions
Member for Hamilton East beat the Member to the question and did a little better.


PARENTAL LEAVE BENEFITS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I expect you agree that that was a completely insulting response.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put her question, please.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, I hope, has some concern about parental leave as part of a child care package. Does he agree with most of the women's groups across the country who feel that extending parental leave benefits to fathers is desirable, but are also quite firm that this should be supplementary to maternity benefits because mothers need a recuperative period after giving birth to a child? Will the Minister please respond?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, Members will recall that changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act were introduced by the former Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Government showed direct action in respect to adjusting the Act to modern realities.
Second, in respect to changing the Unemployment Insurance Act, I think the Hon. Member should recognize, as the Parliamentary Secretary has also indicated, that if any changes take place it would be appropriate for the Minister to make those changes and those announcements.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Charles Ng is nearing the end of his four and a half year sentence in Canada for shoplifting and attempted murder. The Canada-U.S. extradition treaty permits, with the consent of the Attorney General, a prisoner to be extradited before the full sentence has been completed. Therefore, is the Hon. Minister taking steps now to send this criminal back to the United States where he is wanted for alleged serious crimes?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The fact is that the United States Government has requested the extradition of Mr. Ng, pursuant to the extradition treaty between our countries. He has been arrested pursuant to this request. The matter has come before the courts in Alberta for a hearing.

June 9, 1988
Business of the House
There is a process before the courts that must take place with respect to this matter before it reaches the Attorney General of Canada. Accordingly, I have no comment with respect to this matter except to assure the hon. gentleman that, when the matter is referred to me, I will give the matter the appropriate attention.


CHILD CARE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The federal Government has told us time and time again that child care was to be a priority on its agenda. We are still waiting for the tabling of the legislation. The Government has explained its last delay by an admission that there is not enough money to meet provincial needs. The federal Government was made aware of the specifics of the Ontario plan last December, not March or May, December 1987.
If the Mulroney Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Lucie Pépin: -has made child care a priority, why is it delaying, postponing, and contemplating reworking the plan? Why is it failing to address this important issue?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not contemplating shelving the plan, in fact, quite the opposite. The Government is working very diligently on child care. I should say again to the Hon. Member, as I have repeated so often before, that the legislation will be tabled and I hope we will have Liberal approval, just for once-just for once-on legislation-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Poor Jake!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -that will be passed, and that is a social policy initiative-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Let's start crying, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -rather than the kind of nattering I hear even now from those who supposedly think they know better.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Poor little Jake!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REMOVE FREEZE ON EMERGENCY FUNDS
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, given that the Canadian Government has not yet introduced its child care Bill which has been expected since last March, will it grant short term emergency funds so that existing child care programs may be maintained? Indeed, you have not given a
single cent so far and this Bill does not appear on your priority list.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again today that it is a priority. Again, the Hon. Member is more fair, more intelligent, and more insightful than those who generally speak on that side on social policy, so I would just remind her that if she takes a look at the amount of money this Government is spending right now under CAP on child care, and the amount of money the Liberal Government spent when she was the women's spokesperson, she will see how little was spent, and I would think she might want to get up on a point of order after Question Period and change the erroneous part of her question.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday, I would like to ask the Deputy Government House Leader to give us the usual statement of government business.
I realize that the Government likes to think, as it says, with respect to the debate on the trade deal, that discussion outside the House is a replacement for parliamentary discussion. That may be why the Deputy Government House Leader already telegraphed to the press much of his statement of government business earlier this week. However, I think I should still show sufficient respect for Parliament and our parliamentary procedures to ask the Deputy Government House leader to give the formal statement of government business at this time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I did have some discussions with the media as to what might happen over the next couple of weeks. My hon. friend will know that I delivered by hand a letter to him suggesting what might be a reasonable arrangement of business, which I have not released to the media, although my friend released my letter to the media last week without permission.
I would say to the Member that today we will call the motion to extend the sitting into the summer. I appreciate that neither the New Democrats nor the Liberals wish to sit into the summer, but we intend to continue with the business of the Government and the House.
Tomorrow, in the event that the procedural argument on the motion to extend the sitting is not completed today, we will continue that argument. If in fact the argument is completed, we will designate tomorrow as an allotted day.
Monday, we will have to wait and see if we are able to complete that argument and proceed with the motion to extend the sitting into the summer somewhat.
June 9, 1988

Tuesday will be a day on which we continue the Meech Lake debate, with the Prime Minister and the Leaders of the two opposition Parties taking part in the debate on that day.


POINT OF ORDER
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Valcourt) quoted from a document containing the DRIE expenses figures for Quebec, and I wished he had the kindness and courtesy to table it in the House for the information of all Hon. Members.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed or Hansard will indicate, if you look at the record, that I have not once referred to that document. I did mention having in my possession a document containing such expenses without, however, referring to it, and I believe that Standing Orders require that a document be laid upon the Table when referred to or when a quotation is made from it, which was not the case.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), on a point of order.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of my party, I would like to reserve the right to look at the video tape, to confirm the Minister's reply. If he did exactly what he said he did, we agree ...


An Hon. Member:: Does he have anything to hide?


Jacques Guilbault: ... but it seemed to us he quoted from a document.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister has said that he was not quoting from a document, but if there is further difficulty with this, I will hear the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques at another point in time. The Hon. Member may well want to look at Hansard and also at the video tape. If there is any further difficulty, I, of course, will hear Hon. Members.
Business of the House PRIVILEGE


NOTICE OF QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express to you that I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege after I have examined the record which contains the statement of the Hon. Member for York Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan). That statement was made this afternoon. I will examine the record and then decide whether in fact I would like to raise a question of privilege at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: I, of course, would ask the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and I am sure he would be very pleased to oblige me in my request, that he give me notice in writing.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, since Thursday is the day we ask the Deputy House Leader about government business, perhaps I will put a comment to the Parliamentary Secretary. Considering that we have not had the usual round of meetings for House Leaders this week because of the press conference called by the Deputy House Leader, we would like to indicate that, as far as the NDP is concerned, there are a number of Bills we would like to move on expeditiously. As he knows, on a number of occasions we have indicated precisely what those Bills are. If the Government were to bring them forward, we would move on them with haste and in the most expeditious fashion.
However, he will also be well aware that the trade deal the Government wants to debate into the summer, to legislate by exhaustion, is what we oppose. For that reason, we oppose the idea of trying to jam that legislation through the House. I want to make that point clear to my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, the Government is very pleased to hear the word "expeditious". The Government would like to move expeditiously on some legislation. If we could package it all up, including getting the trade Bill amply debated in the House, lots of hours on it, then move it forward to committee, there might indeed be a basis for a very productive meeting. But I do not think the majority of Members of the House can be held hostage to a smaller unit of the House who have their priority. I think it is reasonable to expect that perhaps all three Parties have priorities. If we could agree on those priorities, indeed the House would be well served, as would Members of the House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that we are not in a one-Party state. He may wish we were, but we are not. The House

June 9, 1988
Business of the House
belongs to all its Members, not only to those who may be supporting the Government until the next election. If the Government wants to proceed in a reasonable way with a program of legislation, then it should operate so that it can get the co-operation, in a constructive way, of all Members, including members of the opposition Parties. If it is showing a willingness to do that, then it may be possible to make some progress, especially if that progress is intended to be within the rules of the House, and if the Government is going to give up its idea of throwing the rules out of the window because it cannot live or operate within those rules.
Last Friday I sent the Government a letter, which I made public, in response to the Government House Leader's letter which was attached to it, setting out suggestions for accomplishing a reasonable amount of work within the time period stipulated by the rules, rules adopted by this House unanimously, rules which the Government takes credit for as representing the best in parliamentary reform. If the Government is serious, it will withdraw the motion to suspend the rules currently on the Order Paper and stick with its belief, if it ever had that belief, in parliamentary reform as exhibited by the current rules and show that it has the competence, ability and willingness to work within them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of order in support of the position just taken by my hon. friend, the House Leader for the Official Opposition.
I want simply to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Parliamentary Secretary that on many occasions now-I can recall them over at least seven weeks-the House Leader for the Official Opposition and I have offered to co-operate on a whole set of Bills. An example of that element of co-operation that we are able to accomplish in the House occurred last week when a number of Bills of interest concerning issues relating to native people were packaged for debate. Through the cooperation of all Members we were able to move, I would say, even more than expeditiously. Quite frankly, we were prepared to set aside, after unanimous consent, a number of rules to enable these Bills to move through quickly. We accomplished that. I think that day exemplified just how productive the House can be in terms of moving legislation forward.
However, as my hon. friend has indicated, it does require a recognition that there is a role for the opposition Parties in the parliamentary system. That requires not only leadership but the willingness to co-operate by the Government, not simply the attitude that, "We are the Government. We have a large majority. We can do anything we like, including setting aside the rules of the House of Commons". That is not the case.
I simply want to remind my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, that we are here to co-operate on appropriate pieces of legislation whenever we can. We demonstrated that willingness last week. We are prepared again on a whole set of Bills to do the same thing. But we ask the Government to bring forward those packages, to negotiate those packages, so that
we can make this place work in the best interests of the people of Canada.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the last remarks of the NDP House Leader with respect to working in the interests of the Canadian public and not to get bogged down in a great many procedural problems which we know we have here no matter what the charade may be for the public.
There is a Bill called Bill C-131 which deals with amendments to the National Transportation Act and which involves the handicapped. I must say, just to test the sincerity of the Loyal Opposition and of the House Leader of the NDP, I for one, and the handicapped, are wondering why we have not been able to move that Bill out of the procedural problems of the House and into the standing committee to which it is now designated to go. I think that perhaps it could even be referred to that committee today to show some good faith to the handicapped who want to have their problems addressed by the committee. We could get that Bill out of the House, out of the procedural wrangles that will continue no matter what protestations there are. We can do something fundamental for the handicapped in order to help them.
Today, on Thursday, when we are supposed to do things for the nation and not just for each political Party, I would like the House Leaders to agree on the floor of the House to have Bill C-131 referred to the standing committee to find out if the amendments to the National Transportation Act address the problems of the handicapped. We were the ones who helped focus attention on it. That would reassure me that this place still has a purpose rather than just engaging in a political dogfight that we know we are going to have for the next several weeks.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for making a very important point. Just so everyone, including those outside this House, understand the point, it is that the business of this House, if it involves measures introduced by the Government, is within the control of the Government. The Government has the absolute right to call at any time any measure it wants to bring before the House for debate. If the Government really cares about the kind of measure or, specifically, the measure mentioned by my hon. friend, it will have our consent, although it does not need it, to call immediately Bill C-131 rather than the motion to suspend and to throw out of the window the rules of this House.
I put the Government to the test. Let us see if it is sincere about the measure proposed by the Hon. Member from Nova Scotia. It does not have to proceed with the motion to suspend the rules. Instead, it can immediately, without notice, without my consent and without the consent of the NDP House Leader, call the measure to amend the National Transportation Act to help the handicapped.
I challenge the Government to show it cares for the people of the country and to call that measure right away and forget
June 9, 1988

about this unnecessary and anti-democratic measure, the motion to suspend the rules. I challenge you to show you care about the handicapped and about the people of this country generally.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on many occasions through various officers, representatives and organizations of this House we have taken steps regarding concerns of the handicapped. In light of the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) may I suggest that, as far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, we are prepared to debate Bill C-131 today, right now, in order to expedite the matter and to get it into committee. I am making that offer. We are prepared to debate it now, tomorrow, Monday, any day. I think it is an excellent suggestion.
It is that type of leadership that has just been shown by the Hon. Member which is needed when the Government says, "Listen, we are concerned about matters regarding transportation and the handicapped. We are prepared to introduce legislation". As my hon. friend, the House Leader for the Official Opposition, has indicated, he is interested in cooperating. We are prepared to co-operate. As a matter of fact, we will deal with it right today. Let us deal with it today. If we do not deal with it today, the sooner the better.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I was the one who raised this matter. I did not want to get into debate.
I have been around here for a few years, the same as some of the Hon. Members opposite and the House Leaders, too. My hon. friends and the handicapped well know the purpose of my intervention. With respect, the debate is not here on the floor of the House. The Government has shown leadership and taken the initiative. It has introduced a Bill after consultation with the handicapped. It is now up to a committee of the House to see if the consultation is reflected properly in the Bill.
Quite frankly, if my hon. friends who just spoke understand fully-and I am not saying that they do not, but want to make sure they do-the problems that the standing committee focused on concerning the handicapped, then there will not be a long debate. I am not trying to put the handicapped forward as hostage to the free trade motion, or any other motion before the House. The purpose of my intervention is to show good faith on all sides for a fundamental group that needs help, and needs help now. It is not for debate but, by all-Party agreement-and that is the way it will move whenever it moves-to move it into the committee so that it can decide if the consultations have produced effective results. Then we will report back and hold the debate whenever that fits into the government's timetable.
It was not my intention to play cat and mouse with the present procedures and motions before the House. My hon. friend from Windsor West and my hon. friend, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, know that full well, and so do the handicapped.
Business of the House


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, sometimes, and I have seen it before-I recall the Constitution debate-on the floor of the House we really can negotiate. I thank the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) for bringing forward the proposition, which the Opposition does indeed find acceptable, that we move on to the Bill on the handicapped. They have mentioned priority legislation. The Government is seeking agreement from the House. If agreement is not forthcoming on the basis of a vote, we can determine the will of the House on extending our hours for debate to a few more hours, a few more days in order that we can handle the legislation for the handicapped, we can handle the legislation around immigration, and we can handle the priority lists which are in their hands.
One of the ways that we could move very quickly this afternoon is if perhaps a recorded vote is needed on the government motion, to move immediately, without further debate, to the government motion. If it is defeated, or if it passes, we could have unanimous agreement in the House, whichever way they would like it, on the basis of short speeches, or no speeches at all, to move the Bill for the handicapped through. If they have something else on the list that they would like to move through expeditiously this afternoon, the Government would be pleased to consider that. We could have a few consultations while the bells rang, if we move immediately to the vote on the motion simply to commit ourselves as a Chamber to more hours or days of debate into the month of July in order that we can do the many significant things that remain on the government agenda.
If that is the sense of the offer, we would gladly accept it, and I speak on behalf of all Members on this side. If unanimous consent were required, we would be glad to give it.


