1988-06-20

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-4510, 3324539, 332-4559, 332-4560, 332-4564 to 332-4569 inch, 3324591 to 332-4593 inch, 332-4595, 332-4604, 332-4607, 3324608, 332-4612, 332-4613, 332-4617, 332-4619, 332-4624 to 332-4635 inch, 332-4640, 332-4670, 332-4747, 332-4782 and 332-4783, and, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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 to the motion 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 House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
	YEAS Members	
Andre	Hamelin	NowlanBelsher	Hamilton	OostromBernier	Hardey	RicardBertrand	Hawkes	SchellenbergBlais	Hees	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Blenkarn	Hockin	ScottBourgault	Hudon	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Champagne	Kilgour	Sparrow(Champlain)	Ladouceur	StackhouseChartrand	Lanthier	StewartClark	Layton	Taylor(Brandon-Souris)	Leblanc	TowersCooper	Lewis	TremblayCote	MacDonald	(Quebec-Est)Crofton	(Kingston and	Tremblayde Cotret	the Islands)	(Lotbiniere)Desjardins	Mailly	TurnerDesrosiers	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)Duplessis	Mazankowski	ValcourtFennell	McCain	VincentFontaine	McCrossan	WilsonFraleigh	McDermid	(Swift CurrentGottselig	McKinnon	-Maple Creek)Gray	Minaker	Winegard(Bonaventure-1 les-de-	Mitges	Wise-66la-Madeleine)	Nicholson	Guilbault	(Niagara Falls)	(Drummond)	Nickerson
NAYS Members	Allmand	Gray	OrlikowAlthouse	(Windsor West)	ParryAngus	Harris	PennerAxworthy	Isabelle	RiisBaker	Kaplan	RobichaudBenjamin	Keeper	RodriguezCopps	Langdon	Rossi-27Foster	MacLellan	Gagliano	Manly	Gauthier	McCurdy Nystrom


Mr. Speaker:: Day.	1 declare the motion	carried. Orders of the


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:		
That the debate on Government Business No. 26, and on any amendments proposed thereto, shall not be further adjourned.


Extension of Sittings


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Parry	Riis	RodriguezPenner	Robichaud	Rossi-24


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


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 House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 392)
++YEAS
Members
Andre
Bclshcr
Bernier
Bertrand
Blais
Blenkarn
Bourgaull
Champagne
(Champlain)
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cooper Cote Crofton Crouse Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Duplessis Fennell Fontaine Fraleigh Gottselig Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleinc)
Greenaway
Allmand
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy
Baker
Benjamin
Guilbault	Nicholson
(Drummond)	(Niagara Falls)
Hamelin	Nickerson
Flardey	Nowlan
Hawkes	Oostrom
Hees	Ricard
Hockin	Schellenberg
Hudon	(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Jourdenais	Scott
Kilgour	(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Ladouceur	Sparrow
Lanthier	Stackhouse
Layton	Stewart
Leblanc	Taylor
Lewis	Towers
MacDonald	Tremblay
(Kingston and	(Quebec-Est)
the Islands)	Tremblay
Mailly	(Lotbiniere)
Marin	Vincent
Mazankowski	Wilson
McCain	(Swift Current
McCrossan	-Maple Creek)
McDermid	Winegard
McKinnon	Wise-68
Minakcr	
Mitges	
Moore	
NAYS	
Members	
Copps	Keeper
Foster	Langdon
Gagliano	MacLellan
Gauthier	Manly
Harris	McCurdy
Isabelle	Nystrom



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration, from Tuesday June 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
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.
And the amendment of Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):
That the motion be amended by deleting in the first and second paragraphs the words:
"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 substituting the following therefor:
"Thursday, June 30, 1988".
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, we have just voted on a motion that gags the House, invokes closure and, in my opinion, reveals the extent of this government's incompetence and total inability to manage the House's time. For several weeks, it has been resorting to unparliamentary and almost undemocratic practices.
Mr. Speaker, this vote to invoke closure of the debate on motion No. 26, that is on a government motion to extend this sitting which, as we all know, began on August 11 of last year, effectively extends this sitting until Friday September 9, 1988. This means that the House will not adjourn for the summer, in accordance with the Standing Orders. Moreover, daily sittings will be extended until 10 p.m., creating, as we know, problems with families who, in many cases, are not here in Ottawa. MPs will therefore not be able to spend time with their children.


I want the government to know that I think the motion before us is shameful and goes against parliamentary practice since it invokes closure and places the Opposition in a difficult situation.
Mr. Speaker, what the Government did today when they moved to consider the orders of the day at 11 a.m, at the beginning of the proceedings, well they could have done that last week, on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday at 10 a.m., when the Government order was called. The fact is they didn't.
Why? Because it suited their purpose to prolong the debate a little, to make Canadians think that there was some resistance on the part of the Official Opposition or the NDP. But their primary intention was to attract the media's attention. There was one editorial on the subject this morning, and I have spoken to several Conservative Members who have said to me:

"We have an editorial in The Globe and Mail. Did you read it?" I did, Sir. I read it, yes. I was not very much impressed with it because the facts of it are not very impressive. The Government has been snapping its suspenders and saying, "we have an editorial, finally," after holding the Elouse of Commons for three solid days last week, a waste of time-


Mr. Belsher:: We were not holding it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, you were. Members of the Government held the House of Commons last week for three solid days. They now have an editorial in The Globe and Mail. How much begging that cost, I do not know.
I remind government Members that The Globe and Mail is the national newspaper-if they are going to hold this up as anything more than a piece of paper-that was found in contempt by the House on December 22, 1976. I wish to put the matter into context.
I wish to read the motion adopted unanimously pursuant to Standing Order 43. It was moved by Mr. MacEachen and seconded by Mr. Baker, the former Member for Grenville- Carleton, who is now deceased, that a statement contained in an editorial in The Globe and Mail was a gross libel of Mr. Speaker, and that the publication of the article was a gross breach of the privileges of this House.
That was the only time in the history of Parliament that I know of, in my 15 years here, that a newspaper was found to be guilty of contempt of the House of Commons. Members opposite are waving this morning's editorial saying, "Look at that. We have a great newspaper article saying that we were right last week". They were not right last week, and they know it. They did it intentionally. They left the House hanging because they refused to use the rules to assist their purpose, which is to order Government Business.
Extension of Sittings

Mr. Speaker, I said it last week, I said it last Wednesday and again last Thursday in the House, after each vote in which only the Liberal Party Whip participated, the government could have used a provision in the Standing Orders which would have allowed it, during Routine Proceedings, to call the orders of the day. Why didn't they do this either on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday?


Ms. Copps:: Because they didn't want to!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I don't know, but they wanted to shift the blame for the delay to the Opposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, they showed poor judgment, as usual, and in my opinion, they acted irresponsibly and displayed their incompetence and inability to manage the time of this House.
It's so obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this Government is awkward .. .


Sheila Maureen Copps: Clumsy!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: ... clumsy-I thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton-East (Ms. Copps)-when it comes to managing its affairs. They looked like a bunch of fools about a month ago, Mr. Speaker ...


Mr. Rossi:: They are!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: .. . when they sent a letter to the Official Opposition House Leader dated May 30. That was barely a month ago-no, I'm sorry, it was in fact only a few weeks ago. In this letter dated May 30, they indicated their desire to see the three parties in the House reach an agreement to pass 23 bills at different stages, and said that five Bills on the Order Paper could perhaps be adopted .. .

I should read this because it is in English. There were 11 Bills not yet introduced, something which was contained in the letter of May 30 signed by the Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis). There was everything from the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program, to child care, to film and video, disabled persons, transportation, and income tax reform. We finally got the Bill on income tax reform. It was in the form of a Ways and Means motion. It is a huge package.
Members of the Government want this, plus those 11 pieces of legislation not yet introduced, plus a major debate on abortion, a major debate on Meech Lake, and a major debate on free trade. They want that, all in the space of less than 20 days. How foolish can they take us to be? How do they play the Canadian public to eat this up and to believe this nonsense?
Just to give the House an idea of the complexity of the tax reform Bill, I looked into it.


Extension of Sittings

I looked into several Standing Orders to see if it was possible, in the space of a few days, to go through the entire Bill. Mr. Speaker, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the experts in this field, namely the Joint Committee on Taxation of the Canadian Bar Association-these are no fools-and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, who also are very knowledgeable in this area. Here is what they had to say about this Bill in a brief submitted in May 1988, not two years, but rather barely one month ago, and 1 quote: "The provisions of the draft Bill pertaining to automobile costs and related benefits are extremely complex. A total of 30 different amendments had to be made to the Act and the relevant regulations to translate into legal terms the proposed measures contained in the White Paper as amended in December 1987.
These provisions are full of technical errors, which proves that even those who wrote them have a great deal of trouble understanding the regulations". These are not my words, but rather those of Canada's accountants and lawyers who examined the bill, the voluminous, 500-page Bill that the government wanted to pass in just a few days. That makes no sense at all, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of tax reform as to simplify matters and make them less complex. That has not happened, Mr. Speaker. They have complicated matters, even for the Canadian Bar Association and for our country's accountants. And here in the House of Commons, we would like to settle this matter quickly, in a matter of days! That is our idea of democracy.
We love to have things done our way. We said: "Just a minute. The people of Canada want to hear the debate. They want to have this thing looked at sincerely and with the intent of possibly strengthening it and avoiding some of the mistakes we know the Government is prone to making".
The Government called us back on August 11, last year, for an emergency session. A boatload of Sikhs landed in Nova Scotia and an emergency was declared. Those two Bills are still before the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is the Senate's fault.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Those Bills have not been approved.


Mr. McDermid:: Because of Allan MacEachen's stalling.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: All right, it is the Senate. I have got someone excited over there.


John Horton McDermid: The legislation has been two hundred days in the Senate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is true we have not finished. Even today the Government is proposing amendments, amendments which are difficult and complex. These people want it their way. It is the old "mother knows best" attitude.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is a racist move and they know it. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the motion will. . .


Some Hon. Members:: Oh! oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They don't like to hear the truth, Mr. Speaker. Motion No. 26, which would suspend the Standing Orders and allow the government Order, effectively cancels the summer adjournment. We the Members of the Opposition are prepared to work diligently. If the Government wishes to call bills and to debate them seriously, then we are prepared to work with them, to deal with the legislation on the table. We are quite prepared for daily Question Period and quite willing to let journalists report what they see and rap the government on the knuckles when it deserves it. And it very often deserves it.

We do not mind that, Mr. Speaker. It would cost us a fortune to have that media coverage every day. "Go ahead", I say to the Government, "sit all summer; sit July and August". We will have, I think, the benefit of having Members over there down in the polls in August while we will be going up. It is an old truism that when the House sits, Governments go down in the polls and the Opposition goes up. So I say: "Go ahead. Do you think we care?" We would just as soon be here, and we will debate this.


John Horton McDermid: Sit down and let's get on with things.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I hear someone shouting "sit down". That is the Government's position. "Sit down, shut up", the Members say, "we will have it our way".


John Horton McDermid: You cannot have it both ways.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Muzzlers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We want to see the new federal Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, Mr. Pierre Gimaiel!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: the second session and three during the first session, for a total of eight. In all, 203 pieces of legislation have been passed by the House. That's not so bad. That's about average, when we look at past governments.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The numbers for the past four years are around 200, 210, 215. No more, but no less. I hear some nos. You weren't here at the time, so how could you know! I say to you that this is about average. We might not have worked miracles, or invented a better mousetrap, but we haven't done too badly. The reason is because the Opposition has been willing to work with the Government. When the Government is serious, we are more than willing to go along with it. However, when the Government behaves irresponsibly, like some of the hon. Members before me, we can only do so much. When the Government proposes, we dispose. However, when the Government doesn't propose anything, how can we do anything?
There is a series of Bills now before us, Mr. Speaker. A while ago, I reminded the House of the 39 or so Bills that the Government wanted to take up, in addition to two or three important debates. It's sad to say, Mr. Speaker, but the Government is being irresponsible if it thinks that the House of Commons should deal with 40 Bills in less than one month when, as I just explained, it has dealt with nearly 200 over a period of four years. It means that the Government wants us to accomplish in one month's time what normally takes us about one year to do! It's trying to push and hurry the Opposition, don't you see! It's trying to influence public opinion through an editorial in the Globe and Mail and trying to fend off the Opposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's going to take more than an article in the Globe and Mail to fend us off when we know that the government could, if it had had any guts and backbone, have tabled these Bills in an orderly fashion in the House.
They are asking us to spend five days on the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement, that is the free trade agreement with the United States. This agreement has the potential of altering Canada's business and economic future. They want us to spend only a few days on tax reform. I Assume that the Government was serious when it stated in its letter of May 30 that it wanted to spend a few days on this subject. The fiscal and economic future of our country is at stake here! They asked us to deal with Meech Lake quickly and we did. The Government got its way, and the first vote has taken place and the other ones will be taken on Wednesday at 3 p.m. The official languages Bill has been before the House since June 25. It was called last February 8 or 9. It was referred to a committee on March 9. The committee met in an emergency session on March 17. It's now June 20, Mr. Speaker, and the Bill has been before the committee for three months. The Government is not even scheduling meetings of the committee. Why is this? Because the Conservative caucus disagrees on the scope of the Official Languages Act. They are putting their personal interests
Extension of Sittings
before those of Canadians. The passage of Bill C-72 is being delayed, through no fault of the Opposition. We have told them to pass the bill as is. But they answer that they have some issues to resolve between themselves. That particular piece of legislation will also affect our country's future.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Arguments between Neanderthals.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Indeed. And here we are being asked to move quickly on 40 Bills, including those that I just mentioned, and some others as well. It's ridiculous! And they know it is. Can the Government be so incompetent as to suggest that the House do the impossible? If this it true, then it's sad for the country.
Mr. Speaker, the government was very pleased with its tax reform proposals.
You remember the government supported tax reform. We have seen the tax reform bill and it will take more than three days to wade through it and pass it. The government has to be reasonable. If it is prepared to refer it to a committee after a serious debate in the Commons, we have no objections to that.
The Government also claimed to support parliamentary reform. A committee chaired by Mr. McGrath considered reform for two or three years and did a good job of it. The Government couldn't say enough about how a reformed House would be a great improvement and how backbenchers on both sides would finally have more power to change things. But, we know that nothing has changed. They have even trampled the Standing Orders with motion no. 26. And why have they done this? To impose their will and their ideas on the House.
It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, but democracy will only be better served when this Government is defeated and replaced by another.
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with incompetent people. Bourinot speaks of "evidence of the lack of foresight and the tyranny of the majority". The Government is using its overwhelming majority to push its agenda through the House, something it is unable to do by acting in a democratic, proper and parliamentary way. They have thrown out the Standing Orders to achieve their objective.
The Government tells us that the situation is urgent and that passage of these Bills cannot be delayed. It brings up the issues of tax reform, free trade, abortion-there's an issue of great importance to the country, Mr. Speaker! We would like to resolve that issue, but the Government has neither the heart nor the courage nor the expertise to table a Bill. What does it want? It would like to table a motion, something lukewarm. We don't quite know what the government's intention is because it is incapable of leading the country or of proposing something concrete to the House. It would prefer to poll Members and when it has a clearer picture, to ask some legal experts to draft a Bill.
In the Globe and Mail,


Extension of Sittings
It is quoted. The Globe and Mail says that the Liberal Deputy Whip, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), thunders that the Government is trying to do an opinion poll of Members of Parliament, an awful precedent. That is true. Government Members are. They are unable to make up their minds. They are unable to come forth with legislation. I believe they should be replaced. I believe this is wrong. This Government has absolutely lost control. It does not know what it is doing. It is now in a situation where it wants to push through everything in the hope that Canadians will buy that. Canadians will not buy that nonsense.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Motion No. 26 that will extend the sittings of this House into the summer with extended sitting on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays. We see that this motion is being pushed through the House by closure. We can be sure that this is only the first of many attempts by the Government to ram things through the House in violation of the tenets of democracy.
I oppose this motion first of all personally. I oppose it because it interferes with my own personal agenda as a human being, and I think that is important.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It interferes with your vacation, 10 weeks.


James Douglas Manly: That is important because it disrupts my plans. It disrupts my plans for life with my family and it disrupts my plans to do things in my constituency. I might say that in my case my children are grown up, so it is not as important to me as it is to many other Members. The disruption of family life is very serious.
Second, unless the Government has enough guts to call an election in the next two or three weeks, I will not be running again. I have said quite plainly that I will not be running after redistribution, so I am not as involved as other Members are in election work.
This is a violation of the rights of Members to be able to plan their lives, their constituency work, and their family and vacation time so that there is a degree of rationality introduced into all this.
A few years ago we brought in parliamentary reform, putting an end to this whole business of vacation roulette, with both the Opposition and the Government playing games with vacations. This whole process-


John Horton McDermid: It's like voting on first reading. Tell us what your constituents think about that.


James Douglas Manly: You will get a chance to speak later. You had a chance to speak earlier after the Liberal Member. Why don't you shut up now and listen? You are not only trying to push this through on closure; you are not prepared to listen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.


James Douglas Manly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to speak with some degree of rationality about parliamentary reform, and I will be addressing the Chair. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, know how important it was when parliamentary reform was introduced a few years ago. It meant that Members, both on the government side and the opposition side, could plan their lives with some degree of certainty. The Government has now tossed that out the window. It did it first last August by calling us back on a spurious refugee crisis. A boatload of Sikhs had arrived off the coast of Newfoundland.
It is interesting that just a week ago the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) indicated that the refugees he is really concerned about are existentialists. He is concerned about having a boatload of existentialists arrive off the coast of Vancouver Island. He is afraid that some nihilists or some people who believe in situational ethics will arrive. Those are the people the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta indicated Canada had to protect itself against when he spoke a week ago Friday. Perhaps you were here for that memorable event, Mr. Speaker.
In any event, we were all called back last August to deal with this so-called crisis. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there was no real crisis at all. Now, once again, we are throwing the parliamentary calendar out the window. We are throwing out any vestige of parliamentary reform that would let Members of Parliament plan their lives with any degree of certainty.
The Government is planning to use a platoon system. Government Members are not all planning to be here during summer sittings. In committee last week we were talking about a report, and the chairperson was very insistent that this report be tabled by June 28. I said: "Well, since the Government plans on having us here into July and August, why the rush?"
He said: "Well, I'm not going to be here; I'm not planning on being here". This is an abuse of the Government's majority. It has 208 Members to 72 opposition Members, though there will probably be 73 after today. The Government wants to abuse this system because government Members outnumber opposition Members by three to one, more or less. They think they can have one platoon here and another platoon out campaigning.
Of course, there are some pretty good candidates who are not Members of Parliament out there campaigning. They will do a number on those people for the abuse of democracy that this represents.
The Opposition has not been obstructionist in the House. The Hon. Member who spoke previously pointed out that we have passed a good number of Bills on a wide range of issues over the past number of months. Just this past Friday, the Opposition co-operated for speedy passage of Bill C-131 dealing with transportation for disabled people. Two weeks earlier, we co-operated by pushing through five different Bills


dealing with Indian affairs. We have co-operated on such things as tobacco legislation.
Whenever there is some issue with which we agree, we will give every bit of co-operation to the Government that we possibly can, even to the extent of forgoing making speeches on issues about which we feel very strongly. On issues to which we are opposed, we do not obstruct. We have degrees of opposition, as the Government knows. Sometimes we will put up only two or three speakers when we are opposed to a Bill. At other times we will put up more.
The one area in which we are quite firm and have said we are not going to let the Government push through is the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. We oppose this with everything we have and every method at our disposal under the rules of Parliament because we see it as a sell-out of the Canadian people and a sell-out of Canadian sovereignty.
That is what this motion is all about. Motion No. 26 is really the attempt of the Government to push through Bill C-130 dealing with the trade deal. The Government has mismanaged its agenda which is so important to the Prime Minister and now wants to bring in extended days of sitting in order to push through Bill C-130 which was only introduced in this House on May 24. Everything about this trade deal illustrates an abuse of democratic process, and the motion to have extended sittings of this House is only the latest chapter in this abusive process.
You yourself, Mr. Speaker, were a delegate at the convention in 1983 at which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated that he was opposed to any trade deal with the United States. He said that the people of Canada opposed it in 1911 and would oppose it in 1983. In our Party we believe that the people of Canada will oppose this particular deal very strongly in 1988 when they finally get around to having an election.
In 1984, when the Prime Minister was campaigning across Canada, he campaigned on a program of opposing patronage, on honesty in government and things like that, but he did not campaign on having a trade deal with the United States. Far from it; he indicated that he was opposed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You just didn't listen.
Mr. Manly. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said that I did not listen. Perhaps he could get up after me and tell the people of Canada when in 1984 the Prime Minister said that there was to be a trade agreement. He knows very well that the people of Canada were listening to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was talking about an end to patronage and an end to pork barrel politics, and we have not seen an end to that. However, he did not talk about a trade agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's a Minister saying that too, not just a Parliamentary Secretary.
Extension of Sittings


James Douglas Manly: Yes, he is a Minister. Suddenly in 1985 we had an initiative to discuss this trade deal with the United States. For the next year and a half secret discussions were going on. The people of Canada were told very little of what was happening. The provinces were given only minimal information. The House of Commons was kept in the dark and when we were told anything we were not told the whole story.
I remember an opposition day debate on the trade agreement a year and some months ago. We wanted to know what was in that agreement. The then Minister for International Trade stood and said that she would tell us what was in the agreement, but she did not mention such things as the energy sell-out, which is such an important part of this deal. She never mentioned that although she was a former Minister of Energy and knew how important it was to the Canadian economy and the Canadian people.
Last fall over some Kentucky Fried Chicken there was a last minute agreement on the deal. The deal was cut as though by a used car salesman trying anything just to get a deal: "I'll throw in this, I'll throw in that; you give me this, I'll give you that". What a way to negotiate Canadian sovereignty.
Following that agreement we did not have the final text but only the elements of the agreement. There was a farce of committee hearings across Canada, one day in British Columbia and one day in each of the other provinces. We were not able to hear all the concerns of people about this matter. The people did not have the final text. It only arrived in the last couple of days before the committee had to report. The committee was under the gun. It was supposed to report before Christmas so that everything would be in order for the Prime Minister and President Reagan to sign on January 2. It was rushed through committee without giving the people of Canada an adequate chance to hear, to study, and to make their views known.
In Question Period we have seen the stonewalling of the Government on the questions which we have asked to try to get answers on what this deal is really all about. Instead of the Government coming forth and telling us what this is all about, we have a multimillion dollar deal to advertise it to the people of Canada, to try to sell it like soap. At the same time we have the refusal of a great many Tory Members of Parliament to debate the issue at the local level in local forums, to stand up with opponents of the deal and say what is right and what is wrong about it.
On May 24 the Government finally tabled Bill C-130, and now it wants to push it through. It is using Motion No. 26 to have extended hours and extended days of sitting to push through this ill-advised Bill which will spell the end of Canada's right to manage its own economy. It is a form of legislation by exhaustion.
When we agreed a number of years ago to parliamentary reform and a set parliamentary calendar, there was an element in the agreement which allowed for extended sittings in the last two weeks of June. That allows the Government to get a


lot of its business done and, at the same time, allows Members of Parliament to plan their schedules. The Government is now violating that agreement.
We will still have extended sittings during the last two weeks of June, and this creates some difficulty for the New Democrats with only 32 Members and the Liberals with only 40 Members trying to cover all bases. Elowever, we are prepared to accept that kind of limitation. We are not, however, prepared to accept this kind of legislation by exhaustion into July and August. This is reminiscent of the 1956 pipeline debate when C. D. Howe and Louis St. Laurent pushed the pipeline Bill through this House of Commons.
In four years the Conservative Government has grown as arrogant and as uncaring as the Liberals did in 1956 and 1957 after 22 years in power. I can assure them that when the Canadian people finally get a chance to vote on this issue the results will be exactly the same. Tory Ministers are as abusive of the rights of Parliament as were the Liberals in 1956.
Perhaps I could refer very briefly to the record of the Tories when they were in opposition in 1981 and to how strongly they opposed Liberal motions of closure. The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the Minister who was going to be pushing this legislation through, said:
This comes from a closure-crazed government, a government which suffers from the crime of parliamentary bestiality. It cannot wait to force these kinds of things through the House.
Further he said:
The same little group comes in here on every closure motion. The same little group of parliamentary eunuchs-
I have some trouble with this mixed metaphor. On the one hand he talks about parliamentary bestiality and on the other he refers to a group of parliamentary eunuchs. Apart from that, he said:
-the same group of parliamentary assassins-are in here all the time, assassinating this House and removing the good from the House. That is why I call them the parliamentary eunuchs. The good has already been removed from them.
Perhaps I could call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and finish my remarks after Question Period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, the Hon. Member will have two minutes left for debate. It being one o'clock p.m.,
I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in 1978 the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) attacked the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Lang, as an ogre, the most untrustworthy and most heartless Minister he had ever met. Yet today, the same Member, the Member for St. John's West, has sold out the Newfoundland Railway for a mere $6 million. The $6 million man.
The Sullivan Royal Commission recommended twinning the Trans-Canada Highway in Newfoundland, recommended a compensation package, and recommended a highway across Labrador. None of that has been lived up today. This is a complete and absolute sell-out of the worst kind as far as Newfoundland is concerned.
The Government of Canada should have lived up to the terms and recommendations of the Sullivan Royal Commission, twinned the Trans-Canada Highway, put in a compensation package for the workers, and built a road across Labrador.
The $12 million allocated to the Trans-Labrador Highway is crumbs from the master's table, and the people of Labrador will not forget that they have been forgotten again and been treated as second-class citizens.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business advises that 42 per cent of its 80,000 member firms report a shortage of qualified labour and that in about half of these the cause was a lack of qualified skills. The irony is that at the same time a million Canadians are unemployed. The newspapers of the nation carry pages of advertisements of jobs available while Governments spend billions of dollars on discretionary grants to businesses and organizations.
Why all these apparent contradictions? Is it because Governments and business are asking for unnecessary qualifications such as bilingualism when only one language is required, or is it a lack of basics in the three R's? Whatever the reasons, it is high time that a review as recommended by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration is carried out. Surely such a review will recommend that some of the government grants be allocated to


upgrading basics under the job development and re-entry programs.



