1988-06-13

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-296, an Act establishing a moratorium on the continued development of nuclear power in Canada with a purpose of establishing a public inquiry into nuclear power that is followed by a national referendum.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a reaction to the Government backing down from its commitment to conduct a public inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle which was made during the last general election. I thought it was appropriate, some four years later, that we have a debate on this point.
The Bill essentially calls for a moratorium on any new use of nuclear power in Canada. It calls for establishment of a public inquiry into the use of nuclear power in Canada in the future. This follows on the tradition of countries like Sweden which has gone as far as holding a national referendum on the issue. We want to allow the people of Canada to let their views be known. On such an important matter of literally life and death, at least a public inquiry ought to take place. If not, we should consider a general referendum on the issue.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour 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.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (safety interlock device).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?

June 13, 1988
Motions


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léo Duguay: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this Bill, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, installation of safety interlock devices.
Yesterday, in Canada, approximately 400 people were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. One of the things that concerns all of us is that many of those people will be on the road today.
The purpose of this Bill is to allow judges in Canada to cause the installation of the safety interlocking device on cars. This device, when installed, prevents the car from starting if the driver of the vehicle has a breath alcohol level concentration exceeding 40 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.
This is one more step to help Canadians prevent the ravage of the innocent that drunk drivers cause us all. As the commercial goes, Madam Speaker, "If you drink, that is your business. If you drink and drive, that is our business".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think Your Honour will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion to be put to the House immediately. I move:
That, further to the Order of the House of June 2, 1988, the address of the
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to be delivered in the House Chamber
to Members of the House of Commons and the Senate, be at 11.00 o'clock
a.m., on Wednesday, June 22,1988.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, as has been the practice whenever the Government brings forward a thoughtful initiative, we indicate our willingness to co-operate. Once again, I want to say that there have been discussions. It seems to be a reasonable request on behalf of the Government. We will certainly co-operate 100 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Minister of State (Treasury Board) have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: That the second report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and
Resources, presented to the House on Tuesday, December 16, 1986, be
concurred in.
He said: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on this motion today on behalf of the New Democratic Party because I think and believe that the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal that has been negotiated with the United States makes this report irrelevant. Indeed, it indicates the weakness in the trade Bill with respect to energy. If we look at the report, a copy of which I have in front of me, we will see that it deals with various recommendations of the Commons committee, which is a standing committee chaired by the Hon. Member who I see across the House from me, the Hon. Member from Calgary. I acknowledge her presence and her chairmanship of the committee. She did a good job in chairing that committee.
In the report that is under debate the committee recommended that a Ministry of Mines be created as a separate portfolio with its own distinct Department. The committee recommended that the Government, in co-operation with the provinces, the Territories, and the private sector develop a federal mineral policy based upon a function contained within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. My point is that, as a result of the free trade deal, we cannot ever have a federal energy policy in this country. The federal energy policy will simply be the American policy. It will simply be the market economy. That will be it.


Mr. McDermid:: Wrong.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), the former Minister of Energy, stated that the free trade deal enshrines the present Government's energy policy. The present Government's energy policy is in fact the market policy, that is, that the Government should not intervene in any way in the market and the market will look after itself. What is the point then of having a new initiative, as this report says, by a federal Department? In fact, there can never be another national energy policy-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 13, 1988


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -no matter what kind of position it is.
I hear the Members opposite. I hear this myth, and let me take a minute to deal with the National Energy Program, which an Hon. Member from Saskatoon yells we supported. First, we did not support the National Energy Program.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Why are you worried about implementing another one?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I invite Members to take a look at the votes. There were eight votes on the National Energy Program. We never supported the program in terms of those votes. As a matter of fact, I think we voted against six of the items, and I think that the Conservative Opposition voted against six of the items. Members can yell all they want. I was there and, in fact, so was the NDP energy critic at the time of the votes.
Members will recall that the National Energy Program was a program that the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and the then Premier of Alberta Mr. Lougheed clinked champagne glasses over and agreed to. When the Conservatives yell at me and have this myth about the hated National Energy Program, they should remember there was a deal between the federal Government and the provincial Tories in Alberta.
There was a great deal of pressure on the provincial Tories. There were energy wars, as there will be in the future of this country. The fact is that they made a deal, and the people who enacted the National Energy Program were the Liberal Government, which was a majority Government. The New Democratic Party was in opposition, with the federal Conservative Party opposing the National Energy Program.
I will tell Members opposite why we opposed it. We opposed it for two reasons. I see that the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) is leaving. He will not listen. Why does he not listen? He might learn something about energy.


Mr. Kempling:: Say something intelligent and I will stay.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There were two problems with the program. One, it was based on prices going up, but oil prices stabilized and went down. No one thought about what would happen if prices went down. That was one of the great flaws in the program. They thought it would go up to about $73 a barrel and everyone was going to have much money from these oil prices going up, but they did not go up.
The second problem was that in the National Energy Program the Government enacted a program called the Petroleum Incentive Program grants, PIP grants. These grants amounted to $8 million-as expensive as the nuclear subs we are supposedly going to get. If that $8 billion is included with some previous grants, it amounts to approximately $13 billion to the oil industry. It was a program to get people to drill offshore and in the North. Our position was that this was a mistake and a waste of money. In fact, the drilling should have carried out in the western sedimentary basin in Alberta and
Committee Reports
Saskatchewan. That was the position of the NDP. We suggested that if the Government wished to spend $8 billion to Canadianize, Imperial Oil could have been bought for that amount of money.


John Horton McDermid: That's what you would have done.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Instead, the Government wasted $8 to $13 billion to drill a lot of holes in the Arctic and offshore, most of which did not produce, and some of which did. That was the way the Government was going to encourage Canadianization of the industry. Of course, that did not happen. Those were our criticisms of the National Energy Program.
We were in favour of holding the gasoline prices down for Canadian consumers. What happened was that Canadian consumers saved billions of dollars. I hope the Canadian people are listening to this because here is what happened. The Canadian Government said, in the early 1980s when the oil price rose, that it was going to protect Canadians and Canadians were not going to have to pay world prices. It is our oil. It does not belong to the American multinationals or to the United States of America. It belongs to the Canadian people generally. "We are not going to let Canadians pay these high world prices, we are going to give them a break at the pumps". The National Energy Program was very popular from that aspect. At the time polls were conducted and 73 to 80 per cent of the Canadian people supported the program. The Tory Party, which speaks for a very small group of multinationals and large oil companies in Alberta has spread the myth around that the whole program had to be scuttled, changed, and we had to have a total free market economy.
Canadians should wake up to what is happening. Big oil has won. Big oil and the Conservative Party are like this. They neck with each other. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Petroleum Association, which represents big oil, when talking about the Conservative energy policies of the Mulroney Government, says that "they are our policies. They are exactly what we want". That is exactly what they got.


John Horton McDermid: Quote IP AC.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: IPAC is also dominated by foreign oil companies when you look at it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Come on. You don't know your elbow from your ear.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If you look at it and figure out what is going on.


John Horton McDermid: Check with the 700 independent Canadian oil companies and see what they say about it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wish to return to the free trade deal. Under the free trade deal we are going to let the Americans set our energy policy. In fact, we are going to share the ace card that

June 13, 1988
Committee Reports
we have on mineral resources, our oil resources, and even our water resources with the Americans.


Mrs. Sparrow:: That's not true.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On this ground alone the Canadian people should reject the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. Canada should wake up, because in the next energy crisis we will be paying the top world prices. Furthermore, perhaps we will have gas jams. One will have to line up at a gas station to get gasoline in Canada, just as one had to do in California in 1972.
When Premier Lougheed, the former Premier of Alberta, appeared before the committee examining the Mulroney trade deal, he made his position perfectly clear. He said: "The biggest plus of this agreement is that it would preclude a federal Government from ever bringing in a National Energy Program ... Those who want to have another NEP, fine. But you cannot do it... This agreement forces the market-place to decide on pricing. I think this is a very big positive". That is very interesting.
A small oilman, a fellow named John Mercier, appeared before the committee. He said: "If our former Premier, Peter Lougheed, said that the reason the free trade agreement is good for Alberta is because we will never have another National Energy Program, it would really disturb me ... If he means it, he has joined other people in saying that Confederation is not going to work. Instead of going into battle with Ontario for Alberta's rights-" that is the fight within Canada for energy policy and the control of energy pricing-"are we going to allocate the authority to some administrator in Washington?" In other words, Premier Lougheed was telling the committee: "I prefer to deal with Washington rather than deal with Ottawa".


John Horton McDermid: That's totally untrue, and you know it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, that is the import of his remarks. Ralph Loffmark, a distinguished British Columbian and former Minister in W.A.C. Bennett's Government, also appeared before the committee. He said: "I find it difficult to accept the argument of the Alberta people that a national energy policy that had one price across Canada was not fair to the Alberta people. Let us look at that not being fair". He asked how in the world we can object to our own national energy program of a few years ago which we are told has now been dismantled, and then turn around and implement exactly the same thing. Instead of the Ontario people getting cheap gas and oil now, though, it is the Americans.


John Horton McDermid: That is totally untrue.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member might think it is totally false, but that is what Ralph Loffmark, a former Energy and Economic Minister in the British Columbia Bennett Government, said.
Let us look in some detail at the free trade deal. Article 901 says that basically every kind of energy product is included in this agreement, oil, natural gas, coal, electricity and uranium. Articles 902 and 903 say that Canada basically gives up the right to use either minimum export or import prices as well as the right to employ export taxes or export quotas in developing its energy policy. This means that Canada is supplying the United States with a de facto subsidy. We sell the United States energy based on its market prices, this being the most accessible of the oil and gas resources. These resources will eventually have to be replaced by higher priced replacements which we will be forced to develop. We cannot, of course, put in place a made-in-Canada energy policy.
This is the problem. Conservatives do not like a made-in-Canada energy policy. The Opposition likes it in various forms. So instead of Conservatives campaigning against it, winning an election and not having it, or us campaigning for it, winning an election and keeping it, they fixed the election through the free trade deal. If the Opposition ever gets in to power, it can never enact a made-in-Canada energy policy because of the free trade deal with the United States. That is the problem with the free trade deal. That is why the Conservatives want the free trade deal. They want to make their policies permanent.
The Conservatives are fixing the rules of the games. They are playing a different game. In fact, they are joining the United States and giving up Canada's sovereignty.


John Horton McDermid: There's a six-month escape clause. Come on, be honest with the people for a change.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A six-month escape clause? I will be honest with the people.


John Horton McDermid: Then tell them about it. If you ever came into power, heaven forbid, you could cancel it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You can make a speech next.


John Horton McDermid: Tell them the whole story.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Do you want to hear the whole story or not? I am telling the whole story.


Mr. McCurdy:: It's hot outside, it'll be hotter in here pretty soon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to some thoughtful comments being made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and the Parliamentary Secretary obviously has some important comments to make. If he is patient and waits for a few moments, he will have a chance to make his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member was fortunate if he could understand what the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway was saying. The conversation going on across the floor made it very difficult for the Chair to
June 13, 1988

understand what was being said. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was arguing that the free trade deal fundamentally changes the rules of the Canadian parliamentary system, and I used that as an illustration of the energy policy.
The Conservatives have one sort of energy policy and the New Democrats have another. If we get into power, we will no longer be able to change the energy policy, even if elected by the Canadian people. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that I should be honest, we could repeal the free trade deal. We could not change the policy though because energy is enshrined in the free trade deal. The Parliamentary Secretary says that there is a six-month clause allowing us to tear up the deal, but the problem is-


John Horton McDermid: Here we go, listen to this.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, I think it is fair enough to say this, and I think I am being honest enough to say it. It will be very hard to change that free trade deal. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he would tear it up, but personally, I am not so sure that a Canadian Government would be able to do that. There will be enormous pressure from the Americans. They will say: "You tear that up and we will cut off your trade entirely," and what will the Canadian Government be able to do? It will be very difficult to do anything, so that is the problem.
Let us return to this report which proposes a mineral policy and an energy policy, and let us look at what the free trade deal does clause by clause, because it makes it impossible.
Article 904, another key article in the agreement, will require Canada to continue shipping to United States customers in the same proportion as in the previous three years if production is restricted due to shortages or conservation purposes. If, as is the case now, the U.S. imported 30 per cent of our light crude oil over a three year period and a major crisis developed, say in the Persian Gulf, we would have to give the United States 30 per cent of our light crude in the fourth year. No Government, either national or Albertan, would be able in time of need to reserve its resources for its own exclusive use.


John Horton McDermid: That's been in effect since '74.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If Members of the Government would just listen-they are really sensitive about this, and they should be sensitive.
No Government, either national or Albertan, would be able to reserve its resources in time of need for its own exclusive use. As can be seen, this article goes on to prohibit higher prices to U.S. customers due to government action. Officials, including Ambassador Ritchie who appeared before the Commons Special Trade Committee, confirmed that this
Committee Reports
means that any bonus pricing to attract new industry is strictly prohibited.
Let me translate that into plain English. A Canadian Government may want to give cheap energy to a Canadian company to encourage development in British Columbia, for example, because that is our birthright. We have those cheap resources that the Americans do not have, so we want to favour a Canadian company. We want to get some regional development in Canada, to spread everything out, because we in Canada believe in that. We believe in equality. What will happen is that we will not be able to do that because of this deal. These are the insidious things in the deal that the Canadian public should read closely, and that is why the New Democratic Party is taking the time of this House to try to explain this. I challenge the Government to call an election on this so that we can go to the hustings and fight for the future of Canada.
The western provinces are all in favour of the free trade deal, according to present Conservative Premiers, but they should read this very carefully. The Minister of State, in an effort to distract me, is suggesting that some of the students are leaving the gallery.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: They've had enough.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No doubt they are going out to get a copy of this terrible free trade agreement so that they can read it in detail.
I believe that Article 903 will strongly impinge on the provinces' rights to control their own resources. It specifies, for example, that no tax, duty or charge can be imposed on the export of energy unless it is imposed also on domestic consumption. On the question of provincial compliance with the free trade deal, the position of the Government, as I understand it, is as follows:
It is our expectation that the Provinces will not take actions incompatible
with the spirit and intent of the free trade agreement.
I was proud to be with my Leader on the previous constitutional matters of 1981 when we presented an amendment, Section 92(a) of the Constitution, which gave powers over energy exports to the provinces. I believe that the free trade deal will in fact change that, and in that way it is unconstitutional.
I could go on to talk about Article 905, which cripples the power of the national energy program, Articles 906 and 907, which talk about security measures, but I will wind up by saying that this report is out of date because the free trade deal emasculates the power of the Canadian Government to legislate on energy for Canada. We have given it to the Americans and we are fools to do that. That is why this free trade deal has to be defeated and that is why we in the New Democratic Party will do everything in our power to do so.

June 13, 1988
Committee Reports


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague for revealing to the Canadian people one of the elements of the free trade deal which I have not quite noticed being widely publicized in the literature being purchased by the Government to convince Canadians that they should buy this kettle of fish. If this deal is so great and if the provisions set out by my colleague are so much in the interests of Canada, why has the Government not simplified those sections and made sure they are explained across the country? Perhaps the most criminal portion-I do not see any other way of describing it-of the so-called free trade deal is the literal giving away of a competitive advantage in the form of energy to the United States.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: 
Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have a brief reply, Madam Speaker. As the Hon. Member said, indeed there is a new dimension of a sellout. Companies will not develop technology because big American companies will be here controlling it all. Look at Amoco taking over Dome. The pattern will start again with American companies taking over our Canadian energy companies. The Government will eventually sell Petro-Canada. If it is re-elected, the Conservatives will probably sell Petro-Canada either to the Americans or to their friends. That is what we are faced with.
What did we get out of putting energy on the table in the free trade deal? We got secure access to the American market to sell our oil and gas. But let us think about that. The Americans need our oil and gas. They are short of energy. All kinds of statistics are there. We have a huge surplus of energy which we are selling to the United States. The United States will need it. What did we bargain for? The access is ridiculous. We do not need to bargain for access because the Americans will take the access. We have 18 years of proven oil reserves left, 35 years of natural gas reserves and a 105 years of coal. If you compare that to what is in the Middle East, the ratio of Canadian oil reserves to current annual production is about 12. OPEC had at the end of 1986 reserves-to-production ratio of 73. Saudi Arabia is at 97 and 217. We have oil and gas now and we will have to develop hydrogen. But they will be gone. What will we do? We will be selling out our energy to the Americans to beat hell. We have agreed that if there is another crisis we have to share energy with the Americans. We have to be crazy to enact this kind of deal. We got nothing for it. The Americans want our energy. They have always wanted a continental energy policy. What did they get with this Mulroney-Reagan trade deal? The Americans got a continental energy policy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sold out this country to the Americans.
June 13, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is this debate?


John Horton McDermid: No, this is not debate. This is the period for comments and questions. I sat very patiently and listened to the diatribe that came from my friend, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Mr. Langdon:: You sat, but not patiently.


John Horton McDermid: That is right.
There are a number of things that should be understood by Canadians. The New Democrats do not tell the whole story.
First, the provinces own the resources and control them. The Hon. Member knows very well that the provinces tell people where and when they can drill. If they are lucky enough to find anything, the provinces tell them how much they can pump and ship and so forth. The management and the conservation of those resources is still entirely within the power of the provinces. There is no question about that.


An Hon. Member:: Talk about prices.


John Horton McDermid: The New Democrats are yelling for me to talk about prices. If they want to set my agenda for me, then we will talk about prices. There is a world price set for oil. For a number of years because of the policies of the previous Government the West was getting a lot less than the world price for oil. What happened to the West? The West was almost brought to its knees. We sell the West cars at world prices made in the Hon. Member's riding. We do not give the West a special Canadian price for cars made in Ontario that are shipped out. But we want oil here at a cheaper price. That is the way the NDP operates. That is the New Democrats' policy. Nationalize everything and dictate everything to the provinces. That is what they want to do and that is what they are afraid they cannot do any more.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: You want Washington to do it.


John Horton McDermid: And thank goodness, Madam Speaker, they cannot. Let us talk about prices. The New Democrats say we cannot sell our energy across the border for less than what is being charged here. That is totally wrong. The Americans are paying market price for hydro. It is a lot more than consumers are paying in the Province of Quebec, for example. That is allowed under this agreement. There is nothing in this agreement that prevents that, nothing at all.


An Hon. Member:: Have you read it?


John Horton McDermid: I have read it. I am willing to wager that I have read it more times than the Hon. Member has. The NDP do not want us to ship energy to the U.S. It wants to keep it to themselves.
Committee Reports


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: I struck a nerve over there. They do not want to ship energy to the U.S. Listen to them holler. They want to keep it here.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is untrue.