Mr. Speaker:: Having listened carefully, it is not quite the sense that I perceived. I will hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Thank you for your consideration, and I will be very brief. My hon. friend knows full well that the Government's motion is not simply to ask for a few more hours. Additional hours of sitting are already provided for in the existing rules for the last two weeks of June. The rules provide a simple way for getting those hours. What the Government of the Hon. Member has put before the House is a motion to suspend the existing rules and do something uncalled for by the rules, and unnecessary.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member why he is not willing to call Bill C-131 right now, instead of the motion to suspend the rules. It is very simple. He has the authority, on behalf of the Government to do that. He does not need my consent. He does not need the consent of the House Leader of the NDP. He does not need the consent of any Member. Under the Standing Orders he can rise right now and ask the Clerk to call Bill C-131 for second reading. I ask the Hon. Member

June 9, 1988
Extension of Sittings
bluntly, will he do that? Will he call Bill C-131 right now instead of the motion to suspend the rules? If not, why will he not do that? Can the Hon. Member answer that question?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to advance the opportunity to debate Bill C-131, an Act to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987, which was introduced and read for the first time on June 1, 1988. If the Government is interested in proceeding with this legislation today, then I will say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we are prepared to expedite this matter and complete second reading by the end of the day. I am prepared to make that offer. This is important legislation. If the Government is interested in introducing it, we are prepared to co-operate to get it into committee for study and further examination.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: As soon as we have disposed of the decision which we must make about the hours of sitting of the House-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Not interested in helping the disabled?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -about sitting into part of the summer. If that can be done expeditiously, perhaps on division, we could have a standing vote, if required. As soon as that is disposed of, we would be very happy to work with members of the Opposition to pass Bill C-131.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has been very patient, as I am sure everybody would want me to be. I think, for the moment, at least, this negotiation is at a standstill.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING On the order: Government Orders.
June 3-The Minister of State, Treasury Board, moved the following proposed motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House, from the day of adoption of this motion and until no later than Friday, September 9, 1988, the House will meet on the days and at the times specified in Standing Order 3, but not on August 1;
That, during such period, the Speaker shall adjourn the House on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10.00 o'clock p.m., and on Wednesdays at 6.00 o'clock p.m., and on Fridays at 3.00 o'clock p.m., and that the provisions of Standing Order 66 relating to the adjournment proceedings shall be suspended;
That, during such period, the Standing Order respecting the daily mid-day interruption of business on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays shall not be suspended;
That, at 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, or at the conclusion of Private Members' Business, the House shall proceed to "Government Orders" pursuant to Standing Order 22;
That following the adoption of this motion, no motion under Standing Order
10(1) shall be receivable; and
That this special order shall not apply on any allotted days designated in the
supply period ending June 30, 1988.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order about the acceptability for debate of the motion that the Government has on the Order Paper, a notice of motion dated June 3, 1988, in the name of the Minister of State, Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis).
This motion states: "That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House, from the day of adoption of this motion and until no later than Friday, September 9, 1988, the House will meet on the days and at the times specified in Standing Order 3, but not on August 1 ..." I will not take the time to read the remaining words of the motion. I wish to remind the House that Standing Order 4 provides that the House rise on June 30 and return on the Monday after Labour Day in September.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, if it is accepted by you, and I submit it should not be, and if it is later adopted by the House, states that the rules of the House with respect to when the House adjourns at the end of June are suspended and put aside in order that the House sit without a break until the day it is supposed to resume, under the rules, in September.
The motion also provides, if it is first accepted by you, Mr. Speaker, and then passed, that the House will not only sit during the usual hours provided for by the rules, but in addition will sit continuously without a break until 10 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays.
The issue is not whether Members of Parliament are willing to work. Clearly they are. Instead, the issue is whether it is proper and acceptable for the Government to be able to say, since it cannot do its work within the rules, since it does not want to work and live within the rules, that it will use its majority and throw the rules out of the window.
This is no ordinary motion contemplated by the rules and used regularly to arrange House business. To all intents and purposes this motion is without precedent. I am told that there may have been one instance when a Conservative Government in 1888 put through a motion to suspend the rules in order that it could force a single Bill through the House. If I am correct, this instance 100 years ago is hardly relevant today.
There have been occasions when individual rules have been suspended to respond to particular circumstances, but this has always been done by unanimous consent. It has never been done by the Government invoking its majority against the will of other Members. Even permanent changes in the rules have generally been carried out by unanimous consent. There was an exception in 1969 when permanent rule changes, not changes to suspend the rules for a particular purpose or occasion, were adopted by majority vote following closure. I am told that this came after two lengthy studies and reports by two separate committees, and after a lengthy parliamentary
June 9, 1988

debate. The motion for a permanent change in the rules reflected the report of one committee, and it was in an effort to create the parliamentary calendar, and not to do what the Conservatives are trying to do in this motion, to sweep away the parliamentary calendar.
There has been no instance for over 100 years, and no precedent of a Government attempting to suspend the rules and throw them out of the window just to help it get through a number of measures that it did not have the skill and competence to get through by operating within those rules. Our rules, the rules we have today, the rules adopted by unanimous consent with the encouragement and support of the Government, for which it takes credit as a vaunted achievement of parliamentary reform, say that this House is to meet within fixed dates. These rules, for which the Government has been taking credit, I repeat, as an achievement of parliamentary reform, say that the House will sit during the periods of adjournment in only one way, that is, if after the House is adjourned the Speaker deems it in the public interest to do so. If that is the case, he can recall the House. I repeat, he can do it only after the House adjourns and if he deems it in the public interest, and after consultations with the Government.
Our rules, reflecting our parliamentary practice and traditions and for which at least until today the Government was taking credit as an achievement on its part of parliamentary reform, do not say if at any time the Government is not satisfied with its progress on its program, the measures it wants to get through, it can use its majority to cast those rules aside. It is wrong when a Government, as this Government has done, cannot manage its program, is incompetent when it comes to handling and organizing parliamentary business and as a result gets itself into a corner, and to get out of it tries to use its majority to throw the rules out of the window. The Government with this motion today says it wants to cast aside, to discard, the rules of this House because it cannot work or live within them.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I will cite authorities to support my position, the Government cannot treat our rules just like they were another one of the Government's promises made to be broken and discarded, not to be kept and treated seriously.
The rules, which the Government says were adopted because of its own commitment to parliamentary reform, mean the Government must organize itself and fit its program within the framework of those rules. It is not supposed to crush them under foot to cover up its own mismanagement and incompetence.


Mr. Fennell:: We have put through far more laws than you did.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We are talking here about something fundamental to our system of parliamentary
Extension of Sittings
democracy. We are not talking about some trivial parliamentary manoeuvre by this Government that is of little significance and has some meaning if only just for today. I repeat, this motion has serious and fundamental implications for Parliament and for our entire system of parliamentary democracy.
I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 1, the very first citation in this handbook of parliamentary law. It is headed Principles of Parliamentary Law. It reads:
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 of tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every Member to express his opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and to prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.
This citation is from Sir John Bourinot, the learned, important, respected and very well regarded expert on Canadian parliamentary law, from his Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, Fourth Edition.
I want to refer you also to Standing Order 1 of the rules of this House, Mr. Speaker. These, I repeat, are the rules for which this Government takes credit as a fundamental achievement on its part of parliamentary reform. Standing Order 1 under its heading Public Business reads:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
The Government itself recognizes that the motion about which I am raising this point of order is not a simple or routine motion. It starts out by saying, and this is the proof I am offering for this point:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House-
By saying, "notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House", the Government itself recognizes that this motion is not some limited, ordinary or trivial procedural device. It recognizes that its motion relates to the general practices as well as the rules of the House. The motion relates to and calls into question the fundamental principles of our parliamentary law. This I submit the Government must be recognizing in the wording of the motion. I submit that you can and, in fact, must rely on and follow Bourinot's statement of principles and the authority given to you by Standing Order 1 to apply the principles of parliamentary law and other precedents of this House and declare the Government's motion to be out of order.
What are some of the principles as stated in Citation 1 of Beauchesne, the words of Sir John Bourinot? He says that the principles are:
-to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority-

June 9, 1988
Extension of Sittings
It is very clear that the Government's motion oppresses the minority of Members of this House. We have not offered our consent to this motion because we realize it is intended to take away the protection offered by the rules of this House for orderly and logical debate. Since we do not accept this motion, which is a motion to suspend the rules, which is a motion to take away the rights we have under the rules, I say to you, Sir, you must not accept this motion. You have a duty to protect the minority of Members of this House who do not accept this motion since it pertains to the fundamental structure of this House and our parliamentary democracy.
Second, this motion is, to use the words of Bourinot "an exercise of the improvidence and the tyranny of the majority". It is clear the Government wants to use the majority it has to force its will on the House, not simply to have passed a particular measure which the House does not agree with but to suspend, cancel and sweep aside the fundamental rules of this House. When it comes to improvidence, the Government's own improvidence has led it to this arrogant and high-handed course of action as reflected by this motion, its improvidence brought about by its own incompetence and bad management.
Let us look at some examples. The final text of the trade agreement with the United States was released I think last December and the deal was signed between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan at the beginning of January, more than six months ago, yet the Bill to implement the agreement was tabled in this House only some two weeks ago. That is not the fault of the Opposition. We are not involved in the drafting of the Bill, unlike the Members of the U.S. Congress. I wish we had that same opportunity, but we do not. The Government cannot hold us responsible for its own inability to draft and table a Bill in the House with over six months to do so.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in February on the issue of abortion. Only a few weeks ago, the Government indicated its intention to present in a resolution a course of action to deal with that situation. Nothing stopped it from dealing with the matter sooner. Certainly nothing stopped it in so far as the Opposition in the House is concerned.
The resolution to adopt the Meech Lake Accord was called for debate for only one day some three weeks ago. It is true that it was impossible to find a date on which the three Party leaders could speak on the same day, according to their schedules, until next week, but nothing stopped the Government from calling that motion earlier and inviting other Members who wanted to speak to do so. The Opposition has not been holding up this measure. This is something totally within the control of the Government, as is the case with any other measure on the Order Paper pertaining to government business.
I can make the same point about day care. When did the Government table its policy? Was it last year? Where is the
legislation? We are not stopping the legislation from going through. It is not before the House. Table the legislation and call it if it is ready.
The Government issued its policy on tax reform a year ago. Where is the legislation? It is not the Opposition that is preventing this legislation from coming forward for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I am of course listening very carefully to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) because his arguments are cogent and very properly brought forward, but I would ask the Hon. Member, if he could, to come back to the central question and that is, does the Speaker have the authority to reject the motion which the Government has put forward and which the Hon. Member complains about.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am simply making the point that this is not a case of obstruction by the Opposition, but instead, a case of the incompetence, the improvidence through incompetence of the majority.
The Government's motion, to use the words of Bourinot, is not really "to permit abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure to prevent any legislative action from being taken on such impulse". It is a matter of public record, and I ask you to take judicial notice, if I may use the phrase, that the Government has already signalled its intention to impose closure on second reading of the trade Bill and prevent that second reading, once the Bill is called, from going on for more than five days.
This is the most important measure to come before Parliament in over 60 years, perhaps the most important measure since confederation. The very sovereignty, the very existence of this country, is at stake. Instead, with its arrogant motion, the Government intends to try to legislate by exhaustion. This is certainly the wrong way to have proper debate and consideration in the House and the wrong way to have public input. I think the Government hopes its legislation, to use the words of Bourinot, will slip through "on sudden impulse", and surely that is wrong.
If the Government can abuse the use of its majority to set aside, through this motion, those parts of the rules that say when the House should sit, I submit the Government can do exactly the same thing with any other part of the rules. It can force through a motion of this kind to eliminate Question Period. I know the Prime Minister has already talked about how he would be very happy to do without it. The Government could force through a motion to eliminate committee hearings, the whole concept of study in a legislative or a Standing Committee of a measure before the House. It could wipe out debate on second reading or third reading or even the requirement for a formal vote on Bills. It could force through an order saying that all Bills are deemed adopted as soon as they are tabled.
Some may say that that would be impossible, our Constitution would not permit that. I submit that the only thing our Constitution says clearly and definitely about Parliament and
June 9, 1988