TAX REFORM


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "simplify" as meaning to "make simple, make easy or easier to do or understand".
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) talked about tax reform he said it would also include tax simplification, that is, he would make it easier for Canadians to understand and fill out their tax forms.
Earlier this year he brought out the new TD1 form that every Canadian who receives an income must fill out. In my riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan I was recently told of a pensioner who receives a tiny sum each month by way of a private pension. We are talking about $10 a month, hardly enough to pay for bus fare let alone pay tax. However, under the Minister of Finance's new tax reform, this pensioner is still required to fill out this new form consisting of no fewer than 16 questions. This is tax reform? This is a simplified tax form?
I suggest that the Hon. Minister, if he wants to make taxes easier to do, apply a little commonsense to the process. Either that or he should read the dictionary before he uses words that have more than two syllables.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure to participate in the opening of a park in Moose Jaw yesterday afternoon. Happy Valley is a new picnic ground in an area of the city that was once residential but was abandoned because of occasional flooding during spring run-off.
This project was unusual because it was arranged and brought to its present stage with very little funding by either the federal, provincial or municipal level of government.
The sponsoring body of this project is the Moose Jaw Multicultural Council. At the opening ceremonies, flags from the homelands of the various ethnic groups that are members were proudly flying in the breeze.
I salute the hardworking president, Mr. Rudy Namtu, and all members of the council for this very worth-while project. I would also like to recognize the students of Ross School who assisted in the planting of hundreds of trees this past spring.
I am sure this example could be followed in many communities across Canada.



ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada has become the cookie monster. But unlike its Sesame Street counterpart, AECL does not hoard cookies, it gives them out freely.
This publicly funded body is distributing chocolate chip cookies made with irradiated flour. Why chocolate chip cookies you may ask? Think about it. How much irradiated liver could one give away?
Some recipients of these treats have discovered that if the cookies are not eaten right away, and left in the light for a week, they turn bone coloured. If they are stored in the darkness, the cookies still become a light tan colour. Some were afraid that irradiated products would glow in the dark. Now it appears they are whitening with daylight.
The reason for irradiation is allegedly to enhance the food's longevity in storage. Grandma's chocolate chip cookies never lasted beyond a few hours before they were eaten. Perhaps irradiation does overcome that problem.



BENEFITS PROVIDED BY FONDATION-FAVREAU

Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of this House a new organization that was created in November 1987. The purposes of this unique new organization are to give young people aged 8 to 18 from low-income families access to all cultural, sporting and artistic activities by offering them financial support and to provide follow-up to evaluate the positive, preventive impact that developing their talents will have on these young people.
Encouraging better cooperation and interaction among those working to help young people and their families is also one of the goals of the Favreau Foundation.
The Foundation operates through financial sponsorships from business and professional men and women and others who care about the welfare of these thousands of children in full physical and mental health who only want to fulfil themselves but who, for lack of money, are in danger of losing


the desire to pursue their own education and of falling into juvenile delinquency.
It is therefore up to all of us to ensure that these thousands of Canadians, tomorrow's adults, can help build for all Canadians a future to match their achievements.



TAX REFORM


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we have seen once again today that the Tory idea of tax reform is to let the rich pay less and the poor pay more. As a result of Tory tax reform, the average family in Canada earning between $29,000 and $35,000 a year, is actually losing about $680 in disposable income. On top of that, the average family earning between $35,000 and $43,000 is losing $840 in disposal income.
An amount of $840 may not mean a lot to people in this Parliament or to the thousands of rich taxpayers who will not pay a penny in tax, but for a family of four in the community of Hamilton it means no possibility of buying a new refrigerator or any new appliance, creating jobs in our own community.
For a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who was elected on a platform of no tax increases, this Prime Minister has stuck it to the people of Canada in a worse way than any Prime Minister in the history of this country. It is another broken promise. It is another "une trahison de la population". All I can say is Tory times are tax times.



ECONOMIC SUMMIT


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the seven Heads of Government at the Economic Summit held their first working session last night at the historic Toronto Hunt. They could not have chosen a more inspiring place to begin their deliberations, with its location at the crest of the imcomparable Scarborough bluffs and, I add, in the heart of the federal constituency of Scarborough West.
The Leaders may not yet know where the Summit is going, but the people of Scarborough West certainly know where it started. I add, in all parts of Metro it is clear that, traffic inconveniences aside, this great conferences recognizes how Metro has become a great world centre.



WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, today, June 20, has been declared Workers Memorial Day by the Mine Mill Union Local 598 in Sudbury. This day was established by this union after the tragedy of June 20, 1984, when four men lost their lives in one fell swoop at the No. 5 mine shaft at Falconbridge.
We take this opportunity to commemorate those brothers and sisters who were killed, injured, or disabled on the job over the past years in Canada and throughout the world. Fortunately, great strides have been made in mine safety. Even so, 10 miners lost their lives in northern Ontario so far this year.
Across Canada, 744 workers lost their lives in industrial accidents in 1986, the most recent year for which we have statistics.
We are constantly exposed to rhetoric from business and government about the great contribution capital is making to developing Canada. All too often we forget that it is the working people who have done the most to help build our country, often at the cost of their own lives and health. We must recommit ourselves to a safe and healthy work environment, and fight to ensure that the Government show leadership on this issue.
O)
I most sincerely hope that on June 20, 1989, we can stand up and say that Canadian workplaces are healthier and safer than they ever have been.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, we read an excellent editorial in this morning's Globe and Mail. The Liberal and socialist opposition has run out of arguments to use against our proposed legislation. By common agreement, they are now opposing the democratic system itself. It is a sorry triple alliance of unelected Liberal senators, a federal Liberal Party turned against itself, worn out and penniless, and the socialists, whose ideas change and vary.



AIRPORTS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Summit leaders are lucky that they did not have to take limousines from Pearson International Airport into our city. If they had, they would have discovered a virtually disastrous situation in which more and more of my constituents and people from the Toronto area are missing airplanes, are being forced to go to one terminal, and walk to another terminal because of the poor system and the deterioration of the system that has been allowed to take place.
The federal Government is responsible for this. It issues limousine permits. A decision was made months back to issue an additional 70 permits. To our astonishment, these licences were all issued to the corporations that presently control the entry and access of limousines into the airport. No licences were made available to the operators, the people who know the traffic system, the people who were looking forward to the opportunity to break through what is a very small club of four companies that control, and should not be allowed to continue to control, the entire federal limousine service into Pearson International Airport.



ABORTION


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, according to the United Nations, abortions outnumber deaths among the world's population. For every two pregnancies brought to term at least one is aborted. Abortion has become a tool to control population growth, and this is outrageous. Abortion is nothing but cold- blooded murder.
Consider that right now in Canada it is legal to kill a baby up to birth, but illegal to kill the same baby once it is born. Even humans found guilty of committing the most heinous crimes are allowed by law to continue to live. In fact, our tax dollars pay these murderers to abort innocent lives. There should be no right to choose once life is created, for life is the only thing that is sacred in this universe.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some accusations that the New Democratic
Party is holding up the business of the House of Commons. I wish to clarify what it is that we are doing.
On Friday a request came to consider amendments to the National Transportation Act to assist the disabled in terms of travel. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that with the co-operation of the New Democratic Party and the Official Opposition, the Government passed that legislation expeditiously. As a matter of fact, it was passed in less than one hour.
I wish to make it clear that, if it is good legislation the Government brings forward and in the best interests of the people of Canada, we will co-operate 100 per cent. We will work with the Government and we will work with the Opposition.
But when the Government brings in a motion to pass the trade legislation, that is where we differ. That is why we will use whatever procedurally acceptable opportunity we have to frustrate the Government in order that an election can occur to allow the people of Canada to indicate how they feel about this sell-out to the United States.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, service fee charges continue to multiply. However, it is now the banks and trust companies charging each other with having the highest service fees.
It is obvious that over the past few years both banks and trust companies have become very proficient at subtraction as they take money out of customers' accounts more and more frequently. However, the question raised last week is whether they can add. A real division now exists over which institution is subtracting the most from customer accounts.
My initial reaction was that they needed a higher form of mathematics, for example, differential calculus, to settle the dispute by calculating the velocity at which money is leaving customers' accounts. However, even differential calculus appears inadequate to settle this issue.
Only the most advanced calculus, residue theory, is adequate to settle this issue once and for all. For those not familiar with residue theory it is also used in calculations involving material close to an unlimited black hole in space.
Perhaps the banks and trust companies will cancel their charges at least against each other if not against consumers, and refer the dispute to the universities.


Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS



EMPLOYEES' SUMMER HOLIDAYS

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, later today, or perhaps tomorrow, Parliament could adopt a motion calling for us to sit throughout the summer months. In as much as I am not in favour of that particular proposition, I rise today to speak on behalf of the employees who work for us here on Parliament Hill.
Some of the 3,000 or so employees on Parliament Hill have already received notices stating that they will not be able to take any holidays this summer and therefore will be unable to be with their families. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will make at least some time available for the staff of Parliament Hill so that they can have at least one week off, or something in that order, so that they can be with their families. Unlike the Conservative caucus the staff cannot work on a roster, with one week on the Hill and three weeks off.



UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULING ON IMPORTED URANIUM

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, last week in a decision of major importance to Canada the United States Supreme Court reversed the finding of a lower court and ruled that the United States Government does not have to place restrictions on imported uranium to help to protect domestic producers. Canadian uranium producers and American users will no doubt greet the news with jubilation.
In more general terms this decision helps cement the spirit of free trade. It demonstrates that the dispute resolution mechanism contained in the free trade agreement is viable and will work to the advantage of both nations.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, this morning Newfoundland and Labrador witnessed the abandonment of the Newfoundland Railway. An announcement authored by the Hon. Member for St. John's West and by the Premier of Newfoundland was an announcement that represents nothing less than a supreme act of hypocrisy and betrayal of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by the Government of Canada, and by the Government of Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Brian Vincent Tobin: While this Government was dishing out many millions of dollars like candy in a by-election in Quebec to try to elect the Prime Minister's friend, Mr. Lucien Bouchard, today in Newfoundland and Labrador a railway over 100 years old was being buried by the Newfoundland Government and by the Government of Canada for an inadequate amount of compensation spread over a period of 15 years.
In 1978, the Conservative Party, and specifically the Hon. Member for St. John's West, took the position that the abandonment of the Newfoundland Railway was unconstitutional, and could not be done under the 1949 Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland. Indeed, a Royal Commission of Inquiry, the Sullivan Royal Commission, stated: "If the Province refused to co-operate in the required constitutional change, then, in the opinion of the Commission, there would be no choice but to continue full rail service".
Given that constitutional guarantee I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why was the Hon. Member for St. John's West in St. John's, Newfoundland, this morning announcing the abandonment of the Newfoundland Railway? Why was the Hon. Member on behalf of the Government of Canada unilaterally revoking the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada, refusing to recognize the constitutional requirement to provide a railway service and future transportation services in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member talked about the support that this initiative had, he failed to include that this initiative has the support of the workers and many communities in the Province of Newfoundland.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Call an election; we'll find out.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I quote from the press release where the Hon. Member for St. John's West has made the following statement. It says:
This agreement is a reflection of our common desire to work toward the
provision of a safe, efficient, productive transportation system to meet the
present and future needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It goes on to say that this initiative will firmly establish a transportation system that will allow Newfoundland and Labrador to meet transportation obligations into the 21st century.
This is an initiative that has been worked out with the province in consultation with the various communities and with the workers. I think it is a good solution and one that will allow a proper transportation system to develop in the province so it can take advantage of the tremendous economic opportunities in the future.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, "We are not losing the rail service.
I do not care what any Royal Commission recommends. There will be a rail service in Newfoundland. It will not be taken away from us. Unless the rail service is totally abandoned in Canada, it will not be abandoned in Newfoundland". Those are the words of the Member for St. John's West in 1978. What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if the Newfoundland Railway service were to continue to operate, it would cost the federal Government, according to its own estimates this morning in its announcement in St. John's, $40 million a year to operate. That is $600 million over the next 15 years.
In closing the railway, the federal Government proposes to spend in transportation upgrading, in exchange for abandoning the railway, a little over $700 million in the next 15 years. In other words, the reality is that Newfoundlanders are being asked to abandon the railway for an additional $6 million a year in federal government spending over 15 years. Newfoundlanders have been stabbed in the back for $6 million a year and the hand on the knife is the Member for St. John's West and the Premier of Newfoundland, traitors to their province.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member probably on reflection knows he has gone a little further than he would wish. I would like him to take back the word "traitors" because he referred specifically to one of the Members of this place, and then he can put his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of abiding by the Speaker's advice, let me say that there has been a somewhat miraculous, miraculous transformation of the Member for St. John's West from 1978 to 1988. It is amazing what a few years in Cabinet at the knee of the Prime Minister can do to what once was a proud Newfoundlander fighting for his province.


An Hon. Member:: Where is he today?


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is hiding.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister how can the Government of Canada justify the action being taken today, this insult today, to the people of Newfoundland and, in particular, justify shutting down the railway in two months time, September 1, 1988, shutting down that railway years before any additional highway capacity can be built in order to accommodate the extra freight traffic that will be moved from rails on to the highways? How can that be justified? Why the bloody big rush?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about hypocrisy. It would be rather interesting to know what his privately held views are because I think there would be some variance to what his public views are-
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: He doesn't have two views.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -because I have had many discussions with him about the future of the Newfoundland Railway. I find his private views somewhat at variance with his public views, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He doesn't have two views.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is important is the fact that-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Table your face.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -the package includes some $405 million for improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, something that Newfoundlanders want; another $235 million for regional trunk roads, something that Newfoundlanders want; $75 million for labour adjustment and related expenditures on the closure of the railway, which the workers want; $15 million for community adjustment, which the communities want; $8.1 million for ports development, and a federal contribution of $62 million to enrich the existing economic regional development or ERDA program which will be supplemented as well by the province.
All of these initiatives have been discussed with the Government of Newfoundland and with the people affected. This is a package supported by the province, the provincial Government of Newfoundland, by the workers, and by the vast majority of the communities.


ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my private views on the railway are the same as my public views which have been known for months. They are that any question of abandoning the railway ought to involve, first, recognition of our rights under the Terms of Union and proper compensation, not accounted for today. It ought to recognize the need for a maintenance agreement continuing in perpetuity to maintain those highways after they are built, not accounted for today. It ought to recognize the need for a meaningful retraining program for these hundreds of employees about to be laid off, not accounted for today. Those are my private views and those are my public views.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into transportation of 1978 said that the federal Government should be required to ensure that sufficient funds are available to maintain the entire Trans-Canada Highway in the province and also to increase port facilities. It recommended as well that this maintenance money ought to be provided in perpetuity, as it is now provided in the case of the railway. In fact, we will have $6.6 million per year for 15 years and then we are on our own.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows my private views. He now knows my public views. Why have those reasonable conditions which this Party adheres to, and which the Leader of this Party publicly endorsed in St. John's, Newfoundland,


Oral Questions
not been met in the agreement signed today? What kind of chicanery is the Government involved in in trying to rip off the poorest of all the provinces of Canada with this agreement signed today in Newfoundland?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is not a rip-off and the Hon. Member knows it. If the Hon. Member reads Article 31 and Article 32 of the Terms of Union, he will find that the undertakings that were made at that time are being in fact fulfilled in this announcement by the Government of Canada. Furthermore, there was also a provision to guarantee some protection with respect to freight rates. That too has been included in this package.
We are getting a lot of rhetoric here, and a bit of fanfare coming from the Hon. Member. I think that on reflection, when he studies the package thoroughly, he will find out that this is done in the best interests of Newfoundland.


FUNDING OF TRANS-LABRADOR HIGHWAY
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In 1978 the Hon. Member for St. John's West called Otto Lang an ogre, untrustworthy and heartless. However, Otto Lang built the airstrips along the Labrador coast and started the Trans-Labrador Highway.
Why is it that only $16 million has been allocated to that Trans-Labrador Highway in spite of the fact that the Sullivan Royal Commission recommended, if the railway was closed down, that a highway be built across Labrador? Why is it that Labrador is being treated as second class in this compensation package? Why is Labrador being sold out?
Judas Iscariot got 30 pieces of silver, and adding inflation that is more than we got today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, under this agreement Labrador is not being sold out, neither is Newfoundland being sold out. The people of Labrador and of Newfoundland are not being sold out. Transportation services will be provided in the future.
As a matter of fact, the steps that are being taken here will build for the future and will provide the kind of competitive transportation system that will in fact enhance the economic opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador. I think the Hon. Member recognizes that. The fact is that the road network will be improved. That is something that the Newfoundland Government believes is desirable and that is something that the people of Newfoundland believe is desirable. The Hon. Member will have an excellent transportation system that will handle people and goods.


OBSERVANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Deputy Prime
Minister if the Government of Canada would live up to its constitutional obligations, and he said yes, it would, as reported in Hansard. Today we have seen that the Government of Canada has failed to live up to those constitutional obligations.
Those obligations require the Government of Canada to maintain a transportation system at national standards across the province, not just Newfoundland but across the province. That has failed to be done. Why did the Deputy Prime Minister say in the House a week ago that he would live up to the constitutional obligations of 1949 but today the Government has sold out the province so cheaply? Why?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, on reflection, may want to restudy that point because the fact is that Article 31 and Article 32 of the Terms of Union have been lived up to and fulfilled, as has the commitment to provide some protection for freight rates. That, too, has been incorporated in the agreement. I would invite the Hon. Member to re-examine the agreement. He will find that that is the case.


PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the well known policies of the Government to privatize, deregulate, close down, and abandon the public services of Canada, it should come as no surprise to Newfoundlanders today to hear that the Government is going to close down the Newfoundland Railway.
The people of Newfoundland want to know today why their province alone has to put up with the abandonment of constitutional rights as spelled out in the agreement, that is, that this agreement and the funds are offered in full satisfaction of all Canada's constitutional obligations related to railways on the island of Newfoundland.
Why is Newfoundland, of all provinces in Canada, required to give up its constitutional rights in order to get a decent road system?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Terms of Union are being lived up to.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You bought them for a few baubles.


An Hon. Member:: Shut up.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I won't shut up. Try and shut me up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As I said, Mr. Speaker, Articles 31 and 32 are in fact being lived up to as is the commitment to provide some guarantee and protection for freight rates.


The objective of the Government has been, is, and will continue to be to provide better transportation services to more Canadians from coast to coast. I think the record clearly speaks for itself in terms of the overhaul of the National Transportation Act, improved air services, and the more competitive nature of our transportation system.
Doing this will provide a better opportunity for more Canadians from coast to coast to take advantage of the economic opportunities available through an enhanced transportation system. That is the objective and the reasoning behind this agreement which is supported by the Government of the Province of Newfoundland, by workers, and by many people who live in the affected communities of Newfoundland.
I invite the Hon. Member to re-examine the arrangement in order to see the positive benefits which will flow from this very good agreement which has been negotiated by the two levels of government.


AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the 1987 Newfoundland Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment concluded that it would require $64 million a year, $40 million of which ought to be indexed to inflation, in perpetuity in order to compensate the people of Newfoundland for the loss of the railway. That is in addition to the requirements of compensating the 500 Newfoundlanders who will lose their jobs as a result of this.
This agreement provides for about $700 million over 15 years for transportation, only about $50 million a year, and nothing after that. Why are the people of Newfoundland being ripped off by the Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland are not being ripped off by the Government. We are putting in place a program for an improved transportation service which will allow Newfoundlanders and the people of Labrador to take better advantage of the economic opportunities available to them. The Hon. Member should be applauding that rather than ridiculing it.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said that this agreement is supported by the workers. Well, all the workers are getting under this agreement is what they are already entitled to under agreements they themselves have negotiated over the last number of years. They are getting nothing from the Government over and above that. The railway is being closed down September 1, 1988, but there will be no money spent on the TransCanada highway until 1992.
Why is the Government taking advantage of the unfortunate economic situation of the Government of Newfoundland and forcing it to accept this agreement and give up its rights for
Oral Questions
inadequate compensation? Why does the Government not deal fairly with the people of Newfoundland?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong when he suggests that the federal Government is taking advantage of the people of Newfoundland. This agreement has been negotiated-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Government is looking for a few bucks to try to win an election.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This agreement was negotiated with the Government of Newfoundland after extensive consultation. Such consultations have been going on for years. The agreement is put forth in the best interests of Newfoundland with the best opportunities for it to enhance its economic opportunities and have a first-class, up-to-date, efficient, safe, and competitive transportation system for the future.


EFFECT ON NORTH SYDNEY, N. S.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is likewise for the Deputy Prime Minister. If this is a stab in the back of the Province of Newfoundland, it is a stab in the heart of the Town of North Sydney. The Government has at least made a pretence of compensating the Province of Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders, but it has not given one cent to Cape Bretoners who will be losing their jobs as a result of this railway closure.
Why does the Government not admit that it is going to be devastating the economy of the town of North Sydney and costing the people of North Sydney jobs? Why does the Government not at least have the courage to admit that this is only the first step in the closure of the railway in Nova Scotia between Truro and Sydney?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is categorically wrong in that assumption. The fact of the matter is that CN will continue to maintain rail service to North Sydney. At the moment trains between Truro and Sydney have an average of 80 to 90 cars per day. The fact is that we will still have a multi-modal transportation service in this area.
As the Hon. Member knows, CN has probably one of the most generous and comprehensive adjustment, retirement, and retraining programs of any corporation in Canada. I am sure that he will be most helpful to his constituents in ensuring that if there is any adjustment he will be there to assist them, as will I.


CANADIAN NATIONAL LAY-OFFS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, what the Deputy Prime Minister is saying is the most insidious thing I have heard in this House of Commons in a


Oral Questions
long, long time. If there is to be no problem in Cape Breton why are four CN workers being laid off as of July 21? Why are two more being laid off as of the middle of September?
Why does the Deputy Prime Minister not then commit right now that there will be no rail closure of the line between Truro and Sydney? Will he guarantee right now that that line will remain open and that there will be no job losses in industrial Cape Breton?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking about adjustment and protection for the workers. There is a $75 million labour adjustment and related expenditure program as a result of this announcement. There is a $15 million community adjustment program and an $8.2 million development program for ports.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The ports are in Newfoundland.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is a $62 million ERDA agreement.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: There is nothing for Cape Breton.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is in addition to the very generous employee benefits of the CNR.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Your nose is growing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Member knows that. The fact of the matter, which the Member conveniently overlooks, is that the massive lay-offs which took place before 1984 make the adjustment which may occur now very miniscule by nature. He sat there and did absolutely nothing about them.