John Horton McDermid: They want to keep it to themselves. Cut off our best customer. There is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for anyone to do exploration and find more sources of energy if they cannot sell the product they have. Of course they want to sell it. Why shouldn't they? The NDP policy is absolute nonsense. They would arbitrarily cut off their best customer. That is it. We are going to keep it all to ourselves. That is the narrow thinking of the Shirley Carr-Ed Broadbent Party. That is the way they think in the Bob White-Ed Broadbent Party. We know that the policy is coming from the CLC. There are no thinkers over there so they have to get it from somewhere. That is the energy policy of the NDP.
Which oil company are they going to nationalize? Is it Imperial Oil? They will spend billions of taxpayers' dollars nationalizing another oil company. We need that like a hole in the head, too.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions or comments has expired, but I will allow a one-minute rebuttal to the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The NDP policy is to provide sufficient, reasonably priced energy to the people of Brampton and favour the Canadians living in Brampton over the people who live in California. That is our policy.


John Horton McDermid: Gas prices just dropped in Brampton.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I want to put a few things on the record so that in the future people will know exactly what has taken place here today. Someone in the NDP talked about dimensions. We are seeing a new dimension of irresponsibility here. I want to lay out exactly what has happened today so that when the time comes to wear it, my hon. friends opposite will know how to wear it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the Hon. Minister is debating my motion. If he is, I suggest he deal with the energy policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member might want to do what the Speaker was about to do, which is to listen to the Hon. Minister and then make a judgment as to relevancy.

June 13, 1988
Committee Reports


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am not clear whether we are still debating my motion. I would like to know if we are still on my concurrence motion.


Mr. Blenkarn:: You never were on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I said "Resuming debate". The Elon. Minister has been recognized for debate on the concurrence motion.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, we are presently debating my hon. friend's motion for concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources. I want to point out exactly how we got to that motion in the order of proceedings. During the time for Introduction of Private Members' Bills the Hon. House Leader of the NDP rose to introduce a Bill on the subject of nuclear energy. That is a very important issue. No matter which side of the issue you are on, the question of nuclear energy and whether it should be investigated is very important.
The usual request for the right to print the Bill was made, but that was denied by members of the NDP. Not members of the Liberal Party, not members of the Conservative Party, but members of the NDP denied it in order to trigger a vote which would delay proceedings of the House. When people read today's record they will find the motion to introduce that Bill was agreed to unanimously by Members of the House who came to vote. We then moved on after that delay to the motion of concurrence which my hon. friend spoke to at length.
What we are really talking about, though, is whether or not the NDP wants a 10-week holiday this summer or whether it wants to do the business of this House and the business of the Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I submit that imputing motives is not something the Chair normally tolerates. For the Minister to be suggesting that the NDP is even interested in a summer vacation when we have a free trade deal before the country is absolutely fallacious. We are prepared to sit here all summer if that is what it takes to stop the Government's introduction and passage of the trade legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Mr. Foster:: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak on the concurrence motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Wait a minute!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thought the Hon. Member was rising on the point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He is in the middle of his speech.


Mr. Nystrom:: You would never know it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your coming to my rescue like that.
Whether or not the NDP wants a 10-week holiday, I suggest that the purpose of this place is to debate issues and not delay them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is what we are doing.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Canadian taxpayers spend a great deal of money keeping this place open, and for the NDP to shut it down unnecessarily is absolutely irresponsible.
I want to lay a couple of quotes on my hon. friends with respect to the responsibilities of the minority and the rights of the majority. Too often my hon. friends are quick to refer to the tyranny of the majority, but there is also a certain tyranny in the minority not allowing duly-elected Members of the House to go about their business and do the business of the Government. I want to quote from Hansard as follows:
Every democratic assembly recognizes that issues will arise from time to time which the minority in all conscience cannot accept, which the minority in order to be true to its values must oppose vigorously and never concede. This is right and proper. It is one of the bases on which rest our democratic institutions.


Steven W. Langdon: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. You suggested, as this speech began, that you would follow it and test it for relevance. It seems to me that what is being said has absolutely no relevance to the concurrence motion. If the Minister wishes to make a statement at some stage, he is quite able to do so. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the motion which is before the House at the moment.
It seems to me that the further this speech goes, the further it diverges from the rules of this House with respect to relevance and direct reference to the subject before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Minister will make an effort to tie together the concurrence motion and the message he is obviously trying to convey to this House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I will certainly make the same effort to be relevant as have my hon. colleagues opposite. I will also give the same courtesies to them as they expect from all Members of the House with respect to speeches, interruptions, and relevancy.
I think the biggest problem is that they do not like what they are hearing. They do not like these quotations. One might ask how often free trade is referred to in this particular report of the committee. No one would accept more quickly than I strict enforcement of the rule of relevancy. I am prepared at any time, in any debate, to have the rule of relevancy enforced strictly. I put that on the record because it never comes from the NDP.
June 13, 1988

We are really talking about whether the majority will proceed to do the business of government or whether we will have a tyranny of the minority. In order to spare my hon. colleagues from any future embarrassment, because they do not like what we are reading into the record, we intend to eliminate the delay in the proceedings.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Another closure.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We'll get to closure later. I want to point out just once more that we were sent here to govern, to respect the rights of the minorities, to keep this place open and do the work of the people of Canada. The NDP does not want to do the work of Canada so, therefore-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I move:
That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
	S. O. 21	
Marin	Oostrom	TaylorMazankowski	Pennock	TowersMcCain	Price	TupperMcCrossan	Redway	WilsonMcDermid	Reid	(EtobicokeMcDougall	Ricard	Centre)(St. Paul's)	St. Germain	WinegardMcKenzie	Scowen	Wise-60McKnight	Siddon	Merrithew	Sparrow	Minaker	Stackhouse	Mitges	Stewart	NAYS	Members	Blaikie	Langdon	Riisde Jong	Marchi	TobinGarneau	McCurdy	WaddellGauthier	Mitchell	Young-22Grondin	Nystrom	Heap	Orlikow	Hovdebo	Ouellet	Jewett	Penner	Keeper	Pepin


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
It being after 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.03 p.m. the House took recess.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada met the Canadian Peace Alliance, a coalition of over 400 organizations dedicated to peace across this country, which held its annual meeting on the weekend in Ottawa, under the theme: Vote for peace!
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition had a very constructive conversation with representatives of these peace organizations, in the course of which he recalled certain aspects of the Party's policy program, including the Party's rejection of the Mulroney Government's project to provide Canada's Armed Forces with a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.
Second, the rejection of cruise missile testing in Canada, in view of the agreement signed by the United States and the Soviet Union, which will prohibit intermediate nuclear forces in Europe.
Third, the creation of a new international status for the Arctic by means of a multilateral treaty designed to stop the

June 13, 1988
militarization of the circumpolar region, a treaty that would include all Arctic powers.
And finally, a proposal that Canada again seek a seat on the UN Security Council, so that it will be able to make a durable contribution to resolving regional conflicts such as those in the Middle East, Central America and South East Asia.



ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Legion was built on service. Service for country was a qualification for membership.
Working closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Royal Canadian Legion has given the veterans of Canada one of the best programs of support in the whole world.
Since World War II the emphasis has been on service, not for self, but service for the handicapped, the disabled, and dependants. Stories of the good works of branches across the country for their communities and the peoples who live within them are legion themselves.
I am sure all Members of the House will want to join in commending the Royal Canadian Legion for its continued commitment to our nation and to our country as it meets in national assembly here in Ottawa this week.



CANADIAN PEACE ALLIANCE CONFERENCE

Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this morning many members of the New Democratic Party caucus, including the Leader (Mr. Broadbent), met with representatives of the Canadian Peace Alliance. Our meeting was, I can truly say, a gathering of friends.
The Peace Alliance has just completed a highly successful three-day conference in Ottawa. The conference was designed to make Members of this Chamber aware of the high priority which Canadians place upon the vital issues of peace and disarmament.
The Alliance, and Canadians generally, know that the New Democratic Party has always been and will continue to be committed to promoting international peace, security, and disarmament.
But it is obvious that the Conservative Government does not share that commitment. Its defence White Paper, laced in cold
war rhetoric, betrays an allegiance to an outdated and confrontational outlook on the world. The Government's misguided and foolish decision to purchase a fleet of nuclear powered attack submarines serves only to affirm that belligerent philosophy.
Not surprisingly, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) could not find the time to meet with the Peace Alliance today. The Tories are too busy spending billions on tools of war to make time to talk of peace.



PARTICIPATION BY MEMBERS IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour is well aware of the recent article in The Globe and Mail in which Mr. Jeffrey Simpson stated that in Britain government backbenchers get about one-third of the questions during Question Period, while in Canada they get one or two questions each day, in a House where Progressive Conservatives outnumber Liberals and New Democrats by roughly three to one.
According to the article, some of the most difficult questions for British Cabinet Ministers come from their own Party, while the opposition questions are usually predictable. Does that sound familiar, Mr. Speaker?
My question to you, Mr. Speaker, is a very simple one. When will Your Honour allow government Members more questions during Question Period? Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?


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



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, belugas ahoy! Despite the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) announcement of federal money for research, the St. Lawrence River will hardly be cleaned up because to stop the pollution, municipal and industrial, taxpayers' dollars are needed to build and repair adequate sewers and treatment plants.
Instead, the federal Government has cancelled its sewage and water treatment program while the Prime Minister creates the impression of taking remedial action. The fact is that, if we want to save the St. Lawrence River, including the belugas and other wildlife, the Government must turn around its misplaced priorities. Instead of billions of dollars for nuclear submarines,
June 13, 1988

that money should go to provincial Governments and municipalities to rehabilitate and protect our waters. The Liberal Party is already committed to pay the federal share of such costs.
Those who want action to protect the St. Lawrence and the belugas must attack the Government and its misplaced priorities.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, on June 9, Noranda Minerals announced at a press conference that it was committed to reducing sulphur dioxide emissions from its Rouyn-Noranda Plant by 70 per cent, by 1995.
This is now feasible thanks to a new sulphuric acid plant that will use some of the most innovative and sophisticated technology known today. This is very good news, not only for the people of Rouyn-Noranda and Abitibi-Temiscamingue, who will be getting cleaner air, but for the entire country.
Noranda will thus be ahead of the deadline set by the federal Government, which provided for a reduction of 50 per cent by 1994. This commitment by industry reflects a new attitude and is entirely in line with the federal Government's decisions and policies on environmental concerns since 1984.
Mr. Speaker, when industry causes pollution, it must be condemned. When industry takes steps to fight pollution to improve our quality of life, it deserves to be commended.



THE LATE FRANCINE McKENZIE

Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the country has just lost a great Quebecer and a great Canadian, Francine McKenzie, who died last Friday. Ms. McKenzie was president of the Quebec Council on the Status of Women since 1984. She was a deeply committed feminist and showed great leadership on several issues affecting women.
In recent years, she did important consciousness-raising work and research on new reproductive technologies, which made it possible to take these issues out of the laboratories and into a public forum where women could speak.
There is no doubt that the work begun by Ms. McKenzie will continue in the Status of Women Council and women's groups. But her absence will be felt; she will be missed. I join
my colleagues in the House of Commons in expressing my most sincere condolences to Ms. McKenzie's family.



ABORTION


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the abortion section of the Criminal Code that was struck down by the Supreme Court dealt with medical, psychological and health aspects to make it look respectable. The law ignored the fact that when a woman exercised the right to have an abortion, the rights of the unborn child were devalued.
With every right, there must be a responsibility. By opening the gates for unwanted pregnancies, the Parliament of Canada promoted the devaluation of all human life, and so no wonder more than 50,000 abortions occurred every year since.
Water will not cleanse our hands, we parliamentarians, if we permit these abortions legally to take place. A new law must protect every fetal stage of unborn children. Let us make sure as we approach the critical hour that one of the last vestiges of human respect, responsibility and freedom, are not lost.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the students of Our Lady of Fatima School in Renfrew, Ontario, have been studying environmental issues and have presented a brief to me and to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). They have asked us to present their petition to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and this is being done.
In their brief, the students state:
Through our studies we have become aware of the main causes of acid rain. Acid rain is promoted by an unnecessary use of electricity and fossil fuels. Both coal and oil are used in each of these cases. Coal and oil both contain sulfur and nitrogen which when released into the air, combine with oxygen. In the clouds these pollutants undergo further changes forming acid rain.
The students continue:
People might say we are just kids but we are not JUST kids, we are the adults of the future, we have rights TOO! We have the right to crystal clear water to drink and to swim in. We have the right to pure rain, and an acid rain free future. We also have the right to catch fish that are not deformed. We have the right to have a clean world as God meant it to be.
The students of Our Lady of Fatima School in Renfrew, Ontario, have asked me to impress upon the Prime Minister that he take their message seriously. May I respectfully request that he do so.

June 13, 1988



DISARMAMENT


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, today the General Assembly of the United Nations enters the third week of a special session on disarmament. It has received little attention but should have received much.
The need for arms control is one of the world's paramount needs when the world's annual budget for armaments is $1 trillion. The cost of human lives since the end of World War II has been 20 million killed in 81 localized wars. Some Governments in the Third World, like Ethiopia, prefer to use their slender resources to feed and arm their soldiers while people starve.
Escalation of arms acquisitions first by the Soviet Union, later by the United States, and then by the Third World, has destroyed many hopes that much could be done to turn this around. In recent times the Moscow Summit has given the world a new hope that the accelerating race to destruction can be halted.
We should not make the simple assumption that the surest way to peace is through disarmament alone. The history of past debates on disarmament shows the folly of thinking that there is any such magic wand.
We can believe that the time is coming when the increase of armed forces may be reduced and Governments can realize that being poised to destroy one another is not the only option open to them.



MARINE TRANSPORT


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, consider the sad plight of the junior Minister of Transport from British Columbia, left on the sidelines in the dispute which has erupted on the West Coast over the threat posed by Bill C-52 to the passenger cruise industry in British Columbia.
Last Friday the Parliamentary Secretary to the real Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker) gave this House a completely unqualified assurance that all problems have been resolved. He ignored comments of the President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) who admitted there is a problem but she would straighten it out with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The junior Minister of Transport merely told the industry "Trust us".
However, the B.C. Chamber of Shipping which came to Ottawa today to meet with B.C. Members has a different opinion. It continues to be very worried about Bill C-52 because the Bill may jeopardize the cruise ship industry which
brings $70 million in direct income to British Columbia. It wants amendments to the Bill.
I call on the Government to listen carefully to west coast representatives and review Bill C-52, and bring in possible amendments to preserve this vital west coast industry.



PRIVACY


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) responding to the report of the parliamentary Justice Committee and the concern of parliamentarians announced last week the Government's intention to restrict the use of the social insurance number in federal institutions. Over the next five years, the use of the social insurance number will be phased out and its use restricted to the administration of tax, pension and social benefit programs.
Many Canadians felt and feel threatened by the use of the social insurance number as a universal identifier, beyond the purpose for which it was originally intended. I am pleased the Government is taking steps to reverse this trend. The Consumers Association of Canada has hailed this Treasury Board decision as good for Canadians.
This Government cares about individual privacy. I hope that other levels of government and the private sector will follow our example and restrict the use of the social insurance number. Let us "SIN" no more!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the road to economic self-sufficiency is full of obstacles for Indian bands. An example is the experience of the Kettle Point Band in southwestern Ontario which has been trying for the past three years to win a food catering contract at the military base located near to it.
In 1985 the band established the Stoney Kettle Management Company and built up the necessary management and staff through government training programs and the local college. In 1985 and 1986 it lost the contracts because its bids were not the lowest. This year its bid was the lowest but it did not get the contract. Why, Sir? Because the criteria had suddenly and inexplicably changed. The band was told it did not meet the experience requirements.
June 13, 1988

Despite having successfully catered for numerous organizations over the past three years, and despite having bid $112,000 lower than the company which won the contract, the band was turned down. Is it any wonder that Indian people in Canada are cynical about the Government's commitment to Indian economic development?



ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, today here in Ottawa the Annual Convention of the Royal Canadian Legion begins. On this memorable occasion in the name of comrades of my legion Branch 212, I would like to pay highly deserved homage to our so competent Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Lanthier: Needless to say, our glorious Branch 212 of LaSalle is pretty well represented at this convention by an important delegation, skilfully directed by its President, George Stundon, who is being helped by the experience of its past President, John Jamieson.
But in these days of happy memories, Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the supreme sacrifice of some and the high price paid by our veterans who were hospitalized as a result of the wars and international peace missions in which our peace-loving Canada was involved in this most troubled 20th century. Je me souviens! Lest we forget!



PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, pornography is a major cause of social, physical, and emotional problems in our society. It creates a totally distorted view of human sexuality and behaviour. In fact, it encourages deviation, abnormal behaviour in relationships, and promotes violence towards women and children. Women and children must be protected from individuals who promote this disgusting and warped view of human beings.
Bill C-54 provides the mechanism which will ensure that pornography, which is nothing but vicious anti-women
Oral Questions
propaganda, is eliminated. I urge the Government to bring Bill C-54 to second reading in order that this blight on our society may be dealt with.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We all know that the Prime Minister is trying to buy the by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean. Today, the Prime Minister is visiting the riding. Apparently, he went to a dairy farm and talked about the high cost of this kind of operation. I find that incredible, Mr. Speaker, because we know that dairy producers have asked the Government of Canada to intervene to restrict milk imports from the United States, and the Government refused so as not to upset the Americans.
Today, the Hon. Member for Algoma received a letter from the Minister for International Trade who refused to act on the concerns of dairy producers because of this, and I quote:
... the delicate situation this would create in the context of the process of approving the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told dairy producers that programs designed to help Canadian farmers would not be affected by the FTA, but this letter from the Minister for International Trade says the exact opposite.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the contradiction between the Prime Minister's statements in Lac-Saint-Jean and the letter from his Minister for International Trade?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I did not detect any contradiction in what was stated by either the Prime Minister or the Minister for International Trade. Certainly there would not be any confusion or any contradiction in the minds of the 45,000 dairy farmers in this country.
We told the dairy farmers, in fact we told supply managed producers on March 16, 1986, I believe it was, that we would negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with the U.S. and preserve supply management in Canada. This is exactly what we delivered. In fact, Section 7(10) of the FTA, consistent with Article 11, sets out that agreement and that protection for not only the dairy farmers of Canada, who are supply managed, but also the supply managed commodities in the feather industry.

June 13, 1988
Oral Questions


MILK PRODUCERS-POSITION OF MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation of this article by the Minister of Agriculture is debatable. The Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec and other dairy producers have expressed their concerns about the volume of milk imports from the United States destined for Canadian consumption. The only reason the Minister for International Trade could give in this respect was that he was worried about the future of the trade agreement with the United States.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues have stated on many occasions that the trade agreement with the United States does not in any way affect Canadian farmers, but the Minister for International Trade is stating the exact opposite in his letter to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma. Why the contradiction?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, milk is not imported from the United States into Canada and, indeed, milk is not exported from Canada into the United States.


Mr. Orlikow:: How about milk products?


John Wise: I'll come to that. On March 16 we gave an indication that we would preserve the underpinnings necessary for the day to day operation of supply management. The commitment was that we would move the items about which the Hon. Member might be concerned, which are now on the tariff list, to the import-export list.
We gave that commitment on March 16, 1986. I stand to be corrected, but I believe it was the first part of January or the middle of January when I spoke to the annual meeting of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. At that time we had already passed the Order in Council which transferred all of the items which had been on the tariff list to the import-export list.
In addition to that we added a number of products which were not on the tariff list but for which the Dairy Farmers of Canada had been asking for 10 years. The previous Government had refused to do that. We also moved those items from the tariff list to the import-export list.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will know that we cannot do that unilaterally. GATT obligates us to notify all of our trading partners that we are in that process. We have done that.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should also realize that we have to negotiate import controls with our trading partners. Normally it is the average of the last five years minus the high or low year. That is exactly the process which we are in now.


FLUID MILK PRODUCERS' REQUEST
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture knows well that the fluid milk producers have been asking him and his Government for some relief and protection from the import of milk from the United States for Canadian consumption.
Now, in direct contradiction, in response to the Member for Algoma the Minister for International Trade said that he will not help Canadian dairy farmers because of-and I want to quote the words for the Minister in order that he will have them exactly from his colleague, the Minister for International Trade-"the sensitivity this issue would create in the context of the Canada-U.S.A. free trade agreement approval process".
The interests of Canadian dairy farmers are being held hostage to the approval process of the agreement. The Minister knows full well that a free trade arrangement between farmers in Canada, who have a four, five, or six-month growing season, is impossible with California, Georgia, Mississippi and Florida farmers who have a 12-month growing season. It is absolutely impossible.
Is that the same reason that the seasonal import protection was withdrawn from fruit producers in Canada and vegetable producers in Canada, and is that the reason we are going to have a five to seven-year negotiation period wherein every single agricultural program will be harmonized with those of the United States?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman should check his facts. It might be in his interest to change his researcher because there is no doubt in my mind, in the mind of the Government, or in the minds of the dairy farmers of Canada that we are going to fulfil completely the commitments which were made on March 16 in placing those items on the tariff list onto to the import-export list.
The hon. gentleman can just sit back and relax because we will deliver to the dairy farmers of Canada exactly what we told them we would deliver on March 16.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Sell-out.


John Wise: He should also check his facts again because the fluid milk producers of this country are not under federal jurisdiction. They are controlled by provincial milk marketing boards and provincial regulations.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Check the section.


John Wise: Not one provincial milk marketing board has raised its concerns about the importation of American milk to this country because it does not come here and never has.

*

June 13, 1988


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Two weeks ago I directed a question to the Minister of Trade about the statement by the chief legal counsel to the United States Trade Office suggesting that the whole dispute settlement mechanism would be unconstitutional under U.S. law. At that time the Minister said he was unconcerned about the matter, that it was a matter for the U.S. Government to deal with.
This weekend the chief spokesperson for the Canadian Government in the United States, the Ambassador to Washington, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that: "We would be profoundly concerned if the net result of U.S. legal constraints is that panel decisions cannot be implemented under U.S. law". The Ambassador is admitting that the whole dispute settlement mechanism is under question in terms of the U.S. legislation.
In those circumstances, does the Deputy Prime Minister not consider it foolhardy to ask this Parliament to proceed with legislation to implement the free trade Bill when the keystone of that Bill, the dispute settlement mechanism, itself cannot be implemented by reason of the U.S. Constitution? Should not the Deputy Prime Minister, as Government House Leader, simply decide to withdraw the Bill until those profound concerns raised by the Ambassador to Washington are answered?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member is making definitive statements about the free trade agreement, saying that the binational dispute settlement mechanism is unconstitutional. It is in his mind that it is unconstitutional. I know that he does not have a background in law so perhaps we can understand why he comes up with some of those statements.


An Hon. Member:: Neither do you.


John Horton McDermid: Two countries are presently implementing legislation. We are implementing ours according to the free trade agreement that was signed with the United States. We expect the United States to implement the free trade agreement within their legislation as well. That is what we are watching very carefully.
The free trade agreement does not become a fait accompli until the exchange of letters between the President and the Prime Minister takes place. That will take place after the free trade agreement is in legislation in both countries and abides by the letter of that agreement.


Lloyd Axworthy: I apologize to the Hon. Member. I did not know he had the same law degree from the same institution as the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION BE WITHDRAWN
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not understand that the Canadian Ambassador to Washington has said explicitly that the Government has profound concerns that the whole dispute settlement mechanism cannot be implemented.
The Government is running across the country saying that it is the key to solving the problem while the Americans are saying they are not even sure they can bring it forward and make it constitutional. Therefore, is it not proper and wise either to send Mr. Burney back to do more negotiation, withdraw the Bill in the meantime, and not ask Canadians and Canadian parliamentarians to sign a blank cheque or pass a law that cannot be implemented here because the Americans cannot fulfil their part of the bargain? It takes two to tango.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we know what the Hon. Member's son Stephen thinks of his speeches by the picture in the Ottawa Citizen today. He expresses it very clearly on behalf of the Canadian people.
In the Hon. Member's preamble to his question I think there are two things that should be pointed out. The Ambassador said Canada "would" have concerns "if'. Those are very, very big "ifs" and "would have concerns". Certainly we would have concerns about it if we could not implement it, but there has been very little discussion of that in the United States. We fully expect the Americans to put into legislation the spirit and the agreement we reached on the free trade agreement.


CANADIAN PEACE ALLIANCE CONFERENCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister will know that the Canadian Peace Alliance, a group that represents over 450 groups from Canada concerned with issues of peace and disarmament, is meeting in Ottawa this weekend. I understand the Minister agreed at the last minute this morning to meet with representatives of the group, but up until this morning the group was under the impression that no one they had requested to meet with them from the Government was going to meet with them.
Why this reluctance on the part of the Minister and on the part of the Government to consult with and meet with this very important Canadian organization?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, far from me being reluctant to meet with them, I

June 13, 1988
Oral Questions
came back to Ottawa, in part to be able to meet with them, and I was glad to be able to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member will know, for example, that the Canadian Peace Alliance put out a letter on Friday attacking the Secretary of State for External Affairs for not being here in Ottawa to meet with it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been addressing UNSSOD-III at the United Nations. I suppose he could have cancelled that if that is what the New Democratic Party would like, and stayed here, but we thought it was important that he should undertake Canada's obligations to promote peace internationally.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Secretary of State for External Affairs, unlike the Prime Minister, does have a good reason for not being here.


PRIME MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the Prime Minister chose to put the sinking political fate of his friend, Mr. Bouchard, over his responsibilities as Prime Minister-


Mr. Andre:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: to be here in Ottawa and meet with the Canadian Peace Alliance?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Where is Eddie?


An Hon. Member:: Quit playing to the gallery.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


An Hon. Member:: Where is Broadbent?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I obviously touched a nerve there, Mr. Speaker.
My Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, was there this morning to meet with the Canadian Peace Alliance. Why did the Prime Minister choose not to be here when he very well could have been here to meet with this group that is concerned about peace and disarmament?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is again doing exactly what created the disorder and I would ask him to not do it because there is a rule here, it is an old one going back decades, that we do not make comment as to why another Hon. Member is not in the Chamber. It only leads to other Members calling out that other Members are not in the Chamber. I would ask the Hon. Member to rephrase his question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is not about the Prime Minister's presence or absence in the Chamber-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Fennell:: Order!


Harvie Andre: Order!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is about his responsibilities as Prime Minister to meet with groups outside the Chamber. That is what I am talking about, and that is in order, and that is what I want an answer to.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, this really is an example of low comedy on the part of the New Democratic Party when it goes through those sorts of shenanigans. The Associate Minister and I were delighted to have a chance to meet with the Canadian Peace Alliance. We have consistently met with representatives of the peace movement in Canada and will continue to do so.
I am pleased as well to say that at the present time in Ottawa we have another important convention taking place at the Royal Canadian Legion with people who also have a vital interest in Canada's peace and security.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence wants to give us the impression the Government has gone out of its way to communicate with these groups. The fact remains that The Group of 78, VANA, the World Federalists of Canada and others have been writing to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for months trying to get an idea of what he might be saying on behalf of Canada at UNSSOD-III today. They have yet to hear back from the Governmemt. I want to ask the Minister of National Defence why it is that the Government in its actions today and in its actions leading up to today, with the Minister speaking at UNSSOD-III, refused even to answer the letters written to the Government to ask what the Canadian position is on a variety of these issues?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government throughout with respect to arms control and with respect to defence has been made public. What the public is entitled to have now is a clear statement from the New Democratic Party about what its policies are.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: They have it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Would they build a third batch of frigates and conventionally powered submarines-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: They have it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Answer the question!
June 13, 1988


Henry Perrin Beatty: -which would cost more than the
Government's proposals? Or would they gut the defence program and give the money to social spending?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What are you so worried about?


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is why the NDP is the no defence Party of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He may be a little paranoid.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HEAD OF SWAMINARAYAN HINDU MISSION
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Pramukh Swami Maharaj, head of the Swaminarayan Hindu Mission.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week, the Official Opposition raised the matter of the allegations made by Mr. Kealey with respect to the Member for Joliette. In reply, the Minister of Supply and Services said that he could not comment because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was investigating the matter. However, on the weekend, the Prime Minister qualified those allegations as being unfounded. My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Did the Prime Minister receive a report from the RCMP on the matter and if not, how could he claim the allegations were unfounded?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has been made repeatedly in this House that someone has some information about someone doing something wrong. No one has ventured that opinion outside this Chamber.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: You have changed your tune.


Stewart Donald McInnes: If indeed the Hon. Member has some information that might assist the Government and the RCMP, would he be good enough to let us have that information? It would be very helpful.
Oral Questions


Jacques Guilbault: You have changed your tune.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PRIME MINISTER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have news for the Minister. We are beyond that. On June 8 the Minister of Supply and Services said the matter was under investigation and that he could not comment on it. If that was the case, why did the Prime Minister comment on it and say that as far as he was concerned the accusations were without foundation? If there is an inquiry under way, will the Prime Minister withdraw his characterization of these accusations as without foundation, at least until the RCMP finishes the investigation that the Government itself says is under way?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, one assumption the Prime Minister has made, and I think all Members of this House should do the same, is that everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
I wish to affirm the fact that the RCMP are seized of this matter. I wish also to let the Hon. Member know that the gentleman, Mr. Kealey, was in my office concerning MICOT a good number of months ago and at no time was there any suggestion of impropriety on behalf of anyone in this Government.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns his statement last week that the Government was prepared to consider amendments to its bill that would water down Air Canada's obligation to remain bilingual. This answer reminds me of the "Gens de Fair" issue and the national crisis it touched off ten years ago. Will it be possible for Frenchspeaking employees of Air Canada to continue working in French at Air Canada if the Corporation is privatized or will only Air Canada customers be entitled to bilingual service?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I was responding to a question posed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who expressed some concerns with respect to this. I said in light of the circumstances, clearly the place for this to be raised would be during the committee's consideration of the Bill, and I think he was quite satisfied with that and I stand by it.

June 13, 1988
Oral Questions


MAINTENANCE OF AIR CANADA'S BILINGUAL CHARACTER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Bill C-129 states very clearly in clause 10, and I quote: "That the Official Languages Act applies to Air Canada." That is clear and precise.
The Government should have a policy ... Will the Government make a commitment to maintain this clause in its entirety and unchanged, without amendments that might undermine its commitment to Air Canada's bilingualism or reduce its scope? Is the Government prepared to maintain that principle? Yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right. The Bill is very clear. I do not know why that would prevent the committee from hearing representations by Air Canada or anyone else. Why is the Hon. Member so opposed to democracy in this country?


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier:: (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about moving the Economic Council of Canada.
In a letter that he wrote to me recently, the Prime Minister told me that the Economic Council of Canada, which has been in Vanier for 20 years, would soon move to downtown Ottawa. This move will cost $750,000 and according to the Prime Minister, it is essential.
The Prime Minister told me in his letter that the move was to enable the Council to work very close to other federal agencies located in the heart of Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, Vanier is a kilometre from here, six or seven minutes if you hurry a little ... I would like to know from the Prime Minister how we can be closer to the action than we are in Vanier. And can he tell us the real reasons for the move, or is the Government ashamed to be in Vanier?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a question which would more appropriately be addressed to the
President of the Treasury Board. I will look into it and get back to the Hon. Member as soon as I can.


REASONS FOR PROPOSED RELOCATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who is responsible for the Economic Council of Canada.
When I spoke about the cost of $750,000 to move the Economic Council of Canada from Vanier to downtown Ottawa which is the objective-and which is but one kilometre away, or six minutes-I was asking the Deputy Prime Minister what kind of reasoning can be invoked other than the false and untrue ones that have been stated in the letter with respect to it wanting to come closer to MPs, Senators, and House committees. Come on, can it tell us the real reason?
What will the Government do if this thing does not fly? Will it again change its mind? I hope it will. Will it save the money, take the $750,000 and spend it on other priorities such as housing for battered women or perhaps day care? What is wrong with Vanier? Leave it there, it is all right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the vigour with which the Hon. Member makes the representation.
I said that I will look into it and get back to him.


HOUSING
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister is well aware that in the present severe housing crisis in the Metro Toronto area less than 4 per cent of tenants can afford to buy a house. He is well aware as well that in the past our Party has advocated a system of mortgage interest tax deductibility in order to encourage home ownership.
Will the Minister consider instituting a similar type of program to allow residential housing tax deductibility for firsttime home owners, and institute a system either on a national basis or targeted for areas such as Metropolitan Toronto, targeted in the same way that the Minister has targeted other programs such as the northern allowance?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has expressed concerns before on what is a very difficult question, the question of the cost of housing in Metropolitan Toronto. We are aware of that particular problem.
Again, in this particular instance we appreciate the thought that he has given to proposals for us to consider. In this case as well the focus on the particular option that he has chosen
June 13, 1988

makes it very difficult to implement into places like Metropolitan Toronto.
In response to his question on whether we should introduce something such as mortgage deductibility, we have taken steps in tax reform to lower the whole level of tax rates. The reduction in tax rates will provide a much broader incentive for people right across the country.


NATIONAL NATIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the Minister confirm that he has dissolved the National Native Advisory Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse? Will he explain why, in view of the seriousness of alcohol and other substance abuse among natives, and the need to have native input into bringing about solutions, he has taken this action?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the premise on which the Hon. Member bases his question is correct.


ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER'S LETTER
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter in my hand addressed to Mr. Roger Augustine, signed by Mr. J. D. Nicholson who is Assistant Deputy Minister, which states that everything will be wound up by December 31, 1988. Perhaps the Minister is not in charge.
Therefore I would ask him to ask questions of his Deputy Minister to find out what is going on in Health and Welfare.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we know what is going on in Health and Welfare. We also know what is going on in terms of NNA-DAP, the drug and alcohol abuse program. What I tell the Hon. Member is that in terms of the amount of money that we are spending in NNADAP obviously that will continue. However, we also want to get from NNADAP some reevaluation. In some cases we now have facilities where our costs per bed are running extremely high. I think we can get more cost efficiency and in fact more people supported in drug and alcohol abuse programs than some of the infrastructure costs that we are facing.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN ALLIANCE FOR PEACE
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to answer some questions that were put this morning to the Leader of the Opposition at a meeting he had with the Canadian Peace Alliance. People representing the Alliance, which brings together nearly 400 organizations, were here and they complained to the Leader of the Opposition that they did not get pertinent answers to the questions they raised with the Government.
I therefore take this opportunity to ask the Deputy Prime Minister...

In view of the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. agreement banning intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe, is the Deputy Prime Minister now in a position to declare that Cruise missile testing in Canada will no longer be accepted?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know, the INF agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States, which was a result of the two-track decision taken by NATO, deals only with the issue of ground-launch Cruise missiles. Submarine-launch and air-launch Cruise missiles are not covered by the agreement. Our hope would be to have them covered under the START talks. Those talks are still going on.
At the present time we continue to find Soviet long-range bombers approaching the Canadian air defence identification zone. The purpose of those long-range bombers is to carry the air-launch Cruise missile. The air-launch Cruise missile continues to be a threat to Canada's security.
It is appropriate that Canada should continue to test an unarmed guidance system of an air-launch Cruise missile in Canada.


INTERNATIONAL VERIFICATION AGENCY-CANADIAN POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. The Hon. Minister should know that there is currently taking place at the United Nations discussions which are very important concerning disarmament. Why is Canada not ready to accept the proposal that has been put forward which is now under discussion to have an international verification agency come under the auspices of the United Nations? Why is Canada not ready to accept this? Certainly such an agency would be absolutely essential to monitor disarmament, and certainly to monitor a treaty such as the INF.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is currently at the United Nations at UNSSOD III. He will be

June 13, 1988
Oral Questions
coming back to the House, and he will be pleased to go into considerable detail on any of the proposals made by Canada.
Suffice it to say that across the board our position has been, first, to press for cuts in terms of nuclear and conventional weapons and, second, to press for regimes of verification and control which would ensure that those treaties are met.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the receivership of Massey Combines. It came to my attention over the weekend that a bid by Park Corporation of Cleveland, Ohio, to buy out Massey Combines in Brantford and run it as a self-contained agricultural implement manufacturing company was turned down by the receiver, Peat Marwick, in favour of a developer who will sell it off piecemeal.
In view of the fact that the federal Government and the provincial Government of Ontario have already put $200 million of taxpayers' money into that bail-out, in view of the fact that there are 2,000 jobs at stake in Brantford, and in view of the fact that rotary combine technology was built by Canadian taxpayers here in Canada, is the Government going to sit back and allow Massey Combines to be taken over by a developer and sold off piecemeal when there is a corporation in Cleveland, Ohio, that will buy it and keep it operating in Brantford?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, this offer was referred to over the weekend by the Canadian Auto Workers. At this moment we are not in possession of the specifics of the offer. We are looking into it and we are quite prepared to follow through. The Government is certainly interested in retaining not only the jobs, but also the technology here in Canada. I have instructed my officials to follow through on the matter. As soon as we have some additional details or additional news, I will be very happy to give my hon. colleague the benefit of that information.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTERVENE TO ENSURE ACCEPTANCE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister is the following. Will he give the House an undertaking that if that offer to purchase by the company in Cleveland, Ohio, guarantees that Massey Combines Corporation will continue in Brantford to manufacture farm implements, the federal Government will intervene to
make certain that that bid is accepted in the interests not only of jobs, but of the company, and the $200 million that has gone into bailing out Massey Combines?
Will the Government intervene to make certain that that company buys it?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, if the receiver receives an offer that ensures that the technology and jobs are maintained in Canada, I believe that that will meet the test of net benefit to Canada under the Investment Canada Act.
I am happy to see the support that I am receiving from my hon. colleague for this piece of legislation that might, once again in this case, ensure future jobs and maintain technology in Canada, in Brantford.


HOUSING
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the early 1970s the Davis Government ended a runaway inflation of real estate prices in Ontario by imposing a land speculation tax.
Since flipping residential property, often before a purchase has been closed, is a factor in the average house prices in Metro Toronto soaring from $200,000 in February to $233,000 now, will the Government consider incorporating a real estate speculation tax into the income tax system as a way of cooling this market off?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion of the Hon. Member, and certainly I will take that as a representation. The Hon. Member is clearly demonstrating concerns that others have had about the level of house prices in Metropolitan Toronto.
I might observe to him that, if there is any degree of excessive "flipping" of houses, to use his word, that type of activity could be treated as income rather than capital gain for tax purposes, and certainly the tax liability of the individual doing this type of thing might be quite a bit higher than is anticipated.


LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR HOUSING
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for housing. We have watched the Government give away money in the past weeks in this time of by-election and pre-election campaigning. What about the groups the Government has forgotten? I speak of low-income households, the homeless, and the near homeless.
June 13, 1988

My question is the following. Why has the Government systematically failed to address the Canadian housing problem? Why did it cut back funding to the CMHC from 1984 to 1987? Is it because people too busy seeking housing for their children are not vocal enough?
When will the Government make it a priority to provide access to adequate housing for all Canadians?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I might note, as I have indicated several times in the past few weeks, that the total amount of the budget, $1.6 billion, is now directed toward those most in need.
In co-operation with the provinces, we have been able to help 40 per cent more of those who come within this particular core area, compared to the previous Government.


ESTABLISHMENT OF SECOND TIER HOUSING PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. Last week, the Minister of national Health and Welfare and the Minister responsible for the status of women allocated funds to create short-term shelters for battered wives. Considering the serious housing problem, would the Conservative Government be prepared to set up a program for second-stage housing for battered wives who have left their husbands and are looking for a place to live with their children?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, first, by way of general reply, I might indicate that last Friday I spoke to the Canadian Co-operative Housing Association and indicated that we were changing our policy to accommodate 50 per cent of people in co-ops who receive a rent supplement.
Second, with respect to battered women, as a result of the Government's initiative and the $40 million announced last week, $22 million going to CMHC, 25,000 people who fall into this particular category will receive help.
We will monitor the progress of this program over the next four years, and that will dictate what else might have to be done.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. A recent Revenue Canada interpretation bulletin states that fees paid by an employer to a consultant to provide counselling to
Oral Questions
employees who retire or who are discharged will be treated as a taxable benefit.
Given the promise that the Prime Minister has made that workers dislocated by the trade agreement will receive assistance in relocating, does this new Revenue Canada policy mean that this promised assistance will now be considered as a taxable benefit?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, traditionally funds paid to assist people in retraining have been taxable income. If there is some variation, I will be glad to report to my hon. friend.
It seems to me that counselling services per se, unless they can be linked to the pursuit of income, would not be taxable, but I will have to check and see exactly what are the implications.


MEANING OF INTERPRETATION BULLETIN
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. My understanding is that in the interpretation bulletin only if a company hires outside consultants will it be deemed a taxable benefit, and not if it is done in-house. That again is a difference in department policy.
Does this not discriminate against outside consultants whether they are financial consultants or career consultants? Does this mean that if the Government of Canada through Manpower provides consultation to those workers who will be dislocated that that service will be considered as a taxable expense?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, what is considered a taxable expense, or what is considered as income can be, as my friend knows, a very subjective thing.
I will have to check. I undertake to him to check and give a more informed answer at the earliest opportunity.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Considering the importance of water as a natural resource, why is water not excluded from the trade deal with the United States as it is in relation to beer, unprocessed fish, and lumber?
Can we have an answer to that, Mr. Speaker?

June 13, 1988
Ways and Means


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, I have read David Crane's fifty-sixth article written on free trade against free trade. We know that David is attempting to become editor emeritus of The Toronto Star, and therefore he is following its philosophy.
There is nothing in the free trade agreement that obligates Canada to sell water to the United States. There is nothing in the free trade agreement that obligates Canada to approve projects for the diversion of Canadian water for export. As a matter of fact, I might point out that in the free trade agreement there is mention made, for tariff purposes, of mineral water. This, I might add by the way, is standard GATT practice. There are no greater obligations in the free trade agreement than those which have existed under GATT for the last 40 years.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if the Parliamentary Secretary took the trouble to read articles in the Star, he might also take the trouble to read the content of his own trade deal. He would then realize that his Government took the trouble to exempt certain products and certain substances from this particular trade deal.
Is the Government unwilling to include water in the deal so that it is explicitly spelled out as a natural resource that is not included in the deal itself? Why is the Government not willing to spell it out?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I guess if it is not mentioned in the free trade agreement, then it is part of the free trade agreement, according to the philosophy of the Hon. Member. That just does not hold true.
My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, explained very clearly in November the water policy of this Government. There is nothing in the free trade agreement that changes that policy in any way, shape or form.


WAYS AND MEANS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: On June 7, 1988, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) rose on a point of order relating to Government Business No. 26 on the Order Paper. The item of business deals with the Government's proposal to suspend certain Standing Orders and to provide for the sitting of the House until September 9, 1988, without the usual summer recess. He specifically complained that the Government should be required to give notice under Motions under Routine Proceedings rather than under Government Notices of Motions.
When Government Order No. 26 was called on June 9 and June 10 last, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) rose to object to the procedural acceptability of the motion. His argument was principally that the Government, in proceeding this way, was abusing the principle of majority rule and oppressing the minority Parties in the House. He asked the Speaker to intervene in his role as the protector of the minority and to use the powers vested in the Chair by virtue of Standing Order 1. He also argued that if this motion is allowed to be proposed, the Government could use the precedent in future and possibly do away with committee hearings, second reading debates on Bills and even votes on Bills.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West was supported in that argument by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. Several other Hon. Members, in particular the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), appealed to the Chair to save the parliamentary calendar which was the fruit of the labours of two important reform committees: the Lefebvre Committee and the McGrath Committee.
[ Translation]
The Hon. Members for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) and for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) stated that the Government could in fact call back the House during the summer under Standing Order 5, but they said that it should not be empowered to do so by a simple motion. Several other Hon. Members took part in the discussions on the procedural acceptability of this motion and I am grateful to them for their valuable contribution to this debate.

The Chair will address the major points in the following order:
1)	Was it proper for the Government to give notice under Government Notices of Motions?
2)	Can the Government initiate a motion to suspend the provisions of the Standing Orders?
June 13, 1988

3)	Does such a motion, if in order, require unanimous consent or simply a majority decision of the Elouse?
4)	If the motion is in order according to precedence, has the recent parliamentary reform changed our practice fundamentally and rendered prior precedents inapplicable?
Before attempting to answer those basic issues, I believe it would be useful to remind Hon. Members and the public of the specific effect of this government motion if it is adopted by the House. I should also reassure Hon. Members that its passage would not throw out the rule book, nor would it destroy the major recent reforms. It would, however, most definitely affect many Standing Orders from the period of its adoption to September 9, 1988. This motion would clearly suspend:
a)	Standing Order 4 which provides for a parliamentary calendar;
b)	Paragraph 1 of Standing Order 9 would be suspended and the adjournment of the House on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays would take place at 10 p.m.;
c)	Standing Order 66 relating to the adjournment debate or "Late Show" would also be suspended until September 9;
d)	Standing Order 10 which provides for an extended sitting motion would also be ineffective.

Those are the only Standing Orders that this motion proposes to suspend. Nevertheless, the motion provides that only Government Orders will be debated in sittings after 6 p.m.

However, other provisions for the daily business such as Statements by Members, Question Period, Routine Proceedings and Private Members' Business remain unaffected. In the opinion of the Chair, none of the traditional debating procedures would be curtailed and indeed more debating time is provided for.
The Chair will now address the first issue, that is, was it proper for the Government to give notice under Government Notices of Motions.
On June 7, 1988, the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap argued that the item filed on the Notice Paper under the heading Government Notices of Motions dealing with the extension of the sittings of the House of Commons was incorrectly placed and that it should have appeared under the heading Motions. He pointed out that since 1955, all motions dealing with an extension of the sittings of the House have been filed under the heading Motions and not Government Notices of Motions. This, he stated, was because the issue dealt with the business of the House and not the business of the Government.
This issue poses several problems for the Chair. I should first underline that the Standing Orders of the House are silent on interpreting which items should appear under Motions and
Extension of Sittings
which items should appear under Government Notices of Motions. The Chair must give some consideration to what types of motions can be filed under these headings.
Can a distinction be made between those types of motions placed under Motions and those under Government Notices of Motions based solely upon their content? I would suggest it cannot.
For example, in this current session, there are eight instances where the House made decisions regarding the Standing Orders under Motions by unanimous consent. However, on June 3, 1987, when the Provisional Standing Orders were further amended and made permanent, arguably the most significant decision on the Standing Orders made this session, this was accomplished after two days' debate on a motion which was called under Government Business. On June 2, the opposition Parties registered their dissatisfaction that the Government chose to proceed unilaterally with amending the rules, but no procedural objection was made to the fact that this was done under Government Orders and not Motions.
These instances reveal the fact that the Standing Orders have often been and perhaps usually are amended under Motions. However, the Government has also proceeded under Government Orders.
The question then becomes, what is the distinction between a Government Notice of Motion and a motion? I would suggest a Government Notice of Motion is any motion that the Government gives notice of. In other words, a Government Notice of Motion is not based on the content of the motion, but rather upon the mover. In many cases, therefore, a notice of motion could go under more than one heading and it is up to the Minister giving notice to decide which heading should be chosen. Clearly a Government Notice of Motion can only be moved by the Government, but the Government can choose to place it either under Motions or under Government Notices of Motion.
This concept is borne out in a ruling on May 16, 1985, by Speaker Bosley. He was called upon to rule on whether a time allocation motion had to be moved under Motions during Routine Proceedings or whether it could be placed under Government Notices of Motion and then transferred to Government Orders.
His decision was that it could be proceeded with in either way and that the choice was up to the Minister moving it.

The Standing Orders do not define what is to be in a motion or notice of motion from the Government. In view of Speaker Bosley's decision, which I have already quoted, I must therefore say that when there is no distinction, the Minister may choose under what heading he wishes to place his motion. I am, however, unable to support the Hon. Member for

June 13, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who says that this motion was entered in the wrong place in the Order Paper.

The Hon. Members for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) have all eloquently argued that the Government motion would undo years of difficult negotiations by two special committees. The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap has claimed that "we are at a crossroads". With respect to the calendar, the Lefebvre Committee in its third report, which was concurred in by the House, stated in part:
Your committee is of the opinion that a parliamentary session should be planned on the basis of three annual sitting periods which should ensure a reasonable certainty as to the dates and duration of the periods during which the House would sit.
Consequently, the calendar was inserted into Standing Order 4. The Hon. Member for Calgary West has indicated that the House has sat during two of those summer adjournments. These sittings, however, were the result of an application to the Speaker under the terms of Standing Order 5 and not as a result of a motion similar to the one presently on the Order Paper.
As some Members have suggested, the Speaker must take into account not only the letter of the rules but also their spirit. In addition, as I have said before in previous rulings, the Chair should also rely on that most basic rule of all, that of common sense.
To those Hon. Members who have asked me to reject the Government's motion on the basis that it is the "tyranny of the majority", I should like to point to them the possible consequences of accepting their advice.
If a Speaker rules that the Standing Orders could only be suspended or changed by the unanimous consent of the House, the situation could arise where the House would be in jeopardy of becoming procedurally the hostage of a single Member. Indeed, one Member, and one Member alone, could prevent any future procedural reform by withholding his or her consent. For example, one Member could prevent the House from adjourning in the month of May even if all other 281 Members preferred to adjourn prior to June 30.
The unique flexibility of the British parliamentary system, a flexibility which has allowed for adaptations to an infinite variety of circumstances, would be jeopardized. Clearly that is undesirable.
The Chair, however, is very supportive of the parliamentary calendar as brought forward by the Lefebvre Committee. I believe it has been responsible for bringing order to our proceedings and has encouraged and fostered negotiation and compromise between the Parties in the days leading up to the automatic adjournments. Without that co-operation and constant negotiation and compromise, our system of government ceases to operate smoothly. If the Chair were to support the view that only consent can modify the calendar, I would be establishing a precedent that would not only refute our practice and precedents to date but would make further reform almost unachievable and it would certainly be far more
Extension of Sittings
difficult to achieve the kinds of hallmark amendments brought forward in 1982 and 1985. The motion of the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) was therefore properly before the House.
I want to add one thing. There is an old saying that I may have referred to before, that hard cases make bad law. There was in this case a very natural temptation for the Speaker to try to find some way to uphold the continuance of the calendar. I have to advise regretfully those who argued so strenuously for that course of action, that I think that would have been a case of hard cases making bad law and I had to come down on the side of where I think the procedural law stands. As a consequence, it is accordingly my duty to propose the question.
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)) moves:
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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to start my remarks by saying that we appreciate the scope of your judgment and the comments therein. I think it fair to say that we especially appreciate that in following this course of action the Government must pay heed to the parliamentary calendar and not change same without having a very reasoned argument for doing so. I am pleased to put forward the Government's comments with respect to the extension of the hours and of the sitting to allow for greater participation by Members to complete the outstanding work before the House in as short a time as possible.
As you suggested, the House has a calendar which sets forth the days, the weeks, and the months when it will sit. The natural question is: Why the change? How does the Government support the change in the calendar and thus this motion? I want to give you briefly, if I may, some six reasons, and elaborate on them, as to why we want to change the calendar.
The first is that we have an agenda as a Government which has been well thought out and which we believe is in the interests of the country.

June 13, 1988
Extension of Sittings
The second is the amount of time and effort that all Members of the House, both in government and in opposition, have invested in legislation presently on the Order Paper at either committee stage, second reading or report stage.
The third reason is the importance of certain issues before the House and country which could not be foreseen when we laid out our agenda.
The fourth is the importance of the free trade initiative.
The fifth is the tactics of the Senate.
The sixth is the inflammatory comments and the delaying tactics of the Opposition.
First is our agenda. When we took office as a Government we decided to make some changes in accordance with the mandate given to us as a majority Government by the Canadian people. We sought to do and we sought to undo. We instituted a simplified approach to employment so that we could raise employment. We slashed spending. We slashed the deficit. We reduced the Public Service by some 15,000 people, mainly by attrition. We privatized Crown corporations. We enacted tougher laws dealing with prostitution, impaired driving, and the environment. We undid the National Energy Program which so unfairly crippled western Canada.
The list goes on and on. We deliberately set difficult goals for ourselves as a Government and we make no apologies for being ambitious because we believe Canada needs legislatures with ambition for their country.
This Parliament, the 33rd Parliament, has been one of the most productive in history to date. By coincidence, the 19741979 Parliament, which sat for 54 months, and the 1980-1984 Parliament, which sat for 51 months, both passed 177 Bills. This Parliament has passed 204 Bills in 44 months. In other words, if you deal with just the raw numbers, this Parliament has been 15 per cent more productive to date than previous Parliaments although it sat for much less time.


Jacques Guilbault: Then why sit in the summer?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I reiterate, we make no apologies for being ambitious as a Government.
Let us look at the amount of time and effort invested by Members of the House on all sides in the legislation currently before us. We wish to send the following legislation at the very least on to the Senate for consideration. We have Bills with respect to national parks, the proceeds of crime, the Official Languages Act, lobbyists' registration, the very important multiculturalism Bill, the privatization of Eldorado, or divestiture at any rate, amendments to the Canada Labour Code and the privatization of Air Canada. As well, we want to complete the reply to the Senate with respect to the amendments to the immigration Bill and the emergency refugee legislation.
The debate on those Bills has been spirited. We passed them at second reading. We have heard witnesses. There have been amendments in committee. There are amendments at report stage. I suggest we would all be remiss in our duty if we did not see that as much as possible of this legislation goes through to the conclusion of third reading and on to the Senate prior to the conclusion of this sitting. We suggest we owe that duty not only to Members of Parliament but to the witnesses and the people who sent us here.
The third item I referred to was those items which could not be foreseen when we laid out our agenda. I refer specifically to two things. First, the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada to declare the abortion law, which had been in existence since 1969, unconstitutional. The second matter was the Senate's decision to suggest amendments to the Meech Lake Accord, which requires the House to debate the matter for a second time and resolve once again the House's position. We feel it is our duty as elected representatives to debate those two items before we rise.
Fourth, we have the importance of the free trade initiative. The House knows, the country knows, that on January 2 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) signed an historic free trade agreement with the U.S. Legislation to implement that agreement had to be drafted and drafted properly. It had to be proceeded with at an appropriate time. We set about to draft that legislation, and whether or not Members opposite are in favour of the initiative, I think they would agree that, having taken that initiative, they would want that Bill to be drafted properly and as closely as possible to implement what was agreed between the parties. That is the issue before the House on Bill C-130. Does that Bill properly implement the agreement?
We believe the product is sound. My colleagues opposite disagree. That is fair. That is what democracy is all about, debating the issue, and we want to complete second reading of that legislation before we rise for the summer.
The fifth item to which I referred was the Senate. In completing our legislative agenda we have a further complication with which to deal, that is, the Senate. From 1980 to 1984 the Senate never had a sober second thought, at least not one that came back to the House of Commons. It was only in this Parliament that I and Members who were elected with me in 1979 found out how the reply from the Senate worked because it started to send legislation back to us for reconsideration. That never happened during the two previous long Parliaments when the sober second thoughts were presumably being delivered in another manner.
As well, the Senate discontinued what I respectfully suggest was a very useful procedure, that is, the prestudy of Bills. When the Conservatives came into government the Liberal dominated Senate suddenly decided not to prestudy Bills. Fortunately it has prestudied parts of the free trade issue and I
June 13, 1988

commend it for that, but I seriously ask why, if it wants to be part of this legislative process at the start, it did not continue that practice.
This very day on the Order Paper is consideration again by vote, at six o'clock, on the amendments to the Immigration Act. Also on the Order Paper, to follow up this particular motion, which we hope will go quickly, is the House's reply to the Senate's amendments to Bill C-84. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that our agenda has been disrupted by these very deliberate tactics of the Liberal dominated Senate.
Finally, we have to deal with the position of the Opposition with respect to the free trade legislation. I respect their position. I do not agree with it, but I respect their ability to take it and to put it forward. However, I question whether that opposition should be by way of delay rather than by debate.
I can recite a series of comments by the Opposition with respect to what it is going to do with the free trade legislation. To build the case I will quote the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) who said that his Party will try to stall passage of the Bill in the hope that public opinion or controversy within the Cabinet will force the Government to do the right thing.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg said "The real war is just beginning". The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) said:
Inevitably the government will cut off debate by invoking closure. But the Bill won't get out of the House of Commons until October, at the earliest.
The goal is not to stop the legislation cold, the goal is to force the government to pay such a high price that they eventually have got to see the logic of going for an election.
That is delay, that is not debate. Here is another quote from the same Member:
Our strategy is to try to slow down as much as possible the process of consideration of the Bill.
The strategy is not to win it by debate but to slow down the process of consideration.
There was a request for five days debate and the responsible comment of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party was: "Obviously we said no to that". The House Leader for the Liberal Party said: "We will fight the Government every step of the way".
When those comments are made we have to respond. We are prepared to debate and decide and the Opposition is prepared to delay and delay. When Canadians ask what the difference is between the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals and New Democrats, that is the answer. We are prepared to debate and decide and the Opposition's only comment is to delay and delay.
When the House changed the rules in 1969 the Standing Orders were substantially revised by a motion before the House. That complete revamping of the rules took place by closure, closure, closure. That is what the Party which is now arguing against closure did.
Extension of Sittings
I want to read some quotes from some eminent personages- and I submit that these will bear scrutiny, that I am not taking them out of context-not with respect so much to closure but with respect to the rights of the minority. Here is a comment from Prime Minister Trudeau:
Every democratic assembly recognizes that issues will arise from time to time which the minority in all conscience cannot accept, which the minority in order to be true to its values must oppose vigorously and never concede. That is right and proper. It's one of the basis on which rests our democratic institution. But in a democracy the ballot box, not the filibuster, is the ultimate and appropriate technique of assessment as to the actions of the Opposition.
Mr. MacEachen said:
One cannot run a parliament without an ultimate sanction to prevent a minority preventing the majority from getting their way.
An excerpt from a book called Majority Rule by Elaine Spitz says:
In all electoral systems, what counts is open competitiveness and the consequent equal opportunity to make each vote count equally. Any organization of voting procedures that provides all with an equal opportunity to be heard in some significant way at some point in the process satisfies democratic principles.
Those are quotes from learned authorities. I looked for editorial comment and found the following from the Victoria Times-Colonist in the issue of May 26, 1988. It refers to the stalling tactics of the Opposition and says:
It's not good enough for the Opposition parties to justify such tactics on the grounds that the Mulroney government is selling off our sovereignty. No Canadian is naive enough to think that there won't be a downside to a free trade pact, but many believe the potential benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. The Grits and the NDP have yet to counter that argument convincingly, to say specifically what they would offer in place of free trade. Surely that is their opportunity and their constructive role in the weeks ahead.
If they just continue to play games they can expect scant public sympathy when the government finally invokes closure-in order to meet the Jan. 1, 1989 deadline for passing enabling legislation.
I submit that the Opposition has, quite rightfully, brought to the attention of the public its opposition to the free trade legislation. However, we do not believe that by extending the sittings, thereby extending the opportunity to debate that, we are in any way infringing on the responsibilities of the Opposition. We are giving them that opportunity.
That is the situation in which we find ourselves. We are an ambitious Government with a plan which has been well organized and is well under way. We are coping with unscheduled events and a planned and deliberate obstruction by a bragging Opposition and an appointed and anointed Liberal Senate.
The solution was two-fold. Number one, we put the motion on the Order Paper which allows us to complete our agenda. Number two, we wrote to the opposition Parties to see what could reasonably be completed before the House rose. I make no apologies, Madam Speaker. We included a very long list in writing the Opposition. I call it a "kitchen sink letter" and it was a kitchen sink letter. Everything but the kitchen sink was in the letter.

June 13, 1988
Extension of Sittings
The reply from the Liberal Party was very constructive. I have said that outside the House and say that on the record. My colleague, the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), delivered a very detailed and responsible response on behalf of the Liberal Party well in advance of the requested deadline. There are some differences of opinion, but we have an excellent starting point for negotiations.
By comparison, the response from the New Democratic Party was not what I had expected from a responsible Opposition. There was little or no effort to address the items on the Order Paper and I do not think it was responsible in any way whatsoever.
I therefore wrote another letter to the House Leader for the Liberal Party and sent a copy to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. I cut down our list of legislation considerably by taking into account the legislation the Liberal Party said could be passed. Naturally, I added some five items which were not on the list of the Liberal Party. However, we got closer.
I went on to say that there may be certain items tabled in the near future on which we could make progress but it depends on negotiations between the Ministers and their spokespersons. In other words, since it is in the letter that has been made public, I state quite bluntly that it is up to Ministers and the spokespersons to work on items which are not on the Order Paper if they want to make progress.
Let me return to the free trade debate. It has been incorrectly suggested that we were prepared to allow five days only. While I did say five days, they were extended hours on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday which would result in some 27 hours of debating time, or nine days. I did not make any restriction to only five days, because if we are going to invoke closure or time allocation as the debate progresses, we will have to ask whether one more day or two more days after four days of debate will be sufficient.
The problem with negotiation in this business is that there must be a counter offer. There has been no counter offer on the free trade debate. There has been no suggestion that five days is not enough and the Opposition needs six. There has been no suggestion that they do not like the late hours on Thursday night and would rather sit late on Wednesday night. There has been no counter offer.
I went so far as to say that we would waive the eight hours rule so that after eight hours of debate on the substance and principle at second reading all speeches could be 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions and comments. I suggested that we would waive that for the five days. There was no response. By the way, we are back to the eight-hour rule and thereafter every speech is 10 minutes.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that we are open for this debate. I also suggest that while this is not a threat, all
Canadians will be looking to the free trade debate to see whether the Opposition wants to debate or delay during those days when it is called. In other words, Canadians will not call the exhibition of this morning, which was blown on procedural votes, a debate on free trade. They will call that delay. I suggest it will be difficult for the New Democratic Party, which pulled those stunts this morning, not the Liberal Party, to sustain that practice.
That is where we stand on this issue. I have laid out the reasons why the Government is taking this action. We are not trying to abuse the parliamentary calendar. It calls for a 10 week recess. We are prepared to work into that recess. While we are very close to coming together with the Liberal Party on this question, if the Opposition Parties speak against this motion as I expect they may, I want them to explain to Canadians exactly how they disagree with our proposition.
We are prepared and always have been prepared to discuss this matter. We do not expect the extension of this sitting to be protracted. I have suggested and I am still convinced that with the co-operation and the spirit of debate that our colleagues opposite want on the free trade agreement, we may well be able to finish what we are required to do by July 15 or even earlier.
In conclusion, I invite once again a serious review of our comments by the New Democratic Party in order that we may come together with the Liberal Party and settle this in the way that the people of Canada expect, that is as duly elected representatives with the interests of all their constituents at heart.


Jacques Guilbault: Madam Speaker, first let me say that we respect the judgment and the ruling of the Chair. While we are not happy that this motion has been declared allowable, it is out of respect for the Chair and for the rules of this institution that we have no choice and will enter debate on this motion. I think the Chair already knows our position with regard to the acceptability of the motion.
I know that the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), the Deputy Government House Leader, has done his best to establish that what the Government is doing by introducing this motion is not an abuse of the rules of the House and an abuse of the Government's strength. The House will understand that I will be arguing just the opposite.
During the last election the Government promised to reform this place in order to allow the ordinary Member of Parliament a better say in what is done and in the decisions that are made. It is passing strange that the Government would come in with a steamroller and force the Opposition into a corner by using the might of its big majority to get its will.
Early in this Parliament when the Government tried to make people believe that it was fulfilling its election promise to reform the House, it appointed a committee on House reform chaired by the then Hon. Member for St. John's East, Mr. McGrath.
June 13, 1988



Mr. McGrath, now Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, was given the mandate to reform the rules of the House and especially to try to give backbenchers a more important role.
So today we find ourselves in the situation where the Government is moving a motion that begins with the infamous words:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House...
This is what Parliamentary reform means to the Conservative Party: to propose measures that begin by saying the Standing Orders do not apply.
If that is the reform the Government had in mind, it does not amount to much, really.

If the Minister of State wanted to make a good case, he should not have spoken. I will review what he has said just to prove my assertion.
At the conclusion of his speech he said that he does not believe the sitting this summer will be protracted and that in his opinion, everything might be finished by July 15. Why is there this blackmail to force the Opposition into thinking that we will have to sit until September 9 if it appears not to be true? Why state September 9 in the motion if the Minister sincerely believes everything will be finished by July 15? That is my first argument. If the Government wants to make a good case, it should ask the Minister to stay in his seat and not say anything.
The Minister began his speech by bragging that the Government has passed more legislation than previous Governments. Moments later, out of the other side of his mouth, he accused the Opposition of stalling tactics. That is a strange picture he is trying to paint for the Canadian public. We are supposedly stalling the business of the House, yet he likes to brag that the Government has passed more legislation than any previous government. I ask the House to try to reconcile that because I have had difficulty doing so myself.
The Minister told us about all the time invested by Members of Parliament into the various pieces of legislation. He has argued that some of these items must be completed. He fails to realize that the Government will have ample time to complete its program. If you believe that you will be canvassing in your riding during the summer, Madam Speaker, I suggest that will not happen because a government that is third in the polls will not call an election this summer. There will be ample time to sit in the fall and ample time to sit next spring before the Government can recuperate some of the support it needs to call an election. As as matter of fact, it would never call an election if it depended upon how Canadians feel about the Government. It will try to hang on forever. Fortunately, our Constitution puts an end to the term of any government after five years
Extension of Sittings
and the people of Canada will finish the job by putting an end to this Government.
The Government argues that it does not have enough time to complete the business in which it has so much time invested.

They will have time, Madam Speaker, they have at least another year until the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has the courage to call an election.
You will forgive me, Madam Speaker, if I spend too much time destroying the arguments of the Government House Leader. I have more things to say in reacting to what he said, but I am going to try to go quickly through his arguments and then give my own arguments. The Government House Leader talks about the importance of certain matters that could not be foreseen. All of a sudden, according to his argument, he wakes up one morning to a whole new set of circumstances he could not foresee and he has to react to it. For example, he talks about the Supreme Court decision to strike down the sections of the Criminal Code with respect to abortion. I know, of course, that the Government could not foresee that the Supreme Court would do that, but I will tell you, Madam Speaker, what I could not foresee and what no one in the country could foresee, and that is the reaction of the Government. It decided to shy away from the issue and present three options to the House of Commons. In that way, the ordinary back-bencher would not decide on legislation but would give the Government a sort of feeling of what the House thinks so that the Government can be taken off the hook and will not have to deal head on with that issue before the next election.
The Government on the hustings would also be able to say: "We had a debate on abortion in the House of Commons". That is what it is trying to do without making a decision and without bringing forward a Bill. The Government wants to negotiate. It is a very thorny issue if the Government wants to negotiate with the Opposition a Bill which is likely to receive support from all sides of the House. We are willing to talk, but we do not want the farce of bringing a three-headed monster into the House of Commons for the Government to hide behind so it can go on the hustings during the election campaign and say: "We dealt with that issue in the House of Commons", without making a decision. We were not able to foresee that the Government would do that.
The Government House Leader is now saying that the Government could not foresee having so little time for the free trade legislation. Well, the Government is late, and I will get into that. It will be part of my main speech. I want to show how late the Government is in bringing forward many of the items in the House of Commons and then trying to make everyone believe that it is because of the Opposition that it has to sit during the summer. I will demonstrate in a moment how the Government has dragged its feet on a number of items

June 13, 1988
Extension of Sittings
which it is now dropping on the Order Paper at the last minute. We would have to sit during the nights as well as the evenings during the summer to deal with all this legislation. It is hard enough for us to try to co-operate with such a Government but we cannot be in its offices doing its planning, God forbid.
I contend that the Minister of State had better not defend his case. Ele had better ask someone else to do it. The Government has had almost four years to pass its agenda through the House of Commons. There are several-and I will list them later-important pieces of legislation that the Government has delayed before bringing them to the House of Commons. Everyone in the country is now asking how come they are not yet passed. Everyone understands that between June 13 and the end of June, there is no possibility of passing all these items through the House of Commons, even if the Opposition was crazy enough to agree with all of the material, and we strongly disagree with some of these items.
A Government that cannot manage its business properly does not deserve to run the country. It deserves to be defeated in the next election, and this is exactly what will happen to this Government. The Government has a huge and distorted majority and it is trying to make the people of Canada believe that such a huge majority is powerless against what the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) would probably call us if he had the floor, a miniscule Opposition. We are a very small Opposition. Can the people of Canada believe that a handful of opposition Member can stop the Government, which has an unprecedented majority, to pass its legislation through the House of Commons? No one in the public would believe that. If it is true, the public must believe that we are facing a Government which is like the giant with clay feet.

A giant with feet of clay, a huge, apparently powerful giant that is unable to get its program passed because of a small handful of Opposition Members.

What can be more phoney than a Government telling us that it will sit all summer, and that is what the motion says, and then for the Minister to say he only needs until July 15? The Government proposes that we sit all summer and then denies the Opposition more than five days to discuss what is probably the most important piece of legislation ever introduced on the floor of the House of Commons since 1867, our first Parliament. I am talking, of course, of Bill C-130, the free trade legislation, which will affect the lives of us all. The Government tells us it needs the whole summer to discuss the business of the country, but it will only give us five days to discuss the most important piece of legislation that has ever been introduced in this House. It is ridiculous for the Government to try to have it both ways. I never thought government Members opposite would have the gall to try to get us to swallow that.

It will certainly take some swallowing, this story that we will be expected to sit all summer for two months, while we will only get five days of debate on the most important Bill this Government and many preceding governments ever tabled in the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker, what are the Government's motives for keeping the Opposition in the House all summer? I wondered about this last night at home, and I said to myself: They must have something in mind. I was watching tv and I saw the Prime Minister campaigning while he was in the riding of Joliette in fact today, he is in Alma, trying to salvage Mr. Bouchard's campaign, the Conservative candidate whose campaign is not doing well at all in Lac-Saint-Jean and then I thought I understood.
The Prime Minister may have this diabolical plan which is to spend the whole summer on a preliminary election campaign across the country, while his travelling expenses are still paid for by the taxpayers. He is acting in his capacity of Prime Minister, so the Conservative Party doesn't pay for the plane ticket which it would otherwise do in an election campaign. And in that case, travel expenses would be limited by the Canada Elections Act. For the time being, it doesn't cost the Conservative Party a cent for the Prime Minister to do some campaigning and distribute goodies across Canada. If we look at the Prime Minister's schedule, he is going from region to region, handing out big chunks of money, nearly $1 billion so far in terms of regional development for Quebec. And don't tell me that has no connection with the upcoming by-election!
So the concept is simple. It is to keep the Opposition in the House of Commons during the summer. The Government only needs one-third of the Conservative Caucus to maintain a majority in the House, and meanwhile, the election campaign can follow its course across the country, while the Opposition parties are stuck in the House of Commons. The taxpayers are paying for the Conservative election campaign, since they absorb the travelling expenses of the Prime Minister and his entourage, as well as the cost of the goodies the Prime Minister distributes at every stop and every airport. Maybe that is the idea!

The Government is doing it the wrong way this year. Last year, the Government played on the Canadian public its biggest hoax by saying there was an urgency in discussing Bills C-55 and C-84, the Immigration and Refugee Determination Bills. That was supposed to be a matter of great urgency. The Government wanted to sit in the summer, and it did. However, it did it the right way. It looked at the Standing Orders and it did not say, "notwithstanding any standing order". It did not say that. It used Standing Order 5, which I will not have to read to the Chair, which simply states that when the Government feels there is an emergency situation it can go to the Chair. The Government submits its reasons and the Chair makes a judgment.
June 13, 1988

That is exactly what Mr. Speaker did last summer. Mr. Speaker looked at the arguments presented by the Government. Mr. Speaker believed-I do not know if he would still believe it today-that there was a matter of sufficient urgency that he call the Members back. He interrupted the recess on August 10 and we started sitting again. We discussed these two Bills which, by the way, have not yet passed.
The Government did it the right way last summer. Why not do it the right way this summer? I will tell you why, Madam Speaker. It is because this summer, with the kind of phoney arguments that I have just demolished a few minutes ago, the arguments of the Minister, the Government dare not go to the Chair and ask the Speaker for permission to sit in the summer because it knows that it would be refused. If members of the Government were sure that their request would be accepted, it would be much easier than trying to circumvent the rules. That is the reason they are not doing it the right way this year.
If I were a Tory perhaps I would rather spend the summer in this place. First, some of the offices are air-conditioned. From what I hear in the ridings that I visit over the weekends, if I were a Tory I would not be too fond of going back to my riding. I know what the people are saying when they are talking about the Tory Party. They prefer to be sitting here in the safety of their seats in the House of Commons where no one can kick them in the shins. Pages and all the Officers of the House of Commons are very polite people, they do not kick them. But when they go back to their ridings I know the kind of hell they get from their electors. Maybe the reason they want to spend the summer here is that they dare not spend the summer in their ridings.
I would now like to review some of the items that we have before us in terms of legislation. Let us see if the Government is sincere when it says that it needs the summer to complete his agenda. For example, there is a very much needed amendment to the National Housing Act. We advised the Government that we were ready to co-operate with respect to this measure. On February 12 the Government introduced legislation with respect to this matter. It is one thing to introduce a piece of legislation and an entirely different thing to bring it up for debate and to pass it in the House. My question is what has the Government done since February 12 with respect to the National Housing Act? Will the Government blame the Opposition? No. It has not brought it forward for debate. It is on the Order Paper but it does not move it ahead.
Do you want something more interesting, Madam Speaker? On February 24 with great fanfare the Government tabled conflict of interest legislation. It was supposed to protect the Government and the people of Canada from dishonesty in government. The Government took a big PR move by introducing it. I know that you follow the business of the House very closely, Madam Speaker. Can you tell me one day after February 24 when Your Honour has seen this measure
Extension of Sittings
debated in the House? Of course you cannot because there has been no debate.

Was the conflict of interest legislation tabled by the Government on February 24 just a public relations stunt, to give Canadians the impression that stricter legislation would stop Conservative ministers from putting the Government in an awkward position? Was it supposed to make Canadians believe stricter legislation would mean fewer violations? All I can say is that since then, the Bill was not brought back to the House for debate, and it wasn't the Opposition that prevented them from doing so. And this is one of the Government's priorities before the next election. Too bad. Until they bring the Bill before the House for debate, I can't pass it. Tabling the Bill is not my prerogative nor is it my Party's prerogative.
Take Bill C-93, for instance. The multiculturalism Bill was reported back to the House from committee on May 19. That was almost a month ago. The Bill would pass the House of Commons easily, but here again, the Government has not brought the Bill back for debate.
Another Bill, Bill C-82, was reported back to the House by its Legislative Committee. It is another piece of legislation that deals with honesty and openness in government. This was the Bill on lobbying, a Bill that met with no opposition or filibustering-another cornerstone of the Government's "squeaky clean" campaign. I wonder what Mr. Clean is thinking up in Lac-Saint-Jean, the man who was appointed to be the watchdog of the Government's integrity and who has now finally realized .. he may not be required to listen to what we are saying here in the House, but I am sure someone is going to report that I said the lobby Bill does not seem to be a priority for the Government. Just as, since February 24, conflict of interest legislation does not seem to have been a priority.
Take tax reform. They will say it is important for the House to sit all summer because it has to pass the tax reform Bill which has a high priority. If it has such a high priority, Madam Speaker, it should be brought before the House. Today is June 13, and the Bill first appeared on the Order Paper-I checked this morning-on June 10. That was last Friday which is certainly not that long ago. That has not been brought up for debate yet. They simply gave notice because they realize that they look stupid; people say that they are not serious about tax reform. So they put a notice in the Order Paper, but we have not had five minutes of debate on it. They would have us believe that it is our fault for all the items I have listed for you. They cannot blame the Opposition-they are the ones who are not moving to start the debate on those items.
On abortion, on May 20, they tabled the ridiculous threeheaded monster, with three options, in the Order Paper. But despite that, they did not begin the debate. That was almost a month ago.

June 13, 1988
Extension of Sittings
As for Bill C-130 on free trade, it had been promised-those who follow the debates here, who follow question period, know that the Government had promised it for the first week in March. Look, it is now June 13 and we are not yet debating it. It was only tabled on May 24, two months late. I tell you that if they took two months more to draft the Bill, they cannot blame it all on the Opposition.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They have to get their act together on the other side.


Jacques Guilbault: That's right, because it may take them time to reach an agreement. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) may be right. Sometimes they can't reach agreement in that party. Anyway, they took a lot of time to come up with Bill C-130. Today, they blame the Opposition for delaying its passage and furthermore, they tell us that we will have just five days to talk about it. We will have to sit two more months in the summer, but have only five days for that Bill. How come we will have only five days to discuss it, while the Government took months to write it?


Mr. Rossi:: That's dictatorship.


Jacques Guilbault: It's dictatorship, as the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) says.
Listen, I'll give you more examples: Bill C-128 establishing the Department of Industry, Science and Technology was promised last June. Do you know how long ago that Bill was tabled, Madam Speaker? It was tabled yesterday. Look at the Order Paper and you will see that. And I suppose they will tell us that the Opposition is preventing the Government from working.

Let us look at the Government's long awaited film policy. It took it a long time to think this one out. It had to consult a great many people.


Mr. Garneau:: They had to consult Reagan in the United States.


Jacques Guilbault: They had to get more than that. They had to get their instructions from Jack Valenti, the czar of the U.S. film industry. Once they got their marching orders from him, on June 8, 1988, they tabled a piece of legislation. Two years ago we were pressing the Government to bring in a film policy. Everyone in Canada knows that we need a film policy. Everyone knows we have to take care of who distributes the films shown in Canadian cinemas. It took the Government two years to deliver this one on June 8, five days ago, Madam Speaker. Therefore, do not expect this piece of legislation to be passed by tonight. The Government has not brought it forward for debate yet.
Where is Meech Lake? It came back from the Senate and the Government is supposed to discuss it in the House. It came
back from the Senate and it has been sitting on the Order Paper since May 19. In six days it will be one month. Where is the Meech Lake Accord? On this side of the House we do not intend to procrastinate the debate on the Meech Lake Accord. That debate has already taken place in the House. All we want to do is deal with it in an expeditious fashion. What is the Government doing? Nothing. I presume the Government would prefer to call an election with this not passed and attempt to blame it on the Opposition.
Where is the child care policy? It is even worse in this area because I cannot point to the Order Paper, Madam Speaker, and show you a Bill. There is nothing on the Order Paper. For years the Government has been saying that it will have a child care policy.

... a child care policy. There is nothing on the Order Paper, they have not even tabled a Bill and they would have us believe that they want to pass it during the summer, I suppose! They have not even brought their Bills forward.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, we want to co-operate with the Government in providing extra hours to attempt to deal with the unfinished business of the Government, even if we have to hold our nose when we vote against some of the pieces of legislation. We would be willing to extend the hours. Standing Order 10 allows for that. Once again I will bring it to the attention of the Government, because it will give them a recipe to do things in the proper manner. The heading is "Extension of Sitting Hours" and Standing Order 10(1) reads as follows:
On the tenth sitting day preceding June 30 a motion to extend the hours of
sitting to a specific hour during the last ten sitting days may be proposed,
without notice, by any Member during Routine Proceedings.
In Standing Order 10(2) the question is put in the following manner:
Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon,
the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
If the Government wants more hours, it could use Standing Order 10. It does not have to go around the Standing Orders and write a motion which states:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House ...
All the Government has to do is use Standing Order 10. If that was done, we would be ready to co-operate.
In order to help the Government do it in the proper manner, I would like to propose an amendment which will have the effect of simply offering the opportunity to the Government to go the route of Standing Order 10 which I just quoted. In this manner we could co-operate with the Government, give it more hours, which is what the Government wants, and we would not have to violate the whole book by saying: "Notwithstanding any Standing Orders ... ",
June 13, 1988

I move, seconded by my hon. colleague for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the motion be amended by deleting the following:
"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"
and by substituting the following therefor:
"Thursday, June 30, 1988".
Therefore, the hours will be extended, but not until September 9. The hours will be extended until the end of the month, like the Standing Orders call for.

That would be the honest way for the Government to proceed, and that is why we are suggesting to go back to Standing Order 10, which allows not only the Party in power to extend the hours of sitting, but also Opposition Members of back-benchers. The Order states that the motion "may be proposed by any Member". It doesn't have to be a Minister. This means that any Member could rise and propose that we give the government more time to debate. A Minister can do it. I myself have just done it on the Opposition's behalf. I have just proposed to extend the hours of sitting, but in a reasonable way, without suspending our Standing Orders but by making use of a Standing Order established for that purpose, namely to allow for an extension of sitting hours so as to have more time to debate questions before the House.
That is the kind of co-operation we are ready to give the Government so that bills which it deems important can be passed. I am not saying that we will vote favourably on all these Bills, since there are some we don't like, but at least, the Government will have more time for the adoption of its legislative program. And we believe that is what must be done. We are ready to cooperate, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) has just introduced an amendment. With the House's permission, the Chair should deliberate for a while on this amendment and rule later on its relevancy.
Meanwhile, resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riss) has the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, today there is a certain sense of deja vu in the House of Commons. Despite the sunny skies above there has been a dark cloud hanging over Parliament Hill for the last hour or so.
It reminds me of October 23, 1980, when the Progressive Conservatives in Opposition decided that they had had enough of democracy; they had had enough of the Parliament of Canada as had been practised for decades and decades. They disagreed with the Speaker's decision, and rather than accept the decision of the Speaker, some of the Members in the House rushed up to the Speaker's chair screaming and yelling at the tops of their voices: "Stop it!". They were screaming and
Extension of Sittings
yelling in front of the Speaker. There are some Ministers present today who actually did that on October 23, 1980. They stormed the Chair demanding their rights to be heard despite the fascist totalitarian motion to cut off debate.
In 1980 the Conservatives called the Liberals fascist and totalitarian because the Liberals had decided to limit debate. Had the Government of the day decided to limit debate after a handful of speakers? No. There were 98 Conservatives who spoke in that debate. They stood up and made comments on the constitutional amendment. Then the Government of the day said 98 interventions on behalf of the Opposition was sufficient and it was going to limit debate and bring in closure. The Conservatives of the day went absolutely mad. I was present. It was one of the saddest days that parliamentarians have ever had. The Conservatives screamed and demanded that they be heard.
Now the tables are turned. Now the Conservatives are sitting on the government side and they have decided, because they have this huge majority, that they are now going to take this rule book of Standing Orders and throw it out of the window. That is it, throw it out the window. They are saying: "We know best. Big Brother Government knows what is best for Parliament, the Speaker does not". The Government is saying that you, Madam Speaker, do not know what is best for this House, that the Speaker of the House of Commons is not in a position to recall Parliament if he or she considers it necessary.
No, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has decided on behalf of Parliament, forget the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Independents. The Conservatives have the majority and therefore can do anything they want. They do not have to play by these rules that have developed over decades. They do not have to accept these rules which were developed after months and months of study between all the Parties and were adopted by unanimous consent of the House. No, they are saying: "We are going to throw them out, we are going to rip out the pages of this rule book and we are going to impose our own rules". That is like the Edmonton Oilers saying: "We are going to change the rules of hockey. We are going to throw out all the rules and introduce our own." Do you know when the Government last suspended the rules to meet its own political agenda, Madam Speaker? It was in 1883. Not since 1883 has a Government suspended the rules to facilitate its own political agenda.
We are now seeing a whole new approach to democracy in Canada. We do not like the rules, so we make our own. We do not like the way the Speaker might rule, so we will ignore the Speaker. The Government will use its majority. The sounds of jackboots are banging around Parliament Hill these days as the Conservatives impose the will of their majority against parliamentary tradition.

June 13, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Forget parliamentary tradition, forget parliamentary practices, forget parliamentary regulations, forget the Standing Orders. Big brother Mulroney knows best what is good for the House of Commons. We reject that.
We will as concerned parliamentarians accept the ruling of the Speaker. However, this country has now started on a new path thanks to the Conservative majority in the House. Whatever the Government decides it does not want, it will change. It will simply suspend the orders.
What will come next? I wonder if the Conservatives will not change Standing Order 2 which provides for the election of the Speaker and say: "Why don't we simply impose on the House of Commons the Speaker we want?". Why not do that next? If they can suspend the rules for their own purposes, why should we have Question Period? Question Period is messy. Opposition and New Democratic Party Members pose difficult questions every day, so let's do away with that. Let's suspend Question Period and Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 21. Let's do away with Private Members' Hour. If we let Government Members get away with the suspension of this Standing Order, why would they not introduce other suspensions of rules that are aggravating and disrupt their parliamentary agenda?
Today's motion tells me that I am incompetent and that the Deputy House Leader of the Government is incompetent. He says that although we have been here for 11 months, the Government is not able to manage its parliamentary agenda or its timetable, so it is incompetent. It cannot follow the parliamentary calendar. The Deputy Government House Leader is indicating that in spite of sitting here for 11 months, we cannot handle the work of the House of Commons. We need more time.
A person cannot walk down two sides of the road at the same time nor talk out of both sides of his or her mouth at the same time, with one exception and that is the Deputy House Leader of the Government. He is able to do that. On one hand, he is saying: "Look at our impressive record. We have passed more legislation in this Parliament than any Parliament in recent time". At the same time, he is saying: "Those tough Opposition and NDP people are holding us up. They are holding up our ability to do the business of the House". He cannot have it both ways. He cannot brag about the tremendous success he has had in moving business through the House of Commons at the same time that he is saying that the Opposition is not allowing the Government to get on with the business of Canada.


Mr. Crofton:: Let's admit it, you want to go home.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A Tory yells out that we all want to go home. They can go to Victoria and sit around their pools. As long as we are fighting this trade deal, the New Democrats are prepared to fight it today, tonight, next week, in the month of July and in the month of August. We will fight it as long as it takes to force the Government into an election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why are we doing this? Why are New Democrats frustrating the Government's efforts to introduce and pass the trade legislation? Do Hon. Members remember the view of the Prime Minister on free trade back in 1983? He was against free trade with the United States. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was against free trade with the United States. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was against free trade with the United States. The only leadership candidate for the Conservative Party who was in favour of it was Peter Pocklington. He was the only one who was advocating free trade.
In 1984, there was a general election. How many times did the Prime Minister mention free trade during the general election campaign? Not one single time, not a single phrase was uttered during the entire election about free trade. Then what did he do? On January 2, the Prime Minister of Canada, with his good buddy Ronald Reagan, signed Canada in to this trade deal.
We believe in democracy. We New Democrats do not rush up and challenge the Speaker's ruling. We do not start screaming, yelling and stopping the Speaker from talking as the Conservatives did in October of 1980. We believe in democracy and that is why we are saying that the Government should call an election. Let's go to the people of Canada and let them decide.
We are prepared to work as long as it takes to force the Government to come to its democratic senses and call an election, but I do not think it will. It thinks it has the bit between its teeth now. It thinks it can do whatever it wants now.
Think of the abortion resolution, Madam Speaker. Rather than showing leadership and bringing in a Bill that would be debated in the House of Commons as usual, it brought in a three headed monster. If some Hon. Members want to support abortion on demand, there is a motion for them. If some want to support no abortion at all, there is a motion for them. If some want a compromise in the middle, there will be a motion for them. What kind of decision-making is that? What kind of leadership is that?
To move that kind of a motion, the Government has to suspend the rules of the House of Commons, but it will do it. It has no hesitation in doing that. It has no concern for something called the traditions of this House, something called the practices of Parliament, something called rules and regulations, something called Standing Orders. All those things are a nuisance to the Conservatives in the House. Set them aside, suspend the rules, suspend the traditions, let the Government do what it wants because it has the numbers. It has the majority and it can do anything it wants.
We have just begun. The New Democrats have just begun to remind the Conservatives that that kind of arrogance has no
June 13, 1988

place in a parliamentary democracy. We have just begun to fight.
The Government says it has important legislation to introduce. Where is the child care legislation? The Government says it has child care legislation that the Opposition is holding up. Have you seen the child care legislation, Madam Speaker? No, you have not. It has not been introduced, so how can we be holding up legislation that has not even been introduced in the House of Commons? That is just one Bill. I could list a whole number of pieces of legislation that the Government wants passed expeditiously and quickly, preferably without debate. However, we have not even seen that legislation. It has not been introduced in the House of Commons.
I remember the Throne Speech of 1984. The Government said that one of its priorities was to introduce legislation regarding child care. We waited for the fall of 1984, we waited all of 1985, we waited all of 1986 and all of 1987. It is now well into 1988 and we still have not seen a single page of legislation.


Carlo Rossi: Slow workers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend says that they are slow workers. This is government in reverse.
Since this Opposition does not want to co-operate on the trade deal, the solution now is to force the Opposition into it. The Government is going to exhaust the Opposition into it because it is a very small group. There are only 33 New Democrats and 40 Liberals-


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Thirty-three too many.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I know there are too many of us as far as the Conservatives are concerned. They do not want any opposition. Their ideal world is to have a dictatorship, just one party. That is their ideal.
There is a new wave occurring in Canada. This is not a one-Party system. There is an opposition and we do not plan to cooperate on the trade deal.


Harvie Andre: Or on anything else.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On anything else, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) says. He is wrong. Last Thursday we demonstrated that. Five Bills were introduced on Indian concerns. We said that we would pass them expeditiously because the legislation was good. We co-operated 100 per cent. For one of the very first times all five Bills moved through the House of Commons in a single day. If the Government brings forward good legislation, we will pass it expeditiously. If the Government brings in assistance to the farmers, that legislation will go through here like you have never seen it before, like greased lightning, Mr. Speaker. If the
Extension of Sittings
Government brings in legislation on flow-through shares, again it will go like greased lightning through this place, but not legislation to implement the trade deal that will redirect not only the economic policies of this country but the social, cultural and the political policies of this country. In other words, the Government wants to turn this country into a fifty-first state, and we say no.
Let me say why we felt it was appropriate that we follow the parliamentary calendar. After months and months of study, Members of the House of Commons unanimously agreed it would be useful and it would make a great deal of sense if we established a parliamentary calendar. We would sit as a Parliament for 10 months of the year and then for July and August we would break from the House of Commons so that we could go back to our constituencies and work. Most of us have made plans during July and August in our constituencies. Call them constituency tours, meetings, or special gatherings with groups. The parliamentary calendar said that was when we could do that, and we agreed. Even the Conservatives agreed to the parliamentary calendar. We made plans. We felt it was important that Members of Parliament have some time to spend with their families. This might not be a priority for the Conservatives but for some of us it is. Spending time with our families and our constituents is important. We all agreed unanimously that for the months of July and August we would do just that. All of a sudden, the Conservatives said: "We don't like this idea. We don't like the idea of Members going home to their constituents and conducting tours".


Herbert O. Sparrow: That is not true.


Nelson Andrew Riis: "We are going to force you to sit during the summer months". Again, that goes against the unanimous decision made as a Parliament. The Minister in his comments indicated that the Government is very big hearted and has decided that for the trade legislation, which the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said is the most important legislation introduced since the Second World War, there will be five days of debate. Only five days debate on the trade legislation. We have three or four days debate on routine tax Bills but on the largest piece of legislation with its implications not only for this generation of Canadians but for generations afterwards the Government said it will allow five days debate, do we agree.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: Five days with some extension.


Nelson Andrew Riis: To be fair, five days with some extension and a few hours into the evening. Remember, Madam Speaker, this proposal comes from a Party which gave 98 speeches on the Constitution and then, if you like, threatened the Speaker in the chair because its Members felt that their speaking rights were being terminated. The Conservatives said they would be generous and allow five days of debate for all 282 Members of the House of Commons.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: It is nine days at second reading.

June 13, 1988
Extension of Sittings


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is appalling, undemocratic and it is certainly unparliamentary. We rejected strongly such a ludicrous request.
I want to say that the Government has not seen what a filibuster is all about. The Government might want to change the standing rules to suit its purposes. If the Conservatives don't like Question Period, I guess they will say Question Period is too aggravating. We may hear such things as: "We do not like the Standing Orders so we will change that as well". Because private Members are allowed 15 minutes a day to make statements about constituencies' concerns, I guess that too will be done away with. I can see the next change to the Standing Orders will be the suspension of the 10 months' sitting. The Conservatives may want only one or two weeks to bring in one big omnibus Bill and that will take care of the business of Canada.
That is not the kind of country we want. That is not the kind of country for which the legionnaires, 4,000 of them who are meeting in Ottawa today, fought. That is not the kind of government which those 4,000 legionnaires went overseas to defend. For those legionnaires in the gallery at the moment, I suspect they are thinking right now that here is a government prepared to rip up those freedoms for which they fought and is prepared to set aside the rules, traditions and fundamental practices of democracy for which we were prepared to die. That is what we are seeing today.
We are seeing a very negative spectacle when it comes to a democratic free country. That is why we say this particular motion is wrong. We accept the Speaker's decision. We must accept it. We will not rush the Chair or cause havoc in the House of Commons because we do not like the ruling. We will accept that. We have now moved the course of this place in a totally different direction where with a majority you can do anything you want. If you have the majority you can change any Standing Order you want, permanently, or simply suspend it. You can break any rule. You can throw out any tradition.
As I say, this is a dark day for our Parliament. It reminds me of the day back in October, 1980. It is not the kind of Canada most of us want to see. It is not the kind of Canada our constituents want to see. Our constituents have made it clear in every possible way that they want to see an election on this trade deal. They want an opportunity to participate in whether or not we should sign away our future to the United States. Canadians want to make that decision. In a democratic society, Madam Speaker, in a Parliament that says it believes in the democratic traditions, we ought to give the people of Canada that right and that opportunity. To do that, if necessary, we in the New Democratic Party, will do everything we can in our power to use the legitimate rules of Parliament to encourage the Government to live up to the free democratic traditions and principles that Canadians love and enjoy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before the Hon. Member finishes his intervention, I would like to give the ruling on the preceding amendment which was moved earlier.
The Chair has found the amendment (Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)) in order. The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that you ruled on the amendment proposed by the Official Opposition. I thought to make the point and to indicate our concern at the way Parliament seems to be moving, I want to add an amendment to the amendment. It will read as follows. I move:
That the amendment be amended by deleting the period and adding the
following therefor:
"and on that day the House shall stand adjourned at 3.p.m."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, first I wish to commend my colleague for an excellent address on the question of suspending the Standing Orders. It seems to me that in a parliamentary democracy it is the accepted practices, built up over the sittings and the years, that really constitute the essence of our democracy. It seems to me that when the Government suspends the rules of the House it sets a very dangerous precedent. As I think my House Leader pointed out, if you start suspending the rules today on these particular issues, what comes next? You begin to suspend them with respect to Question Period, with respect to how Bills are moved through the House, indeed how the House governs itself.
What the Government is doing today is setting a precedent. What will stop some future Government from using that precedent and doing exactly the same thing? Once the Government, any Government, starts down that road, future Governments will use it as a precedent to be employed in other situations. Once you start down that road, it continues and continues and our Standing Orders, the rules under which we govern ourselves, are no longer meaningful. It is the precedent that it sets that creates a new standard, a new way in which Governments can deal with the Opposition and subvert Parliament. My House Leader said that not since the 1800s has a Government used this ploy of suspending the Standing Orders. We were fortunate that it did not become a practice.
Surely what the Government is doing today is demonstrating that even with its massive majority it cannot set its agenda and pass its legislation within the established rules. It must therefore suspend those rules. Surely this is a very dangerous precedent. Surely Conservative Members who cherish the traditions of the British parliamentary procedure must feel extremely uncomfortable with what their own Government is doing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to my hon. colleague who of course raises the fundamental question before us today, where does this take us? What is the next step?

June 13, 1988
It was back in March of 1883 that the Standing Orders were last suspended and now they are being suspended again.


Mr. Benjamin:: A Tory Government then, too.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It was a Conservative Government, was it not?


Simon Leendert de Jong: I believe it was.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I guess we should not be puzzled by these antics, then. First we had the suspension of the rules in 1883. I referred earlier to the storming of the Chair by the Conservatives during the constitutional debate. I failed to mention that in 1982 it was again the Conservatives who shut down Parliament for more than two weeks.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Because of the NEP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It does not matter why. In other words, the ends justify the means? The Conservatives say they have a right to do that. I like that. They say they were angry at the NEP. The Liberals brought that in, they did not like it, so they can shut down Parliament. That is fine. Because they do not like legislation it is all right for them to shut down Parliament. Because the NDP and Liberals are concerned about the trade deal we cannot have more than a five day debate. What nonsense, absolute nonsense.


Mr. Gormley:: Louder.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is typical coming from a Conservative, though. They felt they could close down the Parliament of Canada for a couple of weeks. That was all right because they were angry at the Government.
They were angry at the Speaker so they could storm the Chair and make a mockery out of that position. Harvie Andre was there, leading the pack, screaming and yelling. Total abuse of the parliamentary system. So why are we puzzled today when the Conservatives once again act on their view of democracy which we call tyranny, a dictatorship.
Our Parliament is based on the Mother of Parliaments. I thought all of us had a deep respect for the parliamentary system where we recognized the role of the Opposition.


Harvie Andre: We are following tradition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I know the Minister dislikes opposition Parties. Maybe he should go to the Soviet Union or Chile. He will feel more comfortable in one of those countries.
There are still Members in this House who cherish the idea of Parliament. There are still Members who cherish the ideal of a Government and opposition Party. The opposition Parties are here to keep the Government honest. To do that, you need to have a Parliament in session and working. The Conservatives who said in 1982 that they were going to shut down Parliament are the same Conservatives who are saying today that they are going to bring in closure and time allocation. They do not want debate on this. They do not like the Standing
Extension of Sittings
Orders and they are prepared to suspend them for now. The last time the Government did that was in March of 1883.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I remember it well.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You look like you do.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Here we go again.
My colleague's second question was what is the alternative to the Government introducing this motion? The alternative is the Chair. You will know that Standing Order No. 5 gives the Speaker authority to recall Parliament whenever he or she decides it is in the best interests of the country to do that. If we were to recess as the calendar says we ought to, on June 30, and on July 5 or July 10 the Government was able to make a case that it was in the nation's interest that the Speaker recall Parliament, you have the right to do that. We have unanimously given you that right. We say we trust the Speaker because the Speaker represents all Members of the House. The Speaker is elected by all Members. You represent the Government, the Opposition and the independent Members. We put that faith in you and in your position. Yet the Government has ripped that out of your hands. It knows best. It is Big Brother. It does not have to listen to the Speaker or convince the Speaker to sit during the summer months.


Carlo Rossi: Very dangerous.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, but that is the situation we are dealing with.
I simply want to say to the people listening to this debate that our Standing Orders give the Chair the right to sit all of July and August if you feel that is in the best interests of the country. We like rules and regulations and traditions and practices. We adopted them unanimously. That is why when the Government says it knows best we become very edgy. After all, that is the same Government that negotiated the trade deal. I tell you that we are far from convinced that is in the best interests of our country. We know it is in the best interests of the U.S. but we have yet to see any evidence it is in the best interests of Canada or Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the Government has today suggested that its facility in dealing with the trade deal with the United States has perhaps been the crucial reason which has forced it to take the step which has so cut across parliamentary traditions which have been with us for over a century. As our House Leader said, we have not seen the rules of this House suspended in this way since 1883.
Yet it has happened. It has happened in order to sell us out to the United States in a trade deal which is so devastating to the future freedom of Canada that the Legion convention meeting here today should be marching on this Parliament and

June 13, 1988
Business of the House
marching on the Government for destroying democracy within this country.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: They marched before and there were precious few NDP with them.


Steven W. Langdon: There were a lot of New Democrats with them.
What must be recognized is that there is one clear issue before this House, one clear issue to which the Deputy House Leader referred, and that is the question of whether it is essential that this summer the people of Canada be forced into this trade deal. The answer to that question is that it is not necessary, it is not right, it is not acceptable, it is not democratic, and it does not follow any of our traditions. It is instead a complete denigration of everything this country has stood for previously.
We can quote Minister after Minister in the Government. We can quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Before the last election each of them said that they were against a trade deal with the United States which would give us free trade because they saw at that time, not the pressures from the large corporations, not the pressures which have pushed them in the direction they have now taken, but instead they saw clearly the very important need to stand up for this country. They saw the necessity to protect Canadian jobs, to protect Canadian social programs, and to protect the integrity and distinctiveness of this country.
Yet, as soon as they got into power, less than a year after, they were meeting in Quebec City to set in motion with the President of the United States a massive change, a change so comprehensive in this country that it will devastate the potential future of our people, the freedom of our country to be what it should be, the distinctiveness which we have had, and the social programs which have characterized it.
This must be fought by every single Member as hard as they possibly can. I, for one, am proud to say that I will fight it with the greatest possible mechanisms of rejection of the Government's aims that I can possibly muster. I consider that this Party does itself proud by standing up so strongly for that.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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

And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne) Order, please! Pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)a), the Chief Opposition Whip has asked me that the division be deferred. Therefore, the recorded vote on the question now before the House is deferred until tomorrow at 6 p.m., when the bells calling the Members shall have sounded for no more than 15 minutes.

It being 5 o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to confirm with the Government the agenda for tomorrow. I take it that it will be the Meech Lake Accord debate. Can we confirm that so we may prepare accordingly?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I can confirm to the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition that tomorrow we will be debating the Government's response to the Senate's amendments to the Meech Lake Accord. We expect to continue that through the day. I do not know exactly how many Members my colleagues opposite have to speak, nor do I know how many more we intend to have, other than the Prime Minister will be leading off the debate for us tomorrow.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation that we have just seen this afternoon, would it be possible to seek some guidance for the Leader of the New Democratic Party. We are starting the debate on Meech Lake with a Leader's day. Presumably the Prime Minister will begin the debate for the Government, to be followed by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
Would it be appropriate to have an understanding that all three leaders have an opportunity to present their views prior
June 13, 1988

to the luncheon recess so that all three leaders can make their presentations together?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, we have discussed this possibility. On behalf of the Government, I am prepared to suggest that we would be amenable to extending the sitting and not seeing the clock at one o'clock in order to allow all three leaders to complete their remarks before two o'clock.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I think it is only fair to extend appreciation to the Government as well as the Official Opposition for their generosity. I realize this sets aside some of the normal practices to facilitate the three leaders. I simply want to say that I appreciate the generosity.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   LITERACY JOINT CANADA-UNITED NATIONS ATTACK ON ILLITERACY
David Orlikow: That a special committee of the House should be established to consider
Canada's serious and growing illiteracy problem and recommend ways that the
Government, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, can join the
United Nations attack on illiteracy.
He said: Madam Speaker, I moved this motion because I, like many other Canadians, recognize that the world is experiencing a revolution in the way we live and work. New technology moves so quickly and changes so rapidly that the ability of people to live and work is almost completely dependent upon their ability to read, write and understand it.
Many newspaper and magazine articles, and radio and television stories have told us of Canadians who are functionally illiterate and face a tremendous loss because of their inability to read and write. We have defined functional illiteracy as those people with less than eight completed years of schooling. Experts in the field are now beginning to define functional literacy as the ability to use printed and written information to function in society. Therefore, they are saying that the definition of eight years which has been used in the past is really too restrictive.
We like to think that our country is a modern industrialized society, one of the developed countries, yet according to a number of studies conducted by governments and voluntary agencies, most recently a study done for Southam News, five million Canadians are functionally illiterate. That is 20 per cent of Canadians.
We know that illiteracy increases as one moves from west to East, rising from a low of 17 per cent among adults in British Columbia to an astonishing high of 44 per cent in Newfoundland. We know that illiteracy is higher among men than women and that 100,000 illiterates a year are added to the Canadian population. Tragically, only one in ten of all
Illiteracy
illiterates would ever consider taking remedial classes of the kind that are presently offered by various agencies. We know that drop-out rates of 50 per cent have been recorded in some of the current programs.
Before the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took office three and one-half years ago, he appointed a task force to look at the whole question of manpower retraining. That task force recommended a federal-provincial conference for the sole purpose of developing an action plan to combat illiteracy. It also recommended a public advocacy campaign about illiteracy and immediate work on developing teaching materials for volunteer teachers. No action along these lines has been taken.
A recent study by the Canadian Business Task Force on Literacy estimated that the cost of illiteracy due to lost income is estimated at $4 billion per year in 1987 dollars. The cost to society is estimated at S10 billion. This figure is based on the difference between the average income of all income recipients, employed and unemployed, whose level of education is Grade 8 or less and those whose average incomes include some high school. The study assumes that the economy is strong enough to absorb additional employment from those whose skill and educational levels have been upgraded.
The study highlighted a number of labour demand trends and skill implications, including the decline of unskilled and muscle work; the increasing demands of technology which require literacy and numeracy skills; the rise in basic skill levels required for entry level positions. As well, 85 per cent of occupations require Grade 9 or better reading levels, and most jobs require about two hours of reading per day.
That is the reality of what is happening in this country. When people hear that a fifth of the people of Canada have been classified as functionally illiterate, they automatically assume that these are people who live in rural areas, who did not have the educational facilities we have in the cities and towns, or live in remote areas in the North. The fact is that studies which have been done tell us that 8 per cent of university graduates are functionally illiterate; 11 per cent of community college or trade school graduates are functionally illiterate; 13 per cent of university drop-outs, 17 per cent of high school graduates and 24 per cent of high school drop-outs are functionally illiterate. This situation can only be described as a national disaster.
In the Speech from the Throne after the Government was first elected, Canadians were promised that a major aim of the Conservative Government would be to deal with the question of illiteracy. The former Secretary of State, Mr. Crombie, promised on several occasions a major program that would be encouraged and financed at least in part by the federal Government. We have seen very little in the way of real effort or real change.
There is a small task force attached to the Secretary of State office which is doing some interesting survey work. There is some small effort by the Solicitor General for people

June 13, 1988
Illiteracy
who are incarcerated in our prisons. However, the Department of Employment and Immigration, which spends hundreds of millions of dollars on employment training, is continuing the same policies as it followed under a Liberal Government. It has downgraded and cut back on the programs funded through the Department of Employment and Immigration. These are programs for basic skill development which really try to help people who are functionally illiterate. Why does the Department follow that policy under the Conservative Government as it did formerly under the Liberal Government?
The reasons are pretty obvious although the Department would not like to admit it. There is no quick result in taking people who are illiterate and helping them become literate. That is only the first step in getting that man or woman a job. After all, the Department wants to show results, show it is successful. What the Department does is concentrate on people who are literate and who, in a relatively short training period, can be directed to a job which is available somwhere out there in the real world.
We have failed. There are a host of programs, some I have mentioned, which are funded by the federal Government. There are some funded by the provincial Governments and operated by departments of education in community colleges or high schools. There are some operated by volunteer agencies, funded either by the federal or provincial Governments. Frontier College, for generations has helped people upgrade their educational skill so they can find work for the first time, or a better type of work. Some of these programs have been successful but there is little co-ordination between the federal and provincial Governments. There is little assessment as to the success of the programs, whether they are operated by a federal government Department or a provincial government Department, by community colleges or high schools, or whether some of them are operating right on the job site.
There are dozens, probably hundreds of programs, but they are not sufficient. They do not begin to deal with the reality of the problem. They do not even begin to whittle down the number of people who are functionally illiterate. We really do not know how successful the programs which are operating have been so that we can learn from those which are successful.
A number of proposals have been made which make a great deal of sense. One proposal was made right here in Ottawa last year by the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board. It developed a model and proposed that we identify the type of service we would provide to a single immigrant mother, for example. It points out that would be vastly different than what is required to effectively serve high school drop-outs or middle management illiterates. As I travel around my city, and I am sure it is true in virtually every city in Canada, I cannot help but notice the tremendous change which is taking place in the type of people who live in the cities.
There are a large number of people who are non-white. They are from the Caribbean, from Africa, from Asia, from South America and from South Central America. Many of them come from countries in which the educational standards are far lower than they are in Canada, with all our faults. Many more of them who are literate in the language spoken in the country from which they come are not knowledgeable or proficient either in the English or French language. We have to deal with that kind of problem.
Any policy on illiteracy should take into account the diversity of the people who are illiterate. Many studies have been done identifying the need for literacy programs in general which suggested that what we have to do is tailor the programs to meet the needs of specific target groups within a community. It is suggested that these literacy programs can be delivered from the existing base of social services. If the school boards, libraries, community centres, colleges and other organizations were to expand and adapt some of their existing programs, a comprehensive and community based approach could be developed.
What they are saying is that we cannot decide here in Ottawa what is needed. Members of Parliament cannot decide, nor can the Ministers. Senior public servants cannot know what is needed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Grand Falls, Labrador, or in Vancouver, British Columbia. What is needed is to give the organizations and agencies in these communities the ability to develop the kind of programs which would meet the needs in the communities.
Canadians must be given the opportunity to participate in literacy programs according to their own needs. In other words, we need to have input and dialogue. We need to listen to the people in the local communities. They know what is needed. Services should be delivered in small groups, one on one special interest groups, third language and cultural groups and regular groups. In my own City of Winnipeg, at least one union that I know of, and there are probably more, has arranged with employers to organize and encourage their members, many of whom are recent immigrants, to participate in these programs either at the place of employment or in the union halls. These are the kinds of programs that should be made available. When I say they should be made available, I mean that the federal Government has to do more than just talk about it. It has to do more than just bemoan the sad state of affairs. The federal Government has to be ready to provide the funds which are needed to meet the problem.
While the existing institutions can provide a setting for literacy instruction, alternative locations should be provided. This can be achieved through the establishment of facilities at commercial sites, such as laundromats, soup kitchens, store fronts, nursing homes, churches, apartment buildings, recreation centres, mobile units, and adult learning centres. In other words, if we say to the people who are illiterate that they have to go to the university, which could be miles away from where they live, or to the community college or the high school, it could be a disincentive for people to participate.
June 13, 1988

The key to success is to be able to reach people where they live with a non-threatening service that fits with the schedules and way of living of these people. We have to be ready to provide allowances for those who are financially needy, for those who are handicapped and for those who are restricted by time or other commitments to participate. We have to get the message out of how important it is for them to participate. The message has to be clear and understandable. It has to be written and delivered in the kind of language which they can understand.
I note that my time is rapidly coming to an end. I want to say that in proposing this motion I face up to the fact that I, like anybody and everybody who is interested in this subject, do not have all the answers. No one has all the answers. But we have enough answers, enough information to realize the tremendous scope of the problem. We realize how important it is that we begin to deal with the problem. The best way that I can think of beginning to think about the problem and possibly beginning to develop plans so that we can deal with it and solve it is through establishment of a parliamentary committee which would travel across the country, hold hearings and, hopefully, hear from those who are functionally illiterate and from those who have worked in the field.
I am sure that if a committee of that type held hearings across the country and if it listened to the experts and to those who have to live with the deficiency and the problems that they face, it would make a report which would give the federal and provincial Governments, as well as the people of Canada, plans which, if implemented, would begin to help solve this very serious problem.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to support the intention of the Hon. Member. Whether in fact a parliamentary committee is the most useful vehicle is a question with respect to which the studies have been done. The research into the problem and its identification have been done. What we need now is some action.
I would like to say why we need action. The Hon. Member referred to the special task force that was struck to look into illiteracy after the very valuable series of articles that was done by Southam. Indeed, as he said, the cost to businesses in the country of illiteracy is $4 billion. The social cost is $10 billion. Those are staggering figures. If we want to see the problem of illiteracy in context, we have to see it as a symptom. It is symptomatic of something else. It is that we just are not performing very well.
If we look at OECD studies we will see that the level of skill development in Canada is something like fourteenth among OECD countries. Yet we are heading into a society wherein the trade will be on information. We have got by in Canada by trading on natural resources. We are a country that takes minerals out of the ground and cuts down trees. We export
Illiteracy
those products. No longer will we be able to do that. The information society will demand of Canada that it begin to trade in information. Trading information requires a skill level. The countries with which we will be competing are the OECD countries, countries such as Japan, West Germany, France and Great Britain. Each one of those countries has given a national priority to education.
One of the first things that President Mitterrand did after his re-election was to set education as a priority. I bet that when Margaret Thatcher speaks to us very soon she will refer to it. In Germany, which is a federal state like our own, there is a Bundlander commission. Every country with which we will be competing has set education as a priority. But we have not.
The Hon. Member was quite right when he asked in the face of the costs, the heavy toll on business and society, what did the federal Government do? It allocated something in the order of $1 million to the problem. If Hon. Members were to talk to representatives of Frontier College in Toronto, they would be told that between $ 17 million and $20 million is the minimum that is needed even to address the problem. One million dollars does not even pay lip service to the problem.
Again, we have to see that type of reaction in the context of the society that we are heading into. I could list other programs which have been cut back in the face of the challenge that confronts us. The Hon. Member has already referred to them. They are cutbacks in Established Programs Financing for universities across Canada. Some $1.6 billion was cut from the increase that was to be expected.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy has been privatized. Community colleges tell me that some of them have lost as much as 50 per cent of the funding that they had received previously in order to operate. These are our educational institutions. These are Canadian educational institutions that we are going to need to be strong as we head into the information society.
What else are we heading into? We are heading into a free trade agreement with the United States. We will need to be competitive there too. We do not know what the effect of free trade will be. We do know that there will be winners and losers. There will be Canadian businesses that will profit from free trade. There will be Canadian businesses, just as certainly, that will lose from free trade. That means that there will be a dislocation of Canadian workers. All across the country there will be some dislocation. Free trade simply exacerbates a need that already exists for training and retraining.
Every country worth its salt has given a high priority to continuous learning. Yet in this country, natives, women, the disabled, all have a terrible time gaining access to postsecondary education.
That is the context in which we have to see the Hon. Member's motion. Illiteracy is really a symptom. It is not a problem but a symptom of a problem. The problem is that we in this country are not giving education a priority because we do not have a national strategy. We have seen it as a provincial