parliamentary democracy, or at least parliamentary democracy as it pertains to the House of Commons, is that there has to be a session of Parliament at least once each year and that a Parliament cannot last more than five years. That is it. Everything Canadians consider to be fundamental parts of our parliamentary democracy is really established and confirmed only by these Standing Orders, our rules.
If this motion is accepted by you and then proceeded with and forced through by the Government, the Government would be saying that it does not give a damn for the rules and practices of Parliament which reflect and involve our traditions of parliamentary democracy and it will do anything to save its own skin. It will know it can suspend or throw out the rules any time it thinks doing so will help it achieve its aims and survive. The only protection against this attempted abusive and arrogant use of its majority by the Government to suspend the rules and thus undermine our parliamentary democracy is the use of the authority you have, Sir, to refuse to accept and to put this motion.
This authority comes from Standing Order 1 of the rules of this House. It comes from the statement of parliamentary law as expressed by Sir John Bourinot. I think it is expressed in citation 120 on page 39 of Beauchesne's which reads:
Foremost among his many responsibilities, the Speaker has the duty to maintain an orderly conduct of debate by repressing disorder when it arises, by refusing to propose the question upon motions and amendments which are irregular, and by calling the attention of the House to bills which are out of order. He rules on points of order submitted to him by Members on questions as they arise. Many powers have been vested in the Speaker by virtue of the Standing Orders.
I also respectfully refer you to citation 424(3) at page 153 of Beauchesne's which reads:
It is the Speaker's duty to call the attention of the mover and of the House to the irregularity of a motion; whereupon the motion is usually withdrawn or so modified as to be no longer objectionable. If the motion is of such a nature that objection cannot be removed, the Speaker may refuse to put the motion to the House. He treats it as a nullity.
I call upon you, Sir, to carry out your duty to protect the minority in this House. I call upon you, Sir, to use your authority to preserve the foundations of our parliamentary democracy as expressed in the Standing Orders of this House and to reject this motion.
I want to make sure that this House and the Canadian people recognize that this is not a normal procedural motion usually brought forward at this time. Instead, it is to do something which is not reflected in our rules and that is to suspend a part of the rules which are as important and as integral to those rules as any other part and that is about when this House sits.
If the Government can get away with this kind of motion, then nothing else in our parliamentary procedure which a Government does not like or which it may be worried about from day to day or from time to time will be safe, whether it is Question Period or debate on second or third reading or committee stage. I realize I am asking you to assume a heavy
Extension of Sittings
responsibility, but you have been selected by secret ballot of all Members of the House to act on behalf of all Members, to speak for this institution and to preserve what it means for this country and for future generations. You have the authority to reject this motion. I call upon you to do so in the interests of this House and all its Members and in the interests of our parliamentary democracy.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am not terribly pleased to be participating in the debate on this point of order, knowing what the Government is attempting to do.
To begin with, I want to remind everyone that you as Speaker are the defender of the rights of all Members. You are a servant of Members of the House of Commons, whether a Conservative Member, a Liberal Member, or a New Democrat Member, or an independent Member for that matter. You rule to ensure that the rights and privileges of all Members are respected. I submit that today the Government has indicated it wishes to abandon the rules of the House of Commons, to set aside our Standing Orders, and implement the will of its huge majority in the House to draft a new set of rules and have us do something we would not normally do. I want to make some specific procedural remarks in that respect and then come back to that point in a moment or two.
You will recall that last Tuesday I rose on a point of order to argue that the Government had breached the rules and customs of this place by giving notice of this motion that we are debating at the moment under Government Notices of Motions rather than under Motions, as had been the custom. I would like to briefly review that argument and add to it to reinforce my very firm belief that improper notice was given to deal with this motion.
As I am sure you will recall, my argument rested on three main points, and I would like to briefly summarize each of them. The first deals with Citation 270(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which makes a distinction between motions moved to deal with government affairs or Government Orders and those moved to regulate the business of the whole House, that is the fixing of sitting dates or the time of the meetings. As you know, motions that deal exclusively with Government Orders or government business such as a time allocation motion on a government Bill are properly given notice under Government Notices of Motions. Those other motions that deal with the business of the House as a whole must be moved under Motions.
My second point relates to the practices of the House as spelled out in the Report of the Procedure Committee to the House on June 14, 1955. As you will recall from your study of past Parliaments, this report, which was of course adopted unanimously, led to the very first comprehensive revision of the Standing Orders since Confederation. We just went through a similar process in the last few years. In that report, which was

June 9, 1988
Extension of Sittings
recorded in the Journals for that day, there are several additional comments relating to procedure. I think it would be useful to quote an excerpt from that part dealing with the question of notice. That is the critical point I wish to make right now and it concerns the appropriateness of giving notice and where it stands on the Order Paper. At page 746 of Journals for June 14, 1955, we find the following:
That motions for the concurrence in reports of any standing or special committee, for the suspension of any Standing Order, or other such motions as may be required for the observances of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meetings or adjournment shall be listed, where notice is required, called and disposed of under "Motions".
Clearly this sets out the practice that is to be followed in the case of motions which seek to change our sitting days and the times of our meetings or adjournments. Such motions must be listed under Motions.
Third, I wish to bring to your attention the lack of precedents to support the Government's case on this issue. As I indicated last Tuesday, prior to the 1955 revision of the Standing Orders it was not unusual for motions regulating the days and times of sittings of the House to be given notice under Government Notices of Motions. Such motions were then transferred to Government Orders were they were moved and debated. However, after the Procedure Committee's report in June of 1955,1 have been unable to find a single example of where such motions were not given notice and debated under Motions. Not a single precedent after 1955. This fact cannot be simply dismissed. It is significant and relevant to our debate today. Precedent is a critical component of how this House regulates its business and cannot be ignored.
When the Government chose to give notice of this motion under Government Notices of Motions, it violated the practices of this House since 1955, some 33 years ago. I know that, being a student of parliamentary procedure and traditions, you will appreciate the fact that a practice we have followed for 33 years has obviously proven its value and we ought to be following it in the years ahead unless a clear case can be made against it, or there is unanimous consent of the Members of the House to proceed in some other fashion. Barring that, and simply recognizing the will of the Government to act on this point, I think it is important for you to recognize that a precedent set 33 years ago and followed continuously since then, as far as I can determine, ought to be continued.
That was the basis of my argument on Tuesday and I certainly stand by it again today. I can find no reason why we should at this moment depart from that practice of the House.
Furthermore, you will know that in the last several years the Standing Orders and the practices of the House have undergone a further review just as they did in 1955, for the purpose of making Parliament a more effective and vital institution. We made many changes to the rules governing Private
Members' Business which have enhanced the role of the Private Member. I suggest that the recent passage of Bill C-204 in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) is a testament to the growing influence of Private Members, and all of us are appreciative of that change.
Another innovation was the establishment of a parliamentary calendar so that Members on all sides know when the House will be sitting and when it will be adjourned. This helps Members plan their agenda and maximize the time they can spend with their constituents. Implicit in the establishment of this calendar was the recognition that the Government would have to regulate its legislative agenda to conform with the days of sitting. Unfortunately, the Government has shown a particular inability to manage its parliamentary calendar to meet the Standing Orders and the fact that we have agreed unanimously to follow a calendar in order to carry out the business of the people of Canada.
I want to add to that by saying right from the beginning we have had no hesitation in working in the House or beyond. I do not think that is in question. The fact we have been in session for nearly 11 months straight speaks well of the intention and commitment of Members of Parliament to serve their constituents. I do not think you will find many Parliaments in this world that would have sat for 11 months straight and are quite prepared to continue on.
When the Standing Orders were changed unanimously by Members of the House to institute a calendar, that allowed Members on certain weeks of the year and for the months of July and August to be able to set up rounds of meetings with their constituents. For those of us who have to travel 4,000 or 5,000 kilometres to our constituents on a weekend, it is difficult to serve our constituents. For that reason we welcomed a parliamentary calendar.
I submit that having a parliamentary calendar does not prohibit us from sitting in the summer. That is not the point here. If the Government felt there was an emergency or crisis facing the country, it can ask you to recall Parliament to deal with that situation. Last summer the Government determined that we had an emergency with respect to immigration and refugees. The Government appealed to you and, given the information it provided you with, you in your wisdom decided to ask Members to come back from their summer break, where they were serving their constituents, to deal with the legislation. I did not think at that time it was an emergency situation, but the Government made its case and in your wisdom you decided that was the case.
That still exists. We are not suggesting that under no circumstances will we ever not sit during July and August. The point, as any good businessman or businesswoman would know, is that you have to be able to plan ahead, you have to be able to conduct your business in a businesslike way, and that
June 9, 1988

requires notice and advance planning. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine planning within a major business never knowing whether or not the business would be operating at a certain time of the year.
We instituted a parliamentary calendar so that Members of Parliament could make necessary arrangements, so that they could tell their constituents with conviction that they would be in their community or neighbourhood on a specified date. We have all done that. I am sure all our calendars are filled for July and August. In spite of the Standing Orders and the understanding which we have all had for the last few years, those appointments and commitments will have to broken because we will be required to be here.
Why are we being asked to do this? We have sat for 11 months and the Government has had an opportunity to introduce its parliamentary agenda. The Government is today admitting that it is incompetent. It is admitting that it has not done its job.
The Government says it wants to debate child care. After the 1984 election there was a Throne Speech wherein the Government said that it planned to introduce a comprehensive child care program. That was in 1984. There was then a committee which made recommendations in 1986. Then it was 1987 and now it is 1988 and we still do not have any legislation before us. The Government says the Opposition is holding up its legislative agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are anxious to debate child care. Where is the legislation? It is not yet introduced after four years of government.
We could say the same for other legislation. Where is the tax reform legislation? In 1984 we were promised tax reform. In 1985 we were promised tax reform, in 1986 we were promised tax reform, and in 1987 we were promised tax reform. It is now 1988 and we still do not have legislation before us to enable us to deal with tax reform.
Where is the legislation for the trade deal? The international trade treaty was signed on January 2, 1988. January went past, February, March, April and May, and here we are in June now being asked to debate the trade deal. 1 am not prepared to say that the opposition Parties are holding up important legislation. We must at least see the legislation before we can react to it.
I want to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as a servant of the House and an individual who is profoundly committed to the practices and traditions of this place. At this stage the Government is asking us to suspend the rules, to throw them out the window, to set aside that for which we worked for months and months to achieve with the unanimous consent of all Members of this House. The Government is now asking us to abandon that and saying that if we do not abandon that it will use the heavy hand of its majority to force it through, to force us to do this and force us to do that because the Government has a majority. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not how the Standing Orders are developed.
Extension of Sittings
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as a representative of all sides of the House, to rule against this initiative to suspend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons of Canada, to rule against this initiative by the Government to abandon the practices which we unanimously adopted only a few months ago.
I want to argue on two points, Mr. Speaker. I not only believe that the notice procedure for this motion was incorrect, as I have indicated, but also believe that the motion itself is a testament to the Government's general incompetence in the management of its legislative agenda. The fact that it has been unable to manage its legislative agenda properly is no reason for the Government to use the heavy hand of its huge majority to abandon the rules, practices, and traditions of this House.
I appeal to you, in the best interests of productivity, in the best interests of co-operation, and in the best interests of making the Parliament of Canada work for all the people of Canada, to consider this motion unacceptable and to rule against it.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been listening very carefully to these arguments. I may as well say that I am not going to rule immediately. I may need some assistance from Hon. Members.
I want to refer to a section of what we used to refer to as the British North America Act and now refer to as the Constitution Act. I refer to Section 49, and I know that other Members want to rise, and perhaps the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), may want to make some comments on this. Section 49 reads:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a Majority
of Voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the Voices are equal, but
not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a Vote.
I would be deeply indebted to Hon. Members or anyone else who could find for me any precedent which has dealt with what the meaning of that particular clause is and whether or not it might be of any assistance to me when I am trying to determine the issue which has been brought before me.
I do not put that out for immediate response. I put that out because I may very well want Hon. Members to see if they can give me some assistance on it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I or others of my Party will be happy to respond to your invitation. I also want to give notice that, as you are raising Section 49 of the BN A Act, it would be useful also to consider the preamble of the BN A Act which says, to paraphrase, that its purpose was to create a country operating with a system similar in principle to that of Great Britain, and that also has implications.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, also to help other Hon. Members, I have no difficulty in accepting that there ought to be some reason why the rules which we set for ourselves in this place ought to be abridged, changed, or otherwise. I do not have any difficulty accepting that premise on which I think the arguments I have heard are based. I am not taking away from any

June 9, 1988
Extension of Sittings
of the other points, but that is a seriously advanced argument and I do understand that. I also understand the invitation to look elsewhere for some guidance.
However, I am concerned about that particular section of the Constitution Act. I know Hon. Members would want to consider it in the next little while. I am not going to make a ruling without reserving. I will reserve, but I would like some advice on that.
Although I know that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is seeking the floor, and I will come to him, I think I will now hear from the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Excuse me, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want a clarification of your comment on the BN A Act because I think it is important that the House understand something very clearly here. We are talking about an issue where the Speaker has to deal with decisions dealing with procedures before the House, not substantive issues. I do not think that the BNA Act, in the section to which you have referred, Section 49, talks about procedural issues. I do not think that the BNA Act, in the section to which you have referred, Section 49, talks about procedural issues. It talks about substantive matters. At that been some changes. I would like to leave it in the context that, at this time, we are talking about procedural, not substantive, issues.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very much indebted for the comment the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has just made. That is one of the reasons why I thought it was appropriate at this time to put this question to Hon. Members. I will hear the Hon. Member further if it is necessary.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we will think about what you have brought to our attention and deal with it perhaps a little later this day.
The issue before us is really quite simple. In the last 25 years this House has sat for 80 per cent of the summers. The rules were changed about five years ago and this House has sat in three of the five summers since that rule change.
When I was first elected nine years ago, the House sat regularly on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday evening until 10.30 p.m. The Government would basically put a motion to the House about whether it would like to continue to sit for a few hours three days a week and to sit for whatever portion of the summer was required to do the business of the House.
We have a procedural argument arising from the request in the motion by the Government. The House Leader for the Official Opposition began his argument by quoting Beau-chesne, dealing with the principles of parliamentary law. He brought to our attention the phrase "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority". Indeed,
the overuse of closure would border on the improvidence or potential tyranny of a majority. Occasionally, however, some kind of time allocation or closure is probably necessary.
What this Government seeks to do consistently, and certainly does in this motion, is the exact opposite of tyranny. This Government seeks the will of the House on the issue of whether we should sit for a few more hours three days a week and for a few more days into the summer so that we can give more careful consideration to the items on our agenda and so that we can give the Members more opportunity to express their opinions in public.
It states in the same paragraph of Beauchesne which the Hon. Member opposite brought to our attention that "to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every Member to express his opinions", both of which are certainly consistent with the thrust of this motion "within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time".
Past history of this Chamber is filled with increasing tension and a decline in decorum when time is wasted. We began this morning with wasted time on two occasions, with the introduction of a Private Members' Bill.
Without the kind of initiative which is contained in this motion, I suggest that decorum may indeed decline because time will be wasted. Many speeches have been made both inside and outside the House by Members of the Opposition about their intention to filibuster and use up the time of the House. The behaviour of the Opposition for several months now has been consistent with that goal to waste time and bring the Government agenda to a halt.
The Government has provided Canadians with ample proof over the last three and a half years that it manages the public agenda very well. While the publicity surrounding the public agenda may cause difficulty, I think any fair minded analysis would lead to an inevitable conclusion that never in the history of this country has a Parliament succeeded in passing so many major pieces of legislation. We have also been able to handle the increased workload as a consequence of parliamentary reform and the powers that have been given to committees. We have dealt with Private Members' Business and Bills in a different way.
The Government knows how to manage the business and seeks permission of the House to manage an expansion of time for the next month or two. Members opposite say that we are seeking to suspend the Orders of the House. They are attempting to create the impression that this Party is trying to do something that would constitute a denial of democracy. If the expansion of the opportunity to debate, with the provisions of freedom of speech, is a denial of democracy then I have failed to comprehend what democracy is all about during my entire lifetime.
I draw your attention to Citation 9 on page 5 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which states:
June 9, 1988