WORKERS' SEVERANCE PAY-EFFECT ON ELIGIBILITY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the unemployment insurance program. It was announced today that the Newfoundland Railway will be closed on September 1, 1988. The workers were never involved in the negotiations and were, in fact, informed at eight o'clock this morning of the deal. They will all be out of jobs on September 1, 1988, and their severance packages will not allow them to collect unemployment insurance. Because the unemployment insurance program was changed by this Government severance pay and all other remuneration they will receive will be applied to benefits.
Can the Minister stand up and tell me whether we are going to punish Newfoundland railway workers three times?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance exists to help workers who become entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. This Government has created programs to assist the social reintegration of the unemployed. Under the
specific programs like the one mentioned by the Hon. Member, we have allocated special funding on a shared-cost basis with industry, and we intend to do everything we can to ensure that the dignity of the Canadian worker is respected.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CHANGE ELIGIBILITY REGULATIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, prior to September, 1984, severance pay and any other emoluments paid to workers when they lost their jobs through no fault of their own were never considered income for unemployment insurance purposes. It was the present Government that made that change and discriminated against unemployed workers.
There are no provisions in the unemployment insurance program to give benefits to workers. It will be mostly older workers who will be affected. They will never be able to get a job as quickly as when they were younger.
Will the Minister tell the House if she is prepared at least to go back and change the regulations so that any unfairness of this sort will be eliminated?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that unemployment insurance exists for people who are looking for a job, for people who are laid off, and that is why this Government has created programs to assist social reintegration, and we intend to continue creating jobs at the same rate we have maintained since 1984.


EFFECT OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT ON NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, today will go down in the books as a dark day for Newfoundland because Newfoundland becomes the only province in Canada without a railway. I am wondering why.
Why is Newfoundland the only province in Canada that is forced to give up its railway, with hundreds of permanent employees, in exchange for some money to upgrade its roads? Quebec did not have to give up its railway when the Prime Minister announced $900 million two weeks ago to upgrade its roads. Why is Newfoundland the only province in Canada that is forced to trade rails for roads?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this agreement was not forced upon the people of Newfoundland or the Government of Newfoundland. It was negotiated with the Government of Newfoundland which speaks on behalf of the people of Newfoundland. It was negotiated very simply because it was considered to be in the best long term interests of the people of Newfoundland, with economic development and a good transportation system so that Newfoundlanders


can have the same opportunities as people in every other part of Canada. That is why the deal was negotiated.


EFFECT ON FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is not the closure of a branch of a railway or a portion of a railway, this is the closure of the entire 960 kilometres of the railway in exchange for 166 kilometres of pavement. That is only 18 per cent of the entire Trans-Canada Highway in Newfoundland.
Does the Minister really believe that Newfoundlanders will believe this is a fair deal? Does the Minister not realize that as a result of this deal every single bit of freight that crosses Newfoundland will have to go on that road? This includes all the dangerous substances, explosives, dangerous chemicals, the whole shebang will have to go over that one road with only 166 kilometres of new pavement.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is such an advocate of the railway why did he not get out and campaign with the shippers and the producers of Newfoundland to get them to utilize the railway? Quite frankly, the fact of the matter is that traffic volumes have declined to such an extent that it is totally non economic to continue the operation. Rather than pouring more money into the support of that operation it was considered to be more effective to build a better transportation infrastructure which would allow Newfoundlanders to take full advantage of the economic opportunities that are available to them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
M. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Our hopes and the hopes of Haitians that democracy would come to Haiti have been dashed by a military coup and by statements made by General Namphy, to the effect that he will establish a non-democratic, military junta. Four of Haiti's major donor countries are at the Summit in Toronto. Has the Canadian Government raised this issue so that these governments can prepare an effective response?


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to inform the Hon. Member that we are monitoring the situation very closely. The issue was indeed raised at the Summit in Toronto, and we will have news about the discussions on the present situation in Haiti very shortly.
Oral Questions


QUERY WHETHER CANADA WILL RECEIVE PRESIDENT MANIGAT AS REFUGEE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, there were some rumours to the effect that Mr. Manigat plans to come to Canada to seek asylum. Is this true? What would the Canadian Government's response be to his request?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, this is a very hypothetical question. Of course, when we have a situation like the present one in Haiti, Canada is always mentioned as a possibility. At the present time, however, we cannot assume that the deposed president is now actually on his way to Canada. We will have to follow the same immigration rules that all other people have to follow when they want to come here. However, it is all very hypothetical at this time.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT JUSTIFY POLICY OF PRECEDING 10 MONTHS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. After the coup, it was obvious that General Namphy would once again proclaim himself to be Haiti's Head of State. This is the same gentleman for whom the Canadian Conservative Government had high hopes, the same gentleman the Canadian ambassador trusted so implicitly. The Parliamentary Secretary must be pretty embarrassed on behalf of his Government today! I want to ask him how, in the light of recent events, he can justify the Conservative Government's lack of coherence in its policy visa-vis Haiti during the past year or so.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I am very much surprised to hear the Hon. Member qualify a situation we are analysing as events unfold as being perfectly obvious. I find it even more surprising since Canada's policy will be affected, especially by the unanimous report we tabled, a report to which the Hon. Member was a party. As far as the assistance program is concerned, what is now happening in Haiti merely reinforces our position, and we have no reason to be embarrassed. I would refer the Hon. Member to statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House in which he expressed considerable reservations about the electoral process. We did not say we recognized this or that president. We recognized a State. In fact, this was made clear in our initial recommendation that Canada should maintain the present level of its diplomatic representation in Haiti. I signed that report, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member opposite signed as well, and I believe our report remains relevant. The people of Haiti need help.


SAFETY OF CANADIANS IN HAITI-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, what the Haitian people need above all is democracy, real democracy. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what kind of concrete
COMMONS DEBATES___________________June 20, 1988
Oral Questions
measures the Canadian Government will consider to support the upright citizens who wish to create a democracy in Haiti. And especially, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can give the House the assurance today that the safety of Canadians working in Haiti, and I am thinking especially of missionaries, is assured at this time. Are the people who had the courage to ask publicly for democracy in Haiti threatened today by this dictator who has just come back to power, and what will the Conservative Government do to help Canadian nationals who may be at risk today in Haiti?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, reports received from Port-au-Prince, from our ambassador who is still posted there, indicate there is no danger to Canadians at the present time. Of course, since it is an emergency situation, we must always analyse events as they unfold, and the Department of External Affairs is constantly in touch with our ambassador in Haiti. We are analysing the situation, and as in other instances when difficult situations arise, we will be able to take steps as required to protect the lives of Canadians who are in Haiti and who are doing humanitarian work and a magnificent job.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Today we learned that Rear Admiral John Anderson, who heads the Minister's own nuclear submarine acquisition program, has indicated that the Minister's $8 billion price tag for the nuclear attack submarines fails to include a number of critical components, including ship-to-shore communication systems, the missiles that will be used on the ships, the cost of making nuclear fuel and a whole range of items.
As the Deputy Prime Minister well knows, when a Canadian goes in to buy a car, that individual wants to know what the full cost will be before he signs on the dotted line. Before the Minister of National Defence signs on the dotted line and locks Canadian taxpayers into a multibillion dollar package, would it not be appropriate to know what the actual total cost is before he makes that commitment?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Indeed it would, Mr. Speaker, and indeed we do. There are a number
of elements in the Hon. Member's question that are simply false. For example, it is not our intention to acquire anti-ship missiles. Were we to do so, however, they would replace the Mark 48 torpedo we are buying for the submarines and an anti-ship torpedo would cost less money than a Mark 48 torpedo. Is the Hon. Member suggesting we should do that? If he is, we would actually be saving money.
Second, with respect to fuel fabrication, we do not intend to fabricate it in Canada although we will have the ability to load the fuel in Canada-


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are going to buy it?


Henry Perrin Beatty: -and that is included in the $8 billion figure. Third, with respect to the VLF communications with the submarines, these submarines will be capable, as are our three Oberon Class submarines today, of receiving these messages. At the present time we use allied communications systems. We have taken no decision on whether to build our own or to continue to use allied communications systems. If we do, we would take that into consideration and it would come off the $8 billion figure.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Perhaps what the Minister of National Defence should do is sit down with Rear Admiral John Anderson and explain to him that, although he heads the Minister's own nuclear submarine Hunter Attack Submarine Task Force, he obviously does not know what he is talking about. One or the other is not being straight with the people of Canada.


PRICE QUERY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In terms of the acquisition of nuclear fuel, can the Minister tell us what the actual price tag will be, the price tag for the actual purchase of the updated communications system, the price tag for the missiles that will be used, the price tag for the new port facilities, which are not included, and the price tag for the training of the crews, which have not been factored in? Will the Minister now simply be honest and straightforward with the people of Canada and tell them precisely what the price tag per sub will be?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is simply wrong again. The fact is that upgrading of port facilities is included. The fact is that a range of other items mentioned by the Hon. Member are included in the cost. To carry on the Member's analogy with respect to a car, with respect to the total program cost of $8 billion, we are including not only the cost of the car but the cost of the garage, the driveway, of drivers' ed, of licensing, of a driver's licence and of insurance. That is a pretty good start.


HOUSING
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. An objective of tax reform is to help people of modest means. In the past some of us in this House have advocated the removal of the federal sales tax on housing materials as a way of doing that. So I ask the Minister, in light of the critical shortage of affordable housing, especially in our large metro areas, will the Minister take a fresh look at this dimension of the tax system and seek ways of reforming it to help people who now despair of ever realizing a home of their own?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend for the concerns he has expressed about affordable housing in Toronto. Clearly, the issue of housing prices in tight markets is a very important one. I have to tell my hon. friend, however, that tax reform is premised on the basis of not increasing preferences and deductions but in fact removing them, broadening the base and lowering the tax rate. As a result of that, we will not be in a position to do precisely what he has asked. However, I have to tell him that we will have, as he knows, a refundable sales tax credit. That will be put in place to allow middle-income Canadians and lower-income Canadians, after tax reform, to be better looked after.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In answer to one of my questions last week, the Associate Minister of National Defence stated it would cost $3 billion for infrastructure and $5 billion for the submarines, but the Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of materiel, Mr. Eldon Healey, stated it would cost $4 billion for the submarines and $4 billion for the infrastructure. Obviously, there is only a $1 billion differential between the Associate Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister-


Don Boudria: What's a billion?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -and this begs the question, who knows what is going on in the Department of National Defence? Who is right? Is the Assistant Deputy Minister right or is the Associate Minister right? Surely the Conservative Party today is coming out and saying "what is another billion?" That is exactly what they are saying, and what is another billion to them?
Oral Questions


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it may be that the Liberals are not very good at mathematics, as is evident from the financial shape of their political Party. Whether it is $3 billion and $5 billion or $4 billion and $4 billion, it adds up to $8 billion, which is equal. The exact ratio will depend on the exact model of submarine which is chosen.
All of this does beg a question, though. It begs the question, what is the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada? Canadians know what our policy is. They know what the cost would be. We know what the Liberals are against. When are they going to state with some honesty what they are for?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, if it was not for the budget put together by the Liberal Party here in this House of Commons, the Conservatives would not have anything to go on today-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -because they have not put enough in to buy ammunition.


COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, Admiral Anderson mentioned other items besides the very low frequency radio system that was required on the submarines. After he finished his shopping list, he said that the moneys would have to be found somewhere else in the Department of National Defence. This was precisely the reason for my questions last week when I said this massive expenditure could be a detriment to other areas of the Defence Department.
Will the Minister tell us where these additional moneys are going to come from for the submarine program? And why is the Minister so enthusiastic about purchasing a fleet of nuclear submarines at a cost of $8 billion when he cannot even talk to them when they are under the Arctic ice? Is he going to wait for them to come up to get a report?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, while we are talking Figures here, we are dealing with a political Party on the other side that is bankrupt in terms of its finances and in terms of its policies.
I made it abundantly clear earlier today during Question Period that, for example, if the Hon. Member is proposing that we should purchase anti-ship missiles, we would have to remove some of the Mark 48 torpedoes which we plan to have in our weapons load. An anti-ship missile actually costs less money than a Mark 48 torpedo. If the Hon. Member is proposing we do that, we would be saving money. Additionally, I have already indicated to the Hon. Member, and it has been done before committee as well, that while we will have the ability to load fuel in Canada, it is not our intention at the present time to fabricate the fuel in Canada. I indicated that to him already.


Oral Questions
Third, as I indicated previously, both the Oberon Class States and let the tax go to the United States. I find it submarines we have today and our new submarines will have interesting that the New Democratic Party would say that, the capacity to receive very low frequency communications. At	.
the present time what we do is rely upon allied networks for Ycs: we can 8ive the assurance that taxation policies will be transmission. And if we take a decision to do otherwise, this established here and will be carried out here in Canada, money would be taken out of the $8 billion figure. Now,
perhaps the Hon. Member will make clear what the Liberal

policy is? My friend talks about the Arctic. How would the Liberals defend the Arctic?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who will be aware that 25 independent softwood lumber manufacturers and re-manufacturers are suing the Government because of the tax they had to pay under the softwood lumber export tax while 20 other companies in very similar circumstances received an exemption.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell Canadians why the Government forces an industry group into court in order to obtain fair treatment when surely that should be a direct objective of the Government and of the tax system?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this matter because it is before the Federal Court.
I will say that examinations for discovery are to take place this summer to allow counsel for both sides to establish the facts. The case will then be heard by the British Columbia division of the Federal Court. It is not open to us to discuss it at the moment.


DETERMINATION OF TAX POLICIES
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following. The Government is aware of the degree to which this type of different treatment has eroded confidence in the Government's willingness to defend Canadian plywood standards against representations from the United States.
Can the Government assure the House that taxation policies will be set in Canada rather than in the United States?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I find that comment rather amazing coming from the New Democratic Party which criticized the Government for taxation policies in Canada. The New Democratic Party wanted us to let it stay in the United


WESTERN DROUGHT-HERD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the western drought situation. Although there has been rain in some areas of the West, most areas are still desperately short of feed for cattle, and pastures.
When will the Minister and the Government announce a herd maintenance program in order that livestock owners will be able to keep their herds and provide feed for them during this drought period?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member's Leader took time on one of his western trips to visit the drought area of western Canada, as did the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I have received questions from both Parties on this subject. I indicated that the work of the federal-provincial drought coordinating committee continues to go forward. In fact, they are meeting today in Winnipeg.
The Hon. Member should know that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association put forth another option prior to the weekend and over the weekend in place of a per head payment. The federal-provincial committee has invited the Canadian Cattlemen's Association to make a presentation to their meeting today in Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Algoma, and this will be the last question.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE TAX DEFERRAL SCHEME
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following. Since the Minister is not prepared to announce a herd maintenance program today, is the Minister prepared to recommend to the Government, and get the Government to put in place, a special tax arrangement in order that farmers who do have to disperse their herds will be able to put receipts from that sale into a special reserve fund which, if used for the purchase of replacement herds within three years, would not be liable for taxation?
Is the Government prepared to provide such a program to assist those farmers who have to disperse their herds this year due to the drought circumstances?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that this question has been raised. I indicated some 10 days ago that this was one of the many options that the federal-provincial committee was studying.
As far as the timing of an announcement is concerned, there is a timetable of the media, there is a timetable of the Opposition, and our timetable will be that established by the industry people themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


POINT OF ORDER
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this morning in the heat of debate while we were discussing the motion presently before the House, in checking the "blues", the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), in referring to Bill C-84 and Bill C-55, the immigration Bills presently before the House, stated that it is a racist move and they know it. I believe that those comments are totally unfounded, totally untrue, and are unworthy of the Hon. Member accusing the Government of such a thing. I would ask that she unequivocally withdraw those remarks.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will have a look at the "blues" myself and rule on it later today or tomorrow.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You can't have that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the "blues" are referred to-


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Why don't you listen to the other side for a change-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I beg your pardon. Would the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques like to repeat what he said?


Jacques Guilbault: -to hear the other side?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the Hon. Member rises I will hear the other side, otherwise there is not very much I can do. Now that the Hon. Member has risen I will listen to her. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think you will realize that two Members on the opposition side have risen. Indeed, I referred to a racist move by the Government.
Extension of Sittings
Perhaps you could refer to Beauchesne's, Mr. Speaker. First, I did not state an individual. I did not say the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) was racist, although he could very well fight the deal. I said that it was a racist move on the part of the Government, and I stand by that. There is absolutely nothing unparliamentary about that comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have no problem with those remarks. I will check the "blues" tomorrow, and if there is a problem I will naturally rule.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 16379) and the amendment of Mr. Guilbault, Saint-Jacques (p. 16387).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m., the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands had the floor, and he has three minutes left to complete his debate.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to Motion No. 26 which will extend the sitting of the House into the summer with extended hours. Our contention, of course, is that the Government wants this motion in order that it can force through Bill C-130 which puts into place the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. The Government is using this legislation by exhaustion to force upon the people of Canada a piece of legislation for which the Government has no mandate. Instead of pushing this legislation through the Government should call an election.
1 urge the Government to reconsider its whole approach to this legislation. The Progressive Conservatives have a proud record in opposition of opposing this type of imposition of law through closure. They are trying to push through Motion No. 26 today by closure. In 1956 the Progressive Conservatives stood very strongly against the imposition of closure by the Liberal Government of Louis St. Laurent. In the Trudeau years the Conservatives were very strong against the Government's use of closure. As I quoted earlier in my speech, the Progressive Conservatives used inflammatory language, speaking of jackboot democracy and so on. Now, when they are on the other side of the House, they are using exactly the same tactics.
I ask government Members to reconsider their approach. They will be in opposition soon enough themselves. They will regret the fact that they have thrown the whole parliamentary calendar, the whole business of parliamentary reform, into the ashcan for the sake of a very short-term advantage in the


Extension of Sittings
House where they can use their parliamentary majority to push through legislation on which, that by rights, the people of Canada should have an election before it comes to the House.
I urge the Government to reconsider the importance of the parliamentary calendar to individual Members, to Members who have families, from the point of view of democracy as a whole. We want intelligent people to be able to stand for office. When intelligent people look at the manner in which this Government is demeaning the process of democracy, having a process of legislation by exhaustion, having a process by which individual Members of Parliament are denied the right to be with their families during the summer, they will simply say: "This is not for me".
I urge the Government to consider the fact that it will be in opposition itself and will not want this type of precedent to be forced back on it, to consider its own history of opposition to this type of jackboot tactics, and to consider the basic process of democracy. If it does that, I am sure it will withdraw this motion.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak because I had made a speech in proposing the motion. However, I have been moved by the "Government is bungling everything" speech of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the "I want to get to the swimming pool" speech of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).
I want to say that we did not bring in closure without a great deal of thought. In fact, we regret the necessity to close this debate, but here is the situation with which we were faced, and I wish to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the Debates of last week.
On Monday of last week from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. the House was delayed by the delaying tactics of the NDP. When one of their Members moved to introduce a Bill, half the Party said "yea" and the other half said "nay" and thus forced a vote. They did the same thing with respect to the question on whether or not the Bill should be printed. Unfortunately, that was a Bill to confer on Raoul Wallenberg honorary Canadian citizenship. We objected at the time, as did the Liberal Party, to the NDP playing politics with that very important matter.
On Wednesday of last week from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. the House Leader of the New Democratic Party introduced two Private Members' Bills, forcing votes on the introduction and forcing votes on first reading, thus delaying away the entire day.
On Thursday of last week it was a short day because of the speech by Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of West Germany. The NDP did the same thing and delayed so that the whole day was wasted.
Thus Members of the New Democratic Party wasted two full days and one-half day last week. They now come in here
and talk about legislation by exhaustion. They cannot have it both ways. If they delay and delay and do not allow for debate, then one cannot say: "Well, we are not getting our opportunity to debate".
My hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier said that we should have moved earlier last week to do today what we did. I want to refer my friend to the precedent in this matter which occurred back in April of 1987. I want to refer my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier to some of the comments of the Speaker when he made his ruling that it was within the rules to move, during Routine Proceedings, that the House move to Orders of the Day.
The Speaker made reference to the fact that the fundamental rights of Members can be violated by the tactics of obstruction as well as by unreasonable restriction of debate. He said that sooner or later every issue must be decided, and that the decision will be taken by a majority. The point to remember from the Speaker's decision is this. He said that he did not make the decision with a great deal of joy, and that the decision was made in such a way that if Member's wished to refer to it in the future, and if it was to be resorted to as a precedent, then the Chair will interpret it in the light of prevailing circumstances with a view to maintaining the essential balance to which the Chair referred earlier in its decision.
The reason we did not do this last week was to give members of the Opposition an opportunity to see if they had made their point by delay and delay and delay, by not allowing the House to do anything. Obviously, they had not made their point. We just did not feel that it was appropriate to waste any more time of the House. They wasted two and a half days last week. We felt that the circumstances were there to bring into effect what the Speaker said was a precedent that cannot be abused.
We allowed for the delay last week. When the time of the House was being abused, that is when we brought in the motion to move to Orders of the Day.
My friend from Ottawa-Vanier quoted at length from the first letter of a series, that is, the letter of May 31, which I wrote to the two Opposition House Leaders. He took great glee in referring to the large number of pieces of legislation that were referred to in that letter, some of which-and this is admitted-had not even been introduced on the Order Paper. What my hon. friend forgot to talk about, which I will do for him now, is the letter of June 9 from myself to the Opposition House Leader.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have that one right here.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Have you got that one?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right here.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is fine.
I want to point out that in that letter we referred to 11 Bills on which there is a great deal of agreement between the


Liberal Party and ourselves and which we feel can go forward. These are Bills that are either at third reading stage or report stage. There are also some four other Bills which, as was pointed out by my hon. friend, the House Leader of the Liberal Party, would not take a great deal of debate. We added five Bills which we felt we had to have before the House rose for the summer. I think it is fair to say that we have had a great deal of progress to this point.
My hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier then went on to talk about the delay in passing Bill C-55 and Bill C-84. We have had those Bills out of this House for some time. Yes, we came back last August because of the emergency situation created by the arrival of a boatload of so-called refugees who did not want to go through the normal procedures. We moved to correct that abuse.
The abuse has shifted from the boat landing on the shore of Nova Scotia to the Senate of Canada. Bill C-84 has been delayed and delayed and delayed by the Senate. Bill C-55 has been delayed and delayed and delayed by the Senate. That is from where the delay is coming. We have acted to correct those problems, but the delay is coming from the Senate. If my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier wonders why those Bills have not passed, he need only raise on Wednesday that matter in the Liberal caucus, which after all is controlled by Senators, to see if he cannot try to free up the log-jam.
I want to review briefly some of the reasons we are bringing this motion to extend the sittings, so that we can put them in the perspective of what has happened since we originally brought in the motion and discussed this matter with Opposition House Leaders. I pointed out in my original remarks that we were on track with our agenda despite comments to the contrary by the Opposition. I pointed out that we were well ahead in our plans-


James Douglas Manly: This is the way you planned it?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -and that we had produced more legislation in the last two long Parliaments but that we had recently run into a great deal of delay from the Opposition-not delay by way of debate but delay by way of delay.
We put that on record. We pointed out, as I have just now, that there were several Bills at report stage and third reading stage which could be finished off. There is a great deal of agreement that these can be finished off quickly.
We pointed out that our agenda had been disrupted somewhat by the need to revisit the Meech Lake debate. We extended hours last week, with the consent of all Parties, to finalize that debate. The vote on the Meech Lake response by the Government will take place on Wednesday of this week.
I know that this is something we have out of the way. I do not know how many Liberals will be here to vote. We do not know which way they are going to vote. The topic of the week just after the summit will probably be just how badly the Liberal Party is going to split on the Meech Lake Accord.
Extension of Sittings
I will refer to the abortion motion in a minute.
Next, we come to the importance of our free trade initiative. Members of the Opposition have made no bones about the fact that they do not want to debate this item. They want to delay it. They cannot win the debate.