June 13, 1988
Illiteracy
jurisdiction. Yes, it is a provincial jurisdiction, and no one wants to change that. But what has to happen is that in the face of a national challenge there has to be a national response. People have to know what it is they want to do.
There are areas in the country simply in terms of finance alone which will not be able to respond. The Hon. Member is quite right. This is a problem in which the federal Government has to provide the dollars. Only the federal coffers have the ability that is needed to respond to the financial needs of mounting an attack on illiteracy and the other problems that I have identified.
I believe that the issue of illiteracy is extremely important. But it is symptomatic of a deeper malaise. This matter has nothing to do with provincial jurisdiction. Provincial jurisdiction remains. I also have to make the distinction that this should not be a federal strategy. I am calling for a national strategy. I think that is exactly what the Hon. Member is doing, too. He has pointed to a number of institutions that have grown up to deal with the problem of illiteracy. He is quite right when he says that we must deal with them. We must deal with the people on the front line. In dealing with them, in providing them with the money, the money will not be enough. What there also has to be is a national strategy.
I commend the Hon. Member on the initiative that he has taken today. I know why he has suggested a parliamentary committee. It is because a private Member cannot call on the Government of Canada for an expenditure of funds. It seems to me if he were not in that position that he would agree with me. We have studied and looked at the problem. In 1988 as we head into a free trade association with the United States which will bring challenges to us, and as we head into competition in the information society among the OECD countries, what we badly need is a national plan for dealing with the real challenge to Canada of education, of which illiteracy is a symptom.
[ Translation]


Gabriel Desjardins: Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour for me to rise in the House and deal with Canada's growing illiteracy problem about which we are all quite concerned. Literacy education is necessary not only to improve people's quality of life, but also to enhance communication and understanding between all Canadians, I wish to commend the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for moving his motion suggesting that a special Committee of the House be established to consider Canada's serious and growing illiteracy problem. Madam Speaker, any Member representing a rural riding such as yours truly understands that illiteracy is a growing problem in Canada. In such regions as Abitibi-Temiscamingue, our elders and pioneers were much too busy working the fields and cutting trees to be concerned about learning to read and write. It is a problem indeed, but over the past few months, this Government has taken concrete steps to remedy the situation. That is why I suggest my Hon. Friend failed to take into account the
efforts made by this Government to raise the level of education in Canada.
The Secretary of State supports community initiatives in the area of literacy education. Moreover, if I may, I should like to emphasize the fact that the Sollicitor General has emphasized literacy education in Federal penitentiaries and obtained encouraging results, which for that matter confirms a recent article published on this issue.
Several months ago, the Government invited organizations from all over the country interested in this problem to express their views and make recommendations on the ways to correct the situation. Having thoroughly examined the many fine proposals the Government has received, it was decided for starters to spend $1 million in literacy education programs. The annoncement of this commitment, on September the 8th, coincided with the World Literacy Day. However, Madam Speaker, the Government has done more than commit funding. At the Department of the Secretary of State, we have established a National Literacy Secretariat, responsible for coordinating federal, provincial, territorial and community activities in this field.
The Secretariat is now examining all federal programs to determine how they could respond satisfactorily to the needs of those of our fellow citizens whose ability to read and write is not sufficient for them to take an active part in their daily occupational and social activities. The Government is seriously considering establishing a national literacy council that would advise the Government in this area, and the Department of the Secretary of State has promised to hold a seminar on literacy.
Madam Speaker, without wishing to contradict the Hon. Member, I think it is rather premature to appoint a special committee of the House. The National Literacy Secretariat is now doing extremely productive work in the area of cooperative research. I say co-operative, Madam Speaker, because the Secretariat co-operates very closely with other governments and the agencies concerned, to ensure that the solutions that are approved are practical and down to earth.
Co-operative research is essential, not only to harmonize community, provincial and federal initiatives but also to avoid duplication and the wasting of precious resources. Madam Speaker, my point is that at the present time, a special committee of the House would merely be going over ground that has already been covered. If such a proposal had been made by the provinces and the agencies concerned when the Government announced its intentions on World Literacy Day,
1 am sure it would have been given serious consideration at the time. However, that was not the case. People working at the community level on this problem estimate that the present approach will make a very effective contribution towards permanently raising the level of literacy in this country. The opinion of these men and women is what counts for us at this time.
Madam Speaker, we realize that illiteracy is not only a personal problem but also a community problem. That is why
June 13, 1988

the Government has opted for a concerted approach. For solutions that are worthwhile, the public sector, business, labour and government agencies must work together on longterm activities. Hence the co-operative research I mentioned earlier.
I am very pleased to announce to the House that during the past two or three months, the Government has taken a number of steps to encourage partnership with the provinces and the territories. A few examples, Madam Speaker: in British Columbia, the federal Government has allocated $100,000 for advanced teaching and professional training activities, in particular the creation of a residence for adult students, the development of a special form of supervised teaching, consultation with native people on the subject and funding a conference for adult students.
In Newfoundland, the federal Government spent $80,000 to set up a literacy policy office, for volunteer seminars and to organize a provincial literacy conference.
In the Northwest Territories, the federal Government has granted $50,000 for a continuing education conference.
In Quebec, the federal Government has granted $111,000 to set up a literacy data base, to investigate research requirements and for a study of literacy teacher training needs.
In Saskatchewan, the federal Government has allocated $75,000 for the activities of the new provincial literacy council, including a public awareness campaign, production of teaching material and development of a training program.
In New Brunswick, the federal Government has earmarked $100,000 for the production of teaching material in French to take account of the cultural characteristics of the population and for other literacy-related activities.
In Alberta, the federal Government has awarded $101,987 for the production of informational and promotional material, for a program to train people who teach illiterate adults and for professional development seminars.
In Prince Edward Island, the federal Government spent $80,000 on various projects, including public awareness, a study of the programs that would best meet the needs of the province's francophones, the establishment of networks of volunteer tutors and a training program.
Finally, in Manitoba, the federal Government granted $100,000 for a series of initiatives to develop effective literacy approaches for native peoples.
Madam Speaker, those are but a few examples of the numerous activities the Government has undertaken jointly with the provinces and territories in order to fight this disaster. Other federal-provincial initiatives are currently under way or being completed.
Twenty one years ago, Madam Speaker, during Expo 67, Canada proclaimed the first World Literacy Day. In 1985, we sponsored the right to learn declaration during the World
Illiteracy
Conference on Continuing Education which took place in Paris under the auspices of UNESCO. Partly because of this initiative, the United Nations General Assembly decided to call 1990 the World Literacy Year.
The Canadian Government intends to mark this international year with special events at the national level and to pursue its leadership role on the international scene, while maintaining its efforts to upgrade education levels throughout the world.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I wish to underline that the national literacy secretariat, in conjunction with the provinces and community organizations, has taken the right direction. I believe that the best way to deal with literacy in Canada is by letting the secretariat continue its work, and by postponing the examination of the proposal concerning the creation of a special committee of the House.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, did you know that over 4 million Canadians are finding it difficult to read and write, so baffling indeed that they are unable to cope with the problem. I ask Members in the House to think of what it means to be unable to read, unable to circle the expiry date of a drivers licence, read the label of a medicine bottle, or even sign the bottom of a SIN certificate.
Those are not my examples. They come from Creative Research Group Limited which was commissioned by South-am News to find out just how many Canadians can read and write. That study found that 3 per cent of those surveyed could not circle the expiry date on a driver's license, 8 per cent could not read the instructions on a medicine bottle and 9 per cent could not sign their names to a Social Insurance card. South-am News reported extensively on the results of the survey last Fall, and many Canadians became conscious for the first time of the previously hidden problem of illiteracy.
I commend the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for bringing this very serious problem before the House. I do not particularly agree with the Hon. Member's solution, however. He recommends that we form a special committee to join with the provinces and the territories in the United Nations attack on illiteracy. This Government has already mounted that attack. It is very much aware of the seriousness of the problem. The Hon. Member's motion may be well intentioned, but a special committee of this House could perhaps overlap and even delay the work that is now going on.
Support is being given now as it has in the past to community based literacy initiatives by the Department of the Secretary of State. While the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North calls this a small effort, the Solicitor General has been increasing steadily and progressively the emphasis on literacy for those in the federal prison system, and encouraging results are being obtained.

June 13, 1988
Illiteracy
In the Speech from the Throne of October 1, 1986, this Government made a commitment to work with the provinces, the private sector and voluntary organizations to develop resources to ensure that Canadians have access to the literacy skills that are the prerequisite for participation in our advanced economy and society.
In the year after that commitment was made and literacy was placed on the national agenda, this Government consulted extensively with the provinces, the territories, the private sector and voluntary organizations to forge national partnerships to strengthen support for literacy initiatives in Canada. A plan of action was developed following those consultations, and that plan is being put in place.
A national literacy secretariat has been established in the Department of the Secretary of State. The secretariat is looking at all federal programs to see if and how they affect those who cannot read and write. Funds are being allocated, as the previous speaker noted, to major community groups. These groups, whose members are mostly volunteers, are the front line troops in the war against illiteracy, and providing them with financial support is an immediate and cost effective way of helping those who want to help the most.
Money has been provided and continues to be provided for research into illiteracy. We also have to research an important and often overlooked side of the illiteracy coin and find out why illiteracy exists. What are we doing as parents, as teachers, as a society, that perpetuates illiteracy? We do not know the answer, but we do have to find out. If we do not, illiteracy will continue to grow because we will be unable to design programs that will get to the very root of the problem and meet the real needs of people.
Education, as we all know, is a provincial responsibility and no federal Government can tackle illiteracy on its own. It takes the co-operation of the federal and provincial Governments. This Government is justifiably proud of its record of cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments, and that co-operation is as apparent in the fight against illiteracy as it has been elsewhere.
Partnerships have been established since last autumn with each province and territory following discussions with their responsible authorities and officials. One wonders just what more a special committee of this House could recommend in further collaboration at present.
I would like to spend a few moments on Canada's role in the international attack, the United Nations attack, on illiteracy. Hon. Members may not be aware that it was Canada that made the first declaration of world literacy and established a world literacy day as long ago as Expo '67. In 1985, at UNESCO s International Conference on Adult Education in Paris, this Government sponsored the declaration of the right to learn.
The year 1990 will be the United Nations Literacy Year which obviously the Government supports. It will not solve
literacy problems. That is not the purpose of International Years. What it will do is bring to the attention of all nations including Canada this problem of illiteracy, and it will focus public awareness on it. It will give those of us who are concerned, as is the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, an opportunity to bring this problem to the forefront of public awareness and to find solutions if any.
This Government is committed to facing the problem of illiteracy and to facing it head on. It is a problem that has been with us for a long time, but it is only recently that we have begun to realize just how serious a problem it is in this nation of ours and just how difficult it is for so many to cope with it.
Illiteracy is not an issue that will just go away. It will take a longer period of time and it will take the combined efforts of the federal Government, each of the provincial Governments and the territorial Governments. It will entail the efforts of the private sector, labour, volunteer groups and those who cannot read and write.
Illiteracy is a practical problem needing practical answers, answers that will work in the church basements and the community halls, answers that will work with the professional educators and with the hard-pressed volunteers, answers that will put the resources where they are needed most, and that is with those who cannot read and write.
We as a nation cannot afford to keep adding day after day to the ranks and numbers of those who cannot read and write. The attack has already been mounted. The attack has begun and we are making encouraging strides forward. Let us all keep our efforts focused on dealing with the problem in a practical way, not on studying the problem over and over again while it gets worse and worse, day after day, as it has been doing.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to deal with motion No. 150 which reads:
That a special committee of the House should be established to consider Canada's serious and growing illiteracy problem and recommend ways that the government, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, can join the United Nations attack on illiteracy.
Madam Speaker, when considering a project such as this, one must be prepared to look at the full dimension of the problem. A great many studies have already looked into this problem in the past and the Creative Research Group published data to the effect that 8 per cent of Canadian adults are illiterate, meaning that they do not know how to read or write. Sixteen per cent can hardly function in their daily lives because they cannot read or write well enough; another 9 per cent are functionally illiterate. The same report indicates that the less education a man has, the more likely he is to be illiterate. Fifty per cent of the people who never attended high school are illiterate. Twenty five per cent of all those who did
June 13, 1988

not finish their high school are illiterate, and so are 17 per cent of those who did finish.
The same report indicates that women are slightly better educated than men and that illiteracy among the people speaking either of our two official languages is greater among new Canadians than among native Canadians.
We have to address the problem on the basis of those statistics. But we must ask ourselves why people who are less educated are more likely than others to be illiterate? When asked, 50 per cent of our drop-outs explained that they were bored with school, that they felt that going there was a waste of time, and that they did not care about reading or writing, Madam Speaker. We must ask ourselves about their lack of motivation. They are 14 or 15 years old when they leave school, thinking that they will be able to find a job quickly; they try very hard, but they fail. This of course translates into a lack of motivation. They will end up discouraged and disgusted and will stop looking. That is the whole problem.
When we realize that our young people are running away from school, refusing to get an education, Madam Speaker, we must conclude that our society is ill. We must find a remedy.
I suggest that in introducing his motion, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) had a point. There is a reason to that. He feels that it is an outright failure and that we should do something. Except that there are in my view a great number of studies on that matter, and establishing another committee to study those studies or to study the studies on those studies that have already been studied will not heal matters. What is needed is using the means that are now provided and putting them to work.
My colleague from Timiskaming earlier commended the Government when he described what it has done up till now to fight that plague, and if I may I would like to give a few more statistics. In Quebec, there are 1,300,000 individuals who can neither read nor write. In the Maritimes, including New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, there are 320,000. In Newfoundland, the figure is 140,000. Well, those statistics are self-explanatory. They show a clear, and tangible problem.
The Canadian Government, when setting up joint programs with provinces to fund the fight against illiteracy, is doing its share in my view. Clearly we could throw billions of dollars at the problem. But priorities must be established, and to date, I think the Canadian Government has not been remiss. Funds were allocated where they were most needed.
My concern is that establishing another committee for the sake of establishing a committee does not serve any useful purpose. We might as well try and find out why young people drop out of school, why young people when coming to the labour market are ill-prepared, if at all prepared, and find themselves in a position where they cannot cope.
I heard earlier a Liberal Member striving to link free trade and illiterate people.
Illiteracy
One thing struck me, when he suggested those people would be worse off than others if they could not find a job after free trade. I would simply like to tell him that free trade will not determine whether young people will stay in school or drop out, except that if you feel you are more affected than others, because your company will be undergoing changes, if you are not ready to retrain or to go back to school, clearly you will blame that on free trade. And this is the reason why indeed the Opposition takes up that line, but it is not true.
We are living in a high technology era. We are living in an era where specialists are king. We must at all cost do what is needed so that our young can specialize, can stay in school long enough to become high technology people.
I look among us here in the House of Commons, Madam Speaker and I see some engineers such as the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), people, who are trained in high technology. With their training, they are ideally suited for upgrading, for further study towards greater specialization, and they must be given the opportunity to do so.
Personnaly I think that we should keep our efforts focused on dealing with the problem. We should establish priorities but recognize the Government of Canada's great efforts up to now to fight illiteracy, and I honestly think that we should give it our support and continue to set our priorities with a view of getting our young people to stay in school or to go back to school to further their education so they know how to read and write.
Do you know what it's like, Madam Speaker, not to know how to read or write? When you give the salesclerk a $5 bill to pay for a $2.95 total and you don't know that you should get $2.05 back? I suggest that we make every effort to address this very serious problem.
I think my time is almost over. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for letting me speak to this important legislation.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to my hon. colleague's recommendation on illiteracy in Canada. It gives me a chance to address an issue that has serious implications for Canadians. It is an issue to which this Government is firmly committed to confront.
In order to respond fully and adequately to the recommendation that a special committee of the House be established to study the problem of illiteracy, I must first put the Member's request in context by describing the initiatives already undertaken by the Government.
Many projects launched to date are proof of the depth of this Government's commitment made in the October, 1986 Speech from the Throne to work with the provinces, the private sector and voluntary organizations to develop measures to ensure that Canadians have access to the literacy skills

June 13, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
which are the prerequisites for participation in an advanced economy. The Government is aware of the extent illiteracy in Canada and the serious consequences this problem can have throughout the country. It knows that co-operation between the provincial and federal Governments is absolutely crucial if there is to be progress in this area.
To support all the efforts made to fight illiteracy in Canada, a plan of action was developed for establishing and maintaining close and effective ties between the various Governments and between concerned groups and individuals.
The Government embarked on a process of consultation a little over a year ago and several meetings have already taken place at the national level. To ensure that illiteracy remains on the national agenda this Government has established a national Literacy Secretariat within the Department of the Secretary of State. Members of the secretariat are working closely with the provinces, the private sector and community groups, and the secretariat is directly involved in development work. It oversees and analyses provincial and national activities and promotes the development of the new initiatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 10, consideration of second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and to amend other acts in consequence thereof; of the amendment of Mr. Marchi (p. 16341); and of the subamendment of Mr. Heap (p. 16341).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6 o'clock, the House will now proceed, in accordance with Standing Order 13(5), with the deferred recorded division on Mr. Heap s sub-amendment, in relation to the Senate's message, to Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and to amend other acts in consequence.
Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
It being 6.25 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1). The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.

Tuesday, June 14, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Prayers