All rules are passed by the House by a simple majority and are altered, added to or removed in the same way.
The motion only seeks a temporary alteration. The same Citation states clearly:
There is no procedural reason why any private Member or Minister of the Crown could not introduce a motion to alter the rules...
Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, at page 212, states the following about Standing Orders:
Although a standing order differs from every other order of the House in having an express duration beyond the end of the session in which it is passed, no special procedure is, as a rule, involved in its passage except that after it has been agreed to on motion a further order is made declaring it to be a standing order of the House. Standing orders are not safeguarded-
This is particularly critical:
-by any special procedure against amendment, repeal or suspension, whether explicitly or by an order contrary to their purport. Ordinary notice only is requisite for the necessary motion; and some standing orders have included arrangements for the suspension of their own provisions by a bare vote, without amendment or debate.
Notice, motion and a procedure whereby we can divide is what is required in changing our Standing Orders. All that we seek is a change to the Standing Orders to allow us to sit a little later and return to a time some five years ago when we sat through to ten o'clock at night all the time, and to move into the summer in the manner we have done for 20 out of the last 25 years. There is nothing unique or different about this.
My friends opposite wondered if there were precedents. There are many, but 1 would draw to your attention Hansard of April 24, 1961. The Government at that time was Conservative. A motion to change the sitting hours was moved by Mr. Diefenbaker. There were Standing Orders suspended in relationship thereto. That appears at page 467 at Hansard of that era. I skip forward to June 18, 1970. The Liberal Government was in power and there was a motion moved by Mr. Macdonald of Rosedale, seconded by Mr. Jamieson so there are precedents for the action the Government is undertaking at this time.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) raises what I think is perhaps a side issue, should a motion be under Government Orders or should it just be on motions during Routine Proceedings.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On motions.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The essential element of that dilemma-and probably the truth of the matter is that it could be done either way-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, no!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: If we go back to Erskine May, and the quote I gave, we decided to put the motion on the Order Paper under Government Orders. Why did we do that? Is it better for Parliament to do it that way? That is really the issue the Chair has been asked to address. When we did that, we took a step
Extension of Sittings
that required 48 hours notice. That is a very important principle. Things go wrong from time to time because parliamentarians do not have adequate notice. If we treat it as part of Routine Proceedings, the notice requirements are not the same. Members do not have the same opportunity to return from the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, or from wherever they have their constituencies. There is a lot of flying time to Ottawa in order to get back to consider something if Members consider it important.
By putting the motion under Government Orders, the 48 hours notice requirement is the maximal kind of notice requirement consistent with our traditions, and the Government chose to do that so that Members could be prepared for the debatable motion which followed. They could be here to vote on it because they had adequate warning.
Failure to do that involves the Opposition in a kind of Russian roulette. Simply putting the motion under Routine Proceedings, we never know. However, if we give the 48 hours notice under Government Orders there is warning. Surely this place is better served when a motion which would alter the hours in which we meet together proceeds by way of motion. Surely, it should also be seen as a government initiative. Attempts were made to reach agreement and no agreement was forthcoming. The Government, given its responsibility to manage the country, has decided that those three evenings a week, sitting until ten o'clock instead of six, and some time into the summer, is a sacrifice that surely every Member of the House should be prepared to make in the best interests of the country.
Earlier this day, Bill C-131, Aid to the Handicapped, was mentioned. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, if we get an opportunity as quickly as possible to debate this motion, to divide on it, and if it carries, then we are in a position to hold consultations-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Why won't you do it today?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -to give careful consideration to the priority list of each of the opposition Parties and to the priority list of the Government. We have a few more hours and a few more days we can use to ensure legislation which is important to the people of this country. Surely that is what we are all about, taking action, taking steps, doing things to help Canadians. That is why things are on the Order Paper. With those few more hours or days, we can do a better job of what it is we were sent here to do.
I wish you well with your decision, Mr. Speaker. After we have had a chance to look at Section 49 of the BN A Act, we will get back to you on that. I would like in closing to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 56(l)(o). It deals with debatable motions, and our Standing Orders themselves clearly say "for the suspension of any Standing Order, unless otherwise provided".
Our Standing Orders make provision deliberately and specifically, for the introduction of a motion of this kind into

June 9, 1988
Adjournment Debate
the House. That is the Standing Order under which the motion was filed. It would indeed be a travesty of the rules of the House if Members were denied the opportunity to consider a motion filed under that part of the rules. They were put in there for good reason. The Government is using the rule and I do not know how much longer a procedural debate of this kind should go on until we get ourselves into the area of wasting further time in the House, having less time to get to legislation to help the handicapped and others.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the Parliamentary Secretary is reflecting improperly not only on this House but on yourself, Sir, in questioning whether this procedural debate should go on longer and, to use his exact words, characterizing it as a waste of time. I say that this is barely disguised contempt for this House, and for you, Sir, and I call upon the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw those words and accept that procedural debates are the foundation of what this House is all about.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if I have offended the House or the Member opposite in any way, I would be very happy to withdraw. I think a precise reading of my words, and I did try to say it precisely, would be that I wonder how much longer we can go on on this particular procedural item, which may certainly have aspects of clarity to it that may not always be present, how much longer we can go on without bringing the House into some kind of negative position.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has made it clear that he was not trying to abuse any Hon. Member or the Chair.
I have some announcements I have to give because they are important. Before I do that, I just want to say something arising out of the exchange we have just had. I think Hon. Members realize that when Members of all Parties came together and set a calendar, it was done as a consequence of discussions, extensive discussion, and it was done, of course, in the better interests of this place and in the duties and responsibilities that Hon. Members have to perform. It does not seem to me to that to take a little while to listen to these arguments is untoward or any kind of abuse of the ordinary function of this House. I just want to assure Hon. Members that I am listening carefully, and I think I indicated that in my intervention a few minutes ago.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for
Winnipeg Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Canadian National Railways- Transcona Shops-request for assurance work will remain in Winnipeg/request for Ministerial assurance; the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell)-Health- AIDS disease-public education/Funding of federal centre for AIDS;
[ Translation]
the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry)- External Affairs-Sale of explosives to farmers by Expro Company-Request for results of Minister's inquiry/ Expro Company-Federal advance.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Order No. 26 for the motion of Mr. Lewis
to extend the sittings of the House.
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I might just offer a tentative-and I stress tentative-comment on your request for comment on Section 49 of the BNA Act with respect to questions and the role of the Speaker in relation thereto. Unless I completely misunderstand what Your Honour read to us from that, it would seem that the questions that are referred to in that Section are questions on motions which are before the House which are about to be put to a vote referring, I believe, to the situation in which there may be a tie vote.
What we are trying to determine here is whether or not the motion that the Government intends should ever reach that stage, that is to say whether it is in order in the first place. I think the questions that are referred to by the word "questions" in the Section that Your Honour read to us are the questions which arise out of motions which have been deemed to be in order. What we are debating here is whether or not in fact the Government ought to be allowed to proceed with the motion. However, like everyone else, I would want to reserve the right to study the question more.
With respect to what is being debated here this afternoon, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member from Calgary, went on at great length-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Eloquence!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -and with a great deal of-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Eloquence!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -self-righteous eloquence.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Delete "self-righteous".
June 9, 1988


Cyril Keeper: Substitute "tedium".


Mr. Speaker:: We have already had one call to order. I think that perhaps we should stay on the intellectual level which was set by those who commenced this debate. I do not want any Member of this House imputing any kind of motive to any other Member. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill would not have intended that at all.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I certainly did not intend anything unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker. I certainly did not intend to attribute eloquence to the Hon. Member.
The fact remains that we often fall into the habit of accusing each other of having less respect than our opponents for parliamentary tradition and for the House. The fact remains that when people feel strongly about issues, they are wont to do within the rules, and sometimes beyond the rules, everything that they feel driven to do at that point in order to live out the strength with which they feel their views on any particular subject. I recall Members opposite in this House ringing the bells for 16 days, charging the Chair, et cetera. I think that these are things that we should keep in mind when we hear those kinds of comments.
What is happening here I want to speak to from the perspective of one who has been involved since the last parliament in the whole question of parliamentary reform.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Procedurally?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Procedurally.
I want to speak to the question of the parliamentary calendar which is all wrapped up in what the Government is trying to do here. The Government claims the right, under the Standing Order that the Parliamentary Secretary cited just before he sat down, to change the Standing Order. I want to suggest that the Government does not have the right to change the Standing Order with respect to the parliamentary calendar that it claimed. It has the right, in the Standing Orders, to move a motion for the extension of hours with respect to the last two weeks of June. That right it has. That is a right that was unanimously agreed to in this House with respect to the rules.
Certainly, if that is all that the Government was trying to do today, then no one would have been able to raise their voice at all. It would be able to say that this is a provision of the Standing Orders that was adopted by the House. The Government would be well within its rights to do so. In my judgment, the Government is not within its rights to do this, unless one wants to maintain that by virtue of the clause that the Parliamentary Secretary cited that the Government has it within its power to change all the Standing Orders whenever it wants and whenever in the Government's judgment it does not like the Standing Orders, and it can unilaterally change whatever it wants about the Standing Orders.
Extension of Sittings
What is at stake in the judgment that you have to make, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not the Government can at any time it likes use the Standing Order which the Parliamentary Secretary cited to change any or all of the Standing Orders that it deems to stand in the way of what it regards as the appropriate legislative agenda.
With respect, therefore, to what the Government proposes to change concerning the parliamentary calendar, I say that the parliamentary calendar is something which the Standing Orders clearly provide can only be changed in a manner consistent with the way it is laid down. That is to say, if the Government wants the House to sit beyond the calendar, then it has to go to you, Mr. Speaker. That is a judgment that Your Honour has to make, not a judgment that the majority of the House can make.
I said this last summer, once maybe we can get away with it, but twice and it is gone. We went through a lot of work to get a parliamentary calendar. We went through a lot of work to humanize this place so that Members of Parliament and their families could have some notion of when it was that they would have time away from Ottawa.
I do not understand for the life of me why this Government is determined to destroy that particular notion. It is not as if it has not had the time to get through its legislative agenda. If it has not got it through, then it has no one to blame but itself. Only recently it rose and said that it got through more Bills than any other Parliament in history. If that is true, that is not only a testimony to it but to the co-operation which the Opposition is able to demonstrate when we feel that the Government is dealing with us in good faith and reasonably.
The fact of the matter is, particularly of late, one does not know from one day to the next what the Government is going to call.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Not true.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Parliamentary Secretary got up to talk about what a wonderful thing the Government was doing. It was introducing this motion under Government Orders so that there would be 48 hours notice. We are lucky around here if we get 48 minutes notice with respect to what Bill is going to be debated next.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Not true.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I find it very, very irritating to hear that coming from the Parliamentary Secretary.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: This is not procedure, it is debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: A lot of what was intended by the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons has turned out very, very well. We know that just recently there was a Private Members' Bill that went through the whole system and was passed. We see the committees working in

June 9, 1988
Extension of Sittings
ways that they did not work before. But some of the things have not worked out


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Like petitions.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -for instance, the whole question of evening sittings. The idea of the reform committee was not to telescope the parliamentary day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The idea was to free up the evenings for committee work. That has not happened.
There are other things that have not worked. One of the things that is now at risk as a result of the phoney emergency back in August of 1987, and now this, is the parliamentary calendar.
I feel obliged to get on my feet on behalf of the members of those two reform committees that I belonged to, on behalf of Members now, and on behalf of future Members of Parliament, to say that if we sacrifice this parliamentary calendar to the Government's political agenda-and that is all it is, it is not as if there is any great emergency; if there is an emergency then it should make that case to the Chair-to its political preelection agenda, then we will be doing a disservice not only to ourselves, but I want to make the larger claim that what is at stake is the health of the parliamentary institution itself.
It is not our self-interest that we should be concerned about here. We cannot go back to the game of psychological chicken that we played every year in the summer-time with each other. One of the things that the reform committee was trying to escape for everybody's sake was that kind of political chicken that gets played. There is no need to revive it. That is what is so infuriating about this.
There is absolutely no need for this motion to be before us except as a tactic on the part of the Government. I do not mind the Government using every tactic it has available to it within the rules. But what I do not like, and I have seen it happen a couple of times recently, is when the Government makes a unilateral decision with respect to how we are going to deal with the abortion issue and then it changes the Standing Orders accordingly, or the Government makes a unilateral decision with respect to the parliamentary calendar. For one thing it shows a lack of resources. The Government is not smart enough to figure out something within the rules, so it breaks the rules in order to get its way.
I am appealing to you, Mr. Speaker, to stem this growing tide of unilateral action on the part of the Government. Parliament is a Parliament. It has rules. It is not to be a dictatorship by the majority. If these types of procedures are allowed to stand we will come to see dictatorship by the parliamentary majority, the very thing that the Conservatives said time and again that they were against when the Liberals attempted to do it and unilaterally changed the Standing Orders in 1969. That was a tradition that we overcame in the early 1980s with the consensus of everyone here.
I find it a great parliamentary irony, tragedy, call it what you will, that it is a Conservative Government that is breaking that consensus and acting to re-establish the notion of the dictatorship of the majority in this House and lack of respect for the rules. All of us here, and future Parliaments, will come to rue the day we throw out the parliamentary calendar. We had it there with a little window where we had some sanity in this place. Some Members are trying to chuck that out of the window and everyone will pay as long as Parliament continues to exist for the fact that the Government put its own political agenda before the health of this institution.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I have a few brief comments, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have heard quite a bit of argument and I, for one, do not wish to prolong or repeat anything that may have been stated by other parties.
I wish to suggest to my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), that he is suggesting two things. First, I wish to deal with the procedural argument which seems to be that the Standing Orders cannot be changed without unanimous consent. I would refer my hon. friend to Standing Order 56(1 )(o) which states:
56(1) The following motions are debatable:
Every motion:
(o) for the suspension of any Standing Order unless otherwise provided;


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is otherwise provided.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I submit that one is able to suspend the Standing Orders. Second, prior to my re-entering the Chamber, I understand that Your Honour made reference to section 49 of the British North America Act which states:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a Majority
of Voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the Voices are equal, but
not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a Vote.
In other words, it seems to me that a question raised in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of the Members of the House of Commons.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: When it is in order. When the motion is in order. What we are debating is whether or not it is in order.