James Douglas Manly: Call an election on it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We will take the 48 per cent in favour of free trade, and the Liberals and the NDP can split the 34 per cent. Not bad. I do not know where my friend learned his sums but that does not work out to a win. We are saving opposition Members from that election if they want to play it on free trade. Opposition Members will split 34 per cent between them.
I have made reference to the delay in the Senate. As I suggested earlier, from 1980 to 1984 the Senate never had a sober second thought. Suddenly the Senate is having all sorts of sober second thoughts.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I wouldn't say that if I were in your shoes.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Senate has discontinued the practice of prestudying Bills. All these things brought us to the point where we had to put this motion on the Order Paper.
I want to deal now with where we are headed. We intend to call the free trade debate for tomorrow. That will be day one of the debate and it will be the day when we will see just whether or not the Opposition is ready to debate free trade or ready to delay it. Tomorrow is the day of decision for the Opposition. Opposition Members have to decide whether to put their case to the people by way of debate-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Call an election.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -or by way of delay. Let us see tomorrow, because that will be day one. It will be a long day. We should be able to knock off quite a bit of debate from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. unless my hon. friends want to delay. If they want to delay, it will be an abdication of their responsibilities as Members of Parliament.
Wednesday will be an Opposition Day and Thursday will be another Opposition Day. We will then call free trade the following week in an effort to complete the debate on that very important matter. I say to my hon. friends who suggested we are going to go right through the summer that at that point we will have discussions with the House Leaders of the Opposition Parties. Discussions are teed up for tomorrow afternoon with respect to legislation about which we are basically in agreement about and on which there might be some movement. I suggest that that legislation could take most of the week of July 4 to July 8. With a bit of co-operation we can knock that legislation off and send it to the Senate that week. That will leave us to begin on July 11th debate on the abortion motion.

Extension of Sittings
I want to dwell on that for a moment. The abortion motion was put on the books some time in May, and it was met with a great deal of initial "oh, my goodness, you are usurping the rules of democracy" talk from the Opposition. There was great wailing and gnashing of teeth because we were forcing the Opposition to be part of a free vote. Yet here was a reasonable way to get a sense of the House which could guide the Government in drafting the legislation, in the general framework for it, and in whether Members voting their conscience or the wishes of their constituents.


James Douglas Manly: Bring in a Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We could then draft a Bill. My hon. friend objects to that. I appreciate why he objects. My hon. friend objects because his Party will vote the party line on a very sensitive and emotional issue.


James Douglas Manly: Bring in a Bill for a free vote.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We do not intend to play politics with this particular motion, not at all. It is too important and too sensitive to do that. We feel we have a very fair way of dealing with it. My hon. friend says: "Bring in a Bill". Let me tell my hon. friend the basic difference between the opportunity to debate this motion and the opportunity to debate a Bill. On a motion every Member of the House has 20 minutes to put his or her case. On a Bill speeches are restricted to a maximum of 10 minutes after eight hours of debate.


James Douglas Manly: Unanimous consent can change those rules. We could have 20 minutes for everybody on a Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My hon. friend is now talking about unanimous consent. He now has a different idea. The Opposition objects mostly to the free vote.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It has nothing to do with the free vote.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We intend to proceed with that motion after the legislation is out of the way, and we will have a free vote. I understand why my hon. friend does not want a free vote on this matter. Unfortunately it will cut into his swimming pool time. I do feel badly about that.


Mr. Keeper:: You are all wet.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is still able to swim in Canadian waters.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The rest of us were sent to work on behalf of the people. My hon. friend resents anything cutting into his 10-week vacation. Is it in the manifesto that he gets 10 weeks' vacation? Is it in the first paragraph of the manifesto that thou shalt have 10 weeks' vacation? My hon. friend better go back to his riding. He will find that most people who work in his riding do not get 10 weeks' vacation.
That is where we are, Mr. Speaker. This motion would never have had to occur if the opposition Parties had not delayed. The question of closure would never have had to come up if the

opposition Parties had not delayed. We intend to allow this debate to progress and then we will have a vote.
As I indicated to the House, tomorrow we will start with the very important issue of the free trade Bill, Bill C-130.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is the sell-out Bill.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a proposition-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I can give the Hon. Member an offer he cannot refuse.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I want to smoke out these Tories who are saying, "Let's sit all summer". I do not know what the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) does when he is not in the House of Commons, but there are some Members who work outside this place in their constituencies. Maybe that is why he squeaked through by the skin of his teeth in 1979 by 66 votes.
I do not want to be that close.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I don't blame you.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I want to do a little better preparation. But I have a proposition, Mr. Speaker.
I come from a steel working town where people work on shifts. I know what the Tories have up their sleeves. They have already developed a roster system. At any given time in the House one-third of the Tory Members are here and two-thirds are off travelling the country and on vacation. I will move a proposition that, sure, we will sit for extended hours. We will sit all summer. We will work as hard as anybody, but the Tories who are not here should not pick up a paycheque. The 70 people here will be holding the can for 140 others who will be off playing and on vacation.


An Hon. Member:: Where is Axworthy? Where is Turner?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister claims that the Government is ready to work. The Government is merely trying to beat the Opposition into the ground. The Tories know that for the last four years 40 Liberals and 30 New Democrats have had to hold up the work of the House,-


Iain Francis Angus: Thirty-two New Democrats. Get the number right.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -the work of 28 committees, the work across the country of political Parties. In the meantime we have tried to create make-work projects for tired Conservatives who have had nothing to do. Right now I have been making quorum for the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare because there is not a Tory in the list of Tory members of the committee who is interested in coming on a consistent basis to


the standing committee. We in the Opposition have been making quorum for one of the most important committees.
We are certainly prepared to work and do our share, but we are sick and tired of watching 140 Tories running around the country on vacation, leaving only 70 people here at a given point in time. Let us call a spade a spade and let us call a Tory a Tory. Let us start looking at the voting and attendance records of Members. There are Conservative Members from the Hamilton area, Conservative Members who were elected in the last election, who will be "de-elected" in the next election and who have never spoken in the House or, if they have, it has been once or twice.


Mr. Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: No, that is not right.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) can stand up and speak. I can talk about the people in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. Frankly, most of them have never spoken out in the House on a single issue of substance.


Rob Nicholson: That is not true.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member for Niagara Falls will have a chance to have his say. He better take it quickly because he will be replaced after the next election.


William (Bill) Gottselig: The voice of doom from Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: There have been members of the Opposition who have been working day and night on committee, in the House, and with respect to other commitments to their political Parties and to to the people of Canada across the country. It is very easy for the Conservatives to say that they want to sit all summer because they have a roster system. At any given time two-thirds of the Tories are not in the House of Commons. Let us call a spade a spade and say that those two-thirds of Tories who are out of the Commons at any given point in time will have their paycheques cut by two-thirds. Why should we be paying Tories who are off gallivanting in swimming pools in their areas? Let us move a motion to cut their paycheques by two-thirds. I will support it. I am prepared to sit here and do the work of the House of Commons. I cannot stand the hypocrisy of the Government which claims that the Opposition does not want to work. We want to debate substantive issues. All the Government wants to do is ram through legislation.
Let us look at the so-called tax reform document that the Government wants to put through immediately. With one sweep of the hand, we are supposed to pass this legislation. Let me read just one little passage from the 500-page document to which the Parliament of Canada has not had an opportunity to give its full attention. This is the definition of an individual:
For the purposes of subsection (5), an individual shall be deemed to have
supported a person in a particular month of a taxation year if
Extension of Sittings
(a)	the person is a child of, or is dependent for support in the particular month on, the individual or the individual's spouse; and
(b)	where the individual is married at the end of the particular month,
(i)	the individual's income for the year (computed without reference to subsection (5) and section 63) exceeds that of the individual's spouse; and
(ii)	the individual's spouse was not, by reason of a breakdown of the marriage, living separate and apart from the individual at the end of the particular month and for a period of at least 90 days commencing in the year.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (5), where an allowance referred to in that subsection is paid in respect of a person for a particular month of a taxation year and no amount in respect of the allowance would, but for this subsection, be included in computing the income for the year of any individual, the individual to whom the allowance is paid shall be deemed to have supported the person in the particular month."
That is the simplified tax Bill. This is page 94 of the English version of this 500-page document. Yet the Government has introduced a package of legislation including the trade Bill, the abortion legislation, and the tax reform legislation. It says that Parliament should pass it, or the Government will try to hammer us by sitting day and night.
Government Members are not interested in quality debate. They are not interested in a real examination of the substance of tax reform. They are interested in ramming through a bunch of Bills because they intend to break the Opposition down through fatigue.
Let us consider the tax reform Bill alone. I believe that the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) has done a tremendous job in mobilizing the small business community to point out some of the loopholes and inadequacies of this particular legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we can say about automobile expenses alone . . .

Small business people in Canada are extremely concerned about changes which relate to automobile expenses. In fact, a number of groups has come before the Finance Committee to point out the inconsistencies in the legislation that is supposed to be rammed through by the end of this month.

And we can say, for example, that the groups that appeared before the Finance Committee all found these new rules very complex. The so-called simplification of the tax system is not really that, Mr. Speaker. Even the experts cannot understand it. Not just the factory worker in my riding, but even lawyers and chartered accountants cannot understand the "simplified" tax system proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the best illustration of this complexity was provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation of the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Here is what they said about the May 1988 tax reform: "As regards automobile expenses and related benefits, the draft legislation is terribly complex. It required 30


Extension of Sittings
different amendments to the Act and Regulations to translate into legal terms the measures proposed in the White Paper as later amended in December 1987. These provisions are full of technical errors, which proves that the writers themselves had great difficulty understanding the rules."

We are not simply talking about the false proposition of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that this is a simpler process. We are also talking about the technical errors which exist because the Government is intending to ram through this legislation with about 20 or 30 other pieces of legislation in the next couple of weeks. The Government is threatening that if we do not buckle under, if we do not cave in, it will pull the plug and we will sit day and night. Government Members do not care about the quality of tax reform legislation. All they want to do is stick it to the taxpayers.
The Institute for Research on Public Policy makes it very clear that as a a result of so-called Tory tax reform average taxpayers will be paying more, depending upon their income levels. If they are earning between $29,000 and $35,000, they will be losing, over the course of the Tory mandate, almost $700 in purchasing power. If their income is in the neighbourhood of $35,000 to $40,000 per year, they will actually be losing close to $900.
The only people who gain and gain substantially as a result of the so-called tax reform are the big buck earners who earn over $117,000 a year. How can the Minister claim that we should pass this legislation without giving a fair shake to the ordinary steelworking men and women of my riding who want to know why they are now paying more in taxes?
Some of these Members have been silent for four years. I was very happy to hear the Member from Toronto rise today to talk about the tax on building materials. Where was that Hon. Member when the first Tory Budget introduced a tax on building materials at the federal level? Where was that Hon. Member when this Minister introduced a plan to cut out the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan? Where was that Hon. Member when the same Government doubled insurance fees for CMHC from 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent on average adding hundreds, if not more than $1,000, to the cost of purchasing a home? I did not hear that Hon. Member complaining about a tax on building materials. He sat silently. Now he and his colleagues are involved in a conspiracy to try to convince Canadian taxpayers that we do not want to do the work of the House of Commons.
What we want is fair tax reform. We do not want to have the kind of tax reform that will tell ordinary taxpayers that they will have to pay an extra $1,200 as a result of the tax reforms of the Conservative Government. With tax policy friends like that, I would hate to be on the receiving end of the Government's enmity. The Government has hit, right between the eyes, middle class working men and women of Canada who try to keep the economy alive.
The Minister of Finance himself called sales tax the silent killer of jobs. Yet, since he has come to power along with his cohorts, individual Canadian families are paying an extra $500 a year, simply as a result of increased sales taxes and excise taxes on gas. That has to be coupled with $600, $700, or $800 extra in taxes as a result of the Government's so-called tax reform.
How can the Minister have any credibility? How can he try, with a straight face, to convince the people of Canada that it is the Opposition that is somehow preventing the work of Parliament from being done? Considering the complexity of the trade Bill, I daresay that we could use all the time between now and the beginning of July to detail our very specific opposition to it. It is such a bad Bill, that we are convinced the people of Canada will realize that once they have time to read the fine print.
Commercial blood banks are included in the free trade deal. The Minister from St. John's West sold out Newfoundlanders today. Obviously he does not care about selling out the national health care system. It is right in the annex of the trade deal that blood banks of a commercial nature will be allowed, and that will result in the destruction of the Canadian medicare system as we now know it.
I am not saying that next year we will have to pay for blood, but we will soon, if a private market captures 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the Canadian market for the sale of blood. If I set up an office in downtown Toronto and offer people fifty bucks for a pint of blood, how long do you think, Mr. Speaker, the voluntary sector of the Red Cross will be able to continue the well developed national network of voluntary blood clinics which has become a hallmark of this country?
Yes, we would like time to debate the substantive issues. The Deputy House Leader for the Government said that the Opposition was obstructing real debate. Since last week we have been wanting to have a real debate on this issue, and the Government itself has determined that it would rather be faced with the ringing of the bells on procedural matters. I am one of those who thinks the public wants to hear a debate of substance, and we would like to debate the substance.
In the space of two weeks I cannot represent the people of Hamilton East on the tax package alone. How can I be expected to stand silent while I watch this rip-off and the padding of the rich? According to the Government's own figures we know that even after this so-called tax reform more than 60,000 profitable corporations will still be paying no tax, even though the Government promised a minimum tax on the rich. We also know that 5,220 rich individuals will be paying no tax, even though the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised a minimum tax on the rich.
Yes, there are points we would like to raise on tax reform and literally dozens of other Bills on which would wish to have a chance to articulate.


How does the Government expect us to deal with the trade Bill, the abortion resolution, the tax reform legislation, the national parks legislation, the mutual legal assistance legislation, the proceeds of crime legislation, the official languages legislation, the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore petroleum resources legislation, the registration of lobbyists legislation, the Canadian Wheat Board legislation, the Canadian National Trade Tribunal legislation, the divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited legislation, the Canada Labour Code legislation, the Bretton Woods Agreement legislation, the National Housing and CMHC Acts, the Canadian Grain Act, the conflict of interest Senate and House of Commons Act, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology Act, the Multiculturalism Act, the Immigration Refugee Act, the Immigration Refugee Illegal Act, Air Canada privatization, pari mutuel betting- the Government is moving into pari mutuel betting through a new Bill which has come forward-the National Transportation Act, and amendments for disabled persons?
That only includes the Government's list of demands for the next two weeks of legislation already on the Order Paper. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) promised that he was going to come forward with a child care Act, but we have not seen it yet. We have also been waiting to hear about a number of other Acts which have not yet come forward. The Government is demanding that they be passed before we even see them.
If we as Members are to take our responsibilities seriously, surely we owe it to the taxpayers who are going to be footing the bill for this monstrosity to examine every clause in a detailed way and to ensure that whatever legislation is passed is good legislation, or at least that the arguments on both sides will have been well aired.
The Government is not interested in real debate. It was already talking closure when we had had six speakers, I believe, and it had had six or seven speakers on one Bill. The Government is really interested in muzzling the Opposition and ramming through a rather poor quality of debate.
I heard government Members laughing during Question Period when the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) spoke about the work of the employees of the House of Commons. They laughed because most of them sit in their offices and do not have to do anything anyway. I have spoken to a number of employees of the House of Commons. Those sitting right in this room who work in translation are not even covered by the Canada Labour Code. They do not even have the basic conditions of their workplace guaranteed, which is the minimum basic right given to every other Canadian worker. When the Government introduced the legislation on unionization of employees on the Hill, unfortunately it forgot to proclaim the part which dealt with working conditions.
Translators work at a very high stress job. God forbid that the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid) should get his "blues" with the wrong phrase or he will
Extension of Sittings
be on his feet on another false point of order. These individuals work extremely hard and deserve support rather than the cackles and guffaws which we heard from Members of the Conservative Party who seem to think that no one else in Parliament knows the meaning of work. If the debate continues until ten, eleven, twelve, or one o'clock in the morning and the quality of it continues to decline, the employees have to continue to take the notes and translate the Debates.
I think they and the taxpayers of Canada are at least entitled to a quality of debate which is being denied by this legislation. This is in fact a false way for the 140 Conservative Members of Parliament who know they will not be back in the House of Commons after the next election to enjoy an extended vacation.
While my colleagues are here in the House to continue the debate and maintain quorum as we have done over the last four years, this is a make-holiday program for tired Tories who know that they have no hope and might as well live out their last days in their swimming pools.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, keeping in mind what the last speaker said, as I look around I see that the Government cannot even muster up a quorum in the House to hear what I have to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has been around here a long time and knows that he should not indicate who is and who is not in the House. There are Members in the lobby watching the Hon. Member on television, and they are liable to come in here and express their views on this. I hope the Member will extend courtesy to the House.


John R. Rodriguez: I know the rules, Mr. Speaker, and I see they have all come crawling out from under the chesterfields in the lobby. There is only a small fraction of them here. I am surprised that their consciences allow them to collect a paycheque. They believe that it is all right to keep employees here on Parliament Hill all summer long while the Tory hacks and flacks fly off to their ridings and collect their paycheques and expense allowances.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. Courtesy is the code of the House. I would like to hear the Hon. Member. I cannot seem to hear him very well.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that we will keep them here.
The question in my mind is: Why are we debating a motion to extend the sitting of this House until September 9? What is the justification for this? The Government says that it has run such a successful Parliament that 197 Bills received Royal Assent as well as some Private Members' Bills, perhaps 203 or 204 altogether. It boasts about how successful this Parliament has been. There was no question that the Opposition was


Extension of Sittings
blocking the work of Parliament. It was obviously a very hard working Parliament which passed so many Bills.
What is the justification for this? We know the justification. It is that the Government now wants to pass the free trade Bill, Bill C-130, and we have said: "They shall not pass". We have said that quite clearly, because the people of Canada have not had an opportunity to participate in the discussion about the free trade agreement. Was it raised in 1984? Not on your bippy, Mr. Speaker, it was not raised at all.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was running for Leader of the Conservative Party in 1983-and I do not know why anyone would want to run for the leadership of that Party-he said: "free trade with the United States is like getting into bed with an elephant. If the elephant rolls over you are dead". That is all he was on record as saying with regard to free trade. It is clear and unequivocal opposition to free trade.
Now that he is the Prime Minister we are being told that we have to sit through the summer so that he can ram Bill C-130 through Parliament. We all know now why he cannot be trusted. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Someone said that one can always tell when the Prime Minister is not being straight with the folks, because he moves his lips.
The Prime Minister is trying to put free trade through the House of Commons at the last moment before it breaks on June 30. The Government is extending the sitting of the House so he can ram through Bill C-130. We are saying that that is not fair to the people of Canada. Canadians have a right to participate in a deal which will be so important to the future of our country.
We have challenged the Prime Minister to call an election and make this an issue, but he will not touch it. Here we have this phalanx of Tories gathered here to try to extend the sitting. We have opposed it.
The Government has even brought in closure in order to get the motion through. It is the tyranny of the majority on 70 members in the Opposition. Those 200-odd Members on the government side should be ashamed of themselves for picking on so small an opposition. One would think that their conscience would at least bother them, but Tories do not have consciences.
This is what the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) had to say about closure in 1981, with regard to the Excise Tax Act introduced by the Liberal Government. As reported at page 10409 of Hansard on June 9, 1981, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, the present Minister for International Trade, said:
This comes from a closure-crazed government, a government which suffers from the crime of parliamentary bestiality. It cannot wait to force these kinds of things through the House.
He went on to say:
The same little group comes in here on every closure motion. The same little group of parliamentary eunuchs, the same group of parliamentary assassins- the House leader, the assistant House leader, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres)-are in here all the time, assassinating this House and removing the good from the House. That is why I call them the parliamentary eunuchs. The good has already been removed from them.
Then he says:
This is an illustration of what has happened to Canada. Today we have a parliamentary system of government without any checks and balances and without the separation of powers. The Prime Minister has a group of docile sheep in his caucus who keep him in power, no matter what he is doing. They just say "Baaa, sir, baaa, sir, pass it through the House, sir". As long as they do that, he has absolute power. This Prime Minister has absolute power as long as the majority in his caucus give him that unlimited power. They are so busy with their noses in the patronage trough and the power trough that they neither know nor care what happens to this Parliament, and we can expect nothing from them.
Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? That was stated by one of the power brokers in the Tory caucus when he was in opposition. Now he is in government and the eunuchs have moved over from the Opposition. Look at all the eunuchs on the back-benches. "Baa, baa".
The Prime Minister had to go to Paris to get the ambassador to run in Lac-Saint-Jean to save the Government's skin in Quebec. What message is he giving to the eunuchs in the backbenches who have been elected from that part of the country? He is telling them that they are a bunch of eunuchs who he cannot trust to save his skin. He went to Paris for Lucien Bouchard.


An Hon. Member:: He is going to win tonight and you are going to finish third.


John R. Rodriguez: You fellows will never make it to Cabinet. You were overlooked. I suppose they are fulfilling the function for which they were elected, which is to flip their flippers like trained seals.
The Government is only extending the sitting of this Parliament in order to pass its trade deal. It is not interested in what Canadians think. Otherwise it would provide an appropriate time to debate the Bill properly throughout the land. The parliamentary committee should be travelling throughout the country to receive briefs from Canadians, to listen to their concerns, and to inform them.
The Government has put millions of dollars in the trough while the Minister for International Trade hires his best friend to spread the propaganda to Canadians before the Bill has even passed second reading. The Government is only interested in the propaganda. It is following all the same practices which brought down the Liberal Government and for which the Conservatives condemned the previous Liberal Government. It has introduced time allocation numerous times in this Parliament and has brought in closure many times in the exact same fashion as have the Liberals. The Conservatives promised a new era but they have not done anything different.



The Conservatives promised that there would be no more patronage. Canadians still remember when the Prime Minister said to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner): "You had an option, sir". Lo and behold, the patronage machines are still operating.
The Prime Minister said that it was reprehensible to buy Canadian voters with their own money.
Yet we have the spectacle of the Prime Minister on a sojourn to Lac-Saint-Jean trying to buy the by-election for his friend. It seems the only people who can get anywhere in this country are classmates or room-mates of the Prime Minister. The treasury doors have been opened. Where is restraint? Out the window. We do not hear too much talk now about the deficit. The Conservatives are on a spending splurge, trying to buy a friend a seat in the House of Commons, all because the Prime Minister could not trust Members of Parliament who were elected under the Tory banner from the Province of Quebec.
What he is really saying to them is: "You can't be trusted". What the Prime Minister is attempting to do is to buy the voters of Lac-Saint-Jean with their own money. I do not think the people of Lac-Saint-Jean are going to fall for that. The Conservatives tried to buy St. John's East and that did not work. But did the people of St. John's East get the $30 million? They sure did. So the people of Lac-Saint-Jean could boot Lucien Bouchard out and still get the money because the other Bouchard has to come across because he is in a nearby riding. How can the Conservatives turn off the tap? They promised it, and if the people do not vote for their candidate, they still have to be given the money.
Today we heard about the Newfoundland railway. It is gone. They are going to replace it with highways. Just imagine, we can have a new highway built all the way from Alma to Labrador, and then we can put a causeway over to Newfoundland and we can make it the Trans-Canada. That is the spectacle. We have to extend this sitting because the Government wants to pass Bill C-130, which will put the free trade arrangement between the Prime Minister of this country and Ronald Reagan into effect. It is a giveaway of this country to the United States. It is a sell-out.
Canadians have many questions. First, they are not aware of all the details of this agreement and what they have been hearing, they do not like. They do not believe, for example, that a foreign government ought to dictate to a Canadian Government, which was elected by the people, as to how our energy should be priced. That ought not to be a prerogative of any foreign government. Second, what Canadians do not like is the virtual elimination of all review of American investments in this country. At a time when the Americans are becoming very concerned about Asian investment in the United States, the Canadian Government is turning over the country to the
Extension of Sittings
United States. I think Canadians are very concerned that we will become the fifty-first State.
This deal should not be proceeded with until the Canadian people have been consulted. There are enough Bills on the Order Paper that our caucus is prepared to support. For example, we said we were prepared to support the lobbying Bill. The Prime Minister committed himself to that two years ago on an urgent basis. He said: "We will bring in a lobbying Bill, a Bill to register lobbyists", because he was concerned. He wanted to establish a Mr. Clean image and his friends, Doucette and Ouellet the card-player, all of them wanted to create a clean image, so he promised the Lobbying Registry, Bill C-82. It is called the Frank Moores Bill. We are all set to pass Bill C-82. So why does the Government not bring forward the Frank Moores Bill? We are ready for it.
We had a report on bank service charges. The Government has promised us a Bill. Bring it on and if it is patterned along the lines of our report, we will pass it. The Government does not have to extend the House in order for us to pass it. We will pass it because we recognize that there are some Bills on the Order Paper about which we agree. We can pass those Bills.
I just mentioned Bill C-82. We are prepared to pass that. We passed Bill C-31, the Railway Act, on Friday. We passed it through all stages. We can do that with Bill C-82 and with the amendment to the Bank Act, along the lines of the committee report. After all, we even drafted the report and entered it as a Private Member's Bill. All the Government has to do is present it. We will pass it. In fact, if the Government does not want to do that, it can go the private Member's route and we will pass it that way. But the Government will not do that because the banks are its friends. They are the government's bankers. I see the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), here. He is very useful to have in the Tory caucus because he can walk both sides of the street. He is the enemy of the banks but he is a Tory at the same time. It is a nice game, but it will not wash.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired. Debate.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) prompted me to rise and say that there has been some co-operation on some matters that have come out of committees and elsewhere, and I take his co-operation with respect to the Bill drafted by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and presented in the name of the Hon. Member for York- Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan). I know he and I would be most pleased to see that Bill through, or a Bill equal to it.