Mr. Kempling:: You are not the judge.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Neither are you.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to have to give this some very careful consideration, probably assisted by all Hon. Members allowing each other to put their argument. The Hon. Minister.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I will close with the following comments: I will go on to read to my friend Section 50 of the British North America Act which states:
Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the
Return of the Writs for choosing the House... and no longer.
June 9, 1988

I submit that we are not attempting to extend the period beyond the five year term.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Whoever said you were?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My hon. friend makes great reference to the fact that the parliamentary calendar has been agreed upon. I do not disagree with him. But my hon. friend, to use legal terms, can't suck and blow at the same time. One can't delay and delay and be everywhere in Hansard and the media saying: "We are going to stop free trade", and then when the Government wants to extend the hours of sitting to take care of an initiative of the House, complain that we are extending the time. One cannot have it both ways.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Bring in closure.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We do not intend to bring in closure just now.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Take responsibility.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We want to debate this issue on the merits. I submit that we have made the case that this is procedurally correct. I appreciate that the Chair will want some time to consider the procedural arguments. I can assure the House that when the procedural arguments are finished, we will be fully prepared to move on to other business, which is on the Order Paper, by the way, and we will be prepared to await your decision.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I wish to make a few points, and 1 would like to pick up from where the Minister left off on his reference to Standing Order 57(1 )(o). Indeed, that Standing Order states: "for the suspension of any Standing Order unless otherwise provided". It says "unless otherwise provided". In the Standing Orders we have a calendar provided for by the House and agreed to, after reform, by Members of the House.
Standing Order 5 states:
5. 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 .. .
If the Speaker has that authority, in my view, that is the point. The motion before us at this time is not in order. It addresses a point that only you, Mr. Speaker, with the reform of the rules, with the Standing Orders, have the authority to recall the House and to transact the business of the House.
I know some of the issues that have been put to the House today and repeated by some Members, for example, in regard to whether it is appropriate to have the motion before us, is it in order, or was it presented to the House in the appropriate form. Well, it was indeed presented on June 3 as a notice of motion, and it was transferred to government business. I do not want to argue whether the motion here is in order. I believe it is not in order, because it is not in the spirit of the new rules as they stand today.
Extension of Sittings
I wish to make the point to the Speaker that there could be a good argument made, if one goes back to 1950 or 1960 when motions were regularly put down by the Government to extend hours. They were done in a very normal and accepted manner basically because the House only sat a few months in the year and it suited the purpose of all Members that the Government did have that motion there. But then there developed a need to reform the rules of the House, essentially because the business of the House became full time and not part time and rules which were in force at that time had to be changed.
I refer you to the McGrath report, Mr. Speaker.

the report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, the Committee that tabled the report that formed the basis for parliamentary reform. I would like to quote a very interesting paragraph, at page 11:
For nearly a hundred years after Confederation, federal parliamentarians showed great reluctance to change the Standing Orders. A closure rule was introduced in 1913, but it was in answer to an immediate crisis and was seldom used in later years. Some reforms were effected in 1927, chiefly a forty-minute limit on most speeches, but this went no real distance towards improving the effectiveness of the House, regulating debates or apportioning time.
And the Committee goes on to relate various attempts at procedural reform from 1940 to 1950.
And I quote at page 12:
In 1958 a government was elected with the largest majority in Canadian history. During this period greater use was made of standing committees. However, the procedures of the House remained, in most substantive respects, those of 1867.
The same Government that was elected in 1958 with a very hefty majority in the House did not survive more than one and a half or two Parliaments, when it was defeated. Today, the Government is using the same strong arm methods to deal with the minority, and it too will be defeated because it does not understand the meaning of our Standing Orders or democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I may recall that when you referred to Section 49 of the BN A Act, which provides, and I quote:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a Majority of Voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the Voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a Vote.
Questions rising in the House of Commons! Mr. Speaker, those questions refer to substantive issues before the House, not to procedural issues. Perhaps I may recall the experience of yours truly here in the House, when at six o'clock, the Chair interrupted a vote called by the House, a vote that was not held because the Chair interrupted the proceedings, claiming that at 6 p.m. the motion had lapsed.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion that was an infringement, a contradiction and even a violation of section 49 of our Constitution. However, the Speaker said in the House: "No, you are mistaken, Mr. Gauthier". I said: "Well, all right". I accepted his decision. But I would like to point out that our present Speaker told me himself that on procedural issues, the decision was up to him. I can agree with that. But I maintain that

June 9, 1988
Extension of Sittings
section 49 refers only to substantive issues, and when such issues are put before the House, the House decides.
If it referred to procedural matters, Mr. Speaker, we would still be in the situation where in former Parliaments one could appeal decisions of the Chair. Do you remember? We do not do that any more. That has been changed. Nobody in this House would dare reinstate that procedure, but we used to be able to appeal decisions of the Chair.
I want to talk about the Hon. James McGrath, Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland. In the debate on the reform of the House of Commons and the Government's response to committee recommendations he said-I hear some Members of the government side do not want me to quote what Mr. McGrath had to say. I had a lot of time for Jim. I think he did a terrific job for this House in bringing forth the reform of the House and I appreciate the great contribution he made. At page 9150 of Hansard for December 4, 1985 he said:
We hope that the Government will give us a chance to function as legislators.
Further on in the text at page 9151 he makes a very interesting statement:
I hope in saying this that the Government will not lose the spirit which prompted it to start this reform process in the first place because if there is one thing this Government will be remembered for, among all others, it will be its determination to reform this place in order to make it more meaningful for the people of Canada.
That is what this place is all about, Mr. Speaker. It is supposed to allow for debate, but the Government does not believe that. It thinks it can suspend debates and have its way despite the fact that we have adopted a Standing Order which says that the Government cannot do that, unless the Speaker has been asked and there has been consultation. Standing Order 5 reads:
Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government-
The Government will be consulted, so why it would want to go around the Speaker, beats me, unless there is such arrogance-


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I cannot read anything else except arrogance on the part of the Government in trying to use its massive majority to demean the minority and to have its way. I will reread the first Standing Order for members of the Government who do not understand the meaning of it. Standing Order 1 states:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
There is, in my view, a strong case to be made for this motion to be ruled out of order by the Speaker because it breaches the Standing Orders of the House. It is not in the spirit of the Standing Orders as we have developed them over the years. It took dozens of years to come to a point where we can have a sensible, reasonable agenda. The Government is playing havoc with it.
We were called back here last August 11 and we have worked since then. We are not the only ones. I think of the 2,800 support personnel in this House who have given us their sweat and their competence since last August and who will not have any holidays if this lousy Government has its way. I say to them: "Don't blame me. Blame the government Members. They are the ones preventing you from having a decent break after 11 months of hard work". I do not think the government Members should laugh when I say that because it is difficult for people in this place. It is difficult to take that kind of arrogance from that Government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a number of points. First, and I do not think this one has been made clearly yet, the Government may be abusing the Opposition in this House by the way it is treating the rules. The Government is also abusing the Chair.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Where have you been for the last three weeks?


Cyril Keeper: Under the rules of this Chamber, the Standing Orders, the Speaker makes the decision about whether the sittings of the House will be extended into the summer. The Government by putting in this notwithstanding motion is taking away the power of the Chair to make that decision and vesting it in the majority in this House. It is seeking to take away the prerogatives that have been given to the Chair by the rules of this House.
I believe the motion is out of order for a basic reason. When considering the motion we have to go back to basics. I refer to Beauchesne. In Chapter 1 under the Content and Sources of Parliamentary Procedure, we find Principles of Parliamentary Law. Citation 1 reads:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law have always
been steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament; these are: To protect the
minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the
transaction of public business in an orderly manner.
It mentions both requirements, to assure the orderly transaction of public business and to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If there is one thing that this motion does, it is to fail to protect the minority.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Keeper) is unfortunately caught by the clock. It is five o'clock, and I know the Hon. Member will understand that I am
June 9, 1988

obliged to interrupt him. It has nothing to do with the substance of his remarks.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' Bills as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   FOOD AND DRUGS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Sheila Maureen Copps: that Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (list of ingredients), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity, as do most Members of Parliament, to meet with some young people from my riding. They were from Prince of Wales School, and they wanted to know what we did in Parliament. I tried to explain to them-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I hope that when she explained it, she had the support of all Hon. Members as to just exactly what we do do here.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I tried to explain to the students that as well as the work we do in Question Period which is often the cut and thrust of debate, we do work in committee and we try to pass laws to help the people of Canada. I think this Bill that I am proposing today, Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, is probably a very good example of how Parliament and in fact all Members of Parliament can work together to promote a law which will actually save lives.
I must say that I owe this initiative to a real tragedy which occurred in my area. If it is permissible, I would like to dedicate my efforts in this regard to the memory of a young man by the name of Christian Taylor. He was a 17-year-old young man, a student leader in his community and a volunteer worker. He was probably the kind of son that every parent would be very proud of. He had only one problem. Christian Taylor suffered severe food allergies, allergies so severe that every time he ate outside his home, he was engaging in Russian roulette.
Christian was very careful. He made sure that when he went to a fast food restaurant, he inquired if nuts, a product to which he was extremely allergic, were present in any of the foods he would eat. Unfortunately, like many 17-year-olds, he had been out playing a hockey game and he and his friends made their way to the local Arby's Restaurant. There was a
Food and Drugs Act
big lineup at the restaurant and one of his friends picked up an apple turnover.
Christian had never eaten an apple turnover at Arby's before, but he had eaten an apple turnover with no side effects at McDonald's and he had also eaten an apple turnover at Harvey's. He assumed that an apple turnover was an apple turnover. He did not realize that in fact, the apple turnovers at Arby's actually include invisibly ground up hazelnuts.
Christian took a bite of the apple turnover, and as soon as he ate it, he started to have a reaction. He had been told by his physician that if he ever had an allergic reaction to food, he would always have time to be treated, so he immediately hopped on his bicycle and rode home. By the time he got home, he collapsed in his father's arms. His last words before he died were: "Daddy, help me," and he died in his father's arms.
His mother came to see me. She told me that she had been lying asleep on the couch after having watched a soap opera or a television show and she was so sad because she did not even wake up before her son died. She asked me why the Government does not pass legislation that will let people know what they eat when they go to fast food restaurants. It seemed rather simple to me. We get involved in many long and onerous debates relating to everything from free trade to the issue of abortion. Many questions are not so simple, but I thought that it would help if I spoke to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).
When the regulations to the Food and Drugs Act that require the labelling of food sold in grocery stores were originally drafted, it was done because most people ate primarily home cooked meals. In 1988, with the way society has changed, almost half of all meals are eaten outside the home. I asked the Minister if he would consider moving an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act that would deal with fast food.
This food already comes in very expensive prepackaging. The major chains spend a lot of money on very elaborate packaging to try to draw the customers to their particular products. I asked the Minister if he could pass an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, by regulation, not necessarily by law, to require the major chains to label the food that is prepackaged. This would provide that those who bought Big Macs, as well as seeing the fancy lettering on the package, would see stamped on the side in not very large letters a list of the ingredients. If I go to buy a pizza at the grocery store, by law that pizza has to have the ingredients listed. This seemed to make sense to me.
When I spoke to the Minister, I did not want to make a political issue out of this. The Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) has been working very hard on this issue because the young man who died was in fact from his riding. I thought, as did the Hon. Member for Burlington, that this was the kind of issue that need not be a partisan issue. We do a lot

June 9, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
of partisan wrangling in this House, but this seemed to be an issue on which all Parties could agree.
The Minister said that he would look into it. Several weeks later, having heard no response, I asked the Minister to come to the committee. When the Minister came to the committee, he said basically that no labelling legislation could be brought forward because it would be too costly and too onerous. He said in fact that the onus of deciding to eat or not eat should lie with the consumer. I agree that the consumer has to accept some responsibility. However, in the 1980s, according to the most recent figures of the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association, $11 billion is being spend on food outside the home.
Even employees of fast food chains have told me: "I wish you could pass this law because I'm flipping hamburgers, but when someone asks me what is in the hamburgers, because they may have an allergy, I can't tell them." An employee of a local fast food restaurant actually said: "I hope this legislation goes through because there is not a day that goes by that somebody doesn't ask me what's in the hamburgers and I can't tell them".
I think one letter highlights the situation. It is written in very large printing and reads:
Dear Mrs. Copps,
I'm Bradley Adams. I'm seven years old. I'm very upset that we mostly don't go to restaurants because we don't know what is in the food. I'm allergic to nuts, peanuts and fish. When I eat those things my throat closes over and I could die. I'm really scared. Thank you for helping me. Love, Bradley.
That is from a letter from Toronto. His mother followed it up with a letter thanking me for introducing and supporting this cause. She also wrote:
Even going to a birthday party can cause problems if it is at McDonald's or Chuck E. Cheese. These places will not or cannot tell you what is in the food. Often the staff in these places do not understand why you are asking what the ingredients are and they think you are just another crazy mother. I think that this is what bothers me the most. There has to be something available so that we can know what he is eating and in doing so make life a little easier for both the people with the allergies and those who love them.
If the House deems that the motion I am bringing forward today is worth examining in greater detail, it could be improved upon. It could be made better. I would hope that the latitude I have allowed the Minister in the way of regulations would not place an onerous burden on him. I have been very specific in the legislation, particularly with respect to individual restaurants.
I recognize that for an individual restaurateur, having to label all his or her goods might be onerous. I said in part we should focus our initial attention on the 24 major fast food chains which have what is called a limited menu. They are in a position right now to tell us for the most part what is in the food they are preparing. If the Government, through acceptance of this Bill, moves to require that restaurants with limited menus be required to publish the ingredients on the package or
make available a specific listing, that would certainly be a step in the right direction.
I did not realize until I got involved in this dossier that on average one person a month in Canada dies from a reaction to food. There are literally hundreds who end up sick or in hospital for the same reason. I do not think it is too much to ask that our food and drug regulations require the same kind of information with respect to food in restaurants that they do in grocery stores.
The Hon. Member for Burlington may have been in the House when the original food and drug regulations were introduced. No one in the 1970s thought that the wave of the 1980s was going to be eating out. Most people wanted to know what was in the food bought in grocery stores because they would go home and cook it. However, eating out in this day and age in many cases is a downright necessity.
I have not done a scientific study but the people who die because of this tend to be teenagers. They are just becoming independent, they may be out with their friends and not under the eye of their parents. At the same time, they tend to know they have an allergy. It is not information that is just sprung on them. If they were able, through a listing of ingredients on fast food restaurant boxes, to read that peanuts or fish or some other allergen was in the product, they would be in a position to make an intelligent choice about whether or not they could eat it.
I was pleased to hear most recently when the Canadian Food Services and Restaurant Association came before the committee, that McDonald's, the largest company in this field and a trend-setter, is moving on its own to begin, hopefully within the next two to three months, to provide a listing of all ingredients in all its products. I applaud them for that. I hope that is a trend which the industry will want to follow through on. For the Minister to say, as he has, that it is too onerous a proposition is belied by the facts. McDonald's is already working on a listing and that shows it can be done, especially when you are dealing with pre-set, formula menus which is the case in most big chains.
Red Lobster is looking at preparing a specific menu which would be directed to people with allergies. For example, if you have an allergy to fish, you might not order fish but you might order something else which happens to have a trace of fish in the sauce and subsequently be subject to the same bad reaction. The corporate community is beginning to be sensitive, but I dare say one of the reasons they are acting is because organizations like the Canadian Allergy Information Association, the Consumers' Association of Canada, which has endorsed my Bill, and even the Ontario Medical Association is moving in that direction, along with literally dozens of municipalities and school boards have come together and said we need some kind of legislation. While I do not think my Bill is necessarily the perfect vehicle, it does permit the issue to be referred to committee for further study in order to make a better Bill.
June 9, 1988

I think we saw in the smoking legislation that was just passed an example of political Parties getting together to deal with an important problem. When Bill C-204 was first introduced there were flaws and changes had to be made. However, once it was referred to committee the three political Parties sat down and worked on it so that it came back to the House in a more acceptable form and it actually became law.
[ Translation]
I hope we will have the same opportunity with this Bill. Because what we are talking about here is the right of consumers to know the basic facts about what they eat away from home. It is all very well to say that if you have allergies, you cannot eat away from home, but for all practical purposes, in the world of 1988, it is not always possible to eat at home.
First and foremost, my Bill applies to the 24 largest companies, i.e. the big chains, not the small restaurants, because it would have been too difficult for small businesses to comply. But if you start with the 24 major companies like McDonald's and Wendy's-we know all the big chains-they already have set menus and it is not too difficult. Even company representatives have admitted that several of them already have the ability to put on the package the specific ingredients in hamburgers or whatever.
Mr. Speaker, I do not say that my Bill is perfect, because obviously we can have changes. All that I would hope, on behalf of dozens of people who have died-about a dozen die every year from allergies, others are hospitalized-is that the House decides to refer the Bill to a committee for further study.
Because some faults can certainly be pointed out in my own Bill one might say, for example, that I have given the Minister the right to define a "chain", because I did not want all small businesses to be affected. So I said that if it is up to the Minister to decide what a "chain" is, he can decide that only the largest companies are included, or if there are other ways to inform the public about allergies, smaller companies could be involved. It depends on the Minister.
All I ask is that the House find this question sufficiently important. Mr. Speaker, I have received more than 10,000 petitions on this subject already. 1 have received about a hundred letters. The office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tells us that he has received more than
4,000	letters of support for a bill concerning food and a list of ingredients in food.
Mr. Speaker, the Consumer's Association of Canada supports my Bill, and apparently, although I have yet to receive the letter, the day before yesterday articles in the newspapers said that the Ontario Medical Association was supporting my Bill as well. More than a dozen members of school boards in the Province of Ontario have also expressed their support. The Canadian Council on Children and Youth is very interested. The Association even called our office for
Food and Drugs Act
more information, and the director said he would personally support the Bill.
I think that even if there are some specific problems regarding my approach in this Bill, if the House agrees with the principle-we would start with the big companies, asking them to list the ingredients on the container-the whole subject could be referred to committee for more detailed consideration.
This morning, some students came to see me and asked me what we do in Parliament. I think we can say that we work together. Parliament is not just Oral Question Period and confrontation. We can also do a good job together. With the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), and I know the Hon. Member for Chatham is interested and other Members who agree to proceed, I hope that we will be able to proceed as soon as possible, if the House decides to support my Bill.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) for yielding her place in the order of speakers so that I could speak next. I appreciate that very much.
I want to compliment the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on the issue she has brought forward. It is a very critical issue in our lives today. It is a much more widespread problem than most of the public realizes. It so happens that a member of my staff suffers from the same kind of allergy as she described in the young man whose parents came to see her. In the case of my staff member, if a knife is used to cut a Christmas cake, for example, and then used to cut something else and he eats that other food, that is enough contamination to make him choke.
I know this is a very serious and very widespread problem. However, there is an additional problem. The Member talked about natural foods. There is a growing problem related to this, that is, the increasing use of chemical additives by commercial establishments to preserve food in order that it has a longer shelf life and, in some cases, supposedly to enhance the flavour. However, these chemicals are increasingly becoming a danger to many Canadians.
It so happens that my wife and I were attending a conference a few years ago outside of Canada. She went to a local restaurant and had just a portion of a shrimp omelette, a very innocent looking meal. Yet, within hours she was going into second degree shock because of an additive called metabisulphide. She had to receive extensive treatments of Prednisone to counteract that chemical.
An additional problem with this is the inertia which exists in the Department of Health where officials ought to be proactive on this issue. When we returned from that trip my wife took the time to do some research on it. She went to her doctor

June 9, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
and it so happened that he had suffered from the same kind of allergic poisoning just prior to that. The same kind of preservative was being sprayed on the corks of wine bottles. There was just enough preservative on a cork to give him the same kind of allergic reaction.
My wife met with officials in the Health Department and described to them in clinical detail exactly what was happening. What bothers me most is that they gave her careful, precise, and polite attention while she was there but then it was, it seems to me, out of sight, out of mind. Nothing happened after that. It appears as though officials in the Health Department do not recognize a problem until they have determined that it is a problem, that no one else has the right to define a problem until they see it as one.
Therefore, I want to compliment the Member for Hamilton East for taking the initiative she has on this particular Bill. I think this is a very important issue. It so happens that I do not think that the provisions of the Bill, as it stands today, make it a manageable proposition. It asks every restaurant to label "all the ingredients in such food is available for consultation by any person, upon request, during business hours".
First, some of that would be superfluous. If you know you are allergic to sesame seeds and you see hamburgers served on sesame seed buns, they should not have to be labelled. I mean, you can see that. Yet, under the provisions of that Bill a restaurateur would be liable to violation of this act if the buns were not so labelled.
Therefore, I think some of the Bill is superfluous and it is certainly difficult to manage. However, as the Member has pointed out, it may be that while the Bill has flaws it could be improved upon. That could be done in committee.
I encourage the Member to keep pressing on this issue to ensure that the Department of Health becomes pro-active on it and starts giving Canadian citizens the protection they deserve at a reasonable level so that when they go into a restaurant or buy food in a grocery store they are not buying a hazard, unbeknownst to them. When citizens take reasonable precautions in buying their food, they should not be put at unreasonable risk. They should get the protection they need. I would encourage the Member to pursue the legislation as vigorously as she can.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on October 8, 1987, nine year old Kelly Chinnick died of anaphylactic shock due to a taste of icing at a Thanksgiving celebration at school. Kelly was allergic to nuts and was unaware of peanut butter in the icing. I have a number of very sad letters in my file which tell of the tragedy the parents suffered because Kelly died as a result of this lack of knowledge.
As the Member of Parliament for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has described, a young man in Burlington died of an allergic reaction after eating an apple turnover which he purchased from a fast food restaurant. The young man was
allergic to hazelnuts and was apparently well aware of this fact. However, naturally enough, he assumed that since he had been able to eat apple turnovers from other stores this apple turnover as well would be free of nuts.
Perhaps if there had been some way for this boy to make a quick check of ingredients through a listing of ingredients in the foods sold at that outlet, he would be alive today.
The Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, in addition to considering the whole question of food labelling from the point of view of the Member who is presenting this Bill, also heard from the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association which proposed a food chart as an alternate way of informing customers of the food ingredients.
Whether the method of choice is a label, a chart, or a combination of both, I am sure all Members and the public would agree that it is vital that information on food ingredients be made available to the public, particularly to people who are subject to allergies. The consumer must have this vital information. It is a matter of life and death in some cases.
Persons who have food allergies must have information about food ingredients in order to protect themselves. It is certainly a responsibility of food services as well to provide information about what is in the foods they are serving.
It is difficult to determine how to do this in a practical way, but there is no question that the food industry has a responsibility. The consumer also has a responsibility, not only to use this information but to demand more information and to demand that the public as a whole is informed.
I myself had to learn by trial and error what foods trigger migraine headaches. Simple health information should provide that. The impact of MSG is something from which many of us suffer as well. Although that is certainly not a killer, it is symbolic of the allergies which many of us have in a slighter form. Therefore, it is not only vital that the information be provided, it is crucial that we alert the public and instruct it how to use information and where to get more.
Health and Welfare Canada and the Department of Consumer Affairs also have a very particular responsibility. I am concerned that the federal Department of Health has not taken more initiative on this matter. It should be assisting in facilitating practical measures, including an assessment of the proposals in this Bill.
While it is not a complete solution, this Bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act to compel restaurants, particularly the larger chain restaurants, to provide a list of all ingredients in any food it sells, as well as any packaged foods sold by the outlets. The Hon. Member who just spoke pointed out that it may be difficult to implement these requirements in some respects. The problem is with the smaller restaurants, independent cafes and so on.
June 9, 1988

I have referred to witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. The Canadian Restaurants and Food Services Association which appeared on behalf of the food industry admitted that it has a major responsibility to protect customers who have a risk of allergies from food. They certainly are concerned about this issue and have a very vested interest on behalf of their restaurant customers. They have proposed the use of a food chart which is currently being tested by some of the larger food chains. It was developed in consultation with the Allergy Information Association, an organization to which we should pay tribute. It has done excellent work in this field. It was developed in consultation with the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It would list the major food allergies and would be distributed to a vast range of limited menu restaurants. Of course, that is one of the restrictions to this technique.
The two advantages of the chart are that it could be implemented quickly and could be utilized by a large number of restaurants, particularly the large chains. The use of such precautions by some of the restaurants we mentioned could possibly have protected young people from death. The disadvantage of the chart system is that it provides limited coverage.
While the Bill proposed by the Member for Hamilton East has some limitations, any positive steps in this area should be supported. The committee would have to consider the fact that often the consumer does not see the label after the product has been purchased. Second, only the very large food chains could probably comply with the legislation due to the considerable cost of this technique. Third, the limited menu restaurants use a container for many different purposes, unlike McDonald's, so that the list of ingredients would be rather extensive and maybe very impractical. Finally, it would take a long time to implement the labelling procedure. However, it is a positive step which should be investigated. It may be practical to provide for a combination of a chart and labelling method.
The restaurants may also change their approach and limit the use of such things as MSG which has a high allergy content. There is no question that we should pursue all positive suggestions for informing people who have allergies of the ingredients of food items on restaurant menus. Of course, people must take responsibility for their own health, but they must have adequate information in order to do so. We favour all methods, including this Bill, that will be a positive step toward preventing tragic deaths such as those of the children who died from apple turnovers and concealed nuts.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I was Chairman of the Private Members' Business committee when this matter came before us. I am pleased that the committee acted in the usual fashion and immediately found consensus to approve this Bill as an item to be voted on in the House of Commons.
Food and Drugs Act
The young gentleman referred to by the Hon Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) lived in my riding. Christian Taylor's mother came to see me after her son's death. To say the least, I was shocked at what happened and wrote to the Minister, asking him to look into the matter, and I know that his officials have taken some action. The matter goes far beyond this tragic incident.
I am sure that many of us have been with people who have not ordered certain items because of allergies. Recently, a lady came to talk to me about MSG. She said she would not go to a certain type of restaurant because it used large quantities of MSG. I asked her if she knew that some restaurants advertise that they do not use MSG. She suggested that there be a list of those restaurants published so people would know about it. I understand now that there are many people who are allergic to MSG and perhaps some steps should be taken to provide for a listing of ingredients used in the preparation of products.
After I learned of the unfortunate incident concerning Christian Taylor, I happened to speak to an allergist during a meeting I attended in Toronto. I said that Christian Taylor's mother had told me of her son's death as a result of eating an apple turnover. The allergist offered what I thought to be a rather cool and callous attitude toward the matter. He said that anyone who has a serious allergy should not eat out. I suggested that this may be all right for adults who are more disciplined, but it would be difficult for young people. 1 finally told him that I had written to the Minister about this incident in the hope that some steps would be taken.
I am pleased to support the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I know that the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare have had numerous meetings with the officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to determine how this legislation could be carried out. While there are many difficult problems to overcome, it should not detract us from moving on.
We know that the fast food industry subcontracts for all their ingredients, many of which are precooked. The suppliers will have to be consulted about the ingredients being used and perhaps asked to be more specific. I believe this will be a positive step and will regulate an industry more precisely than it is now. While none of us like more Government regulations, where the result of no regulations can cause someone to die or become seriously ill or impaired, then I believe this is a classical case where Government should move and regulate.
The issue for us is to get this Bill to a committee and get it there as soon as possible. Perhaps at the next sitting, the next time the matter comes up for debate in the House, we can move to have it passed on to committee. I think it is useful that we hear from as many Members as possible today in this debate so they can put on the record the various experiences