John R. Rodriguez: Bring it on.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I suspect that before there are too many moons through the sky, a Bill of that nature might be before us. However, the issue today is in connection with what amounts to unrealistic delays in the basic program of the


Extension of Sittings
Government. Every time we have tried to move ahead with that basic program, the coalition represented by the Liberal New Dinosaur Party has done everything it can to make sure that this House is hijacked to the effect that the thrust of the government's move on privatization, the thrust of the government's move with respect to a trade agreement, the thrust of the government's move with respect to cleaning up the problem of illegal immigration and the thrust of the government's work on a free vote on abortion, has been stymied, held up and delayed unrealistically. The Opposition knows that. It has made a point of declaring that it would use every conceivable delaying method possible to prevent debate, discussion, committee meetings, that it would do everything to force those Bills and those government initiatives to be stopped.
Clearly, a Government which intends to run the country has to ensure that Parliament works and that it has a chance to debate the issues before it, particularly the issues brought to the attention of Parliament by the Government. I do not think we had one sensible debate all last week. We had one motion after another as to whether a private Member should be entitled to introduce a Bill and one vote after another as to whether that Bill should be printed and circulated. That is an unrealistic waste of time for which the taxpayers paid in hiring us to be their representatives in this House of Commons. There is no justification for it. That time has to be made up. Unfortunately, that time is going to have to be made up in July. None of us like that. None of us want that. That make-up of time is totally unnecessary.
In other Parliaments in this Commonwealth serious matters that are in complete debate between one side or the other, where both sides have their own firm position, are handled in one day, perhaps a day and a half with perhaps two speakers from each side, perhaps not even that, and a vote is called. That is what happens in Great Britain. Here we have one filibuster after another, one delaying tactic after another. There may be a point in that, but the point is that we have to sit longer than we should have to sit, because we do have to come to grips with the issues. We do not solve the problem of Parliament by delaying techniques that prevent us from coming to grips with issues. We are paid to come to grips with issues. We are paid to make decisions. We are paid to show leadership. We are not paid to vote on whether or not a Member should be able to introduce a Bill.
The coalition has brought us to this. We have been forced by the coalition to extend the hours of the House, to extend the sittings of the House in order that the Government-needed legislation can be dealt with. The coalition says: "Call an election". There are signs out that state: "Trade Mulroney and call an election". Sir, they will have an election. But they want an election before the fourteenth of July, because they want to have a Parliament elected improperly. They want a Parliament that is not representative of the people. They want to force on
Canada a Parliament based on a 1971 census. That is the extent of their idea of democracy.
This coalition has nothing to offer Canada other than delay, other than harping criticism. They have no program, no philosophy other than socialism, state ownership, as the means of production and distribution. This is a coalition of those who believe in big government. This is a coalition of those who believe in big brother. They will have an opportunity to present their ideas of big brother, probably before the snow flies, but not before we have redistribution. They know that, and this hollow call for an election is exactly that, a hollow call from hollow minds. The issues in the election, Sir, will be the trade issue, whether Canada is going to offer opportunities for young people, or whether those opportunities will only be available in the United States.
We are a nation of 25 million people. There is presently a meeting of the G-7 in Toronto. Our trading partners all have markets in excess of 100 billion people at home. We have a market of 25 million. How do we ever expect to be world competitive without at least a basic home market? Yet, the coalition says: "Don't worry about that. Put a big fence around Canada and make sure we have a little Canada." We will have an opportunity to discuss that with the people of Canada. The people of Canada will vote for a big Canada, a future for their kids. That is the type of Canada we want, and that is the type of Canada that the people will have a chance to vote for. But, they will get a chance after redistribution, not before. They will get a chance after the trade Bill is passed at least the House of Commons.
In this Bill we will be able to show exactly what we intend to do, and we will be able to have the people vote on this Bill and the trade issues. The coalition will have to say that they do not want to deal with the United States. One of them is going to tear it up, the other is going to tear it down. I do not know how the tearing is going. But I can tell you, Sir, the tearing is going to be the tearing of the Liberal-New Democratic coalition, the tweedle-dum and the tweedle-dee of the House.
The Government has a program of privatization. We have been moving the Government out of the affairs of individuals. In the last three and a half years we have privatized more Crown corporations than all of the Governments put together, both federal and provincial, in the history of Canada. Before the House we have a major privatization Bill involving Air Canada. That Bill is demanded by over 80 per cent of the employees of Air Canada. It will enable our national airline to compete in the world without having its hands tied behind its back as an agent of the Crown. It is important to the people of Canada that that Bill goes through. We can have a vote on it and the coalition can renationalize it, if they want to, if the people of Canada direct them that way. But the airline employees will not vote for them when they have an opportunity to buy stock in their company.
I come now to the immigration matter. This House was called back in emergency session on August 10, 1987. It was


recalled to deal with the flagrant abuses of our immigration laws whereby people would come across our border and say: "I am a refugee", because they knew that under the present system, a system formulated by the Liberal Party, they could stay in Canada for five years and work anyway, because they could go from one appeal and one delaying process to another. As a result, our immigration system is now clogged with more than 50,000 people claiming refugee status, most of them improperly.
It is not that they do not want to come to Canada, and not that most of them might make good immigrants, but they are trying to jump the queue. We have Bills that have been delayed in the Senate for more than 200 days that would deal with that problem. The issue in the election will be the Senate, directed by Allan MacEachen, which believes that it does not need to be elected in order to stymie the will of the elected people and be responsive to the electorate. They will get their election all right, and the election will be on the Senate that has done its darndest to hamper and prevent democracy from working, since 1984 only.
Sir, we have to have an extension of hours. I do not like to have an extension of hours. It is unfortunate. But when there is continual blocking of the activity of the Elouse by a coalition on the other side, determined to prevent matters from coming to a vote, determined to prevent open and free debate, and determined to make sure that an agenda reasonably put to it by the House Leaders is negotiated and worked out, then the Government has no choice except to move to set aside the rules on a temporary basis to give that opportunity demanded for debate.
They do not want debate. They only want to play blunder-log, a game we used to play with cub scouts. They want to destroy things. They do not want to build a Canada. They do not want to get at the problems of Canada.
We have an abortion resolution on which they state: "Don't give us a free vote on it." That would be undemocratic to vote freely! That is a mark of the Liberal-New Democratic Party coalition: no freedom. In the New Democratic Party they say: "There can be no free vote. We will control our Members. They will march to one drum only". On issues of moral conscience we always believe that the will of the Members ought to prevail. Surely, on this matter or any matter it ought to be brought forward for an open discussion in this House in a realistic time frame and a vote should be taken, a vote which would give every Member of Parliament the opportunity to take one or the other propositions put to him or to her.
The point of the whole matter is that we need to have the opportunity as a Government to govern. We cannot have that opportunity to govern stymied by misuse and abuse of the rules. What we have had to do today is to move a closure motion to temporarily change the rules, something which will
Extension of Sittings
enable us to come to grips with the problems that affect this country.


James Douglas Manly: You should be ashamed of yourselves.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says that we should be ashamed of ourselves. He is saying, as Liberals or New Democrats say, that we should be ashamed of ourselves for governing the country. Sir, I say that we have an obligation to govern the country. We have demonstrated our ability and our will to do that. My friend has demonstrated absolutely no policy, no thrust or no leadership.
Members opposite will have an opportunity in the debates in the weeks ahead if they want to continue to talk. But this motion gives them a lot of opportunity to talk. Let us hear what they have to say. If they are sensible, let us get the matters that are before the House dealt with so that we can get on to more important issues, and perhaps an election.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 26 in the name of the Government is a motion which seeks to set aside a certain number of our Standing Orders so that the House may sit as late as September 9, and with extended hours. This motion has been justified by the Government on several grounds. These Government arguments for Motion No. 26 may be quickly summarized as follows.
First, we need Motion No. 26, these extra days and these extended hours, because there has been considerable Opposition obstruction; and this obstruction has come in this Parliament not only from the two Opposition Parties but it has come as well from the Senate.
The second argument is that extra days and hours are needed in order to clear the Order Paper.
Third, the Government says that it has had foisted upon it some unanticipated measures. It refers to the ghost of Meech Lake which has returned from the Senate, let us call it Meech Lake II, which has now been partly demystified and shown, I think, by the other place to be a bad piece of constitutional amending. Second, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the abortion law and made it necessary for this Parliament to decide what must be done with this political, this social, this moral issue.
Fourth, it is said that we must sit through the summer and late into each night because it is in the public interest so to do.
Finally, the Minister of State said that Parliament must deal with the free trade question.
I intend to look at those arguments and test their validity to the best of my ability. First, I will deal with obstruction.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this Parliament has really been characterized by excessive, by unusual, by unwarranted obstruction tactics by the two Opposition Parties. We know for a fact that the Government has vigorously used time allocation and closure, plus a variety of new


Extension of Sittings
methods not frequently used in the past which have allowed it to push ahead with its plans and its schedule.
In 44 months of this Parliament, 204 Bills have been passed.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: The Minister of State bragged about that accomplishment. He pointed out to Hon. Members that in the Parliament of 1974-79 and in the Parliament of 1980-84 only 177 Bills were passed in each case, and those two Parliaments sat longer than has the current Parliament.
I want to ask this question. Where is the Government's case for obstruction? It cannot be proven because there has been no obstruction, unless the Government argues that the legitimate role of the Opposition is in itself obstruction.
Perhaps the huge majority that it acquired in 1984 has whetted its appetite to have a one-party state. I want to say that if that is the case it is not going to happen by any decision made in this Parliament. It will only happen when the Canadian people decide that every constituency should be represented by a Progressive Conservative and not by the representative of any other Party. You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that that is highly unlikely to happen. It is far more likely that this Government will be ejected from office.
The Minister of State also referred to his problems with the Senate. He says that the Senate has used its constitutional powers in this Parliament, and quite legitimate powers, I would say. They have been used, and I would say, generally speaking, they have been used effectively and responsibly. I am now absolutely convinced that in a federal state we need a bicameral system. We need two Chambers in order to check more effectively a powerful administration, an excessively strong executive branch of government which exists in the Canadian system. If two Opposition Parties cannot do it, then we may have to alter our system so that it can be done regularly and systematically. We have to check power because we have seen in this Parliament the abuse of power.
However, the second House, the Senate, I believe must have legitimacy. I believe that can only be acquired by means of election.
I have no sympathy with the Government when it claims that it is having problems with the Senate. It has had four years up until now to do something about it. It could have reformed the Senate. Yet all it did at Meech Lake was to transfer appointments from the Prime Minister to the Premiers, thereby guaranteeing that we are highly unlikely ever to see an elected Senate in this country.
When the Canadian politburo met at Meech Lake to declare Quebec a constitutionally distinct society, why did it not at the same time move to abolish an appointed Senate and put into place mechanisms that would be required for an elected Senate? We all agree that an appointed Senate is an anathema to democracy. But why has the Government not moved to change it? It did not do so because it knows that it would be
cutting off its own nose to spite its face. It, too, uses the Senate for its own partisan purposes. Given this situation, any ranting and raving from particular Ministers or the Government collectively about the Senate make no impression at all on this Hon. Member. Thus we can set aside the obstructionist argument. There has not been any from either the House of Commons or the Senate.
The second proposition from the Government is that we need Motion No. 26 in order to clear the Order Paper. The Minister of State has written to the Opposition House Leaders with a list of what he considers on the Order Paper that it is necessary to dispose of in this session of Parliament. Sir, there are 41 Bills and/or motions that he has put forward. It is an imposing list. But it seems to me when I looked at that list that there is plenty of room there, as the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) said, for some negotiation, for some bargaining, for some compromise, in order to achieve a workable schedule.
The only requirement in order to do that, Sir, would be to have some skill, some openness, some flexibility, some common sense and some reason displayed by the three Government House Leaders.
On top of this we have had these two unanticipated issues, Meech Lake II and the abortion question. The first of these will be disposed of Wednesday of this week when the House will divide on the Meech Lake motion. That leaves abortion, Mr. Speaker. We could have been using these June evenings to debate the abortion question. It would have been helpful to all Hon. Members if we had known what the Government's position was. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) promised he would give leadership.
This Government has a position on absolutely everything. That position that it takes is ironclad. It says: " We have to get the motion through. We will use our majority to get it through". The Government has a position on everything except when it comes to a delicate and sensitive issue like abortion. Suddenly, isn't it amazing how democratic and open the Government gets? Why isn't the Government like that on a lot more issues?
That leaves two of the Government's arguments yet to be considered, those that I outlined at the beginning. Let me deal with the public interest. The Government says it is in the public interest to keep the House in session all summer, sitting each day, late into the evening. I would say to you, Sir, that no elected Member of this House can ever play down or argue against the public interest proposition. We are here in the public interest. The public interest is paramount. It takes precedence over partisan interest. It takes precedence over personal interest. We are here in the public interest. The question is how do you judge which particular item or group of items are absolutely in the public interest? How do you decide


Extension of Sittings
When negotiations break down, when common sense and good reason does not work, then we can only do what is left open to us and that is to seek arbitration, first through the Speaker, and then, on the very big items, we have to go to the people of the country to get their opinion on whether they want to proceed with matters so vital as free trade with the United States of America and a Meech Lake Accord which is changing the basic law of this country.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention, when I entered the House earlier today, to get involved in this debate. I think it is advantageous for government Members not to speak because opposition Members are making quite a spectacle of themselves. 1 think it is good for Canadians from coast to coast to see the two opposition Parties, side by side, hand-in-hand, telling the people of Canada that they do not want to work this summer. They all want to be up at their cottages, beside their swimming pools, out at the lake. They do not want to be here working. I should point out to them that that is why they were elected. They were elected to come to Ottawa and to be in the House of Commons to promote the legislation that will help Canada.


James Douglas Manly: Do you have a family?


Rob Nicholson: I could say that to them, but 1 will not. They are making a spectacle of themselves. The longer this debate goes on, the more advantageous it is to me as a government Member and to other government Members. However, that is not why I entered this debate.


James Douglas Manly: Will you be sitting here all the time when the House is sitting?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is such a thing as courtesy when it comes to debate. The Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) has the floor.


Rob Nicholson: That is good for Canadians to see and hear as well. That kind of behaviour is helpful to the Government.
1 decided to enter this debate because of comments made a little earlier by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). Those of us who were sitting in the House will recall that she said something to the effect that there had been no contribution made by the Hamilton-area Members of Parliament. She went so far as to say that there were Hamilton-area Members who had not said anything of substance on some of the major issues. When I hear nonsense like that, it behoves me and everyone who is present in the House on a day-to-day basis and is involved with committee work and constituency work to challenge statements like the one made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.
As the Hon. Member was saying that, 1 had to think of my four colleagues from the Hamilton area and of some of the contributions 1 know they have made. You are well acquainted with the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), Mr. Speaker. I do not have to remind you of the contributions of the Hon. Member for Burlington as chief government Whip in
the Cabinet in which you served in the Thirty-first Parliament. He is presently the Chairman of the private Members' committee.
The whole idea of parliamentary reform may be out of fashion. We have seen on a day-to-day basis the actions of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party and how they are trying to thwart parliamentary reform, but Members like the Hon. Member for Burlington, who is the chairman of the private Members' committee, are spearheading reform and are true to the spirit of reform for private Members. That Hon. Member should be congratulated on that account by all Members of Parliament.
I thought as well of my good friend and colleague, a good friend of this House and, I would suggest, a good friend of Canadians, the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson). We are aware that he is Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We know of his contributions on that committee and of his contributions in the House. One of the things that has always struck me about him, and I met him just shortly after being elected, is that he is one of those individuals who works day and night on behalf of his constituents in the Hamilton area. Not a day goes by that he is not involved in some way in trying to solve problems. I ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and other members of the New Democratic and Liberal Parties, is that not the kind of Member that Canada wants? Is that not the kind of Member that Canada should have in the House of Commons? I know that the people of his riding are very pleased and honoured to have the Hon. Member for Hamilton West represent them in this House.
I thought as well of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott). I am aware, of course, that he is Chairman of the Standing Committee on Secretary of State. I know how involved he is in the day-to-day operations of this House and of his many valuable interventions on behalf of all Canadians and particularly on behalf of the people of Hamilton-Wentworth. As someone who does not come from the Hamilton area, I think of all he has done and said on behalf of the Hamilton airport in order to improve service there. I am sure that the people of the Hamilton area and indeed the people of the Niagara area from which I come appreciate the very valuable service he has done for that area and for many other areas over the past 10 years.
Finally, I come to the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin). I would guess that I know her the best of those four Members of Parliament, having served with her on the special committee on child care. I know as well that she is the Chairman of the National Progressive Conservative Party and I know of the valuable work she does there.
I do know as well that long after the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is but a footnote in the Thirty-third Parliament, the contributions of the Hon. Member for Lincoln in the area of child care will not be forgotten. The report of the committee


of which she was chairman is something that will be of lasting contribution to the well-being of Canadian children and something that will live on far beyond the life of this Parliament.
What Canada needs is more people like the Hon. Member for Lincoln and more people like the Conservative Members from Hamilton. If we had more Members from the Hamilton area as effective as the four Progressive Conservative Members, it would be better for the Hamilton area and certainly better for Canada.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East says that the Progressive Conservative Members from the Hamilton area do not speak enough. I just wonder if it has ever occurred to her even once that perhaps she speaks too much, that she speaks too much for the good that she does.
Members of the Opposition are saying that we should call the election right now, dissolve the House. That is their solution to the problems that face Canada. The Hon. Member from Mississauga made a very good point. If we called an election now, redistribution would not be in effect. There are presently two Members of Parliament from the Mississauga area. In the Brampton area, and in Mississauga as well, there are as many as four times the national population average for one riding. It is easy to say that the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) and the two Members from Mississauga are four times as effective as Members from the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, but I do not think that is an answer. I do not think it is fair to the people from those areas to have the opposition Parties call for an immediate dissolution of Parliament.
I think of the abortion question as well. For a number of my colleagues, this is a very important issue. There is no abortion law on the books of Canada right now. That means that unborn children are being killed because there is no protection for them. On whose conscience would it be if this Parliament fails to act on that?
I am aware that the very reasonable approach of the Government, one that was alluded to in the editorial in today's Globe and Mail, is being fought in the name of democracy by the members of the New Democratic and Liberal Parties. I think it is a shame that they are opposing bringing forward that resolution that can and will do so much to protect unborn children.
I think as well of the refugee Bills. We would be much further ahead if we did not have this stalling. Who is to blame for the fact that Canada does not have a rational, working refugee determination system? It is the Members of the Liberal Party, the Party of the Member for Hamilton East How many thousands of people have come into this country and abused the system because Bills C-55 and C-84 have not long since been passed?
Extension of Sittings
With regard to the complaints of the Liberal Party, they should tell their colleagues in the Senate that they should be sitting every day, they should be spending 24 hours a day down the hall in order to get this legislation through Parliament because that is what Canadians are demanding.


Mr. Kilgour:: They don't sit Mondays.


Rob Nicholson: I am informed that they do not sit Mondays. They should be sitting Mondays, Saturdays, and around the clock to clean up the backlog of legislation which has been sent to them by this House.
Members of the Opposition do not want to be here and it is good for Canadians to hear that. Members of the Opposition want to be in their ridings across the country. The nonsense that you hear on a day-to-day basis in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, is only equalled by the nonsense, misinformation, and fear they are spreading across the country.
My own riding of Niagara Falls is no exception. Recently the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was in town. I do not know how often he has been to the Niagara Peninsula. He is like some of those self-proclaimed experts on the Niagara Peninsula. They blow in for a cup of coffee, stay for an hour, and say: "I'm an expert on the Niagara Peninsula, I'll tell you that free trade is no good for the area". Every time they open their mouths in that way they show just how little they know about the Niagara Peninsula.
They make comments about the grape and wine industry. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) in the House. He is going to bring forward a proposal which will assist that industry. It will be one of the most constructive things that has happened to that industry in years.
The Leader of the Opposition and other Members come to the Niagara Peninsula and say that the free trade agreement is no good, it should be torn up, it is bad for the Niagara area. That is nonsense. They only say that because they never talk to anyone on the Niagara Peninsula. They pretend that the Niagara Peninsula is a one-industry area and base their comments on that single industry.
That is absolutely wrong. The Niagara Peninsula is as diverse as is any other area in Canada. If they spent two hours on the Niagara Peninsula instead of one they could drop by the Ford Motor Corporation. The Ford Motor Corporation has approached me and told me that as their representative I must support the free trade agreement because everything they make in Niagara Falls is shipped across the border into the United States. That is why they need open access to the borders and that is why they support the free trade agreement.
The general manager of General Motors has sent a letter to every single employee of General Motors Canada saying that this agreement is good for General Motors, good for the auto industry, good for Oshawa, good for St. Catharines, and good for Canada. Members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties never refer to that. They forget about that.


Public Service Employment Act
If they spent a little more time in my area they might drop by the TRW plant. I was there and at the Hayes Dana plant. I asked the managers and people who work there whether they can compete in an open market. They said that they will not only compete but will do very well. They do not compete only on a North American basis. The auto parts made on the Niagara Peninsula are world competitive. They tell me that my job is to ensure that the border remains open and they will do very well. That is never referred to by the NDP or the Liberals.
They never stopped in at Brunner Manufacturing, another company with huge exports to the United States. I was at Edsha Corporation two weeks ago. That company is only one year old and at that moment was hiring its one hundred and forty-first and one hundred and forty second employee in the auto parts industry. Their message to me was the same, keep the border open. They are there in order to export into the United States.
Members of the New Democratic Party and Members of the Liberal Party are interested only in spreading fear and misinformation in the Niagara Peninsula. I will not stand by while misinformation and fear is spread by socialists and Members of the Liberal Party. I will not stand by while those who do not know a thing about the Niagara Peninsula blow in and proclaim themselves experts. I will fight that, here in the House of Commons, in my riding, and across Canada.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to enter into this debate. I would like to explain to the Canadian people watching the proceedings of the House on television this afternoon what this debate is really all about. The Government has requested, through a motion, to extend the sitting hours of Parliament in order that Parliament can deal with pieces of legislation which the Government insists it needs.
One of the chief pieces of legislation is the legislation which would put into law the agreement signed between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of this country, the Reagan-Mulroney trade deal. The Opposition, both the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, are quite opposed to this piece of legislation, mainly because we believe that the Government has no mandate to proceed with this.
We believe that by extending the hours of Parliament and the number of days that Parliament will sit in the summer, the Government has torn up the rule books by which Parliament governs itself. As opposition Members it is our duty, in the parliamentary system, to try to prevent the Government from proceeding with its plans. We have heard government Members state that the Government needs this legislation to extend the sitting hours because the Government was elected to govern and needs this extended sitting in order to do so.
There is so much in Canadian parliamentary democracy which depends upon consensus. It is true that there are fundamental differences between political Parties in terms of
our outlook on how the country should be governed. However, there is also a general agreement-and that is why Parliament can work-that the Government should be able to govern, that the Opposition does have a role, and that Parliament should be able to function.
Very often this consensus is unstated. We will rise in our place in Parliament and object to particular pieces of legislation, but at some stage we recognize that it is the Government's right to proceed with its legislation and allow the vote to occur. Thus, legislation becomes law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have 14 minutes for debate after the division is called this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order! It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT PARTICIPATION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN ELECTORAL ACTIVITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should keep its promise to permit public servants to participate in electoral activities by amending the Public Service Employment Act in order to implement recommendations numbered 11.1 through 11.7 of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Hull- Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) for seconding my motion M-149 dealing with the political rights of public servants.
Mr. Speaker, I do not need to tell you that this question has been the subject of many Private Members' Bills in the last few years.
The purpose of all these bills was to broaden the political rights of federal public servants and to seek a fair balance between the political rights and freedoms granted by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the political neutrality of public servants, i.e. their impartiality and ability to serve the state without political bias.
Many Private Members' Bills and motions over the last ten years at least have always been to the point. It is simply a matter of clarifying Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act, a section that is restrictive and open to interpretation and which in every election causes us problems, in the National Capital anyway, because we are never sure whether or not public servants can participate in politics. I am one of


those who think that it is time for this House, this Parliament, to take an unequivocal position on this issue. First of all, we would settle an important matter once and for all. Second, some 200,000 public servants would know exactly what their rights are in future and to what extent they can take part in the democratic electoral process.
Mr. Speaker, the main reason I am speaking today to debate a motion presented to the House last October 2 is to report where matters stand. We all know in this House that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) has a Bill, C-273, now before a committee and it has been thoroughly studied. I think that it will come back to the House in a few days-at least, I hope so-because the last time we met, we agreed to adopt a somewhat amended Bill, but one which I think represents serious work by Members of the House and their professional advisors, including many witnesses who came to speak to us about this political Bill.
The federal Government has, from time to time, been made aware of the need to expand and clarify political rights. The D'Avignon Report ordered by the previous government followed a thorough study by parliamentarians on labour relations in the Public Service of Canada. It took nearly a year to examine problems relating to the need for changing, and especially updating, regulations and legislation governing employee-employer relations.
The Report of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle was published in 1979. The report contained a complete chapter on political participation-Chapter 11. In the introduction to the Special Committee's report, we see on page 9 one of the issues examined by the Committee, and I am referring to political participation. I quote, from page 9:
Employees should generally enjoy greater freedom to participate actively in the political process, unless an indication of an employee's partisan political interests would compromise the reputation of the public service for impartiality or would place the individual in a conflict of interest with effective job performance.
That is very clear and succinct. In his report, d'Avignon makes seven recommendations which I refer to in my motion and which I would like to see Parliament incorporate in a new bill.
I think that with Bill C-273 introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West, the Government now has a Private Member's Bill that has been properly tested and proven in committee and which will come back to us in its amended form. I would like to ask the Government to examine this Bill, after which it could perhaps take the essential part and submit it to the House as a Government Bill. I am asking the Government to do so because I know that as Private Members we only have one hour from time to time, and it is not always easy for backbenchers to get their bills passed.
Luck is of course a factor, because items of Private Member's Business are selected by random draw. That is in fact how my own motion No. 149 was selected, and Bill C-273,
Public Service Employment Act
which is a full-fledged Bill, will have to go through the same process. In other words, it will be a matter of luck, not of necessity. Earlier, on my way here, one of my assistants, Pierre Tremblay, reminded me of an expression used by a famous biologist, Jacques Monod, who says in his book "Le hasard et la necessite" that sometimes chance decides but it is not always easy.
In the case of Bill C-273, the Government should eliminate the chance factor and let necessity cast the deciding vote. It should say: We will make the Bill our responsibility. We will introduce it under Government Orders and Members will be able to consider this Bill in the House very shortly. Otherwise, it will be a matter of luck, and we may not be lucky enough between now and the next election to consider Bill C-273 on third reading, Mr. Speaker. I may remind the House that when the Bill is next called for consideration in the House, it will be for the report stage and third reading.
In fact, the Bill is almost home free. That is why I don't think we should leave the future of this item of Private Members' Business to chance.
As I said earlier, the purpose of my motion is to increase the awareness of Hon. Members and the public listening to us of the political rights of public servants. There are many myths and misconceptions about the rights of federal public servants. In my final comments, I will try to summarize what the situation is to date with respect to the rights of federal public servants.
Mr. Speaker, I will not read to you from the D'Avignon Report. Basically, D'Avignon was in favour of the British system. Public servants are divided into three groups, and the senior group, consisting of those persons who advise the Government, is excluded.
Intermediate groups are allowed to exercise their political rights, subject to approval by the Public Service Commission. The third category, which includes the vast majority of public servants who do not give advice on matters of Government policy, would be entirely free to participate in partisan political activity.
Bill C-273 in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa West reflected the same concept, to a certain extent, but I think it will be amended. In fact, I know it will because the Committee, after hearing a number of important witnesses, intends to simplify the process.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at how this matter has evolved, there have been many items of Private Members' Business here in the House, as I said before. In fact, there was Bill C-231, introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for first reading on October 20, 1986; Bill C-247 was introduced for first reading by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) on January 26, 1987; and finally, Bill C-273, introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West for first reading on November 26, 1987 and for second reading on February 9, 1988.


Public Service Employment Act
There are now before the House four bills dealing with the same subject matter, plus several motions including mine, which was intended to provide firm and sustained support for the expansion of political rights.
Mr. Speaker, I think this proves people's is interest in this matter. Actually, Bill C-273 has passed the second reading stage in this House. This is a plus, because as we all know, these Bills are often literally killed by anyone who wants to talk the Bill out, which means the debate ends without a vote and the Bill is dropped.
I am therefore pleased the House agreed to adopt the second reading stage of Bill C-273 and that we have finished consideration of the Bill in committee.
There have also been public servants who appealed to the courts. We remember the decision handed down by Judge Walsh this spring, I believe, in a case where Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act was challenged. Very briefly, I would like to recall that Judge Walsh of the Federal Court said that he did not question the constitutionality of Section 32 but would expand, in his interpretation, the political rights of public servants.
So, as I said earlier, we have had several items of Private Members' Business, as well as representations by the unions and by individuals who went as far as the Federal Court.
I mention Judge Walsh's decision because it compelled the Public Service Commission to clarify its position by issuing a series of instructions to public servants on May 11, a little over a month ago. In a letter which I suppose it sent to all Members- in any case I received one-the Commission indicated that it was essential at this time to inform public servants about the kind of political activities in which they could be involved under the present legislation. Consequently, the Commission was sending a document containing general guidelines that would help to define the limits to political participation by public servants.
Mr. Speaker, the aim of the Public Service Commission, Bill C-273 and my fellow Members of this House is to maintain public trust in the federal Government and also to ensure the freedom of expression and participation that all Canadians have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Public Service Employment Act already authorizes political rights, as we know. I bring it up briefly here, because it seems important to me. Public servants are not deprived of rights; rather, they are limited. Among the acceptable rights, which I think it is worth reminding everyone of, are the right: (1) to sign a candidate's official nomination papers; (2) to express their personal opinions openly, without making partisan public statements that would openly show support for a political Party. Mr. Speaker, I took them from the Commission guidelines that are as recent as May 11.
(3) to speak as a member of the public at meetings where representatives of the political Parties take part and to
question the candidates and assist them; (4) to attend political meetings; (5) to make contributions to a party's election fund; (6) to hold membership in a political Party; (7) to participate in policy-making discussions of a Party; (8) to be a delegate to a political Party's leadership convention; (9) to help a candidate or a Party without attracting attention to themselves, as for example, by addressing correspondence; and (10) to run for nomination or election, provided that unpaid leave has been sought from the Public Service Commission for this purpose.
Mr. Speaker, those are the rights that exist today. They are in fact quite broad, but for some of us, they are still too restrictive. I am one of those who think that they could be broadened some more and that is what we here in this region, anyway, who are most affected, wish to do with the help of our colleagues from all parties: to pass Bill C-273, which in our opinion would be much more generous and clearer in the application of political rights. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I shall support Bill C-273 when it comes up for debate in the House soon. With the support of the Government Members, I suppose, we may together be able to convince the Government that it is a necessity and that this most important question should not be left to the luck of the draw.
Mr. Speaker, I received some telephone calls recently on Bill C-273 as amended. I know that it is not customary or proper procedure to speak to Bill C-273 at this stage. But I would just like to point out to the House that some public servants have told me how important it is for the law to protect "whistleblowers."
I would like to end my remarks by saying that I have participated in debate in this House this year, I think twice in January, trying to explain about whistleblowers, those who report publicly on an employer who does things which, in their mind, could threaten the security and safety and health of the country. There may be a need for us to look attentively at this amendment to protect public servants who may report on wrongdoing by the employer.
I would like to just go back to a debate we had in this House in January of this year and state that, indeed, I believe there should be a disposition in the Bill to look after and protect those public servants who honestly believe the employer is asking them to perform duties which would not be, in their view, in the best interest of the country.

I think some way has to be provided. In my speech in January, I spoke of an ombudsman, someone to whom public servants could go to talk about their fears, their concerns, with no danger to themselves. A public servant who in good faith thinks that his employer is asking him to do something contrary to the public interest would at least have somewhere to go and report the actions or instructions or directions that he thinks contrary to public security and therefore the national


interest. I do not think that this is in Bill C-273. I would be happy if there were some way to include it and I think that some public servants would feel much easier.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to say that this issue is of the utmost importance for me. It is a basic question. This is a matter that requires a continuing interest, as Members in this House have found over the last few years, and I believe we are all agreed to proceed. I would ask the Government once more to accept the recommendations made by the Committee of the House that examined Bill C-273, to make it its own and to put it before the House for consideration at the current stage, in other words. I can assure them that the Liberal caucus, for whom I am speaking in my capacity as Public Service critic, will support prompt and quick passage of the measure.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on the motion of my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), a motion which states:
That, in the opinion of this House the Government should keep its promise to permit public servants to participate in electoral activities by amending the Public Service Employment Act...
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government does keep its promises. It has kept more than 80 per cent of them so far, with a significant amount of time left in our mandate. With a little more co-operation from the opposition Parties, particularly the Chief Opposition Whip perhaps the rest of those promises could be fulfilled before we go back to the people.
What was our promise in 1984 on the issue before us this afternoon? Let me read briefly from our campaign statement on this important issue:
The Progressive Conservative Party favours a general removal of the restrictions on political activity, especially for those public servants covered by collective agreements. These restrictions are unnecessary and may not be justifiable under the terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There are some senior public servants whose job responsibilities are very political in nature, and whose rights should be somewhat restricted to prevent conflict of interest, but we are confident that these people could be covered separately, without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process.
That was our Party's position in the 1984 general election, and I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and in particular to my colleagues on the government side that our Party and the House is on the threshold of fulfilling that commitment, thanks to the second reading and all-Party committee support for Bill C-273, a Bill that I introduced on November 26, 1987, and which received approval in principle on February 9, 1988. I particularly urge members of my own Party to give this Bill their support when it comes back to the House, hopefully at the earliest possible date.
You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have spoken on this issue a number of times in this Chamber. The first time was in my maiden speech in November, 1984. I have since spoken on a number of occasions both inside and outside the House. I
Public Service Employment Act
wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who, long before I arrived here, spoke on this issue and did his best to ensure a change in the law to improve the situation for his constituents and mine. I congratulate him for introducing the motion today and for his support in the legislative committee on Bill C-273.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for his support and helpful suggestions for amendments, and my Progressive Conservative colleagues on the committee, the chairman, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) who was a consummate chairman, and the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Carleton (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton (Mr. Tupper), the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Ms. Mailly), and the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau

Labelle (Mr. Moore), all of whom worked very hard to improve the Bill that I introduced. The product which is coming out of committee now is a much improved Bill which merits the support of the whole House.
I would also like to thank the many witnesses who appeared before the committee, many of whom had helpful suggestions and ideas, a number of which were incorporated into the amended Bill.
I would like to take a few minutes to explain why I think that Bill C-273 is worthy of support and meets the objectives of the motion before us today. As the quote that I read from our campaign promise indicated, reference was made in particular to those public servants who are covered by collective bargaining rights. That essentially is the approach which the amended Bill C-273 has taken. How has it done that? It has done it by basically adopting the distinctions contained in the Public Service Staff Relations Act in a new definition of politically restricted employee contained in Clause 3 of the Bill. The definition section states that a politically restricted employee means any employee who comes within the meaning of "a person employed in a managerial or confidential capacity" as defined in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
There are a number of references in the PSSRA to other categories which have not been incorporated, but specifically included are employees employed in a position confidential to the Governor General, a Minister of the Crown, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or the Federal Court, the Deputy Head of a Department, or the Chief Executive Officer of any other portion of the public service; and also an employee who has executive duties and responsibilities in relation to the development and administration of government programs; and finally, an employee employed in a position confidential to any person described in subparagraph 2 which is the executive officer.
In addition, there is a designation provision similar to that contained in the Public Service Staff Relations Act which empowers the Treasury Board under certain criteria to


Public Service Employment Act
designate another employee who would otherwise be politically unrestricted.
The power of the Treasury Board is one which we have found in the law and in the administration of the public service for a number of years. In my view, it gives us the balance that as parliamentarians we should be looking for. After all, we are trying to balance two competing principles here, one the individual rights of public servants, and the other the need to maintain an impartial, neutral, and effective public service for the country.
I am pleased to tell the House that those objectives are set out at the outset of the Bill in the purpose clause which states that the purpose of the Act is to extend to deputy heads and employees who are subject to the Public Service Employment Act a fuller measure of political rights while adhering to the principle of the impartiality of the public service.
The political rights that have been given are set out in clauses 4 and 5. All employees have the right to vote, to make financial contributions to Parties, to be a member of a political Party, to attend and participate in any political meeting and, subject to subsection 6, to express opinions on matters of public interest.
Clause 5 gives to unrestricted employees the additional and central right to work in a campaign for or against and to demonstrate support for or opposition to candidates in federal, provincial, or territorial elections, or federal, provincial, or territorial political Parties; to be a candidate in such an election; to collect funds for a political Party in such an election; and to hold office in a political Party.
There are certain prohibitions on public statements for Deputy Ministers, and for all employees not to make statements that conflict directly with the duties of the employee. The designation provisions found in Clause 14 of the Bill give to the Treasury Board this power to designate as politically restricted an employee who has responsibilities for providing advice directly to senior levels of the public service and the Government on policy and program development. There is a procedure set out with the provisions of natural justice applying, adequate notice, and so on which allows an employee so designated to appeal that designation.
In summary, my view is that this Bill meets the concerns of the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa

Vanier. It should meet the support of all Members of the House because it deals with the essential liberties of Canadians: whether a group of Canadians has the right to free speech, free assembly, and the right to work peacefully and lawfully for democratic change.
The current provisions of Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act go too far to be reasonable. The law turns the basic rights of a large number of Canadians over to the
whims of unelected officials. The interpretation and implementation of this law have resulted in unreasonable limitations on even the smallest and most innocuous of political activities for public servants.
Public servants are people. They grow sick. They grow old. They are widowed. They are parents. They are taxpayers. Public servants, like other Canadians, benefit from social programs and pay for them. They have the right like everyone else to participate in the decisions that affect their lives.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in this debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I think that the motion of the Hon. Member is somewhat irrelevant given the presence before the House of Bill C-273.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was put there before it.


Jack Harris: It may well have been there before that. However, I want to talk about the process of this whole issue before Parliament. By now, it seems that there is no disagreement whatsoever among the political Parties about the basic fact that public sector workers in Canada ought to have political rights. It is a position which was advanced by this Party many, many years ago, going back as far as 1970 or 1971, in our conventions. It is a position that we have taken consistently over the years.
In the last Parliament there were two pieces of legislation presented under Private Members' Business by our caucus. That was when the Party of the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier was in power. However, they did not get anywhere.
In the election of 1984, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) quite readily pointed out, when asked by the Public Service Alliance of Canada what the position of the Conservative Party was, the Conservative Party said that, yes, it favoured a general removal of restrictions on political activity, especially for those public servants governed by collective agreements. Members of the Party said that there are some senior public servants whose job responsibilities are very political in nature and whose rights should be somewhat restricted to prevent conflict of interest. We are confident, they said, that these people could be covered separately without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process. Nobody could disagree with that, the position of the Conservative Party back in 1984.
Why is it, then, that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West who has done very stalwart work over the last number of years on this very issue has to come here today to urge the members of his Party to give support to Bill C-273 when it comes back to the House? Why is that? He brought in a Private Member's Motion. He supported the Private Member's Motions of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) who presented two of them in Private Members' Business.
The reason for that is because the Conservative Government has not brought forward such legislation. The legislation had


to be brought forward by individual Members of Parliament. Thus it comes as no surprise that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West has to get up to urge Members of his own Party to give support to it when it comes back to the House. Not only that, he has to bring it in as a Private Members' Bill, Bill C-273, in order to get this legislation debated and, hopefully, put into practice.
The Conservative Government has not kept its promise which it made to the people of Canada in 1984. The Hon. Member for Ottawa West has kept a promise that he made to his constituents when he was seeking election, but the Conservative Government has not.
Again in a period of two weeks we are reminded of the importance of the activities of the committee of this House which was chaired by the former Member for St. John's East which brought about reforms to this House. Those reforms allow the type of initiative taken by the Hon. Members for Ottawa West and Ottawa Centre to come before the House and, hopefully, if Conservative Members of the House support the party policy, to become legislation.
There was an example of that just two weeks ago in the form of a Bill brought forward by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). She brought forward legislation on a matter of controversy which received the support of the House as a result of the reforms to Parliament that were brought about by the all-Party committee chaired by the former Member for St. John's East.
It is unfortunate that in light of the Conservative Government's unwillingness to include a piece of legislation on political rights for public sector workers as part of its agenda-an agenda about which we heard the Deputy House Leader speak today, so much so that it has to extend the sittings of Parliament over the summer to get some items through-that this Bill was not part of the 204 Bills that the Government brought forward since September of 1984.
Why did it take the Hon. Member for Ottawa West and the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to bring forward Private Members' legislation to try to get through this House policy and legislation which reflects, apparently, the policy of the Conservative Party, apparently the policy of the Liberal Party, but certainly the policy of this Party? This is something for which we have fought consistently since 1970 at least.
In the last Parliament New Democrats brought forward legislation in the form of Private Members' Bills to gain political rights for public servants in Canada. In that session of Parliament, and because there is a one-hour time limit on Private Members' Business, the person who talked it out on that occasion was a former Liberal Member of Parliament who represented Ottawa Centre. He talked the matter out beyond the hour so that the legislation died. We now apparently have support from some Members of the Liberal caucus, most notably the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, who supports this legislation as a result of his motion today.
Public Service Employment Act
There are other Members from the Ottawa area who vigorously support the idea of political rights for public sector workers. However, it is time that the Government made a commitment to bring forward Bill C-273. I understand that in the all-Party committee there appears to be a general agreement. Some details remain to be worked out. However, it appears that that legislation will be ready to be brought back to the House very soon.
If we are looking for legislation that this Party is prepared to co-operate with the Government on, if the Government is prepared to bring it forward, and if the Government is prepared to instruct Members of the Cabinet to vote in favour of it and to follow up on what is said in black and white as Conservative Party policy, then we should see that legislation very quickly. We should see support from Members of the Government, not just from diligent back-benchers of the Government.
It is an important right. If the Conservative Party was willing to admit back in 1984 that the restrictions on the rights of public servants may not be justifiable under the terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why has it not brought forward legislation to put an end to that discrimination? Why has it left it to private Members to do this type of work?
I wish to commend all those private Members, especially the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre who has done yeoman's service on this issue, in that he brought forward two Private Members' Bills and has taken a court case on it. I also commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and the Hon. Member for Ottawa West. I hope that this legislation, Bill C-273, gets through the committee quickly and back to the House to be passed before the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) ... or rather the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I love my constituency . . . and I would not feel inclined to represent the constituency of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
I would like indeed to commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for introducing in October 1987 that motion inviting the Government to allow public servants to participate in electoral activities by amending the Public Service Employment Act.
I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) who just rose that it is indeed because of the parliamentary reform initiated by his predecessor Mr. James McGrath, the then Hon. Member for St. John's East, that the Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) very soon will be before the House for enactment.


Public Service Employment Act
This is because the Government really believed in parliamentary reform, and I must remind the Hon. Member that the Prime Minister himself (Mr. Mulroney) appointed Mr. McGrath, knowing him as a person really commited to parliamentary reform, someone also who had a lot to contribute to parliamentary reform, a very independent-minded man, with very progressive ideas on the role of MP's. This is why the Prime Minister appointed him to establish a Committee with colleagues from the House in order to examine parliamentary reform.
During that exercise, we looked at the role of Hon. Members during the hour provided for Private Members' Business and we concluded that in order to enhance the role of Members during this hour, the hour itself should be enhanced to bring much more direct and specific results. We had to make sure that more bills would be referred to legislative committees, for at the time bills were considered by the standing committees of the House. So it was important that these bills be referred to legislative committees, and it was precisely to enhance the role of Members that the Government, having already begun studying a bill to extend the political rights of public employees, examined the measure sponsored by my collegaue from Ottawa West and decided to promote his bill to increase the standing of Private Members' hour and speed up parliamentary reform.
Therefore I fail to see why the Hon. Member for St. John's East would want to suggest that the Government did not live up to its promise, while in fact it killed two birds with one stone.
We have a bill which is very well drafted and meets the standards set forth by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, a bill which indeed will give ... I should not say give because we are talking about rights, but give back or acknowledge that public employees are properly entitled to wide-ranging political rights while at the same time respecting what we have always advocated, namely the professional objectivity of public employees.
Mr. Speaker, you know that federal employees serve the public, so their professional attributes must be protected if they are to do a good job. This is why it was not easy, it was not black and white as the Hon. Member for St. John's East is suggesting, we had to state that one day we would eventually do the proper thing and acknowledge their political rights, that it could be done right away to show respect for professional attributes and for the public at large because it is entitled to objective services from federal employees.
As the Government measure was progressing, our colleague from Ottawa West introduced a Bill which was very much along the lines of the work we as Government Members of the National Capital Commission, had been doing as a group. So we contacted our colleague and told him: "David, if you were to change certain things, if you were to amend your Bill this way or that way, if you agreed to that perhaps we migh concentrate all our efforts on your Bill, precisely because we
want to enhance the role of the individual Member". And that is why we did that. We were very consistent and, as I said, we killed two birds with one stone.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, in January 1984, I had the honour to be appointed Executive Director to our National Advisory Committee on Policies which prepared the so-call "Bible" for the election which was to be held in 1984. This committee was chaired by Senator Arthur Tremblay. It was made up of Canadian men and women involved in and committed to public life and it prepared our party platform. One of its main elements was to recognize the political rights of civil servants in addition to suggesting a Parliamentary reform. Because Mr. McGrath was at the time a Member of the Opposition, he made a very worthwhile contribution to our National Advisory Committee on Policies. Again, I repeat, consistency. This dates back to January 1984.
When we assumed power, we immediately took action to recognize these political rights, as we had promised we would. I personally drafted a private bill, because I wanted to make sure that in line with the work we had done-for as you know, Mr. Speaker, a newly elected Government has a lot of work to do to finalize a great many Bills left over by the previous administration ... I just could not see how the new Government could introduce a Bill dealing with this issue before at least a year or two. So, I said to myself, I am not going to wait.
1 had drafted a Bill, but I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary in September 1986, and as you know, the practice in the House does not allow Parliamentary Secretaries to use Private Members' Hour to introduce private bills. So, I withdrew this Bill together with a number of others which I had introduced. Then, the Government started to work on its own.
When the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) introduced his Bill in November 1987, we worked on this Bill which, I think, will meet the needs of our civil servants while respecting the public's right to their professional attributes.
I should like to emphasize once more the efforts made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) in this area, because, contrary to what the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) said, I do not think it is for lack of trying that he failed to convince the Government of the importance of all his efforts. It was due to a combination of circumstances. The House is called upon to address a great many issues. Public life itself suggests priorities. The fact that some bills must wait their turn does not reflect on their value, because emergencies occur, and budgetary legislation must be dealt with. The House must deal with supply, Mr. Speaker, irrespective of the schedule.
For this reason, I find it unfortunate that the Hon. Member for St. John's East, who replaces a man whom the House held in such high esteem, who was appreciated for his open mindedness and great generosity and who would never have looked down on the efforts of his colleagues, because I feel he would learn something by reading everything the former


Member for St. John's East said in this House, and by listening to our colleagues who had the pleasure to work with him, for he would realize that the spirit of the House does not allow this kind of small-minded remarks, when today, thanks to the efforts of the Hon. Member for Ottawa West, we are going to achieve an objective of the Progressive Conservative Party who wanted to recognize the political rights of civil servants as well as the wishes which have been expressed before by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, to recognize the political rights of civil servants. It is a great day, Mr. Speaker, which we should not be marred with petty remarks.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak tonight but given the importance of this issue for the National Capital Region and given the fine speeches made by my colleague, I have decided to also take part in the discussion and offer my comments on this subject. Indeed, I must tell my colleague from Ottawa-West (Mr. Daubney), who 1 take this opportunity to congratulate for his Bill C-273, that I hope he will be successful, but until everything is wrapped up, Mr. Speaker, one can hardly trust in victory. The issue is not a new one, it is in fact quite old, almost as old, I believe, as the Public Service itself. And there is a simple reason for that. Those who have stood up for civil servants in this House, are for the most part the federal members or representatives of the two or three Parties who live in the National Capital Region.
I can remember that we fought vigorously some years ago for civil servants. Whether in the case of retired civil servants or past and present civil servants, we have always been at their side and this is normal since most people in the National Capital Area are civil servants. In the final analysis, we must defend our constituents and since they are federal civil servants, we are at their side and always will be.
I do not think that this should be made a political issue as such. Issues dealing with federal civil servants should be dealt with in non partisan fashion, and all the more so when the issue concerns political activity.
Attempts have been made to change the situation for I don't know how long. Jolly well if it works and I don't care one bit if it is an election promise, just as long as the majority of our civil servants get what they want.
And this is why I submit that we are in an awkward position as members representing their constituents, simply because we are always caught up in a partisan issue when we have a regional interest to protect, and I say regional, not local. The National Capital Region is after all a region of some importance and how can we be blamed for representing people who happen to be civil servants.
We have already had severe problems with Section 32, mainly concerning the referendum issue in 1980. I remember asking the Solicitor General of the day several questions. He would have been willing to do something but had his hands tied by the vagueness of the term "political activity". The word
Public Service Employment Act
"refedendum" was not included in the Public Service Employment Act. What does "political activity" actually mean? Does that mean that it only happens during an election? I think so, in accordance with section 32. Then again, is applauding the Hon. Member for Gatineau in a political meeting a political activity which warrants a suspension? I know that gesture could also be interpreted in all its glory, so to speak.
Some people interpret words. That's why I say that political activities should be clearly defined, because there have been abuses and there will be more. Is this legislation or the proposed reform going to allow political activities across the board? I don't think so. I think we should get down to business, like the committee did, and determine whether all activities should be permitted or not within the Public Service.
I know some people will always try to exercise their right to democracy in all its magnificence, which is also quite normal, but we will have to put some restrictions in certain cases. I recall when the federal Liberal association of my very own and very lovely constituency of Hull-Aylmer had in fact elected, I would not say inadvertently, but enthusiastically, someone thought to have political activities simply because he was active in union matters within the civil service. So, he received threats, he was told he would have to resign, that Section 32 did not allow such things, and so on. The point I want to make is that civil servants, as someone else mentionned it earlier, are people too. People who live in the National Capital Region, and who work for the federal Government. And that is very evident during an election. Those people do not talk much, they are very reserved, they don't want to be identified with any political Party in particular, and rightly so. They should therefore be able to exercise their rights to democracy just like any other citizen of this Region.
I know it's an old chestnut. People always say: "When you were in power, you didn't do it". Others say: "When you're in power, you don't do it". The reason is simple. It might prove also that, if we were to change the system with a view of strengthening it, backbenchers from a particular region would be able to influence the Government so that legislation beneficial to a region, whatever its politic allegiance can be adopted.
That is my opinion. I think we should seek ways to amend Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. I would add that this should not be valid only during elections, but all the time. Civil servants should be able to participate in the democratic life of their community, their riding or their region just as any other citizen. Many have gone into municipal politics, and I think that they make excellent politicians even if they work for the Public Service. Again, certain restrictions should be imposed. Their activities should not give rise to conflict of interests. There is a long list of activities which are out of bounds to them.
Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent motion in my view. I thank my friend from Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for giving me


Immigration Act, 1976
this opportunity to make a few comments on that very important subject. I know he has been promoting this for a long time, as all other Members from the area. I can even suggest to the Hon. Members for Ottawa West, for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) and for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), and even for Ottawa Carleton (Mr. Turner) that when we were in power, some Liberal Members from the area voted against the Government, along with some Conservative Members at the time. We did this generously and sincerely, but it was hard for us and it was hard also for the then Government. It would be just as hard today if this were to be repeated. But I think that one must have the will to defend one's own ideas, one's own philosophy, and above all else to be a good representative of the people. If we do not do that, we fail in our duty as Members of Parliament, we fail in our oath of office because we no longer defend the interests of the people we are representing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, but the period provided for Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the Order is dropped from the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 17, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Employment and Immigration relating to 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; and the amendments of Mr. Marchi:
That the motion be amended:
(a)	in the proposed amendment to Senate amendment numbered 3 by deleting all the words after the word "be" in subparagraph (II) and substituting the following therefor:
"admitted to that country, if removed from Canada, and would have the right to have the merits of their claim determined in that country;".
(b)	in the proposed amendment to Senate amendment numbered 11 by adding the following words at the end thereof:
"and in regard to an advisory list of safe countries as drafted and defined by the convention refugee determination division;".
And of Mr. Heap:
That the motion be amended in the proposed amendment to Senate amendment numbered 4 by deleting in subparagraph (iii) all the words after "(2)(C)" and substituting the following therefor:
"who the Minister has certified constitutes a danger to the public in Canada; or".
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) in relation to the message of the Senate on Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap), which was
negatived on the following division: {Division No. 393)
 YEAS Members			
Althouse	Gagliano	McCurdy	Angus	Gauthier	Mitchell	Axworthy	Guilbault	Orlikow	Benjamin	(Saint-Jacques)	Parry	Blaikie	Harris	Penner	Boudria	Hopkins	Prud'homme	Caccia	Isabelle	Riis	de Jong Dewar	Jewett Keeper	Rodriguez-29	Foster	MacLellan	Fulton	Manly
NAYS Members	Andre	Grise	Nicholson	ikBelsher	Guilbault	(Niagara Falls)	.Bernier	(Drummond)	Nickerson	Bertrand	Gustafson	Nowlan	Blenkarn	Halliday	Oostrom	Bourgault	Hamilton	Ricard	Caldwell	Hardey	Schellcnberg	Champagne	Hawkes	(Nanaimo Albcrni)	(Champlain)	Hudon	Schcllenberger	Chartrand	Jardine	(Wetaskiwin)	Clark	Joncas	Scott	(Brandon-Souris)	Kelleher	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Cooper	Kilgour	Shields	Cossitt	King	Sparrow	Crofton	Ladouceur	Stackhouse	Crouse	Lanthier	Stewart	Daubney	Lawrence	Taylor	de Cotret	Leblanc	Towers	, :***Desjardins	Lesick	Tremblay	ip-Desrosiers	Lewis	(Quebec-Est)	Domm	Mailly	Turner	fpDuplessis	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Fennell	Mazankowski	Valcourt	Fontaine	McCrossan	Vezina	Fraleigh	McCuish	Vincent	Gottselig	McDermid	Winegard	Gray (Bonaventure-I les-de-	McKinnon Minaker	Wise-75	la-Madeleine) GreenawayMoore


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.			
Pursuant to the agreement reached Friday, June 17, 1988,			
the next question is on the amendment of Mr. Marchi.			1


Jacques Guilbault: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour would take the result of the vote that was just held on the motion of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and then apply it in reverse on the main motion, I believe there would be unanimous consent to proceed that way. However, there would have to be added the vote of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) who just joined us.


Mr. Hamelin:: And mine also!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: And also the vote of the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), who votes on the Government side, I presume!


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

Is there unanimous consent, therefore to apply the vote we have just taken on Mr. Marchi's amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Marchi), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 394)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Gauthier	MitchellAngus	Guilbault	OrlikowAxworthy	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBenjamin	Harris	PennerBlaikie	Hopkins	Prud'hommeBoudria	Isabelle	RiisCaccia	Jewett	Rodriguez-30de Jong	Kaplan	Dewar	Keeper	Foster	MacLellan	Fulton	Manly	Gagliano	McCurdy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Cooper	FraleighBelsher	Cossitt	GottseligBernier	Crofton	GrayBertrand	Crouse	(Bonaventure-IBlenkarn	Daubney	la-Madeleine)Bourgault	de Cotret	GreenawayCaldwell	Desjardins	GriseChampagne	Desrosiers	Guilbault(Champlain)	Domm	(Drummond)Chartrand	Duplessis	GustafsonClark	Fennell	Halliday(Brandon-Souris)	Fontaine	Hamelin
Immigration Act, 1976
Hamilton	Mazankowski	ScottHardey	McCrossan	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Hawkes	McCuish	ShieldsHudon	McDermid	SparrowJardine	McKinnon	StackhouseJoncas	Minaker	StewartKelleher	Moore	TaylorKilgour	Nicholson	TowersKing	(Niagara Falls)	TremblayLadouceur	Nickerson	(Quebec-Est)Lanthier	Nowlan	TurnerLawrence	Oostrom	(Ottawa-Carleton)Leblanc	Ricard	ValcourtLesick	Schellenberg	VezinaLewis	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	VincentMailly	Schellenberger	WinegardMarin	(Wetaskiwin)	Wise-76


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.		
Is there unanimous consent to declare the main motion carried by the same vote?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.		
The House divided on the motion (Mrs. McDougall), which was agreed to on the following division: (Division No. 395)
 YEAS Members		
Andre	Grise	NicholsonBelsher	Guilbault	(Niagara Falls)Bernier	(Drummond)	NickersonBertrand	Gustafson	NowlanBlenkarn	Halliday	OostromBourgault	Hamelin	RicardCaldwell	Hamilton	SchellenbergChampagne	Hardey	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Champlain)	Hawkes	SchellenbergerChartrand	Hudon	(Wetaskiwin)Clark	Jardine	Scott(Brandon-Souris)	Joncas	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cooper	Kelleher	ShieldsCossitt	Kilgour	SparrowCrofton	King	StackhouseCrouse	Ladouceur	StewartDaubney	Lanthier	Taylorde Cotret	Lawrence	TowersDesjardins	Leblanc	TremblayDesrosiers	Lesick	(Quebec-Est)Domm	Lewis	TurnerDuplessis	Mailly	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fennell	Marin	ValcourtFontaine	Mazankowski	VezinaFraleigh	McCrossan	VincentGottselig	McCuish	WinegardGray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway	McDermid McKinnon Minaker Moore
NAYS Members	Wise-76Althouse	Caccia	GauthierAngus	de Jong	GuilbaultAxworthy	Dewar	(Saint-Jacques)Benjamin	Foster	HarrisBlaikie	Fulton	HopkinsBoudria	Gagliano	Isabelle
Extension of Sittings
Jewett	Mitchell	Rodriguez-30
Kaplan	Orlikow
Keeper	Parry
MacLellan	Penner
Manly	Prud'homme
McCurdy	Riis


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The main motion is carried.


MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 16379) and the amendment of Mr. Guilbault, Saint-Jacques (p. 16387).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The floor will be given to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). Perhaps he will wait for 30 seconds to allow Members leave who wish to do so.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, before the vote and before the Private Members' Hour I was centering my remarks on the Government's motion to extend hours of sitting and to extend sitting days into July. The point I was in the process of making is that a large part of our tradition in this House, even though there are three different Parties with different philosophies, is a certain level of consensus and agreement, and it is the level of consensus and agreement that allows our parliamentary system to function. I was also in the process of making the point that at certain critical times, when the Opposition feels that a measure being introduced by the Government goes beyond the bounds of what a Government should normally be doing, it is the duty of the Opposition to try to prevent the Government, within the rules of Parliament, from proceeding with that legislation.
We have seen this on several occasions in the past. One of the historic debates, of course, was the great pipeline debate during which the Liberal Government of the day tried to ram down the throats of Parliament a plan to build a pipeline. In the process, it tore up Parliament's Standing Orders. We saw the same thing again when the Liberal Government of the day, under former Prime Minister Trudeau, brought in its first constitutional proposal. The Opposition, especially the Official Opposition at that time, the Conservative Party, felt that what the Government was doing in that legislation was beyond the normal bounds.
Again we saw the Opposition playing that role when the Liberal Government brought in its National Energy Program. The Opposition at that time claimed that the omnibus Bill the Government introduced was too wide in scope and used the tools available to it to stop the Government and force the Government to back down and introduce several Bills rather than one omnibus trade Bill.
We believe that Parliament has reached another one of those historic points where it is the duty of the Opposition to use every available rule in the book to stop the Government from proceeding with its legislation, namely, the passage of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. As members of the Opposition we feel that the Government has no mandate to undertake such an historic change, not only in the economic and trading patterns of the country, but also in the power structure of the country.
The legislation that the Government has introduced changes the relationship between the federal Government, provincial Governments, and municipal Governments. The legislation gives power to the Cabinet to disallow legislation, whether it is municipal, provincial, or federal, if that legislation is not in agreement with the free trade agreement. This we find intolerable. Therefore, we must use every means at our disposal to thwart the Government in its attempt to change the power structure of the country so radically.
The Government has no mandate. As opposition Members have pointed out in the debate, there was never a mention of such a free trade agreement with the United States in the last election. I seriously wonder if, had this proposal been in front of the electorate in 1984, the results of the election would have been the same. Certainly, everybody would be in agreement that the Government has no mandate to alter so radically the power structure in the country.
Government Members say it is necessary to have this legislation because the Government should be able to govern, and that a handful of Members in the Opposition should not be able to thwart the Government in its attempt to govern. That is not the case. If it was ordinary legislation necessary for governing the country, we in the Opposition might rise and offer some objections or criticisms, but then, through our system of consensus, that legislation would invariably pass. It is not only a case of legislation enabling the Government to govern. We are faced with legislation that dramatically changes how the country is governed. We believe that the Government has no mandate for that. That is why we call upon the Government to have an election before it passes this legislation.
Earlier this afternoon I heard the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) mentioning how unfair this would be because calling an election immediately would mean an election being called on the old boundaries. We do not want to see an election called on the old boundaries. That is not the issue here. However, if the Government did not insist on passing the free trade legislation and held it back until after an election, it could call an election in mid-September or the end of September. We could then proceed and hold an election during the campaign of which this issue would be widely debated and all the ramifications would be explained to the Canadian public and they would have an opportunity of voting and deciding upon such a major reorganization of the power


structure of the country. If the electorate decided to elect a majority of members of the Conservative Party, the Government could then reintroduce this legislation and it would be passed.
The Government does not want to face the electorate on this issue. It wants to ram this legislation through Parliament. I wants to see it enacted before it has the courage to face the Canadian public. As opposition Members, we cannot accept that. Therefore, we will oppose this with every means at our disposal.
Understandably, many Canadians watching this debate will find it very frustrating. They expect Parliament to debate issues and to decide upon matters. In raising points of order and stalling the House in conducting its business the opposition Members take the political risk of doing this. An Opposition does not oppose with all the rules and all the means available to it on a whim. An Opposition recognizes that it takes a tremendous political gamble. An Opposition must play that role if it feels strongly that what the Government is attempting to do is wrong and outside of our tradition and of consensus politics in the British parliamentary system.
We feel very strongly that what the Government is attempting to do negates the essence of parliamentary democracy. Never before has such a major decision on the future of the country been made without direct opinion and representation from the Canadian people. As such, we are opposed to this. We will use all the means available to us to force the Government to backtrack, take back its legislation, and to break it down rather than having a huge omnibus Bill that changes many different Acts and Bills. We will attempt to force the Government to hold an election on this issue and consult the Canadian public about its future that is contained in the Bill that the Government wishes to propose.
The Government has also claimed that the Opposition has thwarted the Government in its ability to govern by holding up many pieces of legislation. The Government is somewhat contradictory on this issue. On the other hand, it claims how successful it has been in passing legislation, and how successful it has been in governing. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say, out of one side of its mouth, that it has governed well by pointing out the many pieces of legislation passed, and at the same time, out of the other side state that the Opposition is preventing it from governing. That just does not wash.
One of the items that the Government has brought up is the immigration Bill that we have just voted on. I remember that last summer there was a great crisis facing Canadians. Canadian shores were going to be invaded by boatloads of refugees. In many ways we were sympathetic to the plight of the Government. Certainly, people coming in under false pretences claiming to be refugees and not being valid refugees were coming to Canada and jumping the line, so to speak, ahead of those people who had applied for immigration status and were waiting. Some action was needed. Whether it was an
Extension of Sittings
emergency, I really doubt. Certainly, the legislation has not been in place and we have not seen boatload after boatload of false refugees invading our shores, be that as it may.
We have heard government Members accusing the Senate of thwarting the will of Parliament and the elected representatives. Indeed, this has disturbed me. The initiatives of the Senate I find disturbing. I find it disturbing that a group of unelected people have the power to thwart the will of the elected representatives. I find this an absolutely terrible situation.
However, has the Government done anything about it? It has been in power now for almost four years. It is on record as being willing to ensure either that we have an elected Senate or that the appointed body of political hacks and flacks does not interfere with the democratic process. On several occasions my Leader offered the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) our support to rectify the situation. But of course the Conservative Party is not interested in rectifying the situation. It wants its own hacks and flacks in the Senate. The only thing it does not like is the group of Liberal hacks and flacks which now controls the Senate. The Government does not want to change that. It does not want to change the structure of the Senate. It just wants to hold on and hope that those hacks and flacks will die off so that it can appoint its own Tory hacks and flacks.
I do not think that anyone seriously believes that if the shoe were on the other foot, if there was a majority of Tory hacks and flacks in the Senate with a Liberal Government in the House of Commons, the Tories would not use the Senate to thwart the will of an elected Government. The Tory hacks and flacks in the Senate would be playing parliamentary games. They would be attempting at every turn to thwart the will of an elected government. For us to believe seriously that the Government wants to see genuine Senate reform is something I do not think the Canadian public believes, as I think it does not believe the Government on many other issues as well.
There is another issue that was raised in the House as to why we need this legislation. I refer to the abortion issue. When the Supreme Court made its decision we had government spokesmen, in particular the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), giving us all the assurances that the Government would act and that it would provide leadership. We heard that refrain for a number of weeks and months. But the Government could not quite decide whether to provide what type of leadership and in what direction. It thought maybe that it should be this way or that way or even a combination of two ways, three ways, or four ways. It thought that it could find a way to duck its responsibilities. It said, "Look, what we are going to do to parliament is to offer it all sorts of choices, have a free vote, and whatever choice gets the most number of votes will be our position". I am afraid that that is not leadership. I am afraid that what we have seen from the Government is a lack of real leadership in many, many areas.


Extension of Sittings
I now come to the sorry state in which the Government is tearing up the rule book that governs us, our Standing Orders. It is now the Government and not the Speaker which will decide whether Parliament sits in the summer recess. It has torn up the rule book. It has introduced closure. It has attempted to stifle the voices of members of the Opposition and of Members of Parliament. It will use its majority in a ruthless way to try to suppress the voice of opposition. It will use its vast majority as boots to stomp down the voices of dissent. But we will stand in our place and we will oppose the Government, because what it is attempting to do is against not only the traditions of parliamentary democracy but the Canadian tradition, a tradition of consensus.
This Government wants to force us into a political regime with the United States which is unacceptable, I believe, to the Canadian people. It should have the guts to go to the Canadian people and to get their permission before it acts.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this motion. The Government has talked a great deal about its agenda. I submit that that is precisely why Parliament will sit this summer. It is because the Government has never had an agenda of its own. It has never been able to put any program into place. It really does not know where it is going half the time. It flips from one subject to another. It cannot come to grips with its own priorities probably because there are a great many Members opposite on the back benches who have their pet subjects that they want to get through Parliament before it rises. As a result, and in order to get along with everyone, the Government puts everything on the Order Paper and everything becomes a priority. That is not leadership. That is not a good reason for having Parliament sit on and on for months.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we came back here in the first part of August of last year in a great crisis situation concerning an immigration matter. We were going to deal with it forthwith and in forthright terms. It is rather ironic that just a few moments ago the House voted on Bill C-55. That is the immigration Bill that came up last August which we were here to deal with at that time in order to settle the crisis. It has now been returned to the Senate. It will be debated further and will, undoubtedly, finally be passed.
However, the Government lists as one of its first points to have Parliament continue to sit all summer debating items in its agenda which has been well thought out and which it believes is in the interests of the country. That is about the weakest excuse one could put forward when there is a Government in place that does not know what its own priorities are or what it wants.
To this Government everything is a crisis. Yet what does it do? It does away with the rule book. This is a Government made up of members of the Party which, when in opposition, did not want to play by the rules at that time either. When the constitutional debate was being settled and when the votes were being taken Members of the Opposition at the time,
members of the Conservative Party, stormed the Speaker's chair. They stood up around the Speaker shouting at the Speaker when the votes were being taken. That was totally out of order. There was chaos in the House as we watched the votes being taken on various amendments to the Constitution. Some of the very people who were standing up around the Chair shouting at the Speaker are today trying to say that the Opposition in this House is holding them up and that the Opposition is being too blatant and too much of a problem.
Let us remind those Members of the day that they walked out of the House and let the bells ring for 13 days. Many of those Members who were in opposition at that time are sitting opposite supporting the Government today.
The Government has decided that it will dispense with the rules of the House of Commons. People might say, "What do you mean, dispense with the rules of the House of Commons?" The Lefebvre Committee made up of representatives from all Parties in the House sat for 153 meetings in order to bring in new rules for the House of Commons that would put some order into our business here. It considered what days we would sit and what days Members could go to their constituencies. It considered other changes to the rules of the House that would give private Members in the House more authority and more rights to go ahead with Private Members' legislation. Then, on top of that we had the McGrath Commission more recently, another plethora of meetings of members on a committee representing all Parties in this House. What happens? Both Chairmen Lefebvre and McGrath must be wondering what in the world they and all the people on the two committees, which sat for 153 meetings-or whatever it was-that went on and on and on, were doing. Today those rules are totally ignored by the Government with 208 Members in this House of Commons at the present time. That was the first reason.
The second reason put forward was the amount of time and effort that all Members of the House in government and in opposition have invested in legislation presently on the Order Paper, either at committee stage, at second reading, at report stage or at third reading. We realize that Members put a lot of work into committees. They have been doing it since day one around here, Mr. Speaker.
If the Government feels that those committees were so important and if the legislation is important, all the Government had to do was seek agreement with the opposition Parties to have the items transferred to the next sitting of the House. Or is the Government planning to do everything this summer and then call a fall election? I guess we will soon know about that because the results of the by-electon in Lac-Saint-Jean will start coming in any minute and the Government will know whether or not it has any intention bf calling an election this fall.
What will the Government do with the parliamentary program for the fall? Normally we come back to this House


the second Monday in September. The Order says the Government wants to sit through to September 9. What will happen to the fall sitting if the Government does not call the famous election? This is what I mean when I say there is really no planning in the Government's programs.
The third reason is the importance of putting certain issues before the House and country which could not be foreseen when the Government laid out its agenda. Those are the words of the Government House Leader. Is the House Leader saying that some of the legislation brought in has turned out to be a surprise to the Government? Has the Government decided now it was actually worthwhile to bring in legislation, and suddenly finds it of value and wants it passed?
The fourth reason is the importance of the free trade initiative. Some parts of that free trade initiative we could do without. The U.S.-Canada agreement, that famous free trade agreement, is not free trade at all. What about access to markets? Canada has not received access to American markets in this trade agreement. It is not a free trade agreement. It would be better for Canada and many areas of our economy if we never saw it. There is the famous 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber. That was going to disappear when it came the final part of the agreement. That has not disappeared. Today we have American companies shipping lumber into parts of eastern Canada cheaper than those same Canadians can buy from Canadian industry here in Canada. Why? Because of the 15 per cent tax which the Minister of trade of the day brought in and laid on Canadian industry.
We heard talk about a level playing field. What you have to do is kick Canadians, tie one hand behind their backs while they are down and then tell them to go to work and compete with Americans who have a wide open arrangement to make use of our industries, to invest in our resources, to invest in our banks and to invest in anything in Canada. Americans can bid on contracts. We do not even have open access to bid on all the defence contracts in the United States. The small business set aside program is still in place. The Pentagon decides which contracts will be offered to Canadians to bid on and which are not. That is not free trade. It is putting handcuffs on Canadian business beforehand.
We have the Senate, which is the age old problem of the Government. The Government is paranoid about the Canadian Senate. Canadians recognize that our Senate is the only body sitting between this massive Government and real democracy. The Government has suddenly discovered that the Senate is not a democratic institution because it is not elected. We have never heard Tories worrying about that in days gone by, not at all. It is only when the Senate decided to exercise its constitutional right that we heard about it. The Senate has a constitutional right to oppose. It has a constitutional right to make amendments. It has a constitutional right to discuss these matters because it is the second level of the Parliament of Canada.


Don Boudria: It is the Senators' duty.
Extension of Sittings


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It is their duty to do so, as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has just said. The Government is using the Senate pure and simply as an election ploy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has it in his craw that the moment the Senate dares to bring out the weaknesses in the Canadian economy in his so-called free trade agreement he will start crying foul and say that this unelected body is holding up legislation and he will go to the country for an election. That will be just fine because then all Canadians will have a chance to express themselves.
The sixth comment of the Government House Leader is the inflammatory remarks about the delaying tactics of the Opposition. Isn't that something, Mr. Speaker? Does that mean the Opposition should be so nice as to lie down and keep quiet? Is the Opposition not supposed to criticize the Government? Is the Government so all-perfect that nothing should be said about it at all? Are we supposed to roll over and play dead? That is not the role of this Opposition, nor was it the role of any Opposition in this House of Commons. Many members of the Government sat in the Opposition not long ago. They should not talk about inflammatory comments and delaying tactics of the Opposition when it was the Tories themselves who were the very ones who walked out of this House of Commons for 13 days and left the bells ringing. They are the ones who stormed the Speaker's chair like a bunch of kids shouting and screaming at the Speaker as he called each vote on the Constitution in the early 1980s. Now the Tories are talking about the Opposition's stalling tactics. Does that mean we are being too tough on the poor people over there? Does it mean they do not have enough backbone to be the Government of this country? Does that mean they cannot stand on their own feet and stand behind their own legislation when they are being criticized?
We had an example today when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) was asked a question about his nuclear submarines. He forgot to put a communication system that would work under the Arctic ice. I have his answer here. He went into a tirade that is one-and-a-half pages long. The Minister of National Defence and his Party think they are so all-perfect in matters of the defence of this country that no one should criticize them. Yet one of their own admirals talks about what has been left out. A very low-frequency radio system should be in the submarines if they are to operate under the Arctic ice. With the existing system, the radio will operate in the Atlantic and in the Pacific. The Government is bragging about bringing in a system that will cover three oceans while it has a communication system that will only work in two of them.
The Minister of National Defence has been caught on this issue and he is embarrassed about it. One of his admirals brought that fact out in a newspaper interview. So the Government that looks upon itself as being so perfect that it should not be criticized and that the Opposition should not be


Extension of Sittings
tough on it is the same Government that will spend $8 billion on a nuclear submarine fleet which does not even have a communications system that will work once the submarines go under the ice in the Arctic. Talk about perfection.
Let us talk about the Prime Minister What did the Prime Minister say during the election campaign of 1984 about what he was going to do? The Prime Minister promised in August of 1984 that he would increase the members of the Armed Forces personnel to 90,000 within three years of having been elected to office. He has not even come close to matching that figure, and his time is up. However, we do not hear anything about that. My goodness, we should not attack the Government about those things.
There was a lot of talk about upgrading Canada's reserves. We were going to have reserves such as we have never had before, and the reserves would be perfectly equipped. People took the Government seriously and joined the reserves. Then there was no money for training and training exercises have been cut back. The fact is that the Government is not financially prepared to handle this issue.
It will be said over and over again, every time the Government brags about its national defence record, that the Government should be ashamed of that record. During its first year in office, in 1985, the increase in the budget of the Department of National Defence never even met the rate of inflation. The purchasing power of the Department actually declined in the first year under this Government.
How is it that the Government has any money at all to spend on these programs? You are giving me the signal, but I must put this on the record before I leave. The Government has money to spend because between 1980 and 1984, the Liberal Government increased the defence budget in real terms by 7.1 per cent per year. Using the full 10 years prior to 1984, it would average out to 4.7 per cent per year. This Government did not even come close to that figure in one year in office.
The previous Liberal Government built a good base for this Government to build on. It is certainly not because of its own commitment to defence that it is buying anything today. It is because the budget was put in place for this Government by the previous Government.
The Prime Minister brags about the great thing he does. The other day, in answer to a question I put, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Merrithew), who was answering for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), said that they had topped up the budget of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I mentioned the fact that the cut in that budget was supposed to be $25 million this year. In fact, the Government did not top up the budget at all. All it did was to stretch out the pound of flesh a little farther.
The Government will take $40 million out of that corporation over the next four years instead of taking $25 million this year and $15 million next year. That is what the Government
calls topping up a budget. It says one thing and does another. To the Government, topping up a budget means stretching out the pain over a longer period of time.
The biggest problem for this Government is its own credibility. That is what the Prime Minister is worrying about and why he wants to sit all summer to get the trade Bill and other Bills through. We saw how much backbone the Government had when it brought in the proposed legislation on abortion. It simply could not do it.
The only reason the Government has to extend the sittings of the House, thereby not letting us go home to talk to our constituents, is because it has failed to bring in a program for its own legislation and it has failed to set its priorities. As a result, we will continue to sit even though the House has been sitting constantly since August of last year. We just passed the Bill dealing with the crisis that we were called back to look after last August. It took 10 months to settle this great crisis. We have seen what backbone the Government with the largest majority in Canadian history has. What strength and dynamism we are seeing in the weakest Government that this nation has ever seen!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I have been listening to various Members, particularly those from opposition Parties, address themselves to government Order No. 26. I would like to respond to some of the points that I have heard Hon. Members make.
One point is that Members of Parliament need vacations, that we must defeat Order No. 26 because the Members must go home-


Don Boudria: Who said that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who said that?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Several Hon. Members said that. Read Hansard, the MPs need their vacations, they need to go home. The Hon. Member who just spoke said that they need to go home to speak to their constituents.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That's not a holiday.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: He just said that.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is reading things into other people's remarks, and I would think more of him if he did not. I do think a lot of that particular Member.
The longer the Hon. Member is in politics, the more he will realize that it is every bit as important to have meetings with your constituents and to get around the country to find out what Canadians are thinking as it is to sit on Parliament Hill month after month putting through the kind of legislation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) has the floor.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Obviously the Hon. Member did not have a point of order. He did say that Members needed to go home to speak to their constituents, and that is a vacation. A vacation is vacating this place and getting out.


Don Boudria: Oh, come on now.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Absolutely. The French equivalent of vacation is vacance, and that is the word for recess. The Hon. Member knows that. If the Hon. Member cannot face reality, that is his problem.
Several Hon. Members have said that this motion should be opposed and defeated because Members need vacations. They need to get away. They have said they need to get away for family reasons as well as for constituency reasons. They need to get away for personal reasons. One Hon. Member of the NDP said that he had his own personal agenda and that this motion was interfering with it. That is the kind of reasoning that has been put before the House in opposition to this motion.
Of course, we do need vacations. We need opportunities to go home, and the Hon. Member who just spoke has certainly been home to speak to his constituents. I believe he just won a hotly contested nomination battle, and that is to his credit. He certainly had to go home and speak to his constituents to do that, and he had time to do so.
This motion, along with the rest of the business of the House, is not preventing Members from getting home to speak to their constituents and to do their work. This motion requires that the House stay in session to deal with the business of the Government and the business of the House. Surely that is our priority, and it must be our priority.
We were called back last August to deal with an emergency occasioned by false refugees. This House dealt with it. The Senate tried to thwart the will of the House, even as the Opposition tried to delay it by filibuster. We dealt with this Bill today in its final form because of those delaying tactics, not because of the lack of will on the part of the Government or lack of dedication on the part of Members of the House.
A second reason has been raised, namely, that instead of extending the sitting of the House this summer the Government should call an election.


Don Boudria: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: I am shocked that a member of the Liberal Party would applaud that when he knows that it would rob certain communities of this country of the right to the representation they need through redistribution. After the middle of July the City of Scarborough will be entitled to five seats. I take it that the Liberal Party wants to deny the City of Scarborough that. They want to deny other parts of the country the enlarged representation which redistribution will give them.
Extension of Sittings
A lot of us recognize that there is merit in extending the life of this Parliament until redistribution can take effect. The Province of Ontario can have more seats, the Province of Alberta can have more seats, the Province of British Columbia can have more seats, and people can have the representation that their population justifies.
The real reason the Opposition wants to have an election before we can pass the legislation that is the purpose of these extended sittings is that they want to deny the Government the record of achievement which will be represented by passing the legislation and resolutions which will be part of this summer's work. Oppositions know that Governments get credit only for what is passed by the House. Oppositions benefit from delaying it beyond any possibility of being passed.
I have to believe that the Opposition does not want the forthcoming election to be fought on the Government's record. Instead, they want it to be fought on what has been the basis of so many Question Periods, that is, sleaze, scandal-monger-ing, and character assassinations. By sitting into the summer we will have the opportunity to deal with the major issues which will be before us which need finalization by this House.
Finally, I want to respond to a point which has been made by the Opposition over and over again, that is, that Order No. 26 represents tyranny by the majority. It is a curious definition of democracy that the majority making a decision is somehow tyranny and that, by implication, the minority should have the right either to make the decision or to see that no decision will be made.
I can quote one outstanding authority on this. I wish there were some Liberals here to hear this. I can remember the former Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, objecting that after a reasonable period of debate there should be an opportunity for the House to make a decision, there should be an opportunity for a vote to be taken.
The reason we have the log-jam with which we are faced now, which requires us not to recess next week but to continue into the summer, is that the majority has been prevented from making the final decision which the majority should be able to make a decision on free trade, a decision on tax reform, a decision on Meech Lake, a decision on Air Canada, and decisions on other issues before us.
It is right that members of the Opposition should have time in which to make criticisms and constructive suggestions. It is right that they should have time to debate the issues in order that public opinion be informed and aroused. However, surely we do not need any imagination to realize that we have had more than sufficient time for the opposition Parties to do precisely that. Everyone knows that the Liberals and NDP Members are against free trade. They really do not need to hold this matter up any further. Everyone has heard the arguments for and against it and it is now time for this House to make a decision on that issue and others which are before us.


Extension of Sittings
In Order No. 26 we are not seeing tyranny by the majority but, in the resistance to it, we are seeing the threatened tyranny of the minority. It will be within the tradition of the Parliament of this land and others if the House is allowed, in the very near future, to make a decision by each of us doing what is our right and our duty, that is, to vote on these issues which have been so long before us and so long debated without each of us having the right to stand up and say yea or nay.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I always listen with interest to the Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) because even though I sometimes do not agree with him, he has a reputation for coherence, something which was absent tonight. In fact, I have never heard him so desperate. One could only be amused by someone who cites opposition obstruction to Meech Lake as one of the problems the Government was having when we know full well-


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: I didn't do that.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: He did, he cited Meech Lake. We know that there has been all-Party agreement. There has been some dissent within caucuses, but basically Meech Lake has proceeded through this House with indecent haste. People have criticized Parliament in general for the lack of attention it has received. I point that out only to show how desperate the Hon. Member is for an argument tonight.
I want to speak a bit about what is happening in context of the parliamentary reforms which have taken place since 1982. After the bell-ringing crisis, a special committee of the House was struck chaired by the former Member of this House, Tom Lefebvre. I had an opportunity to serve on that committee and subsequently in this Parliament on a special committee on the reform of the House of Commons chaired by the former Member for St. John's East, Jim McGrath, who is now the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland.
I want to put before you this evening, Mr. Speaker, my analysis of why what has happened here in the last week or so has been so damaging to both the spirit and the substance of those reforms. A lot of it is centred around the issue of the parliamentary calendar. There have been attempts made to trivialize opposition concern about the breaking of the parliamentary calendar by suggesting that people are only interested in their personal vacations, or whatever the case may be.
However, there is a much larger issue here, that is, whether, by virtue of the action taken by the Government last August when we were recalled to deal with what has obviously turned out not to be an emergency, and now being pushed beyond the end of June, again not as a result of any self-evident emergency but rather a perceived emergency in terms of the Government's own agenda, we will ever be able to return to the point where we have a parliamentary calendar. There are those who think that that was a good idea, not because of vacations but because it gave some form to the parliamentary year. I think
there is a legitimate concern to be expressed here, and not only in terms of losing the notion of a parliamentary calendar.
I might remind Hon. Members, and particularly the Government, that when the special committee selected this calendar, it included in it one more week of parliamentary business than the average number of weeks per year of parliamentary business over the 10 years preceding the recommendation of the committee. The time that the Government has had available to it under this calendar, in addition to the time which it created for itself by bringing us back in August, is far greater than was the average in the 10 years preceding the recommendation of the committee. My point is that it is not as though the Government has had only a small or limited amount of time. The special committee on the reform of the House of Commons erred, if you like, on the side of lengthier sittings.
The other point I want to make with respect to the parliamentary calendar is that it was part of a package. As I look back on those reforms and ask myself whether our expectations were ill-founded, I can say a number of things. I believe the reforms directed to private Members have worked reasonably well. There have been more free votes on Private Members' Bills the outcome of which we do not know. That is something the reform committee set out to create, and I believe it has been a success.
Perhaps the greatest example of its success, regardless of where one stands on the issue, was Bill C-204, the antismoking Bill.
The parliamentary calendar was part of a package of reforms which was agreed to in good faith and pursuant to which the Opposition gave up certain tactics at its disposal to delay business of the House. These included shorter speeches, and a requirement to have 15 Members present in order to prevent the extension of hours, a procedure which has been used increasingly as an indirect form of closure by the Government, which was not its intent. The Opposition gave up the power to ring the bells at great length, as the Conservative Opposition did in 1982. The Opposition forfeited a number of other procedures as part of that whole package in return for the notion of a parliamentary calendar.
In lieu of these concessions by the Opposition was the notion that there would be a set calendar regardless of whether the Government with its majority was able to pass legislation by a certain time of the year. There is nothing illegitimate about that. Those were the rules of the game.
We now have the parliamentary equivalent of the Government moving the goal posts. There was a consensual arrangement between the Parties for a package of reforms in which the Opposition and the Government made certain concessions. Only the Government has the power to take back unilaterally what it gave up in those negotiations. The Opposition does not have the power to take back what it gave up.


This motion is wrong because the Government is taking back elements of the package that was arrived at subsequent to 1982. If the Government is unable to pass legislation on its agenda by the June 30 deadline, there is a provision in the Standing Orders whereby it could appeal to the Speaker and make a case that there is an emergency. The Standing Orders as a result of the package have not left the Government with no recourse in a genuine emergency.
It is ironic that the Conservative Government should be taking this action because it has made somewhat of a parliamentary career for 30 years of condemning the Liberals for unilateral action with such things as closure. It is ironic that it is a Conservative Government that is attempting this final victory for unilateral action.
We have seen unilateral action in the past, such as when the Liberals revised the Standing Orders in 1969. But we thought we had surpassed such action in the early 1980s, and reached a new era of parliamentary reform. As recently as last year, when the Government was considering amending certain Standing Orders unilaterally, it was prevailed upon to come to an agreement rather than break the consensus which had been reached in the early 1980s, that parliamentary reform should only occur with unanimous consent. Finally, after we bargained and negotiated, there was an agreement, and that period of true parliamentary reform was extended.
Now it has been broken by the motion to extend the sittings. We are becoming used to closure motions as part of parliamentary life. It does not bring the same outrage as it did during the pipeline debate in 1956, when closure had not been used for decades before.
The repeated use of closure is partly a problem of the Government's impatience, but is also due to the fact that we have never really grasped the nettle of legislative planning. The Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) is here and he knows that one of the matters with which the reform committee did not deal was the whole question of legislative planning. A new committee on parliamentary reform should concern itself with that issue because it is one of the problems with this place. Rather than a process whereby we can agree what will be discussed and when, we are reduced to a game of cat and mouse each day when matters are brought up for debate when critics are not available or have been given little notice.
That is hardly a responsible or intelligent way to run the business of the country or of this Parliament.
The problem of legislative planning must be addressed.
In the final analysis, I am concerned about the spirit of unilateralism by which the Government, through the use of this motion, has declared that it can basically change any Standing Order it wishes. The Speaker argued, perhaps quite properly in a technical sense, that this power exists within the standing Orders. However, I ask Hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, to reflect on the great emphasis they
Extension of Sittings
placed on the notion of convention in the 1982 constitutional debate. While many things are technically possible, whether under the Standing Orders in Parliament or under the law outside of Parliament, are all things permissible? What we see here is the victory of Nietzsche over Parliament. If it is technically possible, do it.
It is a parliamentary equivalent to Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. The Government has to prove itself in the way Raskolnikov wanted to show he was above ordinary morality and killed the old woman.
In this case, a parliamentary majority wants to show that it is above the morality of opposition or minority rights in Parliament. It is parliamentary ubermenschen. That is actually what is happening.
What is incredible about it is that because of this motion and the use of the Standing Orders in that way, everything is possible and, in the eyes of the Government, everything is permissible. The Opposition is no longer seen to be operating within an agreed upon set of rules which it uses to advance what it thinks to be in the interests of the nation.
If we happen to think that retarding the progress of the free trade agreement is in the interests of Canada, we have every right to do that here in the House of Commons. That is what the House of Commons is for. The Government has every right to use agreed upon rules to advance its view that the free trade agreement is good for Canada. What it does not have the right to do is to say to the Opposition: "When you start to get the better of us, we are going to change the rules on you all by ourselves, unilaterally". Everything is permissible. That is the problem with what we have before us. The Opposition does have a right to play within the rules.
I can remember when the Liberal Government used to talk about the Conservative Opposition in the early 1980s. I came here in 1979, but in 1980, during the constitutional debate, the heat was really on. People would heap scorn on the Conservatives for using every parliamentary tactic at its disposal. Believe it or not, I used to come to its defence. I defended the Conservatives by saying that as long as they were within the rules, they are demonstrating to the Canadian people how strongly they feel about the particular measure the Government was taking and they will be judged accordingly in terms of politics. That should be the final arbiter. It should not be the Government which decides whether or not the Opposition deserves to be reprimanded for holding up the government's agenda. It should be the people who decide. It is a political judgment. If we hold up the free trade agreement or the legislation pertaining to this or that, and the people happen to agree with the Government, we are going to pay a political price. That is a choice that Oppositions have to make and it is a choice that Government's have to make.
The problem is that it is not being left to the political process. The Government will decide it. What is happening


Extension of Sittings
here is that the public is having its role eroded. The Speakership is having its role eroded, because if anyone lost in this motion, it was the Speakership, when the Government said: "The powers entrusted to the Speaker by the Standing Orders to decide whether or not the parliamentary calendar will be broken will no longer reside in the Chair. They will reside in the Government".


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I hear a Conservative Member of the Government yelling "right on". That is the problem.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the Member making his arguments however he may see them, but I do have some concern about his reflections on the ruling of the Chair. That is certainly what I have been hearing in his last few sentences. I would ask that that be brought to the attention of the Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not understand the Hon.	. .
Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) to be making	(Division No. 396)
any reflections on the Chair.
J	\/C A O


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Peace River is known as a great defender of the Chair, and for that matter, so am I. That is why I make the remarks I do. The points I wanted to make, I have made, that is, that I think we have crossed a boundary by the use of that particular Standing Order to override all the other Standing Orders. We have crossed the boundary. Perhaps that power always existed technically, but no one ever thought of using it before in this particular way. It is like a lot of other things in that respect. Once that line has been crossed, it is easy to cross it again and again and again.
So I say to my colleagues on the other side, many of whom I believe have a genuine respect for Parliament, that they have fallen victim to the tempter's power, if you like. They should have done otherwise and voted against their own Government with respect to this motion to extend the sittings of Parliament. It was not done to deal with an emergency or anything like that. It was to deal with the fact that the Government was not able to complete its own agenda within the times and procedures set by Parliament, and that is the Government's fault, no one else's.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the reading?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Angus
Benjamin
Blaikie
Boudria
Caccia
de Jong
Dewar
Foster
Andre
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Blenkarn
Bourgault
Caldwell
Champagne
(Champlain)
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Collins Comeau Cook Cooper Cossitt Cdte Crofton Crouse de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Duplessis Fennell Fontaine Forres tall Fraleigh Gottselig Greenaway
Members
Gagliano
Gauthier
Harris
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keeper
Nystrom
Ouellet
++NAYS
Members
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gustafson
Haliiday
Hamelin
Hardey
Hawkes
Hockin
Hudon
Jardine
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kilgour
King
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Lawrence
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
MacKay
Mailly
Marin
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
Penner
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud Tobin-21
McDermid
McKinnon
McMillan
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Oberle Oostrom Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Shields Sparrow Stackhouse Stewart Taylor Towers Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Vincent Winegard-79


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on the motion of Mr. Lewis:
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 this special order shall not apply on any allotted days designated in the supply period ending June 30, 1988.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 397)
++YEAS
Members
Andre	Chartrand	CroftonBelsher	Clark	CrouseBernier	(Brandon-Souris)	de CotretBertrand	Collins	DesjardinsBlenkarn	Comeau	DesrosiersBourgault	Cook	DommCaldwell	Cooper	DuplessisChampagne	Cossitt	Fennell(Champlain)	C6t6	Fontaine
Extension of Sittings
Forres tall	King	OberleFraleigh	Ladouceur	OostromGottselig	Lanthier	ScottGreenaway	Lawrence	(Hamilton-'Grise	Leblanc	ShieldsGuilbault	Lesick	Sparrow(Drummond)	Lewis	StackhouseGustafson	MacKay	StewartHalliday	Mailly	TaylorHamelin	Marin	TowersHardey	Mazankowski	TremblayHawkes	McCain	(Quebec-Est)Hockin	McCrossan	TurnerHudon	McDermid	(Ottawa-CaJardine	McKinnon	ValcourtJohnson	McMillan	Vincent(Bonavista-Trinity-	Minaker	Winegard-79Conception)	Mitges	Joncas	Moore	Jourdenais	Nicholson	Kelleher	(Niagara Falls)	Kilgour	Nickerson
NAYS Members	Angus	Gagliano	PennerBenjamin	Gauthier	Prud'hommeBlaikie	Harris	RiisBoudria	Hopkins	RobichaudCaccia	Kaplan	Tobin-21de Jong	Keeper	Dewar	Nystrom	Foster	Ouellet


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


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with an agreement made earlier this evening, I think you would find there is agreement in the House to call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That being so, it being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.14 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, June 21, 1988

[DOT] (mo)
(Division No. 391)

Prayers