June 9, 1988
Food and Drugs Act
they have had in their constituencies and, by doing that, highlight the importance and seriousness of this matter.
It is important that we get together with officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the people in the industry, of course, to see how we can, in practical terms, work this matter through. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East in drafting the legislation, has left it open for amendment. I think that is good. It is a wise move on her part. In fact, she said in the House today that she looked forward to officials from the Department of National Health and Welfare and others contributing to this Bill and putting in place amendments and regulations that will make it work in a proper and effective way. We should move to expedite this Bill through the debate process and pass it along to committee so it can be put in place at the earliest possible date.
We should hear from officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare and officials from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as to the progress they have made. We should hear their recommendations and the results of their discussions with the food industry. We know that has been going on for sometime. It is useful to have this debate so that this subject that is so serious can be brought home to those who have concerns about food additives. Let us resolve to move this matter to committee when it next comes before this House for debate.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the Bill of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), Bill C-289. It is a Bill that has just recently been introduced into the House of Commons. Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, is really more than a Bill which will amend the Food and Drugs Act. This Bill is a reflection of very serious concerns of parents and other members of our society who live in constant worry about the contents of the food they are about to eat when they are out in restaurants.
It is very interesting statistically to note that in 1968, as an example, the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association told us that 18 per cent of all people in Canada eat meals outside of their home. Here we are in 1988, just under 20 years later, and more than 36 per cent of the population eat one out of three meals outside of their homes. I think that is a reflection of the changing dynamics of the society in which we live. We have working families and more access to fast-food chains.
It is part and parcel of daily life to go to get a hamburger at Wendy's or whatever happens to be the fast food chain in the area. It is fun to go out on Sunday with one's children and have a bite to eat. But if you happen to be the parent of a child or a teenager who has a severe allergy, you are taking their lives in your hands, not because you are not a responsible human being, when you in all good faith sit down and partake of a meal and there are serious consequences. If the question is asked, for example, if there are any nuts in a particular food, or is there a particular kind of mayonnaise which contains eggs
in this food, and there is not a clear and unequivocal answer, or a knowledgeable answer, you have taken your life in your hands if you eat it and are allergic to it.
Members in the House today have talked about the sad case of a young man whom I gather is from the riding of the Hon. Member who just spoke. This young man was allergic to nuts and died at the very early age of 17 years. What a tragedy that was. He had eaten packaged apple turnovers at other restaurants without harm, but this particular restaurant made their apple turnovers-and I am sure they would be quite delicious if you were not allergic to them-with hazelnuts. The unfortunate aspect is that here was another mother who was convinced these were fine, edible and safe for her youngster. Had he been alone or with a group of friends, he probably would have felt it was perfectly acceptable to eat the apple turnover because he had eaten them before and there was no problem.
My colleague has recommended a Private Member's Bill that would enable better information, increased food ingredient information, available to Canadians who eat in restaurants. I think it is absolutely key that where possible we, as parliamentarians, bring this problem to the considered attention of Ministers of this House so they can enact the kind of legislation which can prevent unnecessary deaths or sickness in our society. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) pointed out that one could suffer from severe migraine headaches from eating certain kinds of foods.
I think what is important is the provision for the kind of information which will enable people to help themselves, and we can go about listing that kind of information in a place that would be easily accessible and readily understood. I was quite pleased to hear that the Allergy Information Association has given some very concrete suggestions. It is one of the many health groups which have supported this action to amend the Food and Drugs Act, as well as others, including the St. John's Ambulance, Burlington Branch, the Washington Centre for Science in Public Institutions, and the Consumer Association of Canada, which has recently joined in support of this very important move to enable a change to the Food and Drugs Act.
Thirty-five municipalities, counties, towns and cities have passed resolutions in favour of the restaurant food labelling, and these are Government supported initiatives. After all, municipalities are part of the government structure of the country in which we live.
Eleven school boards of education have passed similar resolutions. We have received dozens and dozens of telegrams. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) received in excess of 4,800 letters from May 1, 1987 to May 1, 1988, from Canadians calling for food labelling. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, has received over 100 letters in response to her new Bill. We have had a total of
11,000	petitions, with signatures, collected. This indicates that the population is seriously concerned about what is going on. This is an expression of the will of the population to ask us to
June 9, 1988

please move and to effect the kind of change which will protect our citizens.
I was interested in my colleague's approach when he talked about the fact that young teenagers who are just starting to be independent cannot be monitored. They are having fun, and although they are aware of the potential danger they might not ask the question. He said that if there is an uninformed person giving that information, then how can they protect themselves? It is important to provide accurate information so that allergies to mushrooms, seafood, peanuts, soy oil, and all these various things is prevented in the best way possible.
It is important to make the Department of Health proactive. It is important that Canada Health and Welfare hear the voices of the Members of the House of Commons and is sensitized to the reality of our seriousness in this particular action. It is not just a ploy. All Members of the House regardless of political affiliation or Party are bringing this concern to the population.
I strongly recommend that while we may have some problems around this particular Bill, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that where there is a will there is a way. We can look at this problem from the point of view of finding creative solutions which I am sure will be forthcoming both from the industry and from the population at large.
I strongly urge all Members of the House to pursue all positions and all possible suggestions in support of this legislation, and to take it seriously. I hope that this Bill will proceed to second reading and be referred to a legislative committee as soon as possible.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of food adverse reactions and the labelling of restaurant foods is indeed a very complex matter. It cannot be resolved through a simple solution such as enacting regulations that would require ingredient labelling on all restaurant foods. That is not to say that this situation does not require action to provide some additional measure of protection to the sensitive consumer. However, before instituting a unilateral solution, we should consider fully all possible courses of action.
In this regard the Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare Canada has dealt in the past with specific problems of adverse reactions to certain food additives and is presently investigating the entire area of concern on a much broader front. The following comments will outline briefly how the Health Protection Branch has addressed this issue in the past, and the various approaches that are presently being investigated.
Many years ago, monosodium glutamate, MSG, a common ingredient used as a flavour enhancer in many foods, was found to cause untoward reactions in a small portion of the population. MSG was already required, under the Canadian food and drug regulations, to be declared on the labels of
Food and Drugs Act
prepackaged foods, so foods eaten in restaurants were the major focus in this situation.
The Health Protection Branch consulted with representatives of the food processing industry to determine the extent of the use of MSG. It also consulted medical and toxicological experts to determine the severity of these adverse reactions. Based on the information obtained from these consultations, it was concluded that MSG did not pose a life-threatening situation, and that a program of education for both consumer and food service personnel would offer the best means of reducing the potential for such reactions to occur. To this end the Health Protection Branch produced a fact sheet on MSG for distribution to the public. This program appears to have worked very well to make the public more aware of this particular problem.
In the early 1980s another issue in the food allergy and adverse reaction area presented itself. This time it was sulphites, a group of substances that had been widely used for years as preservatives. The adverse reactions suffered by some consumers to these substances were severe enough to require medical attention and even hospitalization.
The Health Protection Branch once again sought input from several expert sources on this issue. From the many meetings and consultations with groups such as the Allergy Information Association, the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the medical community, regulatory agencies from other countries, and the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, there emerged a clearer picture of the problem.
It was learned that the use of sulphites on fresh fruits and vegetables, such as in salad bars, was the most common source of problems. In further meetings with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association this organization voluntarily moved to discourage the use of sulphites among its members. In addition, the Health Protection Branch felt it prudent to enact appropriate regulations prohibiting this use of sulphites. As well, it continued its program of consumer education through the preparation and dissemination of a fact sheet on sulphites. Based on the available information it would appear that these actions have been effective.
Today, we are faced with a situation in which the labelling of food ingredients in all restaurant foods and food allergies have been brought to the attention of the entire nation by the deaths of young Canadians. There is certainly unanimous agreement among the Members of the House that the deaths of these young people are tragic and that something should be done to prevent, to the extent possible, any further incidents. However, this action should be based on a sound, rational approach to the problem. This is the type of action that is expected to be forthcoming from the Health Protection Branch.
Representatives of the Health Protection Branch have already entered into a round of consultations with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association and the Allergy

June 9, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Information Association to discuss the various available courses of action to address this serious situation. Among the available options are the use of signs in restaurants advising customers about the ingredients in the meals served in that establishment, or labelling the individual serving of food.
The first option was tried in the United States with the use of sulphites in foods in salad bars. However, as it turned out, this approach was difficult to enforce and hence was not very effective even in a limited application such as salad bars. Based on this experience, one can imagine the difficulties this approach would pose trying to cope with a much broader based situation. The logistics of instituting the latter choice, that is, the labelling of individual servings, renders it virtually impossible for a many-itemed menu and recipes which might frequently vary depending on the availability of ingredients.
Another option, of course, would be to put ingredient information on the menus. The economic considerations and labour requirements to keep the menus updated would be substantial with no guarantee that people would even read or understand the information. These comments would also apply to the preparation of a booklet containing such information for the consumer.
Another possibility is the appointment of one person in each establishment who is responsible for consulting with and advising patrons on the ingredients in the meals served in that establishment. While such a personal touch does have some appeal, it places a sizable burden on the designated person, and problems could arise if this person were not available or had to advise several consumers at different tables which would slow service and possibly irritate the customers.
Although there are many courses of action to address this situation, there is not a simple and convenient solution to this entire problem. However, I am advised that the Health Protection Branch, the Allergy Information Association and the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association have recognized the immensity and the complexity of this problem. They are agreed that the first efforts at providing ingredient information to the consumer should be concentrated in the "quick service" food industry.
Furthermore, all parties have agreed that at the present time it is only feasible to provide this information for the allergens responsible for the most severe and/or most frequent adverse reactions. A list of these allergens is in preparation with the assistance and support of the Allergy Information Association, and with input to be solicited from the medical profession. The information on the presence of these selected allergens in the menu items of the food service establishment is intended to be presented to the consumer in an easy to understand chart format. The timetable and other details of the implementation of this chart into the "quick service" establishments are under consideration at this time.
If this Bill before us today is passed, we shall be forcing a bureaucratic posture on the public and the food industry without any consideration of the effectiveness of this measure
or the difficulties involved in implementing this action. In fact, it may well jeopardize the progress being made by the health professionals in resolving this matter.
We should let these issues continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the Order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), informing the Chair that he is unable to present his motion during "Private Members' Hour" tomorrow, Friday, June 10, 1988. Since it was not possible to proceed, pursuant to Standing Order 39, with an exchange of positions in the order of precedence, I herewith order the Clerk's office to place this item at the bottom of the order of precedence. Since the notice will be deleted, "Private Member's Hour" will be cancelled, and pursuant to Standing Order 39, the House will continue with or revert to the business before it prior to "Private Members' Hour", until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TRANSCONA SHOPS- REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE WORK WILL REMAIN IN WINNIPEG/REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pursue a question that I asked of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) some time ago. I rose at that time to ask whether the rumours were true that I had heard about the closing of the CN reclamation plant in my riding. The Minister answered that this indeed was under consideration. Only a few weeks later CN announced that it was closing down what is known as the reclaim in Transcona. I rise today to continue my objection to this decision by CN.
I raise this issue in Parliament because I see it as part of a continuing pattern of depriving Winnipeg, in this case Transcona, of what should naturally be there as a result of its relationship with CN and as a result of its geographical location.
We know that Winnipegers are very sensitive, and rightly so, about work leaving Winnipeg for other parts of Canada. This sensitivity was rubbed raw by the CF-18 decision, but it
June 9, 1988

existed beforehand. It goes back to the decision of the Government, shortly after its election in 1984, to cancel the VIA Rail shop that was to be built in Winnipeg, the manufacturing technology centre, and various other things that were scheduled for Winnipeg but which the Tories put the kibosh on.
Winnipegers have watched the behaviour of the Conservatives with respect to these issues. They are now nervous about Air Canada, the implications of the privatization, and the decision that Air Canada has to make with regard to the purchase of new aircraft and the effect that might have on Winnipeg. In all these things the anxiety of Winnipegers is quite justified and is not to be dismissed as whining, in the manner the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) referred to the attitude of Winnipegers a few weeks ago. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface would do well to have a great deal more respect for Winnipegers' view of how they have been treated by this Government than he obviously does, but that is another matter.
The closing of the reclaim in Transcona is another instance of what we are talking about. One of the reasons given by CN for this closing is that it does not have as much rolling stock as it used to, much of its rolling stock that it does have is leased, and the leased cars are scrapped elsewhere. This is certainly true. The fact remains that many of us have bitterly complained for years about this policy of leasing stock, both in the House and in the transport committee.
It is irritating enough to be stopped by a train, but, when you have to be stopped at a railway crossing and you count leased American cars going by, you know that with every car jobs in the car shop in Transcona have gone, jobs in the reclaim in Transcona have gone, and jobs in a number of other associated places have gone. Yet the Government has done nothing to make CN see that the long-range viability of the transportation industry in Canada, indeed of itself, is based not on becoming dependent on American rolling stock but on continuing to have the kind of infrastructure it has had over the years.
I have a backgrounder here prepared by CN with respect to the closure about which I am speaking. CN makes the argument that it closed down the reclaim in Moncton, because the Moncton shops closed down, and that its scrapping of cars is generally associated with its main repair shops. Those cars have been deemed not worth repairing. They go to the reclaim to be dismantled and are reclaimed for various purposes, particularly scrap metal. CN says: "Well, the Moncton shops have closed down. That is a good reason to close down the Moncton reclaim".
Following that logic if Transcona shops are to become, as it appears, the only major repair shop for CN, why not maintain the reclaim right there, right beside the main repair shop of Canadian National in Canada? Instead, CN says that it will be transferring all the work to the reclamation yard in London,
Adjournment Debate
Ontario, which was chosen "because of its proximity to Canada's scrap metal recycling market". Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but I suppose Conservatives and the CN have never heard of the rolling mills and the foundry in Selkirk, Ipsco in Regina, and all the other industries in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or western Canada in general, which have looked to CN not as the only supplier but as the major supplier of scrap metal over the years. Because we are continuing to have the shops in Transcona, thank God, we should also continue to have the reclaim in Transcona so we can support those related elements of the western Canadian economy.
What has the Government allowed CN to do? Basically it has allowed CN to say: "To hell with the western Canadian economy. We will locate all this stuff in London, Ontario, where it can benefit an already booming economy". There are many people upset with this decision because there is all kinds of work. There is enough rolling stock, yet that the Transcona reclaim could have been kept busy for years and years to come.
I know guys who worked there and I know guys who work in the yard in Transcona. They have been shipping trains and trains of scrap cars and equipment from there. This could have been left in Transcona where it was, to continue to provide jobs and to have been the integral part of the CN operation in Winnipeg that it has been for so many years. Instead the Conservatives have allowed CN, as they have allowed so many other companies, to disregard the interests of Winnipeg and western Canada.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite always seems to frame issues by saying that because a Conservative Government is in power there are cut-backs, but if there were a socialist Government in power, there would be lots of jobs in CNR, and presumably in other Crown corporations.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We would not be closing the reclaim in Transcona, I can tell you that.


Blaine Allen Thacker: If the Member looked at the experience in Australia and New Zealand and in a number of socialist countries, he would find that even their Crown corporations have to keep up. The issue is not whether CNR should continue to be the employer of thousands and thousands of employees just for the sake of employing employees-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is not what I said.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The issue is whether it is there to serve the shippers, and in order to compete in serving the shippers, of course it has to keep itself efficient and on the cutting edge.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Talking about scrap.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is where the whole question of scrap comes in, exactly. Why does the CNR have to lease its leasing

June 9, 1988
Adjournment Debate
cars from privately owned railways? That would be a separate issue. Perhaps, if CNR were privatized, it could operate in the real world rather than relying on the taxpayer, that poor union stiff who is being sucked dry by the three levels of government simply because of the ideology that CNR must be a Crown corporation.
CNR is continually reviewing all its railway operations to improve productivity, and it has to do that in the sense of longterm technological and industrial trends. A reclamation yard salvages parts of the retired equipment for repair and dismantles the rest for sale to scrap dealers.
As my friend opposite has said, the size of the fleet has declined substantially. Earlier this year, the entire Moncton yard was closed down. That left London, Ontario, and Winnipeg. The reason, I am told, that it is being concentrated in London is that the reclamation yard is next to the scrap recycling industry in Ontario. It gets back to that tradition of western complaints-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The one in Winnipeg is close to the recycling in Manitoba.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Part of the reason it is in Ontario is that it is next to that huge recycling industry. This gets back to the typical complaint we have in the West which is that, because Ontario has a large population and is close to the Great Lakes and that huge population in the United States, industry wants to go there. The solution for us in the West, of course, is to have an increase in population. That is the real solution to our problems. All the other things, such as more representatives in Parliament and more Senate reform weighted to the regions, are side issues. We really need population. If there were 15 million people in the West, we would have power. I am sure the Hon. Member agrees with that.
There are 43 positions in Winnipeg affected by this initiative. Twelve are eligible for early retirement and twenty-two can qualify for CN's employment security program, which means they cannot be laid off if they are willing to accept work available at any location in their region by exercising seniority or filling vacant positions. The remaining workers have been in the employ of the railway for between one year and seven years. They are eligible for a combined CN and UIC job security payment. It provides up to 80 per cent of their job rate for a period determined by their length of service.
The closure of the dismantling yard does not however impact on the repair facility or the operation of the railway's Transcona main shops which employ some 2,200 workers, 100 more than last year. In the greater Winnipeg area CN's total employment is in excess of 6,000 people. I wish we had that in Lethbridge.
HEALTH-AIDS DISEASE-PUBLIC EDUCATION/FUNDING OF FEDERAL CENTRE FOR AIDS


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to comment further on my
questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) of May 18 regarding the need for government leadership and funding in the urgent fight against the AIDS epidemic. I want to begin by acknowledging the Minister's speech in Winnipeg yesterday, giving the broad outlines of the Government's plans to combat AIDS over the next five years.
At least the Government now seems to be taking AIDS seriously. We deeply regret, however, the lengthy delays in government action in the last two years while people died. Canada has fallen far behind international expectations.
Nearly 1,000 Canadians have died of AIDS. Nearly 800 others are diagnosed as having AIDS and an estimated further
50,000	people are carrying the HIV virus. Only now is the federal Government starting to fund a comprehensive attack on this dreadful epidemic.
For months, the Cabinet even held up operational funding that had been budgeted previously for the Canadian information centre for AIDS. While I am glad that a start is being made as a result of the Minister's announcement, I want to make several points and cautions tonight.
First, the new federal government funding, SI29 million spread over the next five years, must be measured against the immense problem which is facing us. While it is a welcome beginning, the Government must realize that it is only a first step toward a full-scale fight against AIDS. By comparison, the 1989 U.S. Budget proposed by President Reagan sets aside $1.3 billion for AIDS research and treatment.
Second, we are worried that the funds may not be directed appropriately and efficiently in the all out campaign against AIDS that is required. All the money in the world will not turn the tide against AIDS if it is squandered, if government policies are misdirected, or if the Government lacks the political will to address sensitive issues such as contraception in very direct, explicit ways.
Third, I am convinced by my consultations with the medical health officer in Vancouver that the most appropriate and effective way of co-ordinating both public education and support programs for AIDS patients is through the metropolitan and regional health centres, which should co-ordinate their efforts nationally and share successful techniques. They are doing the job now, they have lots of ideas, but they have not had the funds to get going in a comprehensive way.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to decentralize funding through local health authorities in major centres where there is a concentration of AIDS. The federal role is to co-ordinate such efforts, share information, and help conduct research. However, we need to get the money out there to the front line as quickly as possible. People have been waiting a long time.
I have written to the Minister and spoken in this House about the policies of the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding the provision of treatment drugs for people
June 9, 1988

with AIDS. I have complained about provinces which refuse to cover the cost of recommended drugs under medicare. I want to read an excerpt from a letter from Dr. Eric Jeffries of Vancouver about the Department's protocol requirements. He and others are concerned about the ethics and practicality of the so-called double-blind trials which the federal Department is suggesting. He says:
I understand that an aerosolized form of Pentamidine as a prophylaxis against Pneumocystis pneumonia is to be introduced in a double-blind trial.
-double-blind trials are largely used to compare a new drug with a similar drug which is in use. The new drug may be more effective or have fewer side-effects but the problem is to check if there is an improvement over the proven drug.
With P.C.P. we know the median life expectancy. It seems to me ethically unacceptable to waste time by performing a double-blind trial at this stage of paucity of information on AIDS. Double-blind refinements should wait.
On March 24, in a letter to the Minister, I raised the issue of the ethics of clinical trials for AIDS treatment drugs in Canada. I quoted the stand formally adopted by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association:
An adult person confronting the catastrophe of proximate certain death has a right to elect, for themself, any medical treatment whatsoever that does not cause direct harm to others.
The Civil Liberties Association also stated:
We are aware of the view that the single and individual patient with a rare catastrophic illness represents an "emergency", while a large group of patients with the same catastrophic illness represents an opportunity for a clinical trial which could be compromised if they claimed and exercised catastrophic rights
... As things stand, however, we regard it as nonsensical for catastrophic patients to cede their rights to self-determination in their treatment because of what can be seen to be little more than an institutional affection for the ideology of research rather than its vigorous pursuit.
Surely the National Health and Welfare bureaucracy can credit clinical trial data collected in the U.S. and Europe without laboriously duplicating research work already adequately done while Canadians are dying. This is not a scientific or a medical problem; this is purely a bureaucratic problem.
In closing, my colleagues and I acknowledge the Government's recent announcement. However, we want more details on these proposals. We want assurances that the money and effort will be well spent.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I reject categorically the allegation that the Government is somehow deliberately delaying the application of money to the AIDS program. Those types of allegations are quite silly. No Government of whatever stripe is going to deliberately delay the application of funds for research on AIDS.
The Member pointed out that the United States is spending $1.3 billion and that on a proportionate basis Canada should be spending $103 million. The Minister has announced that we are spending $168 million at the federal level alone. If we add to that the provincial contributions, it is far more per capita
Adjournment Debate
than even in the United States where the problem is much worse than it is here in Canada. It is certainly a lot more than the per capita expenditure in the socialist countries of which the Member is aware. As usual, Canada is right at the front line in solving a very major problem. For the Member to make that allegation against the Government only points out that she is really quite silly.
The federal Government's AIDS program reflects a diversity and flexibility of response found in few other responses to the AIDS problem, whether among the provinces or by other nations. Those qualities remain an integral feature of the national AIDS program. Another key dimension to the program is the importance given to co-operation and partnership with other organizations, including the provincial Governments. All these activities under the national AIDS program contribute to the broad question of education, some in ways not readily apparent.
Research is vital to addressing not only the factual content of education programs, but also to determining the social and behavioural context in which the key questions of prevention and understanding must be resolved. For example, the national study of adolescents now being carried out by Queen's University with federal Government funding is expected to provide dramatic intelligence on adolescent knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour which will directly influence AIDS education for young people.
Formal professional training at the frontiers of virology and immunology is crucial if Canada is to keep pace with the pursuit of new treatments, a cure, or a vaccine for AIDS. The funding given to research activities contributes to meeting this need.
In the health, social, and allied services the quality of professional skills such as counselling and psycho-social support is a prime determinant in the ability of these service providers to impart preventive education in terms that individuals will understand and absorb, whatever their background and circumstances.
Community based AIDS organizations have been on the front line of the daily battle against AIDS since the beginning. Their efforts to deliver candid, relevant, life-saving education to a widening circle of Canadians deserve great credit and respect. In many cases, the financing so critical to the survival of these organizations has come from one source, the Government of Canada.
The same applies to the public education and awareness campaign of the Canadian Public Health Association. Here, federal funds are being used to bring the message of prevention to the broad spectrum of the Canadian public. This will be considerably expanded by increased direct federal efforts in this field.
We are active on the international scene. It is universally recognized that more needs to be done. We are facing an issue that challenges us on many fronts, and no nation on earth has

June 9, 1988
Adjournment Debate
found the magic formula to step ahead of AIDS and stop it in its tracks. The federal Government has no intention of abandoning or diminishing its efforts to provide Canadians with the best protection and care possible.

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SALE OF EXPLOSIVES TO FOREIGNERS BY EXPRO COMPANY-REQUEST FOR RESULTS OF MINISTER'S INQUIRY / EXPRO COMPANY-FEDERAL ADVANCE


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the proceedings on the adjournment motion this evening. I would have liked to take this opportunity to pursue the matter in French, since I put the question originally in that language, but since the native language of the Parliamentary Secretary and my own happens to be English, and in the interests of better communication, I will continue in English.

The presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker) here this evening to answer a question which relates to the portfolio of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is somewhat surprising to me. While I do not for a moment doubt the versatility, flexibility, integrity, and sincerity of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, I feel that his presence here casts into question the seriousness with which the Government takes the adjournment proceedings and, indeed, after the debate today on the Government's motion to extend, the seriousness with which the Government treats this Parliament.
I say that with a sense of anger because I know, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, that no fewer than three Ministers have replied to questions I have posed on the scandal on the indirect export of explosive propellants for shells to Iran.
Indeed, on May 12, a fourth Minister, the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), attempted to respond but was sat down by his colleague from Supply and Services.
Returning to the specific reasons I am dissatisfied with the Government's reply to the question I asked on April 27, I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that I asked if the Government was prepared to tell the House "what the results of the investigations are" and, second, "why the previous permits were not withdrawn last November?" Neither of those questions was answered by the Minister replying that day, the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Indeed, he stated:
We are informed that no explosive material was sent to Portugal since last October. Three shipments of explosive material were sent to Holland last year-that the amounts involved were not sent by the Dutch authorities to another destination.
I believe that this shows that the Government is clearly not interested, in this matter, in determining whether or not
Canadian explosive propellants were used in shells that were used by the army of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
It seems to me that the letter of the Government's policy and the spirit of the Government's policy are going in different directions because the answer that was later given indicated that the Government, through the RCMP investigation, had satisfied itself only that the paperwork was in order, only that the necessary permits had been obtained. That was only part of the paperwork that was in order.
What had not apparently been investigated or verified by the Government was the fact, as we now see it, that this powder did go into shells which were actually exported to Iran for use in the Iran-Iraq war. To emphasize further the way in which the Government has treated this issue so lightly, the Minister replied that the amounts involved were not sent by the Dutch authorities to another destination. Of course they were not. It was never suggested they could have been. They were never even in the hands of the Dutch authorities. They were in the hands of Muiden Chimie, which used them to make the shells that were then exported to Iran.
There was another clearly unsatisfactory reply from the Secretary of State for External Affairs in answer to the supplementary question. He said, as reported at page 14866 of Hansard:
We have been looking into the possible abuse of export permits or other
matters.
He has never reported on other matters because the whole heart of the question lies in those other matters, as to what happened after the export permits had been used.
I believe the Government has approached this very important issue with little better than a fog of dissemblance. The objective of replying in the House has not been to respond but to mislead. Frankly, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), may complain, as he often does, about treatment from the media but the media has shown compassion and mercy to the Government in this particular matter, to an unbelievable degree. Outside the Province of Quebec, the question has hardly been covered.
Indeed, it does not reflect very well on the English-speaking media in this country that it did not cover a matter of an export which was not only illegal under Canadian law but also clearly in contravention of the Government stated policy of December, 1986, not to export armaments to countries that would either use them in active warfare or use them to suppress civilian populations.
We have further evidence now that it may even have been broken again this year. That is what is at the heart of this issue. Nothing would please me more than to have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport say that the Government has determined that that powder never went into shells and never went to Iran. I wish I could hear that, but I very much doubt that I will.
June 9, 1988


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) raised this subject in November of last year, we responded that the Canadian company, Expro Chemical Products Inc., had fulfilled all requirements expected of it in obtaining the required permission to export, and that although the matter was being looked into more closely, there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Expro. The results of that investigation confirmed that Expro in fact obtained all the necessary permits and sought the assurances of the importing Government.
The assertion the Hon. Member has again made in the House is unfortunately misleading. Expro has not shipped any of the explosives to Portugal since October of last year and has certainly not continued to export to the Portuguese client after the issues that came to light in November.
The House will recollect that the other European nation investigating the suspected diversion of explosives to Iran was the Netherlands, and we have been monitoring this investigation carefully. The company concerned, Muiden Chimie, had its export licence to Portugal suspended for a period of six months and had investigators from the Government in the plant for a prolonged period.
We do not deny that exports have continued to Muiden Chimie in the past months, but these were permitted to continue because there are clear assurances that the Canadian propellant will be subject to the controls of the Netherlands Government whose foreign policy views on the export of military goods to countries in conflict are the same as the
Adjournment Debate
views of this Government. In other words, exports to Muiden at this time are extremely secure, and we have absolutely no doubt that the propellant would be used for purposes consistent with our foreign policy concerns.
The Hon. Member also suggested that the major part of Expro's production was destined for Portugal and implied that an advance of $8 million to the company was inappropriate. I must correct the facts and point out that Expro is an important supplier to our own defence forces and does not rely on Portugal for anywhere near the major portion of its orders. It is because Expro is a preferred supplier under the Government munitions supply program that a loan was made to it under the Defence Production Act. It is important to our own defence needs that we have domestic suppliers of critical defence goods for use by Canadian forces.
In his most recent question on this matter the Hon. Member indicated that he had in his possession documentary evidence that exports are continuing to Portugal. Despite persistent efforts by my officials to get a copy of this document, a copy has not been forthcoming. If the Hon. Member is sincerely concerned about this issue, his co-operation would be appreciated. Upon receipt of the document in question, we shall be better poised to respond to the Hon. Member's question and investigate his allegations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, June 10, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers