1991-03-26

Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which arises from an incident that took place after the meeting of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations last Thursday, March 21, 1991.
Briefly, the member for Calgary West rose in the House last Thursday after and put before Your Honour the matter of recorded minutes without a quorum. Mr. Speaker said at that time, and I quote:
Again the hon. member for Calgary West has raised a matter which I think is properly still a matter for the committee. If his position is well founded, I am sure that some discussion with those who do our printing for us would probably keep the situation under control.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, you reiterated what you have said so many times before: that a committee must resolve problems within the committee.
Last Friday afternoon, the day following the committee meeting, I was informed by an editor of committee reporting that the PMO ordered the minutes of the meeting following Mr. Spicer's appearance removed from the record. In Beauchesne's fifth edition citation 41(1) is quite clear on this matter. It states:
The control of the House over its publications is absolute.
It goes on in citation 75 as follows:
Committee reports and the verbatim transcripts of committee
hearings are documents published under the authority of the House
and are entitled to the same absolute privilege as House documents.
Interference by the Prime Minister's office in the printing of a committee proceeding is contempt of the authority of the House and its committees.
Furthermore, I submit that while this contempt arose from a committee meeting, it has nothing to do with the proceedings of the committee and everything to do with interference in the committee report by the PMO.
As a contempt, it is the Speaker who should permit a motion to be put to the floor. It is not a question for the committee to decide. Should you find that I have a basis of privilege in this matter, Mr. Speaker, I have prepared the appropriate motion and I am prepared to move it.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, those are quite serious allegations. I think there should be some obligation on the part of the member to provide the House with some piece of evidence. He claims to have talked to a clerk who claims to have received an order from the Prime Minister's office. If the member were serious about his question then perhaps he could name names or, if he has a written document to that effect, he could share it with us so we could have it as part of our record and reproduced and in our hands.
It disturbs me that we get into something like this on the basis of something amorphous out there in the world.
I rose in the House a week ago Thursday to make sure that the House was seized of the matter. It is, as you indicated at that time, Sir, a House matter. I do not know of any occasion in my time in this place where "the Prime Minister's office", whatever that is, has ordered the House to do anything or a House committee to do anything.
If one wants to make this allegation, I think one should be prepared to put one's personal reputation on the line and provide some evidence for the allegation.

March 26, 1991
Privilege


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall from my interventions of last Thursday, I was definitely present at the meeting in question, and quite a meeting it was.
I just want to bring one or two items to the attention of the Chair which might assist it in deliberating on this issue.
While it is true, as Mr. Speaker has often said, that committees are masters of their own business, as indicated in Beauchesne's, it is only true provided committees follow the rules set down by this House and its Standing Orders. We know that to be the case as well.
That is why the issue the control of all publications of the House falls within the jurisdiction of the House. That extends as well to the authority of the House over the publications of committees. As far as I am concerned, a transcript of a committee is the same as Hansard. It is the Hansard of the committee, if I can put it that way.
There is a long-standing tradition in parliamentary committees of quorum being defined in two ways. There is a formal quorum for the purpose of voting. There is also what is commonly referred to as mini quorum in our parliamentary jargon. That means to say that at any time when four members are present they can hear witnesses, Hansard or the parliamentary publication of the committee is published and so on, but votes cannot be taken.
The point I am making is that notwithstanding the fact that the committee might have lost its full quorum for a period, if mini quorum were still present a publication of the proceedings was indeed not only in order, but necessary according to our tradition.
The allegation is to determine whether or not interference has taken place with the publication of the report pursuant to the mini quorum which was obviously there.
To that extent I feel that if the issue were brought to the attention of the parliamentary committee pursuant to the prima facie information brought before us today, the committee could be seized of all the details and render a recommendation to the House on the issue.
It is not up to this House at this point to bring forward the clerk of the committee to the bar or whomever else. That is the role of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. What this House has to decide is whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege. You will make that determination at some point, Mr. Speaker, and, if you deem there is a prima facie case of privilege pursuant to the allegation made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, I would submit that the issue can and should be referred to the appropriate parliamentary committee, notwithstanding the remarks that have been made by the hon. government Whip.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I was watching the proceedings on television and heard the allegations of the member for Nickel Belt, which indeed are very serious.
I took the opportunity immediately to ask the Prime Minister's chief of staff, his deputy chief of staff, and his legislative assistant-the three people who would know about this-if in fact it were true. All three have denied absolutely that any of them undertook to do what the hon. member for Nickel Belt has alleged and they are not aware of anybody in the Prime Minister's office besides those who might have.
What we have is a very serious allegation of interference, which is denied by those who would be responsible in that regard so I must dispute the conclusion reached by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that there is prima facie evidence on the floor.
There is an unsubstantiated allegation on the floor, an allegation that I wanted immediately to indicate is not one which has any basis in fact, based on my discussions with the people responsible. Perhaps this item might best go back to that committee for consideration. I would not like to see us accept an unproven allegation as having substance, particularly in face of the information I have been able to relay to the House that none of the people in the Prime Minister's office who might have undertaken this are aware of any such suggestion or action.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member for Nickel Belt has risen on an extremely serious matter. I have listened to the inter-
March 26, 1991

ventions by the chief government Whip and the government ETouse leader.
One of the problems the member for Nickel Belt faces is that normally when a senior member of the parliamentary staff raises an issue, whether it is a clerk of the House or some other person, we usually do not use his or her name because they are not in this House to defend themselves.
We may hear from the member for Nickel Belt later on. This is not an allegation that the member for Nickel Belt makes lightly. He believes, and I think quite correctly, that a member who is in charge of producing the committee Minutes of Proceedings was called by a representative of the Prime Minister's office, whether a senior member or not is not something we know at this time. But it is a very serious allegation and it is a very serious issue.
Are we in a situation where we want to say in the House that a charge was made by a certain staff member and this is that staff person's name? That is a new issue for us, and that is something that we have tried to avoid in the past, to protect those people who work at the table and others who work for the House of Commons.
If indeed the call was made by a member of the Prime Minister's office, that is a very serious charge of interfering with the privileges of this House.
I do not know what method may be used to solve the issue. Perhaps the Speaker could be given the name of the staff person involved. There may be methods that we can use. I would feel very uncomfortable if the government is to stand here and insist that in this House we name the person who is working for the House and use that name publicly. I think there is a real difficulty in this situation if that is what the government is insisting be done.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will hear the hon. member for Nickel Belt shortly. I should indicate to the House that I am deeply concerned about this. I do not know with whom the hon. member for Nickel Belt was speaking. I am not even sure that it would be appropriate for the hon. member for Nickel Belt at this stage to give that name before the House.
I am deeply concerned that this matter has not been taken back to the committee from which it comes. The hon. member for Nickel Belt may be able to persuade
Routine Proceedings
me that it should rest here. I am not persuaded at the moment.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of providing any name in this House, but I am prepared to be directed by Your Honour. I could provide Your Honour with the name of the person who came to my office so that the Speaker can in fact do whatever is necessary to verify what I have said in this House.
Should there be a question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: It is acknowledged on both sides of the House that the suggestion or the allegation, as it has been called, is a very serious one.
I have to say that on the basis of a conversation with someone, certainly at the stage it is at this time, is not sufficient to raise in my mind a prima facie case of a contempt of the House or privilege. I am going to ask the hon. member for Nickel Belt to do what I think is the appropriate thing in this case, that is go back to the committee and deal with it further there.
I may very well be interested in what happens at that time, but I think that is the appropriate thing to do. We would be getting on I think veiy dangerous ground if we proceeded any further at this time. The allegation is very serious indeed. I do not take the allegation lightly, but neither apparently does the government.
I would ask the hon. member and other members to take this back to the committee and perhaps it can be resolved there. That is where it ought to go at the moment. If it cannot be resolved there, then of course it may have to come back here.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Routine Proceedings



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.



NARCOTICS CONTROL ACT


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough-West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-350, an Act to amend the Narcotics Control Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that any money seized by a Canadian law enforcement body in the enforcement of the Narcotics Control Act is returned to that body for further use in the war against drugs.
A simple example will illustrate the intent of the bill. If, during the course of a drug arrest, narcotics officers seize a suitcase containing $100,000 which was used for the purchase of narcotics, then, after due process of law and conviction, that $100,000 would be returned to the police force concerned, to be used by it in future enforcement of the Narcotics Control Act.
Under the present law, this $100,000 is forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada, to be disposed of as the minister of health directs.
My bill is intended to ensure that seized moneys are specifically used in the fight against drugs.


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


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations on this motion. I believe you will find unanimous consent for it. I move:
That pursuant to section 57 of an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act and the Canada Labour Code, to enact the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act and to amend other acts in relation thereto, chapter 24, third supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, section 12 of the act be referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, and that the committee undertake a comprehensive review of section 12 and submit a report to the House no later than December 1, 1991.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that although the parliamentary secretary said there had been consultations, there were none with independent members, I am sorry to say. Consequently, since there was no consultation, I will have to withhold my consent.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to my friend that I was advised that a member of the bloc was consulted, and I guess this is one of those cases where they have chosen not to wear the party label but are now independents.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I think that by trying to talk his way out of this, the parliamentary secretary is only making matters worse. The fact is, he refuses to recognize us, and when I refer to independents I include my colleague for the Reform Party who was not consulted either. He should do his homework before rising in the House and saying everybody was consulted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since there is no unanimous consent, the Chair cannot entertain the motion.
March 26, 1991

Routine Proceedings


Miss Grey:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to confirm also that although we may not have a problem with granting unanimous consent in this area, there may be other areas where consultation does not take place. I think it sets a dangerous precedent. I was not consulted on this, and my friend from the bloc has spoken to that as well. There will have to be other channels opened up.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I will then withdraw the motion and we will not be sending that subject to the committee at this time.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we need to make that commitment. We all appreciate that this motion is most appropriate, and that the subject matter ought to receive consideration. I would ask my hon. friend to have further discussions and perhaps we could re-visit this later today. I think it is important that we consider this. I am hearing my hon. friend say now that there has been, in a sense, indirect consultation, so there is not a problem.
I would urge that we proceed with this motion with the support of my two colleagues who have just recently spoken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: If I understand correctly, the parliamentary secretary has withdrawn his motion, so there is no motion before the House at this time.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Later, later!


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous consent, of course I would be happy to reintroduce the motion.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, just because he rose in the House and proceeded to do a little song and dance doesn't mean that we were consulted. We are available here, near the curtains, at any time. If the parliamentary secretary wants to consult us, we are available. Then we can talk.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since there is no unanimous consent, the matter is now settled.


PETITIONS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table two massive petitions signed by over 500,000 Canadians asking the government to legislate stricter gun control laws. In particular, they ask for the banning of all semi-automatic and para-military assault weapons of the type used to kill 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal on December 6, 1989.
This petition was organized by students, family and friends at the Ecole Polytechnique, but the signatures come from all regions of Canada.
In tabling this petition, I have the support of the hon. members for Don Valley North, New Westminster- Burnaby and Rosemont. I have on my desk, ready to give the clerk, four boxes full of the said petitions, but I have another 21 boxes outside in the lobby-
The first petition says that the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to immediately enact laws forbidding anyone in Canadian territory from having in their possession any military or para-military weapon.

And the second petition reads as follows: The undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation now, prohibiting anyone on Canadian territory from possessing an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition is from constituents in my riding who are concerned about the unfair increase with respect to the cost of mailing newspapers.
They say that weekly farm community newspapers fill a vital function by providing information on issues of importance to rural communities and that the proposed cuts to the Publication Distribution Assistance Program threatens the existence of these publications. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the government to delay any changes in these mail rates for Canadian farm community newspapers

March 26, 1991
Routine Proceedings
until meaningful consultation has taken place. They are concerned that consultation has not taken place.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a group of farmers from Saskatchewan who are very concerned about the removal of oats from the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board. They call upon the government to place oats under the Canadian Wheat Board and to give oats and barley the same protection that wheat now has under the Wheat Board, namely that those two commodities cannot be removed unless this body, Parliament, does so.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to this House a petition, certified correct by the clerk of petitions. It contains the signatures of some 612 Canadians who reside in towns and communities like Hamilton, Burlington, Toronto, Lynden, Mount Hope, Lancaster, Dundas, Stoney Creek, Guelph and Grimsby.
The petitioners make five demands. First, that members of the Canadian Parliament immediately recognize the legitimate, democratically elected governments of the republics of Lithuania and establish diplomatic relations with it. Second, they demand that the Soviet Union not annihilate the legitimate government of Lithuania. Third, they demand that the Soviet Union withdraw all of its military forces from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Fourth, they demand that negotiations between the Soviet Union and Lithuania begin and ensure that international mediation is provided during the negotiations.
Fifth, the petitioners demand that the members of the Canadian Parliament be aware of their demand that the unconditional international aid to the Soviet Union in the form of credits and feed grains be conditional upon the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the Baltic States and resolution of the Baltic crisis.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege, indeed an honour, to present a large petition today on behalf of residents from Sarnia and Cambridge, Ontario, from Sorrento, Salmon Arm, Heffley Creek, Kamloops, Pritchard, Avola, Blue River, Clearwater and Chase, British Columbia. As well, a petition was sent in by Kylee Olund on behalf of students from Rayleigh Elementary School. From Valleyview Junior Secondary, a petition was sent in by Carmel Burke and Rebecca Cameron. Petitions have also been received from Clearwater Secondary School, Sahali Junior Secondary School, a number of apartments in Hamilton, Ontario, and many others too numerous to mention.
The petitioners point out their support for the end of the war in the gulf, their support for peace, and their support for bringing the Canadian troops home from the gulf region. They support peace initiatives for Kuwait and the Middle East generally, support negotiations for peaceful resolutions to the ongoing conflict, and support Canada's role in a supportive military role as opposed to an offensive role.
To be fair, there is also a petition from a number of students at Sahali Junior Secondary School who supported offensive military action on behalf of Canada in the gulf region.
The petitions contain hundreds of names. It is certainly not quite 500,000, as my hon. friend earlier submitted, but we are getting very close.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions I wish to table in the House today, signed by constituents in Ottawa-Vanier who reside at 160 Charlotte and other addresses near the post office, which may be closed any time. These constituents ask the House, through their petitions, to put pressure on the Canada Post Corporation and urge it to review its decision to close the branch at 580 Rideau, supposedly because they are concentrating their efforts elsewhere.
These people claim, and rightly so, that this unwelcome decision will put an additional burden on local senior citizens and that since for many years, they were
March 26, 1991

accustomed to having postal services at 580 Rideau, they would like to see Parliament urge the Canada Post Corporation to change its mind.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I notice in today's Projected. Order of Business that my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, has indicated the government's interest in completing the motion on Bill C-79, as well as completing third reading of Bill C-98, and other business.
I want to give my hon. friend a very clear indication that if those are the two orders of business for the day, C-79 and the agricultural bill, C-98,1 can guarantee that as far as our party is concerned they will pass. We are prepared to move and complete two pieces of legislation today in the interest that Parliament is going to wrap up tomorrow.
On behalf of my party, the agricultural bill will be completed today as well as the motion on C-79, if that is the business that is going to be conducted today, but only these two items.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is what is called negotiations on the floor.
The hon. member will know that at the last House leader's meeting there were discussions that we would be proceeding with the rule changes today, and that Bill C-79 and Bill C-98 would be given an opportunity for quick passage this morning.
Government Orders
I appreciate his generosity. However, I am not in a position to negotiate on the floor. As the other party can attest, the discussions that went on previously indicated Bill C-79, Bill C-98 and the rule changes this afternoon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very frank response by my hon. friend.
I just want to make it clear that as far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, Bill C-98, the agricultural bill, should pass today. We are prepared to pass it today, but if the government decides that it is not in its interest, so be it.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member is trying to score political points for an audience.
If he wants to negotiate in good faith, we are happy to do it at any time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I feel I should not have to remind experienced parliamentarians like the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Kamloops that there is a time and a place for talking and negotiating, and that, until further notice, I must follow the Standing Orders.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre in relation to amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-79, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, and the motion of Mr. Hawkes (p. 18849).
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on Bill C-79 and the motion that is before the House as a result of the Senate amendments.
The House is aware that at 5.58 p.m. last Thursday, the government moved to try to quickly pass Bill C-79. There was a one-minute debate by the minister introducing it and a 30-second response by the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands. Then the government Whip moved the previous question which, basical-

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
ly, prevents any member of this House from introducing any amendments.
The government did that with the full knowledge that I had amendments to the legislation as it came from the Senate. I believe that the Senate has closed one loophole, but it has built a much bigger credibility gap. This move will come to haunt this House of Commons and will come to haunt the Senate if this motion is passed without amendment.
I believe that the Senate acted in good faith. It saw in the bill which originally came from the House of Commons that it is possible for a member of this House or of the Senate who was under investigation to go quickly to the Board of Internal Economy or the equivalent committee of the Senate and ask that body to give an opinion on the issue of whether or not that money, service or premise was being used for the proper purposes.
According to the Senate, that created a chance for delay. If a member went to the Board of Internal Economy at the last minute, the board may take four, five or six weeks to render an opinion. Because that opinion had to be given to a judge, a member of Parliament or a Senator could end up delaying the work of a police officer and could prevent a search warrant or some other appropriate document from being served at the appropriate time.
If that was all that a Senate amendment did, that would be an improvement to the legislation. However, the Senate went much further. It took away all obligation on the part of the board to give the opinion to the police officer who was conducting an investigation. A police officer could be aware that the board has given an opinion. The board may have given an opinion to the member that what he or she did was acceptable, but that board may also have given an opinion that what the member of Parliament or the senator did was unacceptable under our rules and under the by-laws that the board will be introducing.
If the board in its wisdom decided that it was not going to issue that opinion to a police officer, we would all live under a cloud of doubt because that police officer in going forward to get a search warrant or something else should, and probably would, indicate that he sought an
opinion that was available from the Board of Internal Economy, that the Board of Internal Economy had made that decision but refuses to give it to the police officer.
By making the whole issue of whether or not the board gives its opinion to a police officer discretionary, we put ourselves under a real cloud of doubt. I can bet that if the board refuses to give an opinion on the actions of a certain member, you can be assured that the media and the public will assume that the board is covering up for that member. They will automatically assume that the board's opinion was unfavourable to that member.
We are being asked by the quick actions of this government to vote now on a measure that is only going to cause unnecessary havoc and concern for members of this House in the future. I believe that if an opinion has already been made by the board-we are not talking about delay- then that opinion should be given forthwith to the police officers doing the investigation.
If the board has not made a decision, or given an opinion, then there should be no obligation on the part of anyone to act because then we could be perceived as delaying. But if the opinion is already made by this board or by its equivalent in the Senate, then that should be given to a police officer and that information can be used by the officer as he or she sees fit.
We are not talking about delay. We are talking about making sure that there is no perception whatsoever that the Board of Internal Economy is covering up any possible criminal wrongdoing by a member of this House or that the Senate is doing the equivalent thing with one of its members.
In answer to some questions I asked about this issue on Friday, the government said that all members can be rest assured that nothing devious is going to happen because all parties are represented on the Board of Internal Economy. That is true for this House, but it is also true that as a result of Bill C-79 members of the board are going to have to sign an oath of secrecy. We will not know what happened at a board meeting, whether the government majority on the board used its majority to prevent a ruling from being released to the police. We will never know what has happened.
We cannot be guaranteed that the board will act in the best interests of all members of this House. As I said, every time the board decides not to give an opinion, the
March 26, 1991

public will assume that the member is guilty of some breach.
We have a problem with what we are being asked to vote on today. We have a problem with perception. We have a problem with fairness. That problem becomes even worse when you think about the Senate because at least on the Board of Internal Economy of the House all three parties are represented. In the Senate it is just the Liberals and the Conservatives, people who are unelected, people who never have to face the scrutiny of the public. We saw how cavalier they can be in their treatment of the public purse with their request for $153 a day attendance bonus. Last week we heard the Speaker rule that the method they used to try and guarantee themselves this bonus went against the laws of this land and the rules of the House.
We would have a situation where a committee of the Senate, meeting in secret, could decide that it does not want to issue opinions to police officers and there is nothing that can be done about it.
What we have offered, and I have given copies to the other parties, is a couple of amendments. I will read one of them:
For greater certainty, if an opinion has been given by the Board in relation to the use by a member of funds, goods, services and premises referred to in subsection 52.6(1), the Board shall provide the opinion to the peace officer forthwith.
That is a reasonable amendment. I have a companion amendment to that to make sure that the law is covered in both clauses and both areas this is referring to. We are not talking about delay. We are saying that only if an opinion has been given by the board already, then it must be given to the police officer forthwith. It is not up to the majority on the board. It is not up to the Senate secret committee to make that decision. The board should be able to live with the opinions it has made and it should make those opinions public.
Unfortunately, the manoeuvring that took place at 5.58 p.m. on Thursday prevented the New Democratic Party from making those amendments in the House. The government is preventing debate on this very important matter. The Liberal Party, through its spokesman, allowed that to happen. We are in a situation now where we are dealing with flawed legislation.
Government Orders
We are dealing with something which will be a time bomb, ticking away, waiting for some member in the future, some senator in the future to be charged.
The whole reason for setting up the committee to review the Parliament of Canada Act was to make sure that we had procedures in place that protected members, but also did not put them above the law, that did not make us above the law, but at the same time, people would understand what the rules of the game are and that we have procedures in place. That is why we are calling for bylaws to be made by the Board of Internal Economy. That is why we are calling for a process where there is an investigation of a member. All of that was to make sure that we got out of the problems we faced in the past.
Now, by a last minute amendment coming from the Senate, and by the manoeuvrings that took place in this House on Thursday evening, we are facing a situation which is taking us full circle, back to where we started a year and a half ago when this committee first started to work.
There have been suggestions by others that there are other ways out of this mess. It has been suggested to me in private that perhaps what the Board of Internal Economy should do as its first order of business is to pass a bylaw that would make all of its opinions public in the case of a police officer's investigation. That is a possible way out.
I have to raise the question: Do we have the same guarantees that the Senate committee would do the same thing? They have no sense of public responsibility. There is no way of dealing with senators who act in arrogance. There is no way of dealing with senators who choose to continue to act in secret.
As members of the House, our obligation is to try and pass the best legislation possible. I think it is important that we have these amendments before this House. If we do not have these amendments before this House, we have no guarantee that members will be treated equally in the future. We have no guarantee that the board will make the wisest decision. A police officer making an investigation has no guarantee that he or she will have access to a board opinion that is ready. A judge has no guarantee that he or she will be given access to that board opinion, all of this because the government wants to act in haste.

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
The Parliament of Canada Act committee has basically been non-partisan. It has basically tried to resolve its issues. On Thursday of last week the government moved with undue haste. It knew that these amendments were coming. I had informed the government earlier that day that these amendments would be in front of the legislative clerk. It was that same day that the actual wording for the amendment that I read earlier and its companion amendment were produced.
Had the government waited a few hours, had they consulted, the government and the Official Opposition would have known the wording. There was no talk of delay. There was no talk of stalling. We had a legitimate concern with this legislation. We still have that legitimate concern.
Unfortunately as a result of the motion by the government Whip, "That this question be now put", those amendments which would protect members, which would protect the reputation of this House cannot be put before this very House.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you seek unanimous consent of this House that the amendments that I referred to be allowed to be placed on the Order Paper. I would make that a motion at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House agree with the motion by the hon. member for Churchill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We do not have unanimous consent.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think that states the problem. Here we are in a situation where the Liberal opposition and the government have the amendments. We have a situation where amendments that would clear the reputation of this House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. I do not understand why the hon. member speaks before the House. In presenting his motion, his time is over.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Victoria.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my comment first of all, I guess to set up the question, arises out of my
absolute astonishment that this issue has arisen. There are many duties we have as members of Parliament. It is not possible always for us to follow in detail the intricacies of each bill. It is our responsibility, which we fulfil, to read the legislation and to consider it before we vote.
I had frankly understood that this issue and the issue of Bill C-79 had been settled some time ago. I guess when things head off to the other place we have a sense of it disappearing, usually off into the ether, some time to return without any change.
Here we have a case where the Senate has acted and in which it appears both the Liberals and the Conservatives, who not only dominate the Senate, but there really are no members other than a couple of independents who do not have a Liberal or a Conservative background, essentially six my friend indicates. Essentially it is a Conservative and Liberal institution. That institution sometimes gets public attention, as it did last fall, but here again it interferes with the legislative process and does so for what would appear to me on the face of it to be highly partisan reasons. The Senate amends this legislation which was designed to protect the public interest, and Parliament as well, the public interest in having an independent Parliament along with the public interest that wrongdoing be properly prosecuted; that that very delicate bill, which did provide that balance, has now been altered by the Liberals and Conservatives in the Senate. The bill comes back to this House, and what happens? The Liberals and Conservatives in this House gang up to endorse and rubber-stamp this interference in the will of this House on this bill.
Frankly, it leaves me absolutely mystified. I would like to ask the member for Churchill, who has spoken already so eloquently on this, if he could speculate for us why the Liberals and Conservatives are taking this position. He has been able to participate more carefully than I in some of the discussions and in following the details of this bill. Why would the Liberals and Conservatives want to do this? Why would it not be an absolutely obvious thing that the report to the Board of Internal Economy, or to the committee, would be made available to the peace officer and to the judge?
It seems to me so absolutely obvious, if the interests of justice are to be maintained. How come the Liberals and Conservatives not only have allowed this to happen, but
March 26, 1991

don't appear to be interested in participating in this debate?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The member for Victoria asked me to speculate, to use my imagination. I do not think I have enough time to deal with all the possible scenarios.
But, let me say this, even assuming that there is no attempt at a cover-up, and even assuming that this wasn't just an accident, the problem is that it is much more comfortable for a committee in the Senate, or for the Board of Internal Economy, to make its decisions behind closed doors and not to be accountable to anyone.
People can be very comfortable with that way of doing things. But when there is a police investigation and when a police officer comes to the Board of Internal Economy, and when the police officer knows that the board has made a decision or that the equivalent committee in the Senate has made a decision-that decision is already made, there is no possibility of us delaying anything, or the board or the House being perceived as delaying anything-then I believe that the board has a public responsibility to provide that information.
If it means that the board has to be more careful when it makes a decision, if it means it has to keep clear and accurate records of its proceedings, well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more appropriate place than for the House of Commons and its committees to keep accurate records.
I believe that if the board has looked at a member's budget and how that member has spent his budget, and it believes that that was not done under the rules of this House, then there should be no question, there should be no discretion, the board should have an obligation to give that information to a police officer and then it is up to the judge and jury to make a decision on the broader aspects of wrongdoing.
If we have a rule in this House that says you cannot spend money in such a way that it comes back to your own pocket, or to your spouse's pocket-and that is indeed happening-then I think the board has to say that that is not acceptable. I think the board has that obligation.
With regard to the question, it may well be that some people are comfortable with the old way of doing things,
Government Orders
and maybe some people think the board should not have to be that careful when it makes its opinions. But I think the board does have that obligation.
I have clearly put our amendments in such a way that we can never be charged with delaying the due process of a police investigation.
I have not said that the board must have the right to give an opinion before the police officer can go any further. I have said that the board only acts where the information is ready and where it can present it to a police officer. I am saying that where the information is ready it is not discretionary; it must be given to the police officer. We cannot be perceived in any way, shape or form of being engaged in a cover-up of our own members.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the hon. member.
As the House knows, the other day the government introduced a package of so-called reforms to the Standing Orders, ostensibly to bring democracy back to the House of Commons and that people would perceive democracy to be existing in the House of Commons. In actual fact those of us who understand the orders that govern this House know that the very opposite is the case. It would in fact turn the government party in this House into nothing less than a dictatorship.
I just want to ask the hon. member whether or not the example we have just seen in the House today which arose from procedural manoeuvring in the House by both the government and the Official Opposition over the last couple of weeks is the kind of activity that will ultimately destroy democracy in this House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine has managed to raise some of the other issues that are before the public.
If through procedural gains the government, with the compliance of the Official Opposition, has prevented amendments from coming forward on this very important matter, where we are talking about police investigations of members of this House or members of the Senate, where we see the rules being used to prevent a debate over what are the obligations of the Board of Internal Economy when there is a police investigation,

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
we have to be worried about the over-all agenda and the government's way of doing things.
I may have problems with the rule changes, but we are not debating them at the present time. What I am afraid of-and I think the member who asked the question is aware of it-is that we already had this abuse of the rules. If anything, the rule changes that are coming down perhaps later today or tomorrow in this House make it that much more difficult for myself or some other member who is in opposition to the government or some public group that wants to appear before a legislative committee of this House. Those rules are designed in such a way as to make it more difficult for an opposition member or a government backbencher, as somebody pointed out. For that matter, under the proposed rules legislative committees would not even hear from public groups that oppose government's legislation. That is taken away.
What happened last Thursday at two minutes to six o'clock is unfortunately an indication of where this government goes with all rule changes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I was looking across the aisle at my hon. friend from Peace River who I suspect was going to make some comments on the important issue raised by my hon. friend from Churchill.
I must say it is with a heavy heart today that we have to be here taking up time when we should be talking about agriculture. As far as I am concerned, farming is the backbone of much of our economy. The farmers are struggling. There is a whole set of issues that ought to be addressed immediately with almost a sense of crisis in some sectors of the agricultural community. We would like to do so but we can only do what the government asks us to do, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, that is to talk about a rather peculiar turn of events regarding Bill C-79.
Before I talk about Bill C-79, I want to say that I can only assume that the government is trying to put a fast one over on the people of Canada. After all, I remember last Thursday. I have just to take a moment to explain last Thursday because it is so germane to the debate today.
Last Thursday we were debating agriculture. It was appropriate. It was a good discussion. There were some
excellent debates. As a matter of fact they were some of the most enlightened debates I have heard in this House in a long time. They showed a real concern about agriculture and a want to get on with dealing with these issues.
We had agreed that we would complete report stage of Bill C-98.1 left some direction with my hon. colleagues which said "just prior to six o'clock let's wrap up this stage of the deliberations so that the report stage can pass and we can get on with debating agriculture", we thought today. Unfortunately it looks like that is not the case. In other words, we were trying to facilitate the business of the House by wrapping up by six o'clock so that the appropriate votes could take place. In other words, it was in good faith, above the table, honest, and positive. We were trying to do the best job we could as a positive and effective opposition.
Then, out of the blue we get a left hook coming at us.


Ms. Mitchell:: A right hook.


Nelson Andrew Riis: First of all it was a right hook where the government stood up in a split second and said: "Aha, maybe we can put a fast one over on the opposition", namely the New Democrats. It stood up and introduced Bill C-79 out of the blue. There were no discussions. There had been no consultation. It was out of the absolute blue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I may remind the hon. member that a question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Churchill, that the Speaker has already ruled on the incident described by the hon. member, and that the Standing Orders of the House were applied. I would therefore ask the hon. member for Kamloops to be prudent in his comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the government may have technically been following the rules, but it tried to sneak one past us. It tried at the last minute, just seconds before the House would normally rise for the day, to introduce a piece of legislation when no one was watching. No one was watching. I am not concerned about us here. There were some opposition members here, but what about the people of Canada? That is who the government was trying to pull a fast one on, not us. We are on top of this.
March 26, 1991

This is my disappointing comment. My friends in the Liberal Party co-operated with the government. My hon. friend for Kingston and the Islands stood in his place. He usually speaks for 20 minutes. Normally he has a lot of intelligent things to say. He has a contribution to make to debate, so when he stands we always assume we are going to have a full deliberation.
He spoke for only 20 seconds. This was the first time in his life my hon. friend for Kingston and the Islands has ever spoken for 20 seconds. Why? It was to allow the government, as my hon. friend from Churchill has explained, to pass another sneaky motion which would eliminate any possibility of this motion being amended.


Mr. Milliken:: We support the bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is the point that I am trying to make. My hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands yells out that they support the government, that they support this. We do not.
We think that there is something very seriously flawed with this particular legislation. My hon. friend from Prince George-Peace River is rattling his head. I can hear him from here, right across the entire aisle.
I know my hon. friends on the government benches find the opposition obstructive. They do not want to have debate in the House of Commons. They do not want to have a reaction to the government's Draconian legislation. They want to slip fast ones through to manipulate the House. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker: the people of Canada are fed up with this government manipulating the House of Commons on behalf of the people of Canada.
Let me get back to the business at hand. I am a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I am proud to be a member of that board. A lot of people in Canada wonder what it is this board does. There has been a veil of questions around this particular board. People ask me what it is we do. I explain what we do and so on. There is an element of jitteriness. We appreciate that we need a group to manage the affairs of the parliamentary precincts and people on that board, in my judgment, work very hard and are very dedicated to the task.
However, there is an element of some question. I put it at that, nothing more than that.
Government Orders
Then the government introduced Bill C-79, and again there was another element of question and concern. What kind of powers are we giving this board? Most of what goes on in there is not in the public purview. Then we see in the legislation-and I supported this legislation up until very recently, with the exception of the point raised by my hon. friend from Churchill-where it says that every member of the board, as soon as practicable after becoming a member of the board, shall take before the Clerk of the House of Commons an oath of affirmation, fidelity and secrecy.
As soon as we start operating in secret, people become somewhat suspicious, for good reason. The one thing we know as parliamentarians is that we want to be up-front. We want to have things on the table. We want to be in the open. After all, we are servants of the people. Whenever we start to agree to do things in secret, people begin to wonder.
Form 3, which all of us on the Board of Internal Economy will sign, says "I"-and you fill in your name-"do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully, truly, and to the best of my judgment, skill and ability execute and perform the duties required of me as a member of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons, so help me God". It goes on: "I further solemnly swear or affirm that I will not communicate or allow to be communicated to any person without due authority in that behalf any information related to matters of employment and staff relations, tenders, security, investigations in relation to a member of the House of Commons".
In other words, as a member of the board, I will swear an oath that I will not communicate, ever, any investigations in relation to a member of the House of Commons.


Mr. Malone:: That is because it would not be right if you did communicate it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear an echo. The point is right. To communicate in matters of this perhaps would be highly questionable. However, that is what we agree to do.
What are we saying, then? Let us make sure that we have taken every precaution to ensure that whatever decision that board makes is not only right in terms of the law but is perceived to be right in terms of the law.

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
The hon. member for Churchill has worked on Bill C-79 from the outset, file has spent literally hundreds of hours examining, analysing, discussing, and in thoughtful introspection in terms of the implication of this legislation. I mean that with all sincerity. He has identified a small flaw in the legislation that came back from the Senate.
He offers the following clarification so the people of Canada will know full well that if a member of Parliament is being investigated by the RCMP there will be no cover-up. There was a concern in the past that there were cover-ups, that the Board of Internal Economy and other investigations were being influenced in terms of being able to allow the RCMP to carry out its investigations effectively.
Again, not only must we be doing the right thing. We must be perceived to be doing the right thing.
The hon. member for Churchill has picked up on a problem with the amendment returned from the Senate. He has suggested:
That Bill C-79 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 8 the
following:
"52.7(1.1) For greater certainty, if an opinion has been given by the Board in relation to the use by a member of funds, goods, services and premises referred to in subsection 52.6(1), the Board shall provide the opinion to the peace officer forthwith".
Then he suggested:
That amendment 6 be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 19 to 29, page 8, clause (2) and substitute the
following:
(2) Where an opinion is provided to a peace officer to subsection (1) or the peace officer has been advised by the Board that an application under subsection 52.6(2) has been made by the member of the House of Commons to whom the investigation relates and the Committee has given an opinion and where an application for a process is made to a judge, the judge shall consider it in determining whether to issue the process."
It is perfectly clear, absolutely clear. It is a straightforward and simple amendment that would rectify any concern about the whole process so that Canadian citizens could feel secure and comforted to know that a fair evaluation will take place by the Board of Internal Economy and that the information will be passed along to the most appropriate persons.
That is perfectly clear, perfectly obvious. It is the right thing to do. Yet the government has, in its mysterious way, taken steps to ensure that this will not take place, that this change will not occur.
Let us set aside the House of Commons because we have a good check and balance system. All members of the House, all recognized parties of the House, are at least represented on the Board of Internal Economy.
In the Senate and its committee, with a similar operation, such is not the case. First of all, we are dealing with people who are not elected by the people of Canada. They have been appointed for a variety of reasons, because they are hacks, flacks, or bagmen, or for some other reason, by the Prime Minister of the day to the Upper House. Only two political parties sit there.
I personally do not have that much faith in the integrity of the Senate of Canada after seeing its decision to try to slip something through the back door. You referred to the thoughtful comments and the decision of the Speaker on a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker. You will only appreciate too well that the Speaker felt it was his job to point out the inappropriateness of the Senate using the back-door routine to try to get themselves a raise.
In other words, if you want to pay yourself $153 a day to show up for work then do it up-front, do it through the appropriate process. They tried a rather devious route and thank goodness the Speaker stood up, pointed that out and said it was inappropriate and unacceptable in a democratic system.
Something similar may be happening here. There is a back-door routine and the government is not permitting what anybody would consider to be a fair, just, or equitable resolution to the particular problem that has been pointed out in the motion coming back from the Upper House.
Not only are we concerned about the process. Why is it that there has been this duplicity between the Liberals and the Conservatives to try to fast-track this piece of legislation so that the New Democrats will not have a chance to clarify the legislation through amendment? Why would they do that?
I do not know. It is that kind of duplicity, that kind of working together to protect one another, which causes us concerns in this party regarding the Senate. Essentially
March 26, 1991

Government Orders
there are only those two parties represented in the Senate. There are some Independents, but basically there are those two parties.
I do not want to start mentioning names. I do not think that would be appropriate. However, we have some pretty cosy arrangements being provided and some secret examinations going on in terms of some of their members' conduct. I do not think the people of Canada have faith in that system. That is why we are saying that it needs to be clarified. Nothing more, just clarified, so that everybody understands what the process is, everybody buys into the process and says: "Yes, this is a decent process. This is a good process. This is an up-front process. This is a just, fair, equitable process".
Why is the government against that? Why would it be against considering something that is so obviously positive and so obviously good?
We have received all sorts of advice from procedural experts. We have received all sorts of suggestions from people who watch this very closely. They say that what the hon. member for Churchill is proposing is probably soft, if anything, but at least it is a move in the right direction. I hate to say this because I have many friends with the caucus opposite and in the Liberal Party, but they have refused to accept this. We can only say that this is a very serious situation.
Tied in with this is the whole matter of changing the way this House of Commons operates, the Standing Orders, and tossing a hundred-plus years of regulation, rule, and tradition out the window to enable the government to implement with minimal opposition, minimal fuss, its oppressive agenda on the people of Canada.
Obviously we will not stand for that, and we are not going to stand for this. We are just not going to turn a blind eye and let these organizations that already work in secret have the legislative authority to make decisions regarding the conduct of members of Parliament or senators regarding police investigations and hold that under some kind of cloud. That is not the way to proceed. I want to speak very positively in support of these two amendments. I think that my hon. friend from Churchill did the right thing when he asked for unanimous consent for the government to now reconsider its silliness and permit consideration of these two amendments.
I would like to think that before we end this debate, we will again make that suggestion. Perhaps it would be appropriate to hear from other members. Many members here have a lot to say about this issue. If necessary, we are prepared to speak all day and all day tomorrow and beyond on this because we just do not feel comfortable at all. As a matter of fact, we would not even consider supporting legislation that is so obviously flawed when my hon. colleague from Churchill has provided a simple amendment which would rectify the situation.
We will continue to discuss and debate this in hopes that eventually the government will see the wisdom of following our advice.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimau-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the New Democratic Party House leader, as a member of the committee, would enlighten us as to why we are faced with this unique opposition only by the New Democratic Party. Where is the voice of the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada?
In the member's opinion, is it a presumption that it may be in government and that it would like this kind of protection when it is in government? Surely, as a new member, I would would like to be disabused of that concept. If, indeed, that is his opinion, then the Canadian public should hear it. Why is the Liberal Party so silent on this issue today? Why is it, in its years of experience, just as the Tories have been governing, when there have been errant members, that the cops should be allowed to go directly into this without any political interference? Cops are not interfered with by ordinary citizens. Why should they be interfered with by politicians?
I want to ask my good friend the House leader of the New Democratic Party to enlighten me, as a novice to this place and to this whole system of politics, why would the Liberal Party be opposed to our amendments?
Please do not disappoint me. Do not tell me the Liberal Party is cynical. I am ready for anything.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this is a most serious question raised by my hon. colleague. I suspect, just by looking at the faces of all members interested in this issue, that it is a question on the minds of a lot of people. Why are the Liberals involved in what appears to be a very draconian

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
and sinister move to cover up and to establish, in a sense, almost two levels of justice?


David Barrett: Right.


Nelson Andrew Riis: One for the people of Canada and a separate one for-


An hon. member:: For members under investigation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, members under investigation, but members of Parliament and Senators.
I think I speak for everyone in the New Democratic Party caucus when I say that we feel there should be one justice system.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We can only accept one justice system.
My hon. friend, the government Whip is in his place listening carefully and we look forward to his remarks. I think perhaps, he has a different interpretation of the seriousness of this problem.
We might argue the technicalities and he might feel that in terms of the exact letter of the law, particularly as it applies to subsection 52.7 and 52.6, that technically we are overly concerned. Is it not appropriate that there be no question whatsoever? My hon. friend from Churchill raised this critical question and we might debate how critical it is.
From the fact that it has been raised and no one in the Liberal or Conservative parties have even discussed or argued against it, we can only assume that they are feeling very uncomfortable today.


An hon. member:: Shame, shame.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They are feeling a part of a process that is going to get us as members of Parliament in big trouble if we give the impression that there are two justice systems. I appeal to my friends across the aisle in the Conservative Party and my colleagues in the Liberal Party to participate in this debate. Then I can determine from their points of view if my friend from Churchill has misinterpreted this amendment. I do not think he has. There is a serious problem of perception, and it is imperative that collectively all of us say that there is one justice system, one for members of Parliament and the people of Canada, and no special treatment for anybody in this country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear all the applause from the NDP benches. I must say that the hon. member for Kamloops surprises me; he is trying to allege there is some kind of sinister plot going on here, if I can quote his words. This particular bill, Bill C-79, was introduced in this House in June of last year and I well recall that the House leader of the New Democratic Party wanted to put this bill through all stages in one day. It was only the objections of our party which saved this bill from being passed at that time-


Some hon. members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. On a point of order, the hon. member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to June of last year, he will find that it was the New Democratic Party that refused to allow it to go through in all stages. We said there were some flaws; we insisted that it be sent to committee.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Obviously that was not a point of order, and I maintain the position that it was our party that objected to having that bill passed at all stages in its original form in June 1990.
We then had the outraged statements of the member for Kamloops. He said this bill was a travesty and was now opposed to it, because he had seen the good reasons we put forward for opposition to the bill in its original form. The bill was referred to a special committee.
I believe the hon. member for Churchill was a member of that special committee. I think he sat on it throughout the summer. The government Whip says it was only half the time but nevertheless I understand he appeared at the committee and took part in its deliberations. The committee reported to this House in November 1990 and recommended some very worth-while changes to the bill. Those changes were agreed upon and the bill was passed on November 30 in this House.
Now the bill has come back from the Senate with a couple of amendments which are technical in nature which we in our party support. I stood up the other day when the Senate amendments were moved for second reading and indicated my support and the support of our party for those amendments. We stand by that support.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.
March 26, 1991


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I didn't hear anything in what the hon. member for Kamloops said that indicated that support was withdrawn by his party. He supports those amendments also.
What I understand is that the member for Churchill has had a death-bed repentance of some kind and thinks he has to make more amendments because he somehow feels left out.
I say to the hon. member for Kamloops, who supported this bill on his own admission until the other day, that he should be standing up praising the government and allowing this bill to go through. Everyone agrees with it. The only person who has a problem is the hon. member for Churchill, and we all saw how he behaved the other day when he found that he was not going to be able to move his amendments.
Furthermore, I suggest that the hon. member for Kamloops knows full well that it would be out of order for the hon. member for Churchill to move amendments to this bill at this stage. The bill has been amended and passed in this House. The Senate amendments only are before us; we cannot provide other amendments at this stage to this bill. The hon. member for Kamloops knows that and I suggest he stand up right now and admit it. This whole thing is a facade and a fraud that he is trying to put over on this House and convince the Canadian people that somehow there is some kind of cover-up going on here, which there is not.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, methinks my hon. friend protesteth too much. He gets a little excited. We must have touched a bit of a nerve when we suggested that.
Let me explain what actually happened, because obviously my hon. friend was missing during part of the deliberations.
We are not debating a bill, we are debating a motion. My hon. friend should know that. Consequently when he said that we supported Bill C-79, we are not talking about Bill C-79 today.
We are talking about a motion referring to Bill C-79 today. He knows better than that, but is obviously trying to cover some tracks that are pretty murky at the moment.
While we supported Bill C-79-


An hon. member:: Before it was amended.
Government Orders


Nelson Andrew Riis: Before it was amended by your friends in the Senate, yes, we supported Bill C-79. It was then altered and we do not support the alteration. From the day it came back from the Senate, my hon. colleague for Churchill, who was the representative of the New Democratic Party during consideration of Bill C-79, indicated clearly to my hon. friend the government Whip, the Government House Leader, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and, presumably, similar counterparts in the Liberal Party that we had serious concerns and we were going to suggest we amend the motion.
My hon. friend then went to the law clerks who were drafting the motion. We communicated that to not only the Parliamentary Secretary of the Government House Leader, but the Deputy House Leader as well. He was waiting to hear back from the clerks in conclusion.
Our track record on this is perfectly clean, perfectly clear and perfectly straightforward. I have yet to hear from my hon. friends why they are supporting-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time someone put on the record the events connected with the motion before us which, in the Senate, led to a number of comments by senators which I feel are justified and to amendments that reflect an entity that is different from our own.
To be perfectly clear, the amendments before us today, which are being proposed by the Senate, deal with a situation that somewhat differs from ours in that the Senate's board of internal economy is not organized the same way. The Speaker of the House of Commons is both member and Chairman of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. That is not the case in the Senate. The Speaker of the Senate does not automatically chair the Senate's committee on internal economy which is, in fact, a Standing Committee of the Senate that regularly reports to the Senate. So the procedure differs somewhat from what is customary here in the House of Commons.
Second, the amendments confirm these differences and provide for intersessional authority. The point is, that when Parliament is prorogued, since the Senate's internal economy committee is a Standing Committee, it

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
would immediately lose its powers and be unable to pursue any further activities. The Senate therefore proposes an amendment that would provide for intersessional authority, so that senators would be able to continue to work during a period of prorogation of Parliament.
In fact, during the debate in the Senate, there was some discussion on section 52.7.

I will use my second language so that members of the House will understand there was no plot and no cover up. There was absolutely nothing done to tiy and change the spirit and the objectives that we had all tried to reach in getting Bill C-79 before Parliament.
I think it is a first in terms of parliamentary democracy that we now have a bill that guarantees in the House of Commons full representation to all parties on the Board of Internal Economy. One only has to look back some years ago when the government was in total command of that committee.
Today all parties have a representative on the Board of Internal Economy and that assures some justice and some equity in matters dealing with all parties and all members.
In my view there is no other way of assuring a non-partisan approach to the issues we deal with on the Board of Internal Economy, of which I am a member, and so is the member for Kamloops, who is the representative of his party.
The question arose in debate in the Senate as to our intent, our motive, our purpose. It was to give members of this House and of the Senate an opportunity to have an adjudication by their peers, by the Board of Internal Economy, of the expenditure of public funds entrusted to them to administer their offices and other things. We also wanted to put in place a system which would allow us, members of Parliament, to ask the board for an interpretation, an opinion as to the expenditures of funds in the operations of our constituency and House of Commons offices.
I see nothing wrong with that. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I think it is a step in the right direction.
If a member is concerned or has doubt about what he is about to do in terms of expenditure or what he is about to do in terms of administering his office, then he can go to the board and ask for its opinion. He can say to the board: "What do you think of this proposal", and the board will answer either that it is okay or: "No, we do not agree, therefore you cannot do it".
The question that arose in the Senate and arose in my mind, because when we passed the bill at third reading an amendment was passed about which I had some hesitation, but nevertheless with the assurance of all parties, I thought I will not pursue that. I will not pursue it because maybe the Senate will agree that there could be here a review of that clause, which is clause 52.7.
Clause 52.7(2) read this way: "Where an opinion is provided to a peace officer, pursuant to subsection (1)", and the text went on to say, "or", and I underline "or", "the peace officer has been advised by the board that an application under subsection 52.6(2) has been made by the member of the House of Commons to whom the investigation relates and where an application for a process is made to a judge, the judge shall be provided with the opinion and shall consider it in determining whether to issue the process".
The difficulty that I had and that some other members of this group had, was with the "or the peace officer having been advised by the board that an application under subsection 52.6". I am not a lawyer, but I am told that members of Parliament and senators sometimes get wind that an investigation is ongoing on matters pertaining to the administration of their funds, that is the funds given to them to administer their office. They get wind of this.
The possibility which I objected to, and I am thinking here in terms of an all-party position, the difficulty of that position was that if a member heard or got wind of an investigation on his administration of public funds, he could immediately ask the board for an opinion. In my judgment and the judgment of many others in the Senate, that would have stopped the process there and then. That would have prevented due process because that would have prevented the completion in my view and in the view of others of that investigation by the police officer.
March 26, 1991

It said here: "Where an opinion is provided to a peace officer pursuant to subsection (1) or the peace officer has been advised".
What if the peace officer had asked the board if it was about to give an opinion on the administration of funds from Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so? If the board said: "Yes, we are about to render that opinion," I contend that is quite logical.
There is nothing here of cover-up. It is strictly a question of interpretation. I am not a lawyer, but I do think as a legislator that a possibility could exist that the board would have been obligated to give that opinion.
If the opinion took time, it could slow the process and retard the ongoing investigation. In fact, it could stop that whole investigation. That is what we objected to, that is mainly the issue at hand here and that is why in the Senate-I can quote from the Debates extensively- that is what the argument was.
I could quote from the text of Senator MacEachen, for example: "However, if the process of going to a judge to have a search warrant or to lay a charge is linked to the work of the peace officer in laying a charge, that process cannot be completed until the opinion of the board is given. Then there is an anomaly."
At the very least, that provision was looked at and improved in my humble opinion. The purpose of the amendment in the motion before the House today is to eliminate the possibility that an opinion, having been asked, would prevent the ongoing process, that is, the legal process, to continue.
That is now eliminated. Therefore, it cannot be read to have any other interpretation.
I say to the member for Churchill-I am not quarrelling with him on the intent of his amendments-that I would agree with the purpose and the intent of his amendment. However, I say with all due respect that there is a provision in this bill that allows the House of Commons at this time to adopt this bill and look after the preoccupations of my friends from Churchill and Kamloops.
Government Orders
What we could do is to look at the section dealing with the bylaws of the board. I want to read the bylaws of the board:
Subject to section 20.7, the board may make bylaws:
(a)	respecting the calling of meetings of the board to conduct the business of the meetings;
(b)	governing the use by senators or members of Parliament of funds, goods, services and premises made available to them for the carrying out of their parliamentary functions;
(c)	prescribing the terms and conditions of the management of and accounting of funds referred to in paragraph (b);
(d)	respecting all such things that are necessary or incidental to the exercise of its powers under this section and sections 20.3 and 20.6.
We have a provision in this bill that would allow the Board of Internal Economy to pass bylaws doing exactly what the member for Churchill is proposing to the board and that would satisfy most of us. I would recommend to this House that we immediately pass this motion so we can go on to other things.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the former House leader, former Whip and very active committee member for his intervention. In particular, I want to thank him for the way he ended that intervention.
I want to point out to the House that the member for Churchill and the House leader of the New Democratic Party are just as aware as the member who has just spoken of what is in Bill C-79 and what was not touched by the Senate.
I would go one step further and read another section:
The Speaker shall table before the House of Commons the bylaws
made under this section on any of the first 30 days after the making
thereof.
If the member for Churchill really cares about this institution or the people in it, does he really want to hand the Senate the power to change what it is that he proposes? Or, does he trust the House of Commons, at least, and his member on it-the House leader of the New Democratic Party-to pass a bylaw to accomplish what it is that he sees as an oversight of the bill?
Does he really want to reject the Senate message because we made a mistake? He did, I did, the member who spoke did. The Chamber did. We passed a clause with an unseen possibility in it, which the Senate spotted. I want to pay a compliment to the Senate, as the Chamber of sober second thought, on that particular

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
clause it spotted a flaw and simply corrected it. I say thank you to the Senate. The Senate changed from a board to go back to its committee and that is a mistake. I think the Senate will be back to this Chamber some day in the next two or three years asking for a board, because I think it has created for itself an administrative structure that is unwieldy and makes it very difficult to activate the responsibilities inherent in this bill.
This bill came about and was examined by all sides of this Chamber for a purpose. We are not today, without the passage of this bill, treated like ordinary Canadians when it comes to the justice system. The securing of information from this Chamber about the behaviour of members and their utilization of the budget today, without this piece of legislation, requires a judicial process, usually a search warrant, before any information can be obtained. The Speaker has to grant permission for the warrant to be executed.
I think it is fair to say that we found that situation intolerable, that the public nature of search warrants and the fact that they are full of allegations and not proof, created difficulties for members, and in particular, members' families.
This piece of legislation is an obligation on the part of the board to provide the police and courts with information that they cannot get today. It is additional information. It is saying to the police and the courts, we will give you accurate information if you would simply come and ask.
If there is an allegation out there about the behaviour of a member, it can be dealt with quickly and expeditiously. If there is truth, or some element of truth to the allegation, it will go through an investigation and a process; If it is simply an allegation without a foundation in truth, that can be discovered and all members, all sides of the Chamber can avoid the public nature of allegations. Allegations do enormous damage. This day started at 11 a.m. with an NDP allegation about an unnamed person in the Prime Minister's office. That tars all of the members of the Prime Minister's office with a brush. It is not fair. It is simply not fair.
I would like to indicate to the colleague who spoke ahead of me, that both as board members and certainly on behalf of all the board members of my party, we would be quite willing to pass a bylaw that would require the board to give to the police officers or to the courts an opinion which is relevant to the case.
It says in the bill itself, under the bylaw section, the board of governors must make bylaws respecting all such things as are necessary or incidental to the exercise of its powers and carrying out of its functions.
Those early bylaws must deal with the way the board itself intends them to function. It can deal with the issues that are contained in these two amendments, without turning over the control to the Senate.
Abolish the Senate, says the former premier of the province of British Columbia. I did not see his legislature when he was in charge pass a motion to that effect, to abolish the Senate. It is awfully easy to sit on the side lines and snipe, but when you have the responsibility of governing, surely you have to act responsibly.
I suggest to this House there really needs to be no more time on this particular piece of legislation, that we should move to the agriculture bill. If we want more time on the agriculture bill or more time on this, I would move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the
second reading of government Bill C-79, an act to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act.
If we do not need it then we can adjourn at one o'clock or we could actually agree to consider the agricultural bill after one o'clock. At this point, I simply would ask you to put that motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: A point of order, the hon. member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you check the records or your memory, you will realize that the government Whip got up on questions and comments. Therefore, he cannot move that particular motion. It should also be noted that he has taken almost all the time for questions and comments and, therefore, not allowing other members to speak.
I am sure, with regard to this specific point of order, because he asked a number of questions which we obviously do not have a chance to reply to since he has taken up most of the time, the motion he put is out of order.
[Translation}


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I will consult before ruling on the Government Whip's motion. Since we have two and a half minutes left, I will recognize the
March 26, 1991

hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, on questions and comments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize there was a question in the comments made by my hon. friend, the Government Whip, but if our common objective is to clarify the bill-and I believe the amendment does exactly that-I have no further comments. I think everything is quite clear. All we wanted to do is eliminate any interpretations that might hamper the legal process. In other words, if a member got wind of an investigation into his administration or budget, he could ask the board for an opinion, which would have had the effect of delaying if not altogether preventing the investigation. I think that possibility has now been eliminated from the bill and that the Senate did a good job. They are to be commended and derserve our thanks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: After consulting the Standing Orders, I must admit that the objection raised by the hon. member for Churchill is in order, since according to Standing Order 43, during the period for questions and comments members may not move a motion to extend the sitting hours of the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, on a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, during the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, there was an offer on his behalf, as the Liberal member of the board, to take care of the concerns of the member for Churchill. I have since heard the offer from the chief government Whip, who is also a member of the board, indicating the government's support to take care of those concerns at the Board of Internal Economy.
I would like to ask the House Leader of the New Democratic Party whether he, as the New Democratic representative on the same board, would agree to attend to these concerns at the board.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply on a point of order on two points. First of all, I think it indicates, on behalf of the government a recognition that clarification is required and a suggestion perhaps that this might be an appropriate way to deal with this issue raised by my hon. friend from Churchill. I want to say, with all
Government Orders
sincerity, that I would enjoy discussing this as a way of enabling this motion to proceed.
On another point, however, I want to say that my offer still stands from earlier regarding the important agricultural bill. If the government wants to introduce that and say this is the item of business for this afternoon, and we want to see this completed as the only item of business, we will ensure that takes place and that the bill will be passed today.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member is agreeing to let a decision be taken on Bill C-79 at this time. There are seven minutes which allow us to call Bill C-98. I would then ask for unanimous consent to allow us to continue through the lunch hour to deal with Bill C-98, the agricultural bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the hon. member for Kamloops suggested that members interested in this matter might get together for a discussion.
I have plenty of time this afternoon to discuss my proposal for using the Board of Internal Economy to meet the concerns of the hon. member for Churchill. If this suits hon. members, I am prepared to meet them to discuss the matter. I hope the outcome will be satisfactory-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier and his offer that he would be prepared to make time available later today to discuss this and see if we can come to a satisfactory resolution. I would be more than pleased to do the same and make myself available. I think a gesture of good faith that the government is serious in this initiative would be to introduce the agricultural bill at three o'clock when we begin this afternoon.
However, I want to make perfectly clear that if the government tries to jam through the changes to the Standing Orders at three o'clock, I would have to consider this offer to be made not necessarily in good faith.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, in response to the government's suggestion, we would be prepared to embark on consideration of the agricultural bill immediately and we would be prepared to sit through lunch in order to discuss it. I want to indicate our co-operation on that point. We think it is an important bill and ought to be disposed of promptly.

March 26, 1991


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the motions that I was not allowed to make to this House have been the subject of debate for the last half hour and have been the subject of a number of offers and counter-offers across the floor. However, I recognize that if we allow this debate to collapse now, there is no pressure on anyone to act. For us to give up this debate and allow the legislation to pass in the next two minutes means that we really do not have any bargaining power to make sure that the amendments that I was not allowed to place before this House are going to be adequately dealt with.
Considering the manoeuvring that took place at two minutes to six last Thursday, I am certainly not going to allow the same manoeuvring to take place at two minutes to one.
Our House leader has already guaranteed that if the agricultural bill is the measure brought back at three o'clock today when the House next deals with legislation, we will help make sure that that legislation passes. On legislation, we are willing to negotiate; we are willing to guarantee.
We are not going to be stuck now with a manoeuvre which will give the government the Parliament of Canada Act as it was amended by the Senate. There is a fundamental flaw there and I want to make sure it is adequately dealt with before we do anything else.
Therefore, we cannot agree to a unanimous motion to deal with other business until this is clarified.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the offer which came from the member from Vanier and which had been discussed earlier with members of the New Democratic Party caucus is to use the bylaw provision under Bill C-79 to take care of the concern; that it must be made public within 30 days of the making of the bylaw. You had the public commitment from the two parties and there is only one other party represented on the board. That is the situation at the moment, that will be the situation an hour from now and it will be the situation five days from now: that Bill C-79 and its passage is the precondition to being able to act.
I do not know whether we have a board meeting scheduled for tomorrow night, but if we were to approve that bill at this moment, move it to Royal Assent, and put it into law at the very first board meeting subsequent to it
becoming the law of the land, then we can solve the problem.
The only other possibility would be to go through the whole cumbersome mending process and back to the Senate. Canadian taxpayers will be well served by the bill; it will have a great deal more clarity. That is why all parties in all corners of the House have supported it historically-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, on March 19, Kimberly-Clark outlined its position on the sale of the Spruce Falls Pulp and Paper Company in Kapuskasing.
Kimberly-Clark has set a purchase deadline of April 30, 1991. This deadline creates unwarranted pressure on the purchasing employee group by withdrawing its exclusive buying rights. The deadline also applies to the sale of the Smokey Falls dam to the Ontario government. This time restriction will not permit a complete environmental assessment.
In 1983 Kimberly-Clark decided not to modernize Spruce Falls. This was inappropriate. As a corporate citizen it has failed miserably to honour its commitment to the workers.
The Government of Ontario could retaliate by avoiding the forest management agreement which would leave Spruce Falls without a wood supply for next year. A new FMA would be renegotiated with a new owner.
Kimberly-Clark is shifting its corporate responsibility to the province. Suddenly, it has forgotten the profits it has made in the past 63 years. Kimberly-Clark has the
March 26, 1991

moral responsibility to secure work for the 1,200 workers it plans to lay off.


TELEMARKETING
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are frustrated when Telemarketing calls intrude upon their personal lives.
Today I would like to congratulate the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Canadian Direct Marketing Association for establishing standards of conduct that respect consumer privacy.
I am especially pleased to see the leadership that the minister has demonstrated by making businesses responsible for maintaining acceptable standards that are in the consumer interest.


GLOBAL WARMING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the Standing Committee on Environment released its third report on global warming fittingly entitled Out of Balance: The Risks of Irreversible Climate Change. The report is based on hearings that extended over eight months, a review of over 120 written submissions, and the testimony of more than 100 qualified witnesses.
The recommendations of the report are solid, comprehensive and realistic. Based on four principal premises, the report concludes that global warming is proven and validated scientifically, that global warming is the inevitable consequence of past and present human activity, that global warming is a dire threat to Canada and the entire planet, and that the time to act is now, without delay.
In memory of Dean Clay, the committee's principal researcher and adviser who passed away suddenly on October 22, 1990, let me say that Dean's outstanding assistance and contribution on this pressing global issue will be a legacy for generations to come.


POTATO INDUSTRY
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, potato farmers in Prince Edward Island are still waiting
for the federal government to come forward with its compensation package to assist those farmers affected by the PVY-N virus.
Farmers are looking to plant their crops within five weeks and must get their seed lined up. The uncertainty resulting from this delay is not only causing anxiety among the farmers. It is affecting their ability to obtain operating credit.
This problem does not only affect the potato industry. It has repercussions on the entire economy of my province.
Surely the welfare and security of the potato industry should be a priority. The U.S. ban was put in place almost two months ago. In that length of time surely this government has been able to put together the required compensation package.
I call on the federal government to delay no longer, to let the farmers of Prince Edward Island know where they stand, and to announce immediately a full and comprehensive compensation package.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FORESTRY AGREEMENTS
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of this week it will be two years since the last federal-provincial forestry agreement in Saskatchewan expired.
I have lost track of how many times this government has told me that an agreement is just around the comer. The Minister of Forestry himself came to Prince Albert last August and said it would be there by Christmas. Finally word circulated that on March 11a new agreement would finally be signed.
A new agreement was signed yesterday in Manitoba, but what has happened in Saskatchewan? On March 6, Grant Devine's election timetable was derailed by the boundaries fiasco and we have not seen hide nor hair of the agreement since.
This farce has gone on long enough.
The sustainable development of Saskatchewan's forests and the livelihood of the people living in those forests are simply too important to be held hostage by Grant Devine's election shenanigans.

March 26, 1991
Therefore I call on this government to stop playing footsie with Grant Devine on this issue and to start giving Saskatchewan's forests and the forest communities the support it has promised for so long.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, medicare is the cornerstone of the social system, cherished by all Canadians. However few understand the actual cost of these excellent services, for example that it is much more expensive to treat minor health problems at hospital emergency wards rather than in doctors' offices.
In this age of computers we should provide eveiyone with a print-out showing the real cost of medical services received each year. Then we would have an informed public able to make more cost effective use of medicare, with resulting savings for all taxpayers.
We already get print-outs showing our Canada Pension entitlement. I urge the federal government and the provinces to give Canadians personal information about the actual cost of their medicare.


COST SHARING PROGRAMS
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the recently announced $80 million joint expenditure by the province of Quebec and the federal government should be looked upon as a positive step by all levels of government.
The 75-25 sharing arrangement to develop municipal roads, sewage and water facilities for industrial projects will be welcomed, I am sure, by the municipalities that benefit from it.
With a similar need for funds for regional development by municipalities in all provinces, it is hoped that the minister responsible will advise the House soon what the criteria are for provinces to apply for this assistance or tell us when similar cost sharing programs will be announced for other provinces.
The government is finally seeing the folly in its deindustrialization process and has taken a step in the right direction with Quebec, a step which should be repeated with all other provinces.
['Translation\


GUN CONTROL
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the National Firearms Association sent me a copy of the book entitled "Armed and Female" by the Americain author Paxton Quigley. It advocates the use of firearms as the only effective means of self-defense for women. It also puts forward an American philosophy, of an armed society, which is far from what we want in Canada. Increasing the number of firearms is not the answer to the problem of violence against women.
By sending me this book, the management of the National Firearms Association show their true intention, which is to copy the Americans. In spite of the pressures of these lobbyists working for American arms manufacturers, I will keep asking for more severe gun control measures, knowing I can count on the support of over
500,000	Canadians.


EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Hawkesbury Employment Center which serves my riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell just released the most recent statistics on unemployment in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the verdict is a condemnation of the economic policy of the government opposite. Based on these figures, the rate of unemployment in the Hawkesbury area, in my riding, is 16.6 per cent. It has never been this high, even during the global recession of 1982. Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Prescott in particular, is in need of immediate help.
So, I call upon the government to develop an economic recovery plan for Eastern Ontario and the Hawkesbury area in particular.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, after just six months in power, the New Democratic Government of Ontario has already left the Mulroney Conser-
March 26, 1991

vatives far behind on environmentally responsible energy policy.
As just one example, the Ontario government has ordered Ontario Hydro to divert $240 million, that is $60 million per year for four years, from nuclear energy development into reducing demand through energy conservation and efficiency.
That diversion alone is worth more than one and a half times the total annual energy department's spending on all federal programs for efficiency, conservation and alternate energy. Indeed, that total federal budget of $35 million a year is only $20 million more than Ontario Hydro will spend just on advertising its conservation and efficiency programs.
Members might wish to remember this as they take in the solar energy exposition in the West Block today and, thereafter, they may wish to redress this shameful imbalance.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents send me a very loud and clear message that in the next round of constitutional discussions native issues must be a major priority.
They do not want to see any more violence or armed confrontation. They do want to see a rapid and just settlement of all outstanding legitimate claims of native Canadians whether they involve land, self-government or sovereignty.
Mr. Speaker, you and I know that is not an easy task. Native leaders do not always agree with one another, let alone the government. The Mohawks at Oka, for example, are reportedly divided into seven factions all claiming to be the sole legitimate community leaders.
However it is essential that the government at least be seen to be doing all that it can to find a solution, and so far in spite of the minister's efforts that message is just not getting through.


NATIONAL FRANCOPHONE WOMEN'S EDUCATION WEEK
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the Reseau national d'action education femmes established in 1980 has just celebrated its first national francophone women's education week throughout Canada.
It turned out to be a successful week thanks to the work done by RNAEF volunteers and to the financial support made available through the Secretary of State Women's Program. The purpose of this organization is to promote francophone women in all Canadian provinces through education and access to education.
I am proud to wear this badge which says that enlightened men respect and encourage women seeking equity. It was presented to me at the first exhibition of educational services for francophone women which took place in Orleans in the riding of Carleton-Gloucester.
Congratulations to the women of RNAEF.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Before the CRTC yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Tele-Metropole and CFCF went after the CBC management with a vengeance and accused them of seeking to increase the unfair advantage the Crown corporation already has over the private television network.
Mr. Charles Belanger singled out the CBC advertising revenues as well as the way the corporation has been promoting revenue-producing programs since the early 1980s, preferring airing Dallas to producing Canadian drama or documentaries on politics, the economy and the environment.


ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I was astounded yesterday to find that it has cost up to $8,000 each to research answers to questions on the Order

March 26, 1991
Paper. In fact, some shared questions involving more than one department could exceed that $8,000 figure.
None of us can question the fact that we have the right, indeed the responsibility, to be thorough, but we also have the obligation to set an example of fiscal responsibility.
When the issue is pertinent and the information relevant for an important issue and not readily available, we have the right to demand it and the government the responsibility to provide it.
However, in the name of common sense and fiscal responsibility, let each of us ask only those questions we truly need. For the sake of the taxpayer, let us consider the value of the question as well as the cost of the answer.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the men and women who sat on the Belanger-Campeau Commission, particularly Bloc Quebecois leader Lucien Bouchard.
A general consensus developed within this commission made up of various interests and groups, except for the Liberal Party Of Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Equality Party. Mr. Speaker, Quebec is serenely preparing for the future.
Within eighteen months Canada will have an opportunity to make formal offers to the people of Quebec. Ever more Quebecers are becoming aware that the referendum campaign has just begun and that, by October 26, 1992 at the latest, the majority of men and women in the province will vote in favour of the only realistic and practical option, sovereignty.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to an article in today's edition of The Ottawa Citizen which describes the construction of Canada's pavilion at Expo 92 in Seville, Spain as being on time and on budget.
Mr. Gordon Smith, Canada's Deputy Commissioner General to Expo 92, is quoted as saying:
We're ahead because we're the best organized country here, we planned and made decisions early on.
I have in my possession an internal External Affairs document which paints a much different picture, a much costlier picture of the construction of the Canadian pavilion. Under the heading of immediate problem, the document says:
The situation today is that we are on time but not on budget, and we may need to return to TB for extra funding in the magnitude of $10 million.
In fact, the budget for the Canadian pavilion at Expo 92 has been revised upward by $2.4 billion in the 1990 Supplementary Estimates. This represents a 42 per cent increase in less than one year.
I hope the minister of external affairs will see fit to correct the misleading impression this story leaves in The Ottawa Citizen of the true cost of the Canadian pavilion and let Canadians know just how much of a financial bath we can expect to take.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what it is about the NDP. Whether we are talking about the member for Nickel Belt or his leader, the member for Yukon, they have got a bugaboo about the mining corporations not paying their fair share of taxes. In fact, the leader of the socialists began her questioning on Friday by suggesting that mining companies should pay more tax.
I know the leader was in downtown Toronto yesterday speaking to the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada at its annual meeting. I sincerely hope that she has learned something about the mining association. I hope she was listening to the men and women at the meeting.
She should have heard, I am sure, that the creators of wealth, the companies the NDP would like to hit hard with rising taxes, are certainly not in the best position to pay more new NDP taxes.
The business section of The Globe and Mail today said: "mining companies reeling: $1.4 million writedowns resulted from weak gold prices and bad decisions".
March 26, 1991

Again I hope that our socialist friends read The Globe and Mail. Perhaps they will stop ranting about things and learn a little more about what is common knowledge in the mining community.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In the wee hours of the morning today a vote was taken at the Belanger-Campeau Commission in Quebec which could set the stage for the end of Canada.
At a time when leadership means standing to be counted, the Prime Minister and his party abstained in the vote.
Why did the Prime Minister refuse to stand and be counted for Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as usual my friend, the Acting Leader of the Opposition is, to put it charitably, only partly right.
In the wee hours of this morning there was not one vote. There were many votes taken at the Belanger-Campeau Commission, including the key vote which asked the members to endorse sovereignty as the preferred choice of Quebecers. The member of this government, Mr. Hogue, along with a member of her party, voted solidly against that petition.
With regard to what evolved as the ultimate package, and it having become clear that this might be endorsed by a larger number of people and become the basis of the negotiating position of the Government of Quebec, it was in respect of that appropriate that Mr. Hogue, who is the only member there as a member of the federal government that may be called upon to begin negotiations at an appropriate point in time, neither speak for nor against what is their bargaining position.


An hon. member:: Their bargaining position?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Their bargaining position, exactly. It is one that would be set out by the Government of the Province of Quebec.
Oral Questions
I find it very interesting that last week the Acting Leader of the Opposition rose and asked all parties in the House to depoliticize the question of national unity and today, quite in error and with mischief, is trying to politicize something that should be depoliticized.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the timeframe agreed upon by the majority of the Belanger-Campeau Commission to give Canada an ultimate chance is much narrower. That is why we could not approve the report.
But everyone agrees that the status quo is no longer satisfactory. We need a thorough reform if we want this country to survive.
Given the tight schedule we are stuck with, whether we like it or not, when will the Prime Minister show national leadership and disclose his own agenda so that a consensus can be achieved as to the necessary reforms for a new Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. The status quo is no longer satisfactory and has not been since the Constitution was patriated in 1981-1982. In-depth changes were needed and some, although modest, were agreed upon in the Meech Lake Accord which my friend supported.
In spite of these modest changes endorsed by the Liberal Party as well as the New Democratic Party, a Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland, failed to have them confirmed by a vote in the legislature of his province.
The fact remains nonetheless that deep changes are needed as I advocated in a speech I made in Buckingham. As a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons for setting up the Spicer Commission as well as the Ed-wards-Beaudoin Special Joint Committee. It is also one of the reasons why the government House leader gave notice to the hon. members last week that they will be involved more closely in a parliamentary process aimed precisely at preparing reforms for Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is accusing me of politicizing the debate. I say that if anyone in this House is politicizing the debate, that person, is right across the way. When the time comes to make a critical decision on a question as

March 26, 1991
Oral Questions
fundamental as the unity of Canada, people understand yes, they understand no, but they don't understand abstention.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Prime Minister's representative abstained on a matter as fundamental as the future of this country. People have a right to know why the Prime Minister asked his representative on the Belanger-Cam-peau Commission to abstain. Why didn't he show more leadership?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not accuse my hon. friend of politicizing the debate. I merely reminded her that last week, she asked us to depoliticize this issue, and by starting off with this question today in the House, she was putting a negative slant on the activities of a member of the government party. I explained firmly and clearly why Mr. Hogue, who voted against sovereignty and took part in every vote, abstained from this particular vote for entirely legitimate reasons. And when the hon. member accuses me of stalling, today, in some parts of this country, I am suffering the consequences of having had the guts to stand firm during the debate on the Meech Lake Accord. It wasn't easy.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I knew at the time that it would be difficult and that our constitutional proposals were not necessarily popular with everyone, but we knew they represented a very clear and tremendous advantage for a united Canada. In fact, this view was shared by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Hamilton East and by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, according to an article in the Toronto Star published on June 4-an important date, Mr. Speaker-which read as follows:

Mr. Martin and Ms. Copps said the following. Mr. Martin said on June 4, "Jean, for the love of God, you want to become Prime Minister of Canada but you give no indication of where you are going"-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we will have to move along. The hon. member for LaSalle-Emard.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
When is the Prime Minister going to stop reading mouldy newspaper clippings and give this country some leadership?

Mr. Speaker, the Allaire report and the proceedings of the Belanger-Campeau Commission provide a bitter commentary on the failure of this government's economic policies. Look around Montreal. Thirty per cent unemployed in East Montreal, and 50 per cent below the poverty line in the southwest. This government's economic policies are a major handicap for those who want to save this country. My question is this: At a time of national crisis, does the Prime Minister really think his pitiful performance is going to be an incentive for Canadians to meet the necessary challenges and stay together?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Just the same, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has reported some significant economic progress which translated in a major reduction of over 4 points in interest rates since April of last year. But my hon. friend says:

"When are you going to give leadership on the question of national unity?" I am not quoting just anybody, I am quoting the man who just stood up to reproach me, who said of the person who became his leader: "Jean, for the love of God, you want to become Prime Minister of Canada, but you give us no indication where you are going". And Ms. Copps said: "Jean, you have not understood Quebec and you are gambling dangerously with the future of Canada. One does not find the future by looking in a rear view mirror".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, what I should have said is: "Brian, for the love of God, will you think of the country".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: The turmoil in Quebec is about non-confidence in this government's handling of the economy and of the country. Interest rates, set by John Crow, a dollar set by the United States, no
March 26, 1991

industrial policy, no hope. The true crisis in Confederation is that this nation-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member put the question.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: My question is this. What does it take before this government realizes that if Ottawa is going to continue to abstain on the major issues of the day, then Canadians and Quebecers will look elsewhere for leadership, because this government has given them no choice, no chance.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are not abstaining from the great issues of the day. This government has taken a position in regard to the unity of Canada. We obtained the signature of all of the premiers, of the three leaders of the Elouse of Commons, a great statement of Canadian unity and my friend says; "I should have said, Brian, what are you doing"? But that is not what you said. You said: "Jean, what are you doing? You are going to ruin Canada, Jean". That is what you said in June 1990. You said it, because the Leader of the Liberal Party turned his back-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is clear that a referendum will be held in Quebec in 1992. Many people believe that we will not have enough time to respond in a constructive fashion. I think it is possible, but only if there are a legitimate process and a government with the necessary mandate to achieve it. My question to the Prime Minister is this: How does the Prime Minister intend to secure this mandate from Canadian men and women?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Canada was not founded by a Parliamentary committee. It was built by men and women who wanted a better future for themselves and their children. It is not a Parliamentary committee which will decide today whether our children will be entitled to the same privileges as Canadian citizens. The purpose of the Meech Lake Accord was to bring Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional fold. Its failure will not prevent us as Parliamentarians and Canadians eager to preserve the integrity and the unity of our great country to make the necessary effort in order to ensure the participation
Oral Questions
of Parliamentarians who will give a new direction to a strong and united Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I agree that of course parliamentarians are very important in this debate. However, the Constitution of a country is not between parliamentarians, it is not between governments, but it is between a nation and its people.
I want to say to the Prime Minister that we cannot be put in the position of last year, where we had a crisis kind of week and there is not now an elected federal leader in this country, including myself, which has the mandate to fundamentally restructure the country.
I say to the Prime Minister that the kind of work that has to be done will require the support, not just of parliamentarians, not just of provincial and territorial leaders, but of the people of Canada.
How does the Prime Minister propose to get that support and that mandate from the Canadian people for a new Constitution and Canadian unity?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, is my hon. friend putting in doubt the traditions of the British parliamentary system whereby a government seeks a mandate and is elected for a given period of time? The NDP says it is archaic. Go tell Bob Rae it is archaic. He says he has a mandate that lasts five years and he plans to exercise it. That is what I am going to do.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows, Canadians know, that this government has no mandate from the Canadian people to fundamentally restructure this country.
It is essential, if we are not going to go through the high stakes, high pressure tactics used last summer, and be thrust into next summer before a referendum in Quebec, through some kind of Russian roulette crisis tactic again, that this Prime Minister and this government seek a mandate from the Canadian people for a vision of Canadian unity and a Canada that can go into the 21st century.
I say to the Prime Minister, how long is this government prepared to wait before it gets the confidence and support of the Canadian people?

March 26, 1991
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why my hon. friend is being so critical of what took place last year because she, further to some meetings we had, stood in front of 24 Sussex and said that the crisis was not one of the federal government's making and that the crisis, by and large, was being handled well. If she has changed her mind on that, fair ball, but that is my recollection of what she had to say.
With regard to how we involve the Canadian people, we involve the Canadian people through the Parliament of Canada. We already have two commissions going and we propose to directly involve-
Mr. Speaker, I am answering a question from the NDP leader which I am trying to treat seriously, but her members will not allow me to answer. The only way to do it, as best I know, is to involve the members directly in parliamentary work that will give rise to solutions to this great problem we are confronting. Otherwise, I would have to conclude that my hon. friend would want me to call an election.
I cannot do that because after the election the NDP members are usually pretty hard on their leader.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition spoke in favour of a united Canada before the Belanger-Campeau Commission, but the Prime Minister of Canada did not have the courage to appear and support Canada before the commissioners. Worse still, his representative refrained from voting. So here is my question: How can Canadians feel confident that this Prime Minister will maintain Canadian unity, whereas he prevents his own member from voting in favour of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is a typically Liberal stunt. We have just heard a statement to the effect that in the wee hours of the morning Mr. Hogue, faced with a proposition supportive of sovereignty, voted against. Today, because of a subsequent vote, they want to suggest, for the reasons I have just explained, that this makes the Progressive Conservative Party or the government an enemy of Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, my friend who was once a loyal supporter of our latest consitutional initiative will remember what some people described as the degrading spectacle at Calgary when we saw Mr. Wells congratulating Mr. Chretien who was heard to say "Clyde, thank you for all your good work".


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the silence of the member for Outremont over the final report of the Belanger-Campeau Commission might have very serious consequences. My question to the Prime Minister is very simple: When will you stop playing poker with Canada? Stop playing poker!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend knows that vety well, for as parliamentarians we were together in the long struggle in favour of Canadian unity.


Jean-C. Lapierre: That's over!


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, it is not over. The hon. member for Shefford-as it happened, at the time he was campaign manager for the member for LaSalle-Emard-was supportive of Canadian unity. To the member for Shefford I say that we may have lost it for a few moments, but we will get it back later on.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister agree that there should be a referendum in Quebec on its sovereignty; in other words, separation from Canada as early as 1992? If he does not agree, then why did he instruct his representative on the committee to abstain and not vote against this proposal? The people of Canada deserve a clear and definite answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have given an answer. Perhaps I could ask my friend to check the premise of his own question.
Subsequent to that decision, Mr. Remillard, Quebec's inter-governmental affairs minister, made it clear that a referendum on sovereignty is not cast in stone. At 5:20 this morning I was listening to the CBC, as I do every morning, and he said: "If we receive proposals from the rest of Canada and if we decide to hold a referendum on them, and if Quebecers say yes, that means that we will have to postpone the sovereignty referendum."
The Minister of Inter-governmental Affairs is already acknowledging that there may not be a referendum on sovereignty. The objective of all parliamentarians, including this member, should be to work constructively to make sure that there is not that referendum on
March 26, 1991

sovereignty, but that we come together with proposals that will keep Canada solidly bound together.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that before the Prime Minister heard Mr. Remillard on television, he instructed his representative on the commission to abstain and not to vote against a proposal to have a referendum on sovereignty in Quebec as early as 1992. And he has not explained that fact.
I ask the Prime Minister, why did he instruct his representative on the Belanger-Campeau commission to abstain on the final vote, and therefore to take a position which indicated indifference to the future of Canada? That is not leadership; that is not fighting for unity.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this may be quite embarrassing for my hon. friend. He is suggesting that there is something really extraordinarily anti-Canadian to have voted in favour of that proposal. He will have to explain to his Liberal colleagues in Quebec his chagrin at their conduct, because all of the provincial members voted in favour of it.
Has the member told Mr. Bourassa how offended he is at his anti-Canadian conduct? The last time this gentleman rose in the House it was to say that Mr. Bourassa's proposals guaranteed Canada a solid last chance to come together in one united nation. And that is exactly what we are trying to do.
Now, I did not give any instructions to the member. That only happens in other parties. But I can tell him this-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I simply mention that my hon. friend's question is predicated on the assumption that what Mr. Remillard has already said is false.
Mr. Remillard is quoted very directly as saying that indeed there may not be a referendum on sovereignty. I think that if my Liberal friends can put aside their partisanship for a minute, they will agree that the
Oral Questions
avoidance of that referendum would be important for all Canadians.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: My question is to the Prime Minister, who has had no mandate to do what he has done to the CBC.
At a time when this nation is at a crossroads, at a time when our collective future is at stake, the Prime Minister with a swing of his financial broad axe has decimated the CBC as an instrument of national identity.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, when will he finally begin to listen to the people of Canada? When will he learn that the bludgeoning of the CBC will only jeopardize Canada's future as a nation? And, when will he give back to the CBC the level of funding that it deserves to serve as the heartbeat of Canada?
You've got no mandate to do what you've done. No wonder we are on life support.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, all of us did listen to the CBC this morning and do appreciate what they do.
But, Mr. Speaker, the budget of $1.4 billion, global receipts which have been increasing constantly since 1985, is apparently enough from what I read, the chairman-designate of the CBC having said so in the month of February. Now, this is only one month later. I am assuming he must still feel the same way.
The CRTC has been holding some hearings. Today is its last day. I imagine that we would want to give them a chance to report on their hearings.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: The members continue to laugh. But CBC president Gerard Veilleux has warned that the next round of cuts and the loss of 500 more jobs will make it impossible for the CBC to do its job as Canada's national voice. Then it is going to be up to the government to decide the fate of the CBC.
With the Federal Court's decision today that the political will to maintain the CBC in fact rests with

March 26, 1991
Oral Questions
Parliament, will the Prime Minister assure this House that the government will provide stable, multi-year funding for the CBC? And will he stop abdicating his responsibility toward the people of Canada and stand up for the CBC?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people standing up for the CBC, all of us who have come to respect and appreciate the work that it has been doing. Yes, it has been receiving more money, not less, constantly since 1985.
One might want to reflect that there is certainly an awful lot of public money that is going into the production of some of the work that the CBC is showing on its channels. One should not forget other organizations like Telefilm, the National Film Board and indeed other public money that is available from other levels of government.
Certainly there has been a very serious significant contribution that has been constantly available to the CBC.


BELANGER-CAMPEAU COMMISSION
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Canadians want desperately our Prime Minister to speak with one voice and they want that statement to be the same in both official languages and in all regions of the country.
Would the Prime Minister, tell Canadians why he instructed or refused to instruct his colleague on the Belanger-Campeau Commission to abstain from this very important vote in this veiy important report. Why has the Prime Minister failed to seize the opportunity and to exercise real judgment not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that it is the duty of the opposition to score as many political points as it can, but I think Canadians would hope that it would try to avoid scoring cheap points at the cost of national unity.
I have already explained to the colleagues of my hon. friend that there were a number of votes. At all times, particularly in regard to the specific vote that came
forward, I believe it was some time during the late evening or early morning when they were called upon to vote on whether the proper orientation for Quebec would be a sovereign one, that some 17 members, including Mr. Hogue, voted solidly against. That was a strong statement of commitment to the unity of Canada.
Inasmuch as Mr. Hogue is the only member of that group who is also a member of the Government of Canada which must play an important part in negotiations, it is important that he not be associated with or seek to denigrate the work of those with whom he will be called upon to dialogue. That is the entirely legitimate reason why Mr. Hogue made a very, very strong commitment to the unity of Canada and yet, as a procedural matter, indicated that because we will be called upon to initiate these discussions, he did not want to place a yea or a nay on the document that comes from the Government of the Province of Quebec.


David Charles Dingwall: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is trying to have it both ways.
I ask the Prime Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, as to why the Prime Minister has failed to seize this opportunity to show real leadership in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada? Why has he abdicated his responsibility to Canadians from coast to coast? Why has he refused to instruct his member of Parliament to vote again this report or is it because the minister of industry-


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I should remind my hon. friend that the best way that I could show leadership in the province of Quebec, as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and this government, was to enter the province of Quebec as a candidate in the last election and get myself elected by Quebecers to the House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BILL C-80
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Today we presented in Parliament 25 boxes of petitions organized by the students at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal containing over 500,000 signatures asking the
March 26, 1991

government to act quickly on strict gun control laws to protect Canadians against violence with guns.
When will the minister take steps to amend Bill C-80 to include the improvements recommended in the petitions presented today, and also the improvements recommended by the special committee which reported on February 15? When will this be done?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I know he has been very actively involved in this issue.
When I visited the students at Ecole Polytechnique last spring, I had the opportunity to discuss with them their proposals and to receive symbolically the petitions which were delivered to Ottawa today.
I have had, as he knows, the benefit of the advice of the special committee. In the week of March 11, my special national advisory council on firearms met and also considered the committee's report.
I am hoping to table before the House, very quickly, my response to the committee's recommendations. They are excellent recommendations. Some of them have suggested things that I think need to be dealt with and thought out in a little bit more detail.
I am anxious to get on with Bill C-80. I am not sure whether we will have a chance to begin second reading before we rise. If we do not, I will table before the House my response to the committee report, and ask my department to redraft the bill to be tabled in an amended form, and therefore to permit quicker passage when we come back.
At the very soonest moment, I want to advise the members of the House exactly what I propose to bring forward as a new and improved bill. I thank the hon. member for his participation in the process which is going to give us better gun control.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the petitions tabled today, over 500,000 Canadians asked the government to designate semi-automatic paramilitary rifles as restricted weapons. Is the government ready to act upon this recommendation or not?
Oral Questions


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. We have already studied this recommendation, but what is missing is a set of criteria to identify military and paramilitary rifles. I set up my own advisory board, and its first task will be to make a list of the characteristics by which these can be identified. We already have the power to implement such recommendations and I hope to be able to do so.


Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
As recently reported by the Canada West Foundation, the Canada-U.S. trade agreement is working, and working well. The U.S., which imports about one million tonnes of vegetable oil and 400,000 tonnes of meal each year, represents a potentially large market for Canadian canola producers.
Can the minister advise the House what the government is doing to provide the Canadian producers with increased access to this U.S. market?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Liberals hold so little regard for a well regarded research institution located in western Canada. They might be interested in knowing that the research institute located in Calgary found that Canada increased its high-tech imports to the United States considerably over the last two years, while imports remained flat.
With regard specifically to the member's question, the opposition might also be interested in knowing that as a result of the free trade agreement, at the beginning of next year Canadian canola, a very high quality food that is associated with healthy living standards, will be going into the United States tariff free. This has the potential to not only increase our exports to the United States, but it should make us more competitive to the tune of about $25 to $30 a tonne, which is good news for farmers in these difficult times.

March 26, 1991
Oral Questions BILL C-78


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of the Environment had a difficult time with the government's environmental assessment legislation and guidelines. He introduced Bill C-78 in an attempt to alleviate some of those problems.
In doing so, the Minister of the Environment said Canada needed new environmental assessment legislation badly. He said: "It is a tool that this country cannot do without."
My question is to the Minister of the Environment, who has admitted that he is prepared to amend Bill C-78, but he has ignored the legislative committee of this House for the past three months. What has happened to his commitment toward environmental assessment? Does he really believe that this country needs assessment legislation, or is he losing the battle to the big business colleagues in cabinet?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is quite right. When I introduced the legislation last June, I made it clear that I was very interested in seeing what recommendations would come from Canadians being heard during the committee proceedings.
We heard quite a bit from Canadians and from the opposition parties during those hearings.
We are still very much committed to the legislation and we will be proposing to the legislative committee a number of amendments to try to improve the legislation and make sure that this legislation is just the best in the world.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of the Environment.
It was December 11, in answer to a question I put in this House, that the minister said he would accept amendments to C-78. Today, I have presented 111 amendments to Bill C-78 and presented them to the Minister of the Environment this morning.
I ask the Minister of the Environment, as a supplementary question, is he prepared to accept those amendments, which include such logical and reasonable things as an environmental auditor and intervenor funding?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it might have been helpful to advance this file if the hon. member opposite had given me a copy of the 111 amendments that he is proposing to Bill C-78.


CONFIDENCE MOTIONS
Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Given the negative impacts of very strict party discipline on representative democracy and public confidence in our parliamentary institutions, for instance the events which took place last week over an opposition motion on medicare, would the government be prepared to introduce the following motion: "That in the opinion of this House, a defeat of a government motion should not be considered as sufficient reason for the resignation of the government unless followed by a vote of lack of confidence", or does the Prime Minister perceive such parliamentary reform to be contrary to the British parliamentary procedure?


Harvie Andre: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, prior to that member's election, upon the election of this government, the McGrath commission was introduced by this Prime Minister which increased the opportunities for members to participate. The rule changes debate, which will be commencing this afternoon, in fact further enhance that.
I look forward to discussions involving how we might meet the objectives. I would wonder how one could reconcile signing a document saying: "All candidates of the Reform Party must strictly adhere to the policies of the Reform Party with free votes." If the question is in support of the policies of the Reform Party then clearly you could not, by oath, vote the way the member herself chose to do.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementaiy question is also for the Prime Minister.
March 26, 1991

The British House of Commons, which is the matriarch of parliaments, has adopted procedures which permit members to defeat a government motion without necessarily defeating the government as a result of the backbenchers in the British system exerting their constitutional rights and responsibilities.
Would the Prime Minister at least consider instructing his House leader to study the possibility of adopting such a procedure here and reporting the results of such a study to the House at the earliest possible convenience?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is accurate in terms of what should constitute confidence motions. I would also suggest to her that if we are going to get to this question of individual members being free to express their views, we are going to have to get at the question of partisanship and party blocs in the House.
For example, in the British system all members, backbenchers and opposition, have an equal opportunity to ask questions. They are selected by lot. We would have to start there. We would have to change our voting system, but I think that would be an improvement. I would be willing to engage in those kinds of discussions.


MAPLE LEAF FUND
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Maple Leaf Fund in western Canada, approved by the minister of immigration, has been exposed by the media as being nothing more than a front for a Winnipeg Tory fundraiser who has taken advantage of investor immigrants to build up his business empire.
Will the minister indicate to the House that the government will put an immediate stop to this abuse and protect new Canadians from Tory bagmen?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I simply do not accept the premise of the question.
Let me say that the government has introduced the investor program as a way of ensuring that in different regions of Canada there is access to investment funds
Government Orders
through the immigration process. We have maintained high standards of monitoring on this program throughout.
The economic benefits of each particular fund are determined by the provinces, and everyone who functions as an investor immigrant is subject to the securities laws of provinces.
I simply do not accept either the premise or the conclusion that the hon. member states.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of order to ask that you rule that Motion No. 30 on the Order Paper before the House is in whole or in part improperly before the House and in whole or in part is out of order.
My concern is centred on two distinct elements of this motion before us. The first is found in paragraph 30, which proposes to amend the right of the Crown to debate Supply before it is granted to the Crown.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could say to the hon. member for Kamloops that I will hear him in a moment on the point of order.
Mr. Andre, seconded by Mr. Epp, moves:
That the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in force on
the date of notice of this motion be amended as follows:
1.	That Standing Order 24 be deleted and the following
substituted therefore:
Shall I dispense?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I should say to the House that the motion which has been brought before the House by the government is a very long one. Hon. members can see that it is nearly an inch thick in pages. The usual convention in this place is that in circumstances like this the courtesies are extended and usually the Speaker is allowed to dispense with the reading of the entire motion.

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
I am going to ask the House again if the House will give me the courtesy to dispense with reading nearly three-quarters of an inch of documents.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Chair that we do feel it is a long motion and we would be more than happy to offer our co-operation in allowing the Chair to dispense rather than read it into the record. All members can read it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think on every occasion to date when we have had a lengthy motion, a bill, or anything for consideration of that size we have asked that we simply have it tabled. We are talking about changing the fundamental ways that this House operates. It is of specific interest to every member.
Since you have been in the chair, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that for you to read it would be inappropriate. I notice that you have your hon. colleague standing by who probably has rested during Question Period and ought to be prepared. I think on behalf of my caucus we would like to hear the details of the proposals being brought forward.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I just beg the indulgence of members of the NDP. We have had this motion printed twice in the Order Paper every day for a while. We have it printed twice in the Order Paper today. I have read it. They have read it. Why don't we proceed?


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can also tell the Chair that, unlike the majority of members who are part of national caucuses, we were not consulted at all, while we know that somemembers and House leaders have been for nearly a year. But these rules apply as much to us as to the main political parties. We were not afforded the same treatment. The government leader did not even have the courtesy of at least notifying us. He acted in a sneaky way. So, Mr. Speaker, we want to have the benefit of listening and thinking while this document is read to us, because we did not have as much time as the other members to examine it.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Very quickly I must say I have read the 30 pages of material on the Standing Orders. Obviously it is a very
important matter, but the whole reason this House is in such a state of disrepute is the necessity of going through reading it. Frankly, this is the type of thing that all members could have read. You cannot understand it until you relate it and correlate it to the Standing Orders as amended. This is what makes this place such a farce.
I would hope that perhaps the hon. House leader of the government might add another clause, if you are going to get into debate and procedures, to make sure that we can prevent this type of hocus-pocus and get on to the substance.
There are many matters of substance to be discussed and debated on these matters of procedure, rather than this business of a preliminary procedural ambush and stating with a straight face that your counterpart can read, when we all know that if ever there were a motion not to be read, which does not make sense unless you have the Standing Orders, this is it.
I am really disappointed by these paragons of procedural virtue to my left who try to pretend one thing and practise another.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge some of the comments made by my hon. colleague. We have to recognize that we are here as the elected representatives of the people of Canada. The people of Canada who are watching this performance are obviously interested, but I simply have to remind the House that when the question is put it must be put and, I might add, in both of Canada's languages.
We would expect the motion to be read in English and then in French.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point, because I think it is important for people to understand what is going on.
We have a motion which was put before this House on March 22. This is March, 26 and we have not yet started debate on it. People do not realize that this government has said publicly time after time that it wants to ram these changes through.
We want to point out how massive and how destructive these changes are. I think that point can be made veiy well by having the Speaker read exactly how many rules
March 26, 1991

of this House the government wants to change with almost no debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has certainly expressed its feelings on this issue. So that everybody understands, there is a right under the rules to have the motion read. In the absence of the House's consent to allow me to dispense with reading it all, it will of course be read. The hon. member is correct; it will be read in both official languages of our country.
I shall commence to do that in a few minutes.
I cannot help but point out that, as the afternoon wears on and as fatigue overtakes my efforts and the efforts of others, we might resort to a long-standing tradition of this House that invites hon. members to come forward and take the chair. There is no question about where I will be looking first, if that should become necessary.
[ Translation]
Mr. Andre, seconded by Mr. Epp, moved:
1.	That Standing Order 24 be deleted and the following substituted
therefor:
"24.(1) The House shall meet on Mondays at 11.00 o'clock a.m., on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays at 10.00 o'clock a.m. and on Wednesdays at 2.00 o'clock p.m. unless otherwise provided by Standing or Special Order of this House.
(2)	At 1.00 o'clock p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the Speaker shall leave the Chair until 2.00 o'clock p.m.
(3)	At 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, at
8.00	o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and at 4.00 o'clock p.m. on Fridays, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day."
2.	That section 27(1) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
"27.(1) On the tenth sitting day preceding June 23 a motion to extend the hours of sitting to a specific hour during the last ten sitting days may be proposed, without notice, by any Minister during routine proceedings."
3.	That section 28(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
Government Orders
Column A:	Column B:
The Friday preceding Remembrance Day.	The second Monday following that Friday.
Column A:	Column B:
The second Friday preceding Christmas Day.	The first Monday in February.
Column A:	Column B:
The Friday preceding the week marking the mid-way point between the first Monday in February and the Friday preceding Good Friday.	The second Monday following that Friday.
Column A:	Column B:
The Friday preceding Good Friday.	The Monday following Easter Monday.
Column A:	Column B:
The Friday preceding the week marking the mid-way point between the Monday following Easter Monday and June 23. (This shall not apply for calendar year 1991.)	The second Monday following that Friday or, if that MOnday is the day fixed for the celebration of the birthday of the Sovereign on the TUesday following that Monday.
Column A;	Column B:
June 23 or the Friday preceding if June 23 falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or a Monday.	The second Monday following Labour Day."
4.	That section 30(3) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) At 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays, at 10.00 o'clock a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and at 12.00 o'clock noon on Fridays, the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business, which shall be as follows:
"(2) When the House meets on a day, or sits after the normal meeting hour on a day, set out in column A, and then adjourns, it shall stand adjourned to the day set out in column B.
Column A;	Column B:
The Friday preceding	The Second Monday
Thanksgiving Day	following that
Friday.
Thbling of Documents (pursuant to Standing Orders 32 or 109)
Statements by Ministers (pursuant to Standing Order 33)
Presenting Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations (pursuant to Standing Order 34)

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
Presenting Reports from Committees (pursuant to Standing Order 35)
Introduction of Government Bills Introduction of Private Members' Bills First Reading of Senate Public Bills Motions
Presenting Petitions (pursuant to Standing Order 36(6)) Questions on Order Paper."
5.	That section 30(6) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(6) Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, the order of business shall be as follows:
(Monday)
(Before the daily routine of business)
Private Members' Business-from 11.00 o'clock a.m. to 12.00 o'clock noon:
Public Bills, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers).
Government Orders.
(After the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
(Tbesday and Thursday)
(After the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
Private Members' Business-from 5.00 to 6.00 o'clock p.m.:
Public Bills, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers).
(Wednesday)
(After the daily routine of business)
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.
Government Orders.
Private Members' Business-from 7.00 to 8.00 o'clock p.m.:
Public Bills, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers).
(Friday)
(Before the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
(After the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
Private Members' Business-from 3.00 to 4.00 o'clock p.m.:
Public Bills, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers).
(7) Notwithstanding Standing Order 24(3), if Private Members' Business is to be taken up on a day, other than a Monday, appointed for the consideration of the business of supply, the time provided therefor shall be delayed by one hour; provided that it shall be further delayed by the time required for the completion of any division arising out of the business of supply or any deferred division set down for that day. Upon the completion of Private Members' Business, the Speaker shall adjourn the Flouse until the next sitting day."


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know how seriously you are approaching this.
It seems to me that while it has always been tradition for a Speaker to stand when reading the motion being considered by the House, I think you will find that there will be unanimous consent to at least permit you to sit down and read the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I may take the hon. member's suggestion.
I certainly appreciate the concern that is being expressed for the Speaker. I must say that the point of order taken by the hon. member for Kamloops has caused me to lose my place.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I may start over again.


Mr. Soetens:: Mr. Speaker, I think it very commendable for the opposition to make that suggestion.
In light of the fact that it is costing about $500,000 every hour for you to do this, and your suggestion that you were going to call on members of the House to relieve you when you become fatigued-I know you have indicated that you are going to call on those members opposite who object to it being tabled-I would prefer that you become fatigued very quickly so that you can call on the opposition members who will continue to stand to read the particular motion that is in front of the House.
I would prefer you to continue standing so that we can then encourage them to stand and waste taxpayers' money at the rate of $500,000 per hour.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on a brief point of order, I listened to the comments of members opposite as to
March 26, 1991

what is taking place. Let us be perfectly clear that when they are referring to the opposition, they are not referring to the Official Opposition of this House.
Let that be very clear. If members opposite wish to refer to the opposition, I think they should specify as to whom they are referring and not blanket us all with the same brush.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I do want to apologize for leaving the impression that it may be all members of the opposition.
I guess where I was lost was the fact that all of the independents are not here. Some of them requested that you read the motion.
There are some members of the NDP here and certainly they are the people I was referring to, and I hope you will call on them very soon to stand and read.


Mr. Speaker:: 6.	That Standing Order 35 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"35.(1) Reports to the House from committees may be made by Members standing in their places, at the time provided pursuant to Standing Order 30(3) or 81(4)(c), provided that the Member maybe permitted to give a succinct explanation of the subject-matter of the report.
(2)	Upon presentation of a report accompanied by supplementary or dissenting opinions or recommendations pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), a committee member of the Official Opposition representing those who supported the opinion or opinions expressed in the appended material may also rise to give a succinct explanation thereof."
7.	That section 36(6) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(6) Any Member desiring to present a petition, in his or her place in the House, may do so on "Presenting Petitions", a period not to exceed 15 minutes, during the ordinary daily routine of business."
8.	That section 37(3) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) A Member who is not satisfied with the response to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a Member who has been told by the Speaker that the question is not urgent, may give notice that he or she intends to raise the subject-matter of the question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the oral question period provided pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), must be given in writing to the
Government Orders
Speaker not later than one hour following that period the same day. Unless previously disposed of, the said notice shall be deemed withdrawn after the forty-fifth sitting day from the day of notice."
9.	That sections 38(1) and 38(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"38.(1) At 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, the Speaker may, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders 24(3) and 67(2), deem that a motion to adjourn the House has been made and seconded, whereupon such motion shall be debatable for not more than thirty minutes.
(2) No matter shall be debated during the thirty minutes herein provided, unless notice thereof has been given by a Member as provided in Standing Order 37(3). No debate on any one matter raised during this period shall last for more than six minutes."
10.	That section 38(5) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(5) The Member raising the matter may speak for not more than four minutes. A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary speaking on behalf of a Minister, if he or she wishes to do so, may speak for not more than two minutes. When debate has lasted for a total of thirty minutes, or when the debate on the matter or matters raised has ended, whichever comes first, the Speaker shall deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried and shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day."
11.	That section 39(5) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(5)(a) A Member may request that the Ministry respond to a specific question within forty-five days by so indicating when filing his or her question.
(b)	If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of forty-five days, the Member who put the question may rise in the House under "Questions on Order Paper" and give notice that he or she intends to raise the subject-matter thereof on the adjournment of the House."
12.	That Standing Order 41 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"41.(1) At the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the House, at
2.00	o'clock p.m. on Mondays, at 11.00 o'clock a.m. on Fridays or at the mid-day interruption, unless otherwise provided, the proceedings then under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting day or later the same sitting day after the period provided pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), as the case may be, when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
(2)	If debate on any Order of the Day be interrupted by the House being adjourned by motion or forwant of a quorum, such motion or Order shall be allowed to stand and retain its precedence on the Order Paper for the next sitting, provided that if debate on any item of Private Members' Business not selected pursuant to Standing Order 92 is so interrupted, it shall thereupon be dropped from the Order Paper."

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
13.	That Standing Order 43 be deleted and the following substituted
therefor:
"43.(1) Unless otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, when the Speaker is in the Chair, no Member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a Minister moving a government order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister, shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time in any debate. Following each twenty-minute speech, a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
(2) The Whip of a party may indicate to the Speaker at any time during a debate governed by this Standing Order that one or more of the periods of debate limited pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and allotted to Members of his or her party are to be divided in two."
14.	That the following new Standing Order be added after Standing
Order 44:
"44.1.(l)The Clerk of the House shall cause to be kept at the Thble a Register of Paired Members, in which any Member of the government party and any Member of an Opposition party may have their names entered together by their respective Whips, to indicate that they will not take part in any recorded division held on the date inscribed on that page of the Register; provided that independent Members of Parliament may sign the Register in their own right.
(2) On any day on which one or more recorded divisions have taken place, the names of the Members so entered shall be printed in the Debates and the Votes and Proceedings, immediately following the entry for each of the said divisions."
15.	That sections 45(5) and 45(6) of the Standing Orders be deleted
and the following substituted therefor:
"(5)(a) When the Speaker has put the question on any debatable motion, including any votable Opposition motion on an allotted day (except on the last allotted day in a supply period), except as provided pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than thirty minutes; provided that, while the Members are being called in, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may approach the Speaker to request that the division be deferred, in which case, the Speaker shall defer the said division until a specified time, but, in any case, not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day thereafter, when the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes, except as provided for under section (6) of this Standing Order or Standing Order 126(2); and
(b)	When a recorded division is deferred pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the House shall continue with the business before it, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6).
(6)	Notwithstanding any other Standing Order, if a division on any debatable item of Government Business or Private Members' Business is demanded on a Friday, and on any votable opposition motion on an allotted day, (except on the last allotted day of a supply period), falling on a Friday, either pursuant to section (1) or in a Committee of the Whole, or has been deferred on a Thursday pursuant to section (5), the calling in of the Members shall be deferred until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day thereafter, when the bells to call in the Members shall ring for not more than fifteen minutes. Where any division has been previously deferred, except on a Thursday, it shall not be further deferred, notwithstanding section (5) of this Standing Order. Where it is provided in any Standing Order that any business shall be forthwith disposed of or concluded in any sitting and the calling in of the Members has been deferred pursuant to this section, the business specified by such Order shall be forthwith disposed of or concluded immediately after the deferred division has been taken. Any recorded division on a motion for concurrence in a bill at the report stage, pursuant to Standing Order 76(9), or for the consideration of the report stage of a bill from a Committee of the Whole, pursuant to Standing Order 76(12), may be deferred.
(7)	If, pursuant to any Standing or Special Order of the House, two or more recorded divisions are to be held successively without intervening debate, the division bells shall be sounded to call in the Members only once."
16.	That section 50(1) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
"50.(1) The proceedings on the Order of the Day for resuming debate on the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and on any amendments proposed thereto shall not exceed six sitting days."
17.	That sections 50(6), 50(7) and 50(8) of the Standing Orders be
deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(6) On the fourth of the said days, if any amendment be under consideration at thirty minutes before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment or amendments then before the House.
(7)	The motion for an Address in Reply shall not be subject to amendment on or after the fifth day of the said debate.
(8)	On the sixth of the said days, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, unless the said debate be previously concluded, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion."
18.	That section 52(10) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
"(10) When a request to make such a motion has been made on any day, except Friday, and the Speaker directs that it be considered the same day, the House shall rise at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and resume at 8.00 o'clock p.m."
March 26, 1991

19.	That Standing Order 54 be deleted and the following substituted
therefor:
"54. Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, for placing a question on the Order Paper or for the consideration of any notice of motion made pursuant to Standing Order 123(4); but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the House. Such notice shall be laid on the Thble, or filed with the Clerk, before 6.00 o'clock p.m. (2.00 o'clock p.m. on a Friday) and be printed in the Notice Paper of that day. Any notice filed with the Clerk pursuant to this Standing Order shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid on the Thble in that sitting."
20.	That the following new Standing Order be added after Standing
Order 56:
"56.1.(l)(a) In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker propose the said question to the House.
(b)	For the purposes of this Standing Order, "routine motion" shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
(2)	The question on any such motion shall be put forthwith, without debate or amendment.
(3)	When the Speaker puts the question on such a motion, he or she shall ask those who object to rise in their places. If twenty-five or more Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn; otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted."
21.	That Standing Order 57 be deleted and the following substituted
therefor:
"57. Immediately before the Order of the Day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in Committee of the Whole, any Minister of the Crown who, standing in his or her place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his or her intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be the first business of the Committee, and shall not further be postponed; and in either case such question shall be decided without debate or amendment; and if the same shall be resolved in the affirmative, no Member shall thereafter speak more than once, or longer than twenty minutes in any such adjourned debate; or, if in Committee, on any such resolution, clause, section, preamble or title; and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before
11.00	o'clock p.m., no Member shall rise to speak after that hour,
Government Orders
but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith."
22.	That section 68(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) A motion for leave to introduce a bill shall be deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put, provided that any Member moving for such leave may be permitted to give a succinct explanation of the provisions of the said bill."
23.	That section 69(1) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"69.(1) When any bill is presented by a Member, in pursuance of an Order of the House, the question "That this bill be read a first time and be printed" shall be deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put."
24.	That sections 73(2) and 73(3) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Unless otherwise ordered, in giving a bill second reading, the same shall be referred to a legislative committee, except as provided in sections (3) and (4) of this Standing Order.
(3)	(a) After consultation, a Minister of the Crown may, in proposing the second reading of a bill, give notice that he or she intends to move that the bill be referred after second reading to a standing or special committee.
(b)	The question on such motion for referral shall be put immediately. When the Speaker puts the question on such a motion, he or she shall ask those who object to rise in their places. If fewer than five Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been adopted. If five or more Members rise, the question shall be deemed not to have been put at that time, but shall be put to the House for its decision immediately upon the adoption at second reading of the bill to which it refers. If, in the latter case, the proposed referral is rejected by the House, the bill shall stand referred to the appropriate legislative committee.
(4)	Any bill based on a Supply motion shall, after second reading, stand referred to a Committee of the Whole.
(5)	When an Order of the Day is read for the consideration of any bill respecting borrowing authority, a maximum of two sitting days shall be set aside for the consideration of the bill at second reading. On the second of the said days, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary for the passage of the second reading stage of the bill."
25.	That Standing Order 74 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"74.(1) When second or third reading of a government bill is being considered, no Member except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shall speak for more than:

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
(a)	forty minutes if that Member is the first or second speaker;
(b)	twenty minutes following the first two speakers, if that Member begins to speak within the next five hours of consideration; and following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto; and
(c)	ten minutes if a Member speaks thereafter.
(2)	The Whip of a party may indicate to the Speaker at any time during a debate governed by this Standing Order that one or more of the periods of debate limited pursuant to paragraphs (l)(b) and (c) of this Standing Order, and allotted to Members of his or her party, are to be divided in two."
26.	That sections 76(1) and 76(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"76.(1) The report stage of any bill reported by any standing, special or legislative committee shall not be taken into consideration prior to the second sitting day following the presentation of the said report, unless otherwise ordered by the House.
(2) If, not later than the sitting day prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a Notice Paper."
27.	That Standing Order 77 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"77.(1) Tventy-four hours' written notice shall be given by a Member proposing any motion respecting Senate amendments to a bill.
(2)	In cases in which the Senate disagree to any amendments made by the House of Commons, or to which the House has disagreed, the House is willing to receive the reasons of the Senate for their disagreeing or insisting (as the case may be) by message, without a conference, unless at any time the Senate should desire to communicate the same at a conference.
(3)	Any conference between the two Houses may be a free conference.
(4)	When the House requests a conference with the Senate, the reasons to be given by this House at the same shall be prepared and agreed to by the House before a message be sent therewith. "
28.	That sections 78(2) and 78(3) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2)(a) When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, the Minister may propose a motion, without notice, during proceedings under Government Orders, setting forth the terms of the said proposed allocation; provided that for the purposes of this section of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report
and the third reading stages of a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 76(10). The motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment, and the Speaker shall put the question on the said motion forthwith. Any proceeding interrupted pursuant to this section of this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned.
(b) If a motion pursuant to this section regarding any bill is moved and carried at the beginning of Government Orders on any day and if the order for the said bill is then called and debated for the remainder of the sitting day, the length of that debate shall be deemed to be one sitting day for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section.
(3)(a) A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee, and has given notice of his or her intention so to do, may propose a motion during proceedings under Government Orders, for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this paragraph an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 76(10). The motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment, and the Speaker shall put the question on the said motion forthwith. Any proceeding interrupted pursuant to this section of this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned.
(b) If a motion pursuant to this section regarding any bill is moved and carried at the beginning of Government Orders on any day and if the order for the said bill is then called and debated for the remainder of the sitting day, the length of that debate shall be deemed to be one sitting day for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section."
29.	That paragraph 81(4)(b) of the Standing Orders be deleted and
the following substituted therefor:
"(b) on the sitting day immediately preceding the final allotted day, but in any case not later than ten sitting days following the day on which any motion made pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section is adopted, at not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the said committee shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the main estimates for the said department or agency; and"
30.	That section 81(8) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the
following substituted therefor
"(8)(a) In any calendar year, five sitting days shall be allotted to the business of supply for the period ending not later than December 10; seven additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than March 26; and eight additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 23; provided that the number of sitting days so
March 26, 1991

Government Orders
allotted may be altered pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. These twenty days are to be designated as allotted days.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.


Mr. Lee:: Mr. Speaker, if I as a member of this House am going to be forced to submit to this hijacking, this lunacy, this waste, this hypocrisy foisted upon this House by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, then I simply want to ask the House if it would consider giving unanimous consent to dispensing with the reading of the matters before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to dispense me of reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Consent is not unanimous. Therefore, I shall read on.
(b)	Notwithstanding paragraph (a), if the House does not sit on days designated as sitting days pursuant to Standing Order 28, the total number of allotted days in that supply period shall be reduced by a number of days proportionate to the number of sitting days on which the House stood adjourned, provided that the number of days of the said reduction shall be determined by the Speaker and announced from the Chair.
(c)	Notwithstanding paragraph (a), if the House sits on days designated as days on which the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28, the total number of allotted days in that supply period shall be increased by one day for every five such days during which the House sits."
31.	That section 81(10) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
"(10) When concurrence in any final supplementary estimates relating to the fiscal year that ended on March 31 is sought in the period ending not later than June 23, three days for the consideration of the motion that the House concur in those estimates and for the passage at all stages of any bill to be based thereon shall be added to the days for the business of supply in that period."
32.	That paragraph 81(12)(a) of the Standing Orders be deleted and
the following substituted therefor:
"(12)(a) Forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of motions to concur in interim supply, main estimates, supplementary or final estimates, to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates. Twenty-four hours' written notice shall be given of an opposition motion on an allotted day or of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates, provided that for the supply period ending not later than June 23, forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates;"
33.	That section 81(14) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(14) In each of the periods described in section (8) of this Standing Order, not more than three opposition motions shallbe motions that shall come to a vote, provided that not more than eight opposition motions in total shall be motions that shall come to a vote during the three supply periods provided pursuant to section (8) of this Standing Order. The duration of proceedings on any such motion shall be stated in the notice relating to the appointing of an allotted day or days for those proceedings. On the last day appointed for proceedings on a motion that shall come to a vote, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the said proceedings."
34.	That section 81(16) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(16) On the last allotted day in the period ending June 23, the House shall consider any motion or motions to concur in the main estimates, provided that:
(a)	unless previously disposed of, at not later than 10.00 o'clock p.m., the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House, and shall first put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the said motion or motions, and forthwith thereafter put successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any business relating to the final estimates for the preceding fiscal year or for any supplementary estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the final or supplementary estimates or any opposed item in the final or supplementary estimates and, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based on the final, main or supplementary estimates; and
(b)	the Standing Orders relating to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall remain suspended until all such questions pursuant to paragraph (a) have been decided."


Mr. Jourdenais:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Laprairie, on a point of order.


Fernand Jourdenais: I was listening carefully to the motion, but I wonder whether the hon. member for Shefford-I know we are not supposed to say members are not present but he is invisible-I wonder whether the member who says he supports the interests of Quebec really

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
thinks it is in the interests of Quebec to have the Chair read 109 pages of a motion that all opposition members and opposition and government leaders have read. If we didn't have to read those 109 pages, we would be able to have more debate and thus further the interests of Quebec. I think the hon. member for Shefford, the great crusader and his seven or eight friends, should be the first to set an example.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: 35.	That section 83(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) An Order of the Day for the consideration of a Ways and Means motion or motions shall be designated at the request of a Minister rising in his or her place in the House. When such an Order is designated for a Budget presentation, the Minister shall specify the date and time thereof and the Order shall be deemed to be an Order of the House to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, if required. At the specified time, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and such proceedings shall be deemed adjourned; and the House shall proceed forthwith to the consideration of the Ways and Means motion for the Budget presentation. When a motion for the adjournment of the debate on the Ways and Means motion has been made by a Member of the Official Opposition, it shall be deemed adopted without question put; whereupon the Speaker shall adjourn the House to the next sitting day."
36.	That section 84(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) The proceedings on the Order of the Day for resuming debate on such Budget motion and on any amendments proposed thereto shall not exceed four sitting days."
37.	That sections 84(5) and 84(6) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(5) On the third of the said days, if an amendment be under consideration at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the said amendment.
(6)	On the fourth of the said days, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, unless the debate be previously concluded, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the main motion."
38.	That sections 87(1) and 87(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"87.(l)(a) At the beginning of a Session, the Clerk of the House, acting on behalf of the Speaker, shall, within two sitting days of the placing on the Order Paper of separate items of Private Members'
Business from at least twenty Members, notify the Members involved of the time, date and place of a random draw of twenty Members' names to establish the order of precedence for twenty separate items.
(b)	To the extent that there is a sufficient number of eligible motions and bills, the draw shall be conducted so that there shall be in the order of precedence an equal number of motions and public bills originating in the House of Commons.
(c)	The names of Members with bills and those of Members with motions shall be drawn separately to produce the appropriate number of bills and motions. The names first drawn separately shall then be combined and drawn out again to determine the order of precedence for those items.
(d)	Not later than the ordinaiy hour of daily adjournment on the second sitting day after the day on which the draw is conducted, each Member whose name has been drawn, and who has given notice of more than one motion, shall file with the Clerk an indication as to which motion is to be placed in the order of precedence. If a Member does not file such an indication within the time specified, the first motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of that Member under Private Members' Business will be included in the order of precedence. This requirement applies equally to each Member whose name has been drawn for a public bill.
(2)	The Clerk of the House, acting on behalf of the Speaker, shall, when necessary during a Session, conduct a random draw to establish an order of precedence for not more than ten additional items of Private Members' Business, in the manner set down in section (1) of this Standing Order. No Member having an item listed in the order of precedence at the time of the draw shall be eligible to have his or her name chosen. Not later than two sitting days prior to the conduct of the draw, the Clerk shall inform the Members involved of the time, date and place of the said draw."
39.	That section 87(5) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
"(5) The House shall not consider any order for the second reading and reference to a standing, special or legislative committee or for reference to a Committee of the Whole House of any bill, nor any Notices of Motions or Notices of Motions (Papers) unless the said item has been placed in the order of precedence."
40.	That Standing Order 91 be deleted and the following substituted
therefor:
"91. Notwithstanding Standing Order 30(6), the consideration of Private Members' Business shall be suspended and the House shall continue to consider any business before it at the time otherwise provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business until an order of precedence is established pursuant to sections (1) and (2) of Standing Order 87 and the Standing Committee on House Management has made a report on its selection of votable items, pursuant to Standing Order 92(1)."

March 26, 1991

41.	That section 92(1) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"92.(1) The Standing Committee on House Management shall meet as soon as practicable after the order of precedence has been established pursuant to sections (1) and (2) of Standing Order 87, but in any case not later than ten sitting days after that day, and from time to time thereafter, and may select after consultation with, among others, the Members proposing the items, not more than three motions and three bills from among the twenty items in the order of precedence and an appropriate number from among any subsequent items for which the order of precedence is established and such selected items shall be designated as "votable items". In making its selection, the Committee shall not take into account the number of Members jointly seconding an item, but shall allow the merits of the items alone to determine the selection and shall report thereon, from time to time. At no time shall there be more than three motions and three bills among the selected items on the order of precedence."
42.	That Standing Order 93 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"93. Unless previously disposed of, selected public bills at the second reading stage or selected motions shall receive not more than three hours of consideration and, unless previously disposed of, an item having been once considered, shall be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence and again considered only when it reaches the top of the said order.
Provided that, unless otherwise disposed of, at not later than fifteen minutes before the end of the time provided for the consideration of the said item, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted and every question necessary to dispose of the selected motion or of the selected bill at the second reading stage, shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment."
43.	That section 94(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2)(a) When a Member has given at least forty-eight hours' written notice that he or she is unable to be present to move his or her motion under Private Members' Business on the date required by the order of precedence, the Speaker, with permission of the Members involved, may arrange for an exchange of positions in the order of precedence with a Member whose motion or bill has been placed in the order of precedence; and
(b) in the event that the Speaker has been unable to arrange an exchange, the House shall continue with the business before it prior to "Private Members' Hour"."
44.	That section 96(1) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"96.(1) The proceedings on any item of Private Members' Business which is not a votable item selected pursuant to Standing Order 92 shall expire when debate thereon has been concluded or at the end
Government Orders
of the time provided for the consideration of such business and shall be dropped from the Order Paper."
45.	That Standing Order 99 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"99.(1) The proceedings on Private Members' Business shall not be suspended except as provided for in Standing Orders 30(4), 50(4), 52(14), 91 and 94(l)(b)oras otherwise specified by Special Order of this House. No Private Members' Business shall be taken up on days appointed for the consideration of business pursuant to Standing Orders 5 3 and 84(2) nor on days, other than Mondays, appointed for the consideration of business pursuant to Standing Order 81(16).
(2) Whenever Private Members' Business is suspended or not taken up on a Monday, the House shall meet from 11.00 o'clock a.m. to
12.00	o'clock noon for the consideration of Government Orders."
46.	That Standing Order 104 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"104.(1) At the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, the Standing Committee on House Management, which, notwithstanding section (2) of this Standing Order, shall consist of fourteen Members, and the membership of which shall continue from session to session, shall be appointed to act, among its other duties, as a striking committee. The said Committee shall prepare and report to the House within the first ten sitting days after its appointment, and thereafter, within the first ten sitting days after the commencement of each session and within the first ten sitting days after the second Monday following Labour Day, lists of Members to compose the standing and legislative committees of the House pursuant to Standing Orders 104(2) and 113(1), and to act for the House on standing joint committees; provided that the Committee shall not present a second report pursuant to this Standing Order between the second Monday following Labour Day and the end of that calendar year.
(2) The standing committees, which shall consist of not less than seven and not more than fourteen Members, and for which lists of members are to be prepared, except as provided in Standing Order 104(1), are grouped into five envelopes, as follows:
(a) Management-, the Standing Committees on:
(i)	House Management; and
(ii)	Public Accounts;
(b)	Human Resources: the Standing Committees on:
(i)	Aboriginal Affairs;
(ii)	Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women;
(iii)	Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons;
(iv)	Labour, Employment and Immigration; and
(v)	Multiculturalism and Citizenship;
(c)	Natural Resources: the Standing Committees on:

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
(i)	Agriculture;
(ii)	Energy, Mines and Resources;
(iii)	Environment; and
(iv)	Forestry and Fisheries;
(d)	Economics', the Standing Committees on:
(i)	External Affairs and International Trade;
(ii)	Finance;
(iii)	Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development; and
(iv)	Transport; and
(e)	Departmental', the Standing Committees on:
(i)	Communications and Culture;
(ii)	Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations;
(iii)	Justice and Solicitor General;
(iv)	National Defence and Veterans Affairs; and
(v)	Official Languages.
(3)	Lists of members are also to be prepared for eight legislative committees, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 113(1).
(4)	The Standing Committee on House Management shall also prepare and report a list of eight Members to act for the House on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, provided that a sufficient number of members of the said joint committee shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion therein as between the memberships of both Houses."
47.	That sections 106(1) and 106(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"106.(1) Within ten sitting days following the adoption by the House of a report of the Standing Committee on House Management pursuant to Standing Order 104(1), the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of each standing committee whose membership is contained in that report for the purpose of electing a Chairman, provided that forty-eight hours' notice is given of any such meeting.
(2) Each standing and special committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen, of whom two shall be Members of the government party and the third a Member in opposition to the government, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 116, at the commencement of every session and, if necessary, during the course of a session."
48.	That section 107(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Within five sitting days of the meeting of the last standing committee to elect its Chairman pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), but in any event no later than the twentieth sitting day after the adoption of the report of the Standing Committee on House Management presented pursuant to Standing Order 104(1), the
Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of the Chairmen, together with any Members of the House elected as Chairman or Vice-Chairman of any joint committees for which such elections have then been held, for the purpose of electing a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman of the Liaison Committee."
49.	That Standing Order 108 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"108.(1) Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time and to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the Chairman, containing such opinions or recommendations, dissenting from the report or supplementary to it, as may be proposed by committee members, and except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House.
(2)	The standing committees, except those set out in sections (3)(a),
(3)	(b), (3)(d), (3)(e) and (4) of this Standing Order, shall in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House. In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on:
(a)	the statute law relating to the department assigned to them;
(b)	the program and policy objectives of the department and its effectiveness in the implementation of same;
(c)	the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the department;
(d)	an analysis of the relative success of the department, as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives; and
(e)	other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.
(3) The mandate of the Standing Committee on:
(a)	House Management shall include, in addition to the duties set forth in Standing Orders 104(1) and (3), and among other matters:
(i) the review of and report on, to the Speaker as well as the Board of Internal Economy, the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members provided that all matters related thereto shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the Committee upon its membership having been established;
March 26, 1991

(ii)	the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with the operational and expenditure plans of all operations which are under the joint administration and control of the two Houses and other related matters as the Committee deems fit;
(iii)	the review of and report on the Standing Orders, procedure and practice in the House and its committees; and
(iv)	the selection of items of Private Members' Business pursuant to Standing Order 92, and the consideration of business related to Private Bills;
(b)	Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons shall include, among other matters strictly pertaining to Canada:
(i)	the review of and report on the reports of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which shall be deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately after they are laid upon the Thble; and
(ii)	the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives aimed at the integration and equality of disabled persons in all sectors of Canadian Society;
(c)	Multiculturalism and Citizenship shall include, among other matters:
(i)	the monitoring of the implementation of the principles of the federal multiculturalism policy throughout the Government of Canada and in order
-	to encourage the departments and agencies of the federal government to reflect the multicultural diversity of the nation; and
-	to examine existing and new programs and policies of federal departments and agencies to encourage sensitivity to multicultural concerns and to preserve and enhance the multicultural reality of our nation; and
(ii)	the review of policies, programs and their administration, in the areas of citizenship, citizenship development and promotion and related programs which provide opportunities for fuller participation in the educational, economic and social life of Canada;
(d)	Official Languages shall include, among other matters, the review of and report on official languages policies and programs including the annual reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which shall be deemed, for the purposes of the House, permanently referred to the Committee immediately they are laid upon the Thble; and
(e)	Public Accounts shall include, among other matters, review of and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada which shall be severally deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately they are laid upon the Thble;
and any other matter which the House shall, from time to time, refer to the Standing Committee.
(4)	So far as this House is concerned, the mandate of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations shall include, among other matters, the review and scrutiny of statutory instruments which are permanently referred to the Committee
Government Orders
pursuant to the provisions of section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act, provided that both Houses may, from time to time, refer any other matters to the joint committee."
50.	That Standing Order 112 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"112. At the commencement of each session the Speaker shall appoint, for each envelope except the Management envelope, as many as six Members, and from time to time additional Members as required, to act as Chairmen of legislative committees, provided that a proportionate number of Members from both the government party and the opposition parties shall be so appointed. Each group of Members appointed under the provisions of this Standing Order, together with the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, shall constitute a Panel of Chairmen for the legislative committees belonging to each respective envelope."
51.	That sections 113(1), 113(2) and 113(3) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"113.(1) Each of the envelopes created pursuant to Standing Order 104(2), with the exception of the Management envelope, shall include two legislative committees, of not more than fourteen members each, to be designated as follows:
(a)	Human Resources: Legislative Committees A and B;
(b)	Natural Resources: Legislative Committees C and D;
(c)	Economics: Legislative Committees E and F; and
(d)	Departmental: Legislative Committees G and H.


Some hon. members:: Dispense!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall I dispense with reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent? I shall dispense.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it was clearly audible that there was not unanimous consent to dispense. We would expect you to continue on.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am very sure that I did not hear a no, and I thought the question was in order.


An hon. member:: You were not even in the House.


Mr. Whittaker:: Mr. Speaker, I clearly yelled out "no" when the Speaker asked whether there was consent. As soon as I heard the final question translated and realized what the Speaker was doing, I clearly yelled out "no."

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
I want it recorded. I want it very clearly recorded that I did not consent to have this dispensed with.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when the Chair originally sought unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the motion, it was clear at that point that it was not the intention of a large number of members in the House. It seemed to me, that in the same spirit-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am sorry, I stand to be corrected, only the members of the New Democratic Party, and I think there were some independent members as well, indicated that they wanted to clearly hear the motion read by the Speaker. Obviously the intention of the House was clear at that time and I think it would be inappropriate for you, on the point of order that was raised by my hon. friend, to not give at least a moment to ensure that in fact unanimous consent was not given.
{Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am prepared to hand down my ruling. First of all, I must confess I recognized the hon. member for Saint-Maurice although he was not in his seat, and I should not have given him the floor, since this is against our Standing Orders, and furthermore, I am not sure I heard no "nays". Of course, when in doubt, I am supposed to give the other person the benefit of the doubt-in that case, I would prefer to stick to the status quo and continue reading the motion, or has the House decided to give its unanimous consent?

Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have been enjoying your reading of the motion, noticing of course that to date virtually all of the motion has been read in French. I am assuming that at the conclusion of the motion being read in French, that you or others will then read the motion in English, as per Standing Order 65.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think the Chair has made it clear that unless the House-as you know, the Speaker is the servant of the House, but it is
possible-since the House is the master of its own proceedings-for the House to give its consent to dispense. However, unless otherwise directed, the Chair intends to apply the Standing Orders and read, in both official languages, the motion before the House.
(2)	Without anticipating the decision of the House, within five sitting days after the commencement of debate on second reading of a bill which is to be referred to a legislative committee, the Speaker shall appoint a Chairman to the said committee for the study of the said bill, from the Panel of Chairmen established pursuant to Standing Order 112 for that envelope.
(3)	Any legislative committee to which a bill has been referred pursuant to Standing Order 73(2) shall meet within two sitting days after the adoption of the motion for the second reading and reference to the legislative committee of the bill."
52.	That sections 113(5) and 113(6) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(5) Any legislative committee shall be empowered to examine and enquire into the bills referred to it by the House, to report the same with or without amendments, and except when the House otherwise orders, to send for officials from government departments and agencies and crown corporations and for other persons whom the committee deems to be competent to appear as witnesses on technical matters, to send for papers and records, to sit when the House is sitting, to sit when the House stands adjourned, and to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it.
(6) Any legislative committee may delegate to a subcommittee on agenda and procedure, its power to schedule meetings of the committee and to call for officials from government departments and agencies and crown corporations and for other persons whom the committee deems competent to appear before it as witnesses on technical matters, or to send for papers and records to be presented to the committee in relation to the bill before the committee, provided that the committee shall retain the power to approve such arrangements."
53.	That sections 114(1), 114(2) and 114(3) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"114.(1) The membership of legislative, standing and joint committees shall be set out in the report of the Standing Committee on House Management, which shall prepare lists of Members in accordance with Standing Orders 104 and 113(1). Once the report of the committee is concurred in, the membership shall continue from session to session within a Parliament, subject to such changes as may be effected from time to time.
(2)(a) Within five sitting days of the organization of any legislative, standing or standing joint committee, and from time to time thereafter, every member of every such committee shall file with the clerk of the committee a list of not more than seven Members selected from Members of his or her own party in the envelope to which that committee has been assigned, who may substitute for him or her during a meeting of the said committee, according to the
March 26, 1991

procedure set out in paragraph (b) of this section, provided that they shall not become permanent members of the committee. In the event of a Member having neglected to file such a list within the prescribed time, the clerk of the committee will so notify in writing the Chief Whip of the Member's party, (or, in the case of independent Members, the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition) and the Member's name shall be struck from the list of members of the committee, and the Standing Committee on House Management shall select another Member to take his or her place on the permanent membership of the committee. Provisions of this Standing Order shall not apply to the House Management or Public Accounts Committee. Members on these two Committees may draw their lists of seven replacement Members from any envelope.


Mr. Speaker:: I will certainly hear the parliamentary secretary, but I want to say something first, and then I will hear the hon. member.
Well over an hour ago, the government introduced a motion. It is a long motion, and as I indicated the pages are about three quarters of an inch thick. I am not persuaded that anyone was particularly taken by surprise with the motion.
Under these circumstances it has been a tradition in this place that the Speaker is allowed to dispense with the reading of the entire motion. As hon. members know, and those who have been listening and watching know, the motion is a series of amendments to the rules of this place. There is some division of opinion in the House with respect to whether the amendments meet with everybody's satisfaction. That is the sort of thing that is expected.
That in itself is not the problem. At the time I asked the House if it would dispense with the necessity of myself and others reading the entire motion, both in French and in English. For reasons which I will not comment upon, the New Democratic Party withheld that consent and, I think, also at least one independent member did.
This has been going on for quite a long time now. I am just wondering if the House would be in a mood to allow me to dispense with reading the rest of this motion?
Government Orders
The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in your usual fashion you referred to the traditions of the House of Commons and the fact that there has been a tradition that when such a motion has been put, it has been the will of the House to forgo the actual reading of the motion that is before us.
Yes, that tradition has been challenged. The reason it has been challenged is that what we are about to begin debate on, changes to the Standing Orders, are also an abandonment of a whole variety of traditions, so I am proposing-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to get into debate on the substance of the motion. I know the hon. member for Kamloops would not want to do that either.
What I am bringing to the attention of the House is my concern of the use of the rules. They are used often as tactics. I have been on both sides of the House and I understand that. It would seem to me that there are occasions when having used a rule to make a point there might be an appropriate time to not press it too far.
With respect to the rule itself, it is very hard to persuade anyone in the country that it is necessary for the functioning of this place to read all of these amendments, which of course are meaningless, as an hon. member pointed out, without having the annotated rules in front of one.
In any event, I put it to the House again: Is the House prepared to dispense?
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and then I will hear the hon. member for Kamloops.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this matter can be dispensed with relatively quickly if you would allow me the opportunity to pose a very succinct question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. Does the government intend to proceed today with giving notice of a closure motion on the changes to the rules?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear in all negotiations with my hon. friend, the House leader of the Official Opposition and the House leader of the New Democratic Party that it was not the government's intention to move notice of closure under Standing Order 57(1).

March 26, 1991
Government Orders


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's comment. We also were concerned that the government intended to move, if not closure, then some form of closure. There are many ways and means of closing off debate.
I would like two clarifications. If there is an affirmative on both of these, I think there would be an inclination from all sides to dispense with further reading of the motion.
The questions are the following. I would like to ask my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government Elouse Leader to indicate clearly that the government does not plan to use any form of closure or time allocation to limit this debate.
Second, in the time remaining, I would hope that some time would be set aside to hear the point of order that I was planning to raise at three o'clock before we got into this process.


Albert Glen Cooper: First, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Chair would take into account the time that we have wasted this afternoon because of the hon. member's persistence when hearing any point of order he may or may not have.
Second, I am not sure what the hon. member means "by any form of closure" and I therefore want him to be more specific. Certainly we as a government have every right to keep all of our options open. I have indicated privately on more than one occasion to the hon. member it was not our intention to move notice of closure today and I indicated the same to the House leader of the Official Opposition.


David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, just to carry this a bit further with the parliamentary secretary who is I think trying to be accommodating here. Is he indicating to the House that he is not intending to proceed with time allocation or notice of closure on this particular motion which is before us?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are always hesitant to enter into negotiations on the floor. We have had considerable negotiations in private, which have obviously broken down. I have indicated very clearly that it was not our intention to give notice of closure today.
What the government may want to do at some future date I am not in a position to predict. I can only say that
we have clearly seen an abuse of House time today and, as a result of that, the House has not been able to proceed with the legislation before it.
We were very clear that we had no intention of moving that notice today. We wanted to debate the issue and we are ready to debate the issue.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think we are making progress. If the government House leader, who has now arrived, would indicate that the government does not plan to give notice of closure, to move time allocation or to extend the hours, we would be quite prepared to permit the motion to proceed without completing the reading.
I would like to hear some indication, as to whether you are prepared to entertain a few minutes of argument in terms of the inappropriateness of proceeding with this motion at all.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly support what my parliamentary secretary said. I had no intention of bringing in closure at this point in time, as we have been discussing for upward of a year, but certainly more intensely lately. I did not expect unanimity in support of all elements of the package, but I did expect we would have a reasoned debate where points of view would be put forward and we would reach a decision by vote at an appropriate time.
That was the intent and that is the intent.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be helpful if hon. members discuss the matter further. In the meantime, I take it that I do not have the consent of the New Democratic Party to dispense.
As a consequence, according to the rules, we shall have to proceed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have not made my point clear. I sought clarification that no notice of closure would be given today, and that there would be no steps toward time allocation or extending the hours, three simple requests.
If I may, I would like to be able to proceed with an argument on the inappropriateness of this particular motion before us.


Mr. Speaker:: If I understand the hon. member for Kamloops correctly, he is saying that there is agreement and we shall dispense with the further reading. I shall hear the hon. member on his point of order.
March 26, 1991



[Editor's Note: The rest of the motion is as follows:]
(b)	substitutions in the membership of any legislative or standing committee or, so far as the House is represented, on any standing joint committee shall be effective the day after notification thereof is forwarded, by the permanent member of the committee, to the Chief Whip of his or her party (or, in the case of independent Members, the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition) for signature who, in turn, will forward the substitution to the clerk of the committee;
(c)	at any time when no notice has been received by the clerk of the committee pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the Chief Whip of any recognized party may effect substitutions by filing notice thereof with the clerk of the committee, having selected the substitutes from among all the Members of his or her party in the envelope to which that committee was assigned; and such substitutions shall be effective immediately once they are received by the clerk of the committee; and
(d)	when a permanent member of a legislative, standing or standing joint committee gives notice in writing to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on House Management of his or her intention to give up his or her membership, that Member's resignation shall be effective when a report of the Standing Committee on House Management naming a replacement for him or her has been concurred in by the House.
(3)	Changes in the membership of standing or legislative committees which involve the appointment to a committee of a Member not already a member of a committee in the same envelope shall be effective when a report of the Standing Committee on House Management to that effect is concurred in by the House."
54.	That section 115(2) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) During periods coinciding with the hours of sittings of the House, priority shall be given to the meetings of legislative committees over those of standing committees in the same envelope."
55.	That the following new section be added after section 115(3) of the Standing Orders:
"(4)(a) Each group of committees within an envelope shall have priority of use in two committee rooms, which shall be designated from time to time by the Standing Committee on House Management, provided that the committees of the Management envelope shall sit and have priority in one room only.
(b) In those rooms which have been assigned to the envelope within which they are grouped, committees shall have an absolute priority over all other users."
56.	That the following new Standing Order be added after Standing Order 119:
"119.1.(1) Any committee wishing to use the facilities of the House of Commons for the broadcasting of its meetings shall first obtain the consent of the House thereto.
Government Orders
(2) The Standing Committee on House Management shall establish, by report to the House of Commons, experimental guidelines governing the broadcasting of committee meetings. After concurrence by the House in such a report, any committee may permit the presence of the electronic media at its meetings, subject to the said guidelines."
57.	That section 123(1) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"123.(1) In addition to the powers granted, so far as this House is concerned, to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, pursuant to Standing Order 108(4), the said Committee shall be empowered to make a report to the House containing only a resolution which, if the report is concurred in, would be an Order of this House to the Ministry to revoke a statutory instrument, or portion thereof, which the Governor in Council or Minister of the Crown has the authority to revoke."
58.	That Standing Order 125 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"125. Except as otherwise provided in any Standing or Special Order of the House, and unless otherwise disposed of, at not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the fifteenth sitting day following the date on which a notice of motion made pursuant to Standing Order 123(4) appeared on the Order Paper, the same shall be deemed to have been moved and adopted by the House."
59.	That paragraph 126(lXc) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(c) unless the motion or motions be previously disposed of, not later than the end of the said hour of consideration, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the said motion or motions, provided that any division or divisions demanded in relation thereto shall stand deferred until no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment in that sitting, when the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes. Any remaining questions necessary to dispose of proceedings in relation to such motion or motions, on which a decision has been deferred until after the taking of such a division, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment."
60.	That Standing Order 132 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"132. Petitions for private bills shall only be received by the House if filed within the first six weeks of the session, and every private bill originating in the Commons shall be presented to the House within two weeks after the petition therefor has been favourably reported upon by 1he Examiner of Petitions or by the Standing Committee on House Management."
61.	That sections 133(2), 133(3) and 133(4) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
" (2) Petitions for private bills, when received by the House, are tobe taken into consideration by the Examiner who shall report to the House in each case the extent to which the requirements of the Standing Orders regarding notice have been complied with; and in every case where the notice is reported by the Examiner to have been

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
insufficient or otherwise defective, or if the Examiner reports that there is any doubt as to the sufficiency of the notice as published, the petition, together with the report of the Examiner thereon, shall be taken into consideration, without special reference, by the Standing Committee on House Management, which shall report to the House as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the notice, and where the notice is deemed insufficient or otherwise defective, shall recommend to the House the course to be taken in consequence of such deficiency or other defect.
(3)	All private bills from the Senate (not being based on a petition which has already been so reported on) shall be first taken into consideration and reported on by the Examiner of Petitions, and when necessary by the Standing Committee on House Management in like manner, after the first reading of such bills, and before their consideration by any legislative committee.
(4)	No petition praying for the incorporation of a railway company, or of a canal company, or for an extension of the line of any existing or authorized railway or canal, or for the construction of branches thereto, shall be considered by the Examiner, or by the Standing Committee on House Management, until there has been filed with the said Examiner a map or plan, showing the proposed location of the works, and each county, township, municipality or district through which the proposed railway or canal, or any branch or extension thereof, is to be constructed."
62.	That section 135(1) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
"135. (1) All private bills are introduced on petition, and after such petition has been favourably reported upon by the Examiner of Petitions or by the Standing Committee on House Management, such bills shall be laid upon the Thble of the House by the Clerk, and shall be deemed to have been read a first time and ordered to be printed, and to have been ordered for a second reading when so laid upon the Table, and so recorded in the Votes and Proceedings."
63.	That Standing Order 140 be deleted and the following substituted
therefor:
"140. No motion for the suspension or modification of any provision of the Standing Orders applying to private bills or to petitions for private bills shall be entertained by the House until after reference is made to the Standing Committee on House Management, and a report made thereon by the Committee and, in its report, the Committee shall state the grounds for recommending such suspension or modification."
64.	That section 141(4) of the Standing Orders be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
"(4) It is the duty of the committee to which any private bill maybe referred by the House, to call the attention of the House specially to any provisions inserted in such bill that do not appear to have been contemplated in the notice or petition for the same, as reported upon by the Examiner of Petitions or by the Standing Committee on
House Management; and any private bill so reported shall not be
placed on the Order Paper for consideration until a report has been
made by the Examiner as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the notice
to cover such provisions."
That a message be sent to the Senate to apprise their Honours of the change to Standing Order 108(4);
That the Standing Orders as amended take effect on the first sitting day of the Third Session of the 34th Parliament;
That for the purposes of Standing Order 104(1) and Standing Order 112, the first sitting day of the Third Session of the 34th Parliament shall be deemed to be the commencement of the first session of a Parliament;
That all outstanding Orders of Reference be deemed referred to the new appropriate and corresponding standing committees;
That, where appropriate, budgets of committees be transferred to the new appropriate and corresponding standing committee;
That the Clerk of the House be authorized to renumber the Standing Orders as may be deemed necessary, making such technical and consequential changes to the Standing Orders, as well as such changes to the Order Paper and Notice Paper, as may be required; and
That the Clerk of the House be instructed to print a revised edition of the Standing Orders of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask you to rule that the motion before us, No. 30 on the Order Paper, is in whole or in part improperly before the House and is in whole or in part out of order. My concerns are focused on two distinct elements of this motion.
The first is found in paragraph 30, which proposes to amend the right of the Crown to debate supply before it is granted to the Crown.
The second is found in paragraph 20, which is the proposal to introduce a new Standing Order which can override the failure of a minister to obtain unanimous consent from the House.
My arguments, put very concisely, will seek to establish the following points:
First, that these provisions seek to erode the historic authority of the House and the rights of its members and are thus contemptuous of the House as they will tend to diminish its dignity and impede members in the discharge of their functions.


March 26, 1991

Second, these proposals exceed those limits imposed by the Constitution and by statute and the power of the House to regulate its internal affairs.
Third, adoption of these proposals would be a de facto amendment to those limiting statutes and are thus an attempt to achieve by simple motion changes which should both be statutory and constitutional.
Fourth, in light of the above, I submit that our traditions and practise require that they be found out of order. It is clear to me that the proposals in paragraphs 30 and 20 will erode the authority of the House and impede members in the discharge of their functions.
In paragraph 30 the government proposes that;
- if the House does not sit on days designated as sitting days pursuant to Standing Order 28, the total number of allotted days in that supply period shall be reduced by a number of days proportionate to the number of sitting days on which the House stood adjourned -
I have no procedural concerns with other proposals in that section, namely to reduce the number of supply days in an ordinary session from 25 to 20. Those proposals will diminish the ability of the House to examine and debate the Crown's request for expenditure, but this change is quantitative, not qualitative. I would just further note that in the British House, to which our privileges and authorities are constitutionally and statutorily linked, the number of allotted days is also limited to 20.
It is the proposal to reduce the number of allotted days proportionately with the reduction in the number of sitting days which, I submit, is a qualitative change to the rights of the House over supply.
This reduction in supply debate assumes that opposition or allotted days are a share of House time, is provided for business which does not originate with ministers of the Crown, and that this share should be linked to the length of the session.
It denies the historic linkage between allotted days and the granting of supply to the government.
It denies the historic authority of the House over supply.
It denies the historic rights of members to debate supply.
Government Orders
It forgets that for this House of Commons, the contemporary form of members' historic right to air their grievances and petition the Crown before supply is granted is during the opposition days that we normally refer to.
A simple reading of this motion may not reveal this flaw. It is better understood through hypothetical examples.
If, for example, the Crown forcibly adjourns the House, we could arrive at a situation whereby our own Standing Orders would have us sitting only on June 23 to entertain one day of debate on supply and to pass the Appropriation Act.
More realistically perhaps is a scenario where, in the next few weeks, a minister of the Crown could force through the House a motion to adjourn to an indefinite call, recall the House for June 23 and obtain consent on supply.
If this motion passes, our Standing Orders would permit this but the conventional and historic control of supply by the Commons would not be upheld.
As our own Precis of Procedure points out:
A fundamental element of the principle underlying the financial procedures of Parliament is the idea that Parliament does not grant supply until the opposition has had the opportunity to demonstrate why it should be refused.
Or, as the late Eugene Forsey wrote in his recent manuscript, The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government:
The historic House of Commons was in Bolingbroke's phrase and emphasized by Edward Blake, "the grand inquest of the nation". Its principal concern was with the voicing of grievances and scrutinizing the financial and administrative measures of the Crown.
Certainly, at the time of Confederation, the power of the House to debate and withhold supply was clearly understood. As Bourinot wrote in his fourth edition on page 404:
The rules of the house with respect to the expenditure of public money and the impositions of burthens upon the people are in conformity with the practice of its English prototype. All the checks and guards which the wisdom of English parliamentarians has imposed in the course of centuries upon public expenditures now exist in their full force in the parliament of the dominion.
The cardinal principle, which underlies all parliamentary rules and constitutional provisions with respect to money grants and public taxes is this-

March 26, 1991
Government Orders
I underscore his words "principle which underlies all parliamentary rules and constitutional provisions with respect to money grants" and will return to these constitutional provisions in a moment.
He continued:
When burthens are to be imposed on the people, every opportunity must be given for free and frequent discussion, so that parliament may not, by sudden and hasty votes, incur any expenses or be induced to approve of measures, which may entail heavy and lasting burthens upon the country. Hence it is ordered that the Crown must first come down with a recommendation whenever the government finds it necessary to incur a public expenditure, and that there should be full consideration of the matter in committee and in the house, so that no member may be forced to come to a hasty decision, but that every one may have abundant opportunities afforded him of stating his reasons for supporting or opposing the proposed grant.
What greater indignity to the Commons would there be, than to have to deny its right to withhold supply until grievances have been heard.
What greater insult to the authority of the House than for a government to claim supply without hearing grievances. That is my first point and very succinctly I will put my second.
Similarly offensive to the rights of the House and its members is the proposal to override unanimous consent. Clause 20 of this motion proposes to change our notion of unanimous consent and to enable the rules of procedure and operations of the House to be changed by an agent of the Crown unless 25 members of the House object. It is significant that this proposal establishes two classes of members, those who by virtue of being ministers of the Crown can obtain unanimous consent as long as 25 members do not object, and those ordinary members for whom unanimous consent means no one objects.
Surely this is tipping the balance of power between the government and the Commons which significantly diminishes the authority of the House and by sharply narrowing the scope of their duties is this an impediment of the ability of the members to perform those duties as currently defined.
Let us consider just for a moment what this proposed rule would and could involve. With this rule a minister of the Crown could propose that the House pass all legislation, grant all moneys for the year, diminish the ability of the committees of the House to examine
government's expenditures and operations, and adjourn until further recall.
Unless 25 members, that is 10 per cent of all private members are present to oppose, these suggestions would automatically be adopted without debate, without the ability to amend.
The question I put to you, Mr. Speaker, is not whether or not this is right, or just, or fair play. Those questions, you will agree, should be saved for another time. The question I put is whether or not this is a qualitative substantial alteration to the privileges of members and a qualitative and substantial reduction in the authority of the House to debate and decide upon proposals put forward by ministers of the Crown.
Surely when an agent of the Crown can deny 24 members the right to speak to a motion this is an infringement on the rights of the House as defined by Redlich. He recognized these as:
The sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual members as against the prerogatives of the Crown.
That is from Procedure of the House of Commons, Volume 1.
Surely this would be an infringement of the privileges of members as described by Erskine May as:
-the peculiar rights enjoyed by-members of each House
individually, without which they could not discharge their duties.
A former law clerk of this House, Joseph Maingot, wrote:
A distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character-it is a means to accomplish a purpose or fulfil a function-The members of the legislative body enjoy these rights and immunities because the legislature cannot act or perform without the unimpeded use of the services of its members.
I am reminded of the importance to members of the right to deny unanimous consent by the events last summer when Elijah Harper could speak for his community by refusing to allow the rules to be broken.
You may hear arguments from those who feel that the House is the master of its own proceedings, and that if the House shares my concerns about the curtailment of the privileges of the House and its members contained in these proposals, then the House will reject them.
You may hear arguments that these are questions of debate, not of procedure.

..." . ,	
March 26, 1991

My argument is that first, the House has never been fully master of its own proceedings and second, we acknowledge this in our daily operations.
It is the Constitution of Canada which is, in its own words, "the supreme law of Canada". It is supreme to all other laws, supreme to the Standing Orders of this House.
We cannot, by unanimous consent or by motion, reduce the number required for quorum below 20.
That is because our Constitution, in Section 48 of the BNA Act, requires that quorum be set at 20.
Similarly, we cannot, by unanimous consent or by motion, enable private members to propose taxes or expenditures.
That is because our constitution and our parliamentary conventions prohibit it. To do so would be to enlarge the authority of the House beyond its constitutional limits.
You, Mr. Speaker, would rule that any such motions would be clearly out of order.
The same Constitution and law which established our quorum at 20 and which require a royal recommendation on any expenditure or tax proposal contains another requirement on this House.
Section 18 of the Constitution says, and the language is repeated in the Parliament of Canada Act:
The privileges, immunities and powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the Members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by any Act of the Parliament, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities or powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the Members thereof.
In our Parliamentary Privileges in Canada, we find the following:
A Privilege may not be diminished, prejudicially affected or repealed save by express statutory enactment to that effect.
Any change to our privileges, immunities and powers requires an act of Parliament, not a change to our Standing Orders.
In Britain, the sources of parliamentary privileges are in the usages and customs of Parliament. In Canada, privilege is founded upon this section of the Constitution Act.
Government Orders
In summary, this motion contains two proposals which, I submit, are out of order as they seek to amend the powers and privileges of this House.
The Constitution insists that any proposals be contained in an act of Parliament. The Parliament of Canada Act insists on this. So too must we.
To adopt these changes, the House will be making a de facto change to the Parliament of Canada Act by amending our privileges, and to the Constitution by amending our privileges by using simple Standing Order changes, not an act of Parliament.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that the House could not change statutes by way of a bill based on the estimates. In essence, you said that the House could not do by the back door what must be done through legislative change. You ruled a proposal to do that out of order, and declared that there would be no further proceedings on any such proposal.
I submit the same approach would require that a portion of the proposal before us today ought to be declared null and void. I trust you will similarly rule, that there can be no further proceedings relating to any proposal which seeks to change the privileges, immunities and powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the House of Commons until a legislative change is made to permit such a change.
A contemporary parliamentarian John Stewart wrote: "The procedures by which our House of Commons does its work are, in a sense, a part of Canada's Constitution. They are part of the process by which we are governed. When the House of Commons makes a major change in the way it operates, the constitutional process, the governing of Canada, has been altered, perhaps not fundamentally, but certainly to some degree. There is a close, causal relationship between how a body works and what that body does."
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and my colleagues for their indulgence.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is strange that for months and months of discussion, there was not one word of this.
Perhaps it is because citation 4 of Beauchesne's states very clearly:

March 26, 1991
Private Members' Business
4. Beyond the vast legacy of tradition implanted in Canada by the preamble to the Constitution Act, one section above all affects procedure. Section 18 permits the adoption in Canada of all of the privileges of Parliament current in the British House of Commons. Few of these are of greater importance than the right to regulate the internal proceedings of the House, or more specifically, to establish binding rules of procedure.
Clearly, that is precisely what is happening. Nothing more sinister. The suggestion that the House could meet one day a year and get supply is absurd. Prior to the rule changes of 1969, the Appropriations Act was a standalone act. It could have been closed off in one day.
The changes in 1969 brought forward a lot of days during which members of the opposition had an opportunity to challenge items in the estimates.
I ask the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party to show me once where his party used those allotted days to challenge the estimates. Not once did his party challenge supply. To now stand up and say that it is a sacred right that is somehow being infringed is an absurdity that goes in the face of the practices of his own party.
In terms of the rule providing for changes in Standing Orders or the kind of consent motions we seek by unanimous consent, the hon. member neglected to mention it is proscribed by having it possible to introduce them only during Routine Proceedings when this House is habitually full.
Therefore, the 25 member requirement is a significant and major inhibition to abuse of that. To suggest that can be used somehow during Routine Proceedings to commit the heinous crime he has suggested is equally absurd.
In any event, I am now departing into the realm of debate on the rules which, if we had not had the childish behaviour of the New Democratic Party earlier today, we could have had that debate in substance, which is what the people of Canada expect from mature politicians who represent them here in Parliament, not the kind of childish behaviour we saw from the New Democratic Party today and continue to see.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding perhaps I might indicate that I will of course hear further argument on this matter. The hon. government House leader may
want to address the Chair further. I certainly will hear that at an appropriate time.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the reason I halted my remarks is that having wasted all the time this afternoon it is now Private Members' Hour and there is no longer an opportunity. The combination of this initial procedure and now going on to another day to debate this point of order to further delay and obstruct this House, I have serious concerns about that.
I would rather have that debate on the procedural argument right now if there were consent to do that. If there is agreement, let us present our arguments on this point of order now, have it ruled on, and then we can proceed with orderly business tomorrow. That is certainly my preferred option.
I would ask if there is agreement at this point in time.


Mr. Speaker:: Just so that everybody understands, the hon. government House Leader put it to the House that we would continue this argument into Private Members' Hour. If there had been consent we could have done that. All I am making clear is that I certainly will hear members further on it at an appropriate time.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma-Mining; the hon. member for Okanagan- Shuswap-The Environment; the hon. member for York West-Air Transportation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment of the Centennial Flame Research Award
March 26, 1991

to publicize the contributions to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member for Mississauga South has a private member's bill to be debated. He has indicated that I might, with leave of the House, just for a moment at this time bring before the House the bill that I had previously brought here as a private member, Bill C-258, which was unanimously passed by the House of Commons on December 10 last, dealing with the Centennial Flame and the disabled.
This bill was amended in the Senate to add some references to the Senate. It is therefore now necessary for the House of Commons to re-enact it as amended. I have spoken with representatives from all parties and groups and, as there is consent, I would like to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 3, 1990, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blenkarn that Bill C-314, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by commending the member for Mississauga South on the initiative he is taking in presenting this private member's bill having to do with the rights of those who have had their charges taken care of, to have their records disposed of.
First of all, this bill strikes a very responsive cord in the hearts and minds of anyone interested in fairness and justice in our legal system. I am attracted to it. It makes me reflect on the days quite a few years ago when I first sponsored a bill that dealt with parental kidnapping. I had never heard of the phenomenon-I suppose that is the best use of the work I could make-before a constituent of mine told me about her child having been abducted by her estranged husband. She had found that
Private Members' Business
there was no protection for her or her child in the Criminal Code as it stood at that time.
I began in 1976 to sponsor a bill dealing with parental kidnapping. It was a very short and simple bill which simply expressed that reality, but I did not receive passage of that bill at that time. As a matter of fact, it took six years for me to see that bill move from a private member's bill by an opposition member to be accepted by the government of the day in 1982 as part of the legislative package of the government.
By 1982 it had become a very complex bill, because I as an ordinary layman recognized the problem but did not realize its complexity or the complexity of the solution that would have to be presented to solve that problem. By the time the bill was passed, it was several pages long.
In looking at the proposal put forward by my friend and colleague from Mississauga South, I am reminded of that. He has presented a relatively simple bill to deal with what appears to be a very simple problem, and he would like to see it dealt with. I compliment him for that.
I am told by those who understand the intricacies of criminal law better than I do that the problem and the solution are far more complex than the bill which he has presented. Therefore, I want to begin by complimenting him and ask him to make certain that he carries this crusade forward to ensure that all the exigencies of this particular phenomenon are dealt with.
By identifying a specific provision of the law which adversely affects constituents who have been in contact with the member, and by proposing solutions as he has done, the member upholds the finest traditions of public service which all members of this House should seek to emulate.
It seems to me that all too often we address issues at the macro level and, I might add, at a kind of transient level. We address them once and then tend to forget them. In our busy schedules there remains scant time to respond in such a meaningful way to the concerns of individual Canadians.
This can be even more problematic for those citizens who do not have experience in dealing with the mechanisms of government, who feel powerless in the face of bureaucratic rules, and who do not have an organized or sophisticated proponent to speak loudly for their rights.

March 26, 1991
Private Members' Business
It is in responding to the needs and aspirations of these citizens that the role of the private member in identifying inequity and in proposing legislative solutions is so important.
My hon. colleague has fulfilled this most important obligation of the private member in the initiative before us today.
What is the problem he has identified? The member seized upon the issue when he became aware that a young man who had received an absolute discharge as a dispensation of case before the courts was nonetheless left with a criminal record. This person was required therefore to obtain a pardon to remove the record of the conviction.
I might add that simply getting a pardon is not necessarily always the end of the problem for someone in a case like this because, for example, if he were to cross over the international border between Canada and the United States many times, even though the Canadian authorities may have expunged the record and given him a pardon, it is not necessarily true that the American authorities have done that.
As the hon. member quite rightly points out, the purpose of granting an absolute or conditional discharge is to ameliorate the negative effects of the occurrence. My colleague points out that when the Criminal Records Act was proclaimed more than 15 years ago, it provided that the consequences of a finding of guilt which resulted in an absolute or conditional discharge should be dealt with as if a criminal record had been created although no conviction was registered.
My hon. friend displays his usual perception and acuity of thought when he notes that this provision of the act appears inconsistent with the implicit intent that the purpose of a discharge is to be less deleterious to the offender than if no discharge had been granted.
The decision to grant a discharge is made by a judge, having regard for the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission, and a decision about the offender and whether his personal circumstances are such that he requires this exceptional treatment.
Arguably, being required to apply for a pardon for a crime that has not resulted in a conviction creates an anomaly which should be rectified. With no harm to the public safety, measures may be taken to redress this inequity. The hon. member has suggested one such way.
I know the member has informed himself on the history and development of the Criminal Records Act and will therefore be aware that the provision of immediate concern was put in the legislation as the only way to compel the sealing of the various and disparate components of their record, which will still exist even when no conviction is registered.
For instance, in our system which shares federal-provincial responsibilities for the provision of justice services, records of a sort exist at the police level, within the administrative mechanisms of our courts, under the authority of both federal and provincial officials responsible for corrections, and within the national police information data base named the CPIC system.
Regardless of the disposition, reference to the particulars of the case may exist in any of these locations and under the control of these various authorities. It was considered expedient and efficacious to treat the discharges as if a conviction had occurred, to expedite the sealing of these various records. In fact, at the time it was considered to be the only realistic mechanism to provide the protection to the ex-offender which the hon. member seeks today.
As successive governments benefited from the experience of administering the provisions of the act, this and several other unforeseen consequences of the legislative provisions were identified as requiring reform and the legislation was targeted for amendment.
The suggestions before us today pin-point two of those problems and seek to provide corrective solutions. While the problems have been well identified, I must tell my hon. friend that his suggested reforms are but one course of action among several which have been proposed.
In addition, if the House adopts the measures before us today, there would remain several additional issues requiring our attention. While it has been said that perfect is the enemy of the good, in this case I would suggest, with respect and deference to my friend's interest and hard work, that it may be possible to bring
March 26, 1991

about more comprehensive and needed changes to the act.
If the outcome of the member's work is that the government is to initiate a review of outstanding issues, focusing particularly on the principle of fairness which my friend has raised, I would suggest that this would be an indication of the close collaboration between private members and the government.
In fact, this would amount to a clear indicator of the positive effect that one member speaking for the rights of a private citizen and a constituent can have in changing the laws of Canada.
I know you are signalling me to stop, Mr. Speaker. I will finish with just two sentences.
Without being trite or waxing too eloquent, I would say that if the member's work proves to be a catalyst for reform in this area, he should be proud of his efforts and complimented by all of us who feel strongly about the important role each member may play in the political life of this country.
I want to end by complimenting the member on the work he has done and encourage him that even though time might run out on this particular measure, he take the occasion of the experience he has gained in this measure to work on the measure to ensure that the bill in some form does receive passage of this House.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to join in the second reading of the debate on Bill C-314, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Criminal Code.
Many of our constituents have strong opinions on the way our criminal justice system should work. I welcome this discussion of some of the legislation that frames the system. I would like to outline for my fellow members and interested Canadians who may be following these proceedings some of the background that must be considered each time reform of the laws governing criminal misconduct is undertaken.
The acts that the hon. member for Mississauga South proposes to amend are only two of many interrelated statutes that have evolved to guide us in our daily conduct and to exact punishment when societal norms
Private Members' Business
and values are violated. The Young Offenders Act, the Income Tax Act, the Fisheries Act, the Narcotic Control Act, and the Official Secrets Act are only a sampling of the federal statutes that exist to control behaviour and to exact punishment when their provisions fail to deter.
In addition, there exists a plethora of provincial statutes and municipal laws of which one may run afoul and a good number of Canadians have been dealt with by the courts for their misdeeds. More than one in ten of our adult citizens has a criminal record.
It is important that the record shows who these offenders may encounter on their way from the commission of an offence to the determination of their penalty. In a typical case an individual may be arrested by a municipal police officer who, although operating in accordance with local policies and procedures, is ultimately answerable to a provincial government, which through the provisions of our Constitution Act exercises responsibility for the administration of the Criminal Code and related federal statutes.
The case may then proceed within the provincial jurisdiction to a Crown attorney who takes the facts to court. If the judge determines guilt and the sentence is a fine, probation or incarceration for less than two years, the offender may never encounter the federal sector of the criminal justice system directly.
Should the sentence be of two or more years duration, however, he or she will become the responsibility of the Solicitor General of Canada and will enter the purview of the Correctional Service of Canada and finally, the National Parole Board. Most of those convicted will at some stage encounter one or more voluntary organizations that often assist in the supervision of those who are conditionally released and other assistance in rehabilitation programs to prepare offenders for their reintegration into the community.
The system is not simple. From municipal to provincial jurisdiction, from the federal system to the voluntary sector, the whole process is most often begun when the police act on a complaint of a private citizen who has been victimized. Of course the media may show an interest in any particular crime or court case. It is important that we keep in mind the number of diverse players in the criminal justice game.

March 26, 1991
Private Members' Business
To conclude my preamble, I will note that the imaginary criminal that I have described and every other Canadian whose deeds have led to a sentence being handed down by a court, including those who have been granted conditional or absolute discharge, will thereafter bear a criminal record.
Furthermore, this record may not be limited to the record of an arrest or a transcript of a trial but may exist in many forms and in various locations.
In preparing for this debate, I tried to become familiar with the bill that the hon. member for Mississauga South has put forward and the legislation that has prompted his initiative. There is a lesson for all of us here. Legislation that has been duly considered, passed by this House, and promulgated with the best of intentions may in the passage of time prove to be imperfect.
The Criminal Records Act is an example of legislation that may have created certain inequities, anomalies and administrative difficulties and yet has endured for some 20 years without significant amendment. I would suggest that one of the amendments that is long overdue for consideration is the one proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Bill C-314 would correct an anomaly that apparently has led to undue hardship in a number of cases and would simplify the application of the provisions of the Criminal Records Act. As I have already implied, any efforts to simplify the area of criminal legislation would meet with my approval. Efforts to reform the Criminal Records Act should not, however, be limited to a single change, even if the amendment may address the most obvious or the most important flaw in the legislation.
Let me outline some of the other facets of the Criminal Records Act that have attracted suggestions for reform over the years.
Every pardon, however minor the crime for which a citizen has been convicted-including those non-convictions resulting in conditional or absolute discharge that are troubling our colleague-may only be granted through the concurrence of the Governor in Council. This approval is granted on the advice of the Solicitor General who has in turn relied on the agencies within
his ministry for their recommendation respecting each and every application for a pardon.
As an example of an area in which the opportunity for reform is obvious, removing the requirement of the Governor in Council to approve all pardons would reduce an administrative burden. Alternatively, a lesser degree of relief could be realized if the Governor in Council authority could be directed toward a more manageable group, such as the serious offences contained in schedule 15 of the Parole Act, while others could be in the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General.
To follow this line of reasoning further, another administrative shortcut that could be considered might be that the Solicitor General delegate the authority to the chairman of the Parole Board to grant pardons directly in certain circumstances. Although pursuit of these options would appear to entail only technical and procedural change, it would require legislative amendments to be brought before this House.
A number of issues and suggestions for reform have been presented during reviews of the Criminal Records Act that have been conducted over the last decade. These are now being studied by a committee of officials in the Ministry of the Solicitor General to determine their continued relevance. While these outstanding issues may not require action in the short term, they may continue to be supported by the groups that propose them and any limited legislative reforms which are brought before Parliament may result in renewed calls for more extensive reform from interest groups and the public.
Past suggestions for reform have included the following issues. What options might be entertained in the determination of those who would be eligible for a pardon under future legislation? Questions remain as to whether the eligibility period for a pardon should relate directly to the penalty imposed, to the nature of the crime itself or should be, as it now is in cases where pardon is granted, a standard period for all offences in each of several specified categories.
What consideration will need to be given to developing criteria to be used in determining an ex-offender's status as a law-abiding member of the community? To investigate loosely defined indications of character, as is now authorized by the Criminal Records Act, during community assessments may be contrary to modern concepts of the right to privacy and equality. It has been argued that
March 26, 1991

to deny relief on the basis of non-criminal behaviour is to impose an additional disadvantage on an offender by virtue of his status as an offender.
What should be the extent of the relief obtained when a pardon is granted? It has been noted that a conviction carries with it numerous disabilities which can profoundly influence an offender's subsequent contacts with the criminal justice system; self-image, social interactions, occupational pursuits, travel possibilities, and much more. Unfortunately, the Criminal Records Act offers at best, only a partial remedy for such problems. The act provides only that records will be sealed when a pardon is granted.
There is a very important clause in Bill C-314, which calls for the destruction of pardoned records in the circumstances outlined by the bill. This highlights the problem that the benefits of the current legislation are limited with respect to the most serious disabilities which flow from the creation, control and dissemination of a criminal record and collateral information. To be completely clear about this, as it now stands, an individual who has been pardoned can answer "no" if asked: "Have you ever committed an offence for which you have not received a pardon", but cannot deny that an offence was committed.
It is my opinion that any reform of the current legislation should address, at a minimum, the question of whether an offender shall be afforded the right of deniability of the criminal convention upon grant of the pardon.
If it should prove impossible to destroy, rather than seal records once a pardon has been granted, to what if any use may these residual records be put? Consultations have suggested that there is no final consensus among interested groups on the appropriate use of or access to the sealed records of pardoned offenders, nor is there agreement on the proper procedure which should be followed for the eventual destruction of records.
I must admit, some quite persuasive suggestions have been made that records should be available to the police for investigative purposes; to Crown attorneys for use in prosecutions of a pardoned offender for a new offence or to judges in determining sentences.
Private Members' Business
A strong body of opinion expresses support for applying a bona fide employment exemption to permit access to records. This would allow access for certain employers to records of convictions relevant to the job responsibilities.
For example, a pardoned record of conviction for predatory sexual offences against children might remain accessible to day care operators, school boards or adoption agencies.
These are just some of the examples that really should be studied very thoroughly. I am sorry, I have run out of time, so I will have to close.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, as always, to rise in this House and discuss legislation which, in this particular case, is well intended and well directed. One can see this very easily in the explanatory notes.
"The purpose of this bill is to provide that where a person is discharged under the Criminal Code in respect of an offence, all records relating to that offence must be destroyed." That is the proper purpose and proper intent. We really do not have any problem with this legislation going to a committee to be looked at or to be rethought and brought back, whichever the government prefers.
We have some basic problems in about four areas. They could be accommodated in committee by amendment or the legislation could be redrafted. The intent, from our point of view, is a good and proper.
When a court grants an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge, the purpose of the judge making that decision is in effect to say that in an absolute situation that somebody broke the criminal law, probably by mistake and probably unknowingly or the effects are going to be so great that the court wants to say that the offence did not in fact take place.
The other intent is to say on a conditional basis that: "Yes, you probably knew what you did was wrong, but we do not want to see you penalized for the rest of your life. So this is a condition. You do this, this and this, and then the offence will disappear". But the record is not disappearing. The intent of the legislation is to get rid of that record and really do what the court wanted done.
Our concerns are very simply put in the area of specifics. There is really no definition of what constitutes a criminal record. For the legislation to work properly there must be a clear definition of what actually falls into

March 26, 1991
Private Members' Business
the record and what is going to be destroyed, so that the intent and purpose indicated in this bill are accomplished. All that requires is a good definition of "criminal record".
Section 5 in the bill also appears to remove the defence of autre fois convict in circumstances after the passage of time. I do not think that defence should ever be removed. It should be there and available no matter what happens. It appears to create a situation that could see a person recharged because the record is destroyed. Therefore we need some advice and some direction as to how to get around the conundrum of having the record disappear and then, at the same time, having somebody who could be recharged under the same offence because there is no record. So this requires more thought and direction, but could again be accomplished by amendment.
The other area of concern for us is the fact that the records are normally very incomplete and scattered among different courts. People could be residing in one province and the conviction is in another. It creates numerous problems in trying to determine just exactly what should be destroyed and where it is. The definition would determine what should be destroyed but it still might be in circumstance where no one knows where the record is. We need to come up with a system where that is controlled, or at least deals with it, so that everything which is intended to be destroyed is in fact destroyed.
The final thing that gives us some concern is in the area of the actual process of destruction in which it is required that the person be notified, giving that person the right to be in attendance. Again we think that that is well intended, but it could be reworked and changed so that it could accomplish the purpose that if the person did want to be in attendance he could be. On the other hand we do not want to see that as a mandatory situation that the person be in attendance and the legislation does not seem to say that.
The other concern is that the person may not be able to be notified for whatever reason and is assuming that his or her record is going to disappear after a passage of time, does not leave his address, and therefore is not
notified. Consequently the record may not be destroyed. We think there should be a little fine tuning in that particular section.
But for those exceptions, the general intent is one which we support. We are leaving it to the government to determine whether it wants this to go to committee or whether it wants to not support its own member and, in effect, its own proposal which would bring benefit to individuals who have absolute or conditional discharges.
That is why I do not want to take my full time in speaking on this but to have clearly on the record our concerns, the things we would like to see looked at and could be done by committee. It is up to the government to decide what they want to do.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the bill before us. I would like to begin by expressing my respect for the hon. member for Mississauga South for his very close attention to what is obviously a very important matter.
The information I would like to bring to the attention of the House this afternoon relates to the historical background of the legislation which is before us. Although the hon. member for Mississauga South is well aware of that historical background, I suspect other members of the House and the public at large may not be. They may not be aware that there seems to be some parallels between the bill which is here today and the actions of a former member Donald Tolmie who was responsible for the original genesis of the legislation.
The origin of the current Criminal Records Act was in fact a private member's bill. It was introduced in June 1966, and referred to the justice committee at that time. The justice committee held four meetings between March 21, 1967, and November 2, 1967. Various witnesses appeared at these meetings of the committee, and the whole process appears to be both an instructive and a helpful one.
The justice committee subsequently made its report to the government of the day. The government, in the interim, had developed a bill of its own and the committee proceeded with study of the government initiative.
March 26, 1991

In introducing the government bill, the then solicitor general, the hon. George Mcllraith, commented on the purpose of the proposed legislation, and I would like to quote that:
In this whole subject there is the problem of striking a proper balance among the different needs.
It seems to me that our prime and paramount need, and indeed the whole purpose of seeking to legislate on this subject, is to provide some means of removing from a person, who has been convicted and subsequently re-entered society and rehabilitated himself, that rather vaguely defined but nonetheless real stigma that he seems to have to carry with him in later life in those circumstances it would seem to all that it is unjust. That is the primary need. But consistent with that I suppose it is only responsible to say that we must not in correcting that evil, create another by removing the proper need relating to the identification of criminals who are still engaged in criminal activity. It is a delicate matter of adjustment to get a proper balance because that latter need, while not the paramount one in this type of legislation, is nonetheless an important one which cannot be brushed aside or ignored.
It would seem to me that we face, in the current situation, the same fundamental question that was posed when the legislation was first introduced in 1967. What is the legitimate balance between the objective of assisting those who have transgressed the law to reform and lead crime free lives and equally legitimate needs of the policing authorities and the community at large to be protected from a recurrence of criminal activities.
In truth, I must say that the question is one that requires very serious thought. Certainly, it is worth the time of this House to ensure that all the opinions on a very important issue have been canvassed.
We must not rush to make one change to a complex piece of legislation which may have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences on the other parts of the system. Has sufficient study been done, is a question which we must ask. Have the opinions of the interested parties been sought and secured? Ideas for change in this area were first presented to the House in the form of a private members' bill, as I have already indicated. That is much like the proposal which is before us today.
The government of that day apparently recognized the importance of implementing change in this area and encouraged to act on that initiative by Mr. Tolmie, proceeded to study options for reform and to present to the House, a government bill. That bill proposed com-
Private Members' Business
prehensive reform, and resulted from a consensus of those with knowledge of the subject.
It may well be that we are faced with a similar situation today. My preference would therefore be to see a substantive review of the issues take place, leading to a presentation of a comprehensive set of recommendations, based on the bill which is before us.
If I may draw an allusion, I would suggest the introduction of the current measures, like that of the original private member's bill presented in 1966, should be followed by a period of reflection.
I would suggest that perhaps during the period of reflection, the hon. member for Mississauga who presents the bill, might be pleasantly surprised, given time, at just how far reaching his actions may prove to be.
In fact, I understand that officials within the Ministry of the Solicitor General are presently studying the very reforms suggested in my friend's bill. I also understand that this review of the issues will consider other possible reforms as well.
If I may for a moment return to the historical review of the debate at the time of first passage of the Criminal Records Act, I believe hon. members will be struck by the continuing parallels to the task which faces us today.
The justice committee at that time was fully informed on the complexity of balancing the various dictates posed by the objectives of the legislation. They were cognizant of the need to create an act which would remove as much as possible the residual stigma which remained for those offenders who successfully rehabilitate themselves.
They were also aware of the need to consider the complications to the actual functioning of this act, created by the split in criminal justice responsibilities between federal and provincial government.
Our learned predecessors were sensitive to the fact that the vagaries of public sentiment often discriminate against persons with a criminal record. This was most true then, as it is now, in the vital area of employment.
However, are we to forsake entirely our responsibility to ensure that people who are hired for sensitive positions are adequately screened before being offered a position of such trust?

March 26, 1991
Private Members' Business
For example, I am particularly concerned that some provision remain which would allow a person who is an employer or prospective employer of any person whose duties involve the instruction or supervision of children to inquire as to whether or not the applicant for employment has been found guilty of any offence against a child.
You may say, Mr. Speaker, that in the bill before us, we are only referring to those offenders who have received a discharge, who have not been convicted. Might I remind the House, however, that in many provinces there are child abuse registries that record even suspicions of abuse and this record is made available in certain controlled circumstances.
Should the federal Parliament, therefore, provide less protection to the children of Canada?
I am not sure what the answer to that question should be, but I do believe we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to study very thoroughly the options which are available for reform in this area.
In the bill which is before us today, my hon. friend has suggested we should violate the principle of ascertaining a period of crime-free behaviour in the community as proof of a reformed character and behaviour before granting a pardon to those persons who have been found guilty of a crime but who have received a discharge of some sort.
I believe we may want to think seriously about this proposal before proceeding. By changing one, but only one, aspect of a law, will we create an imbalance similar to that of which I spoke to earlier? I for one am prepared to wait to hear the results of a review of these issues before committing myself unequivocally to any one course of action.
If I may, I would like again to return to the original debates and to provide the House with a flavour of the types of collateral issues which were identified by the experts who testified in committee. Several questions were raised:
Would the statute have an effect on whether reference to a pardoned record would be ordered expunged from credit reports?
Would it appear on insurance applications?
Could employers receive access to information on a pardoned record?
Would a bonding company be able to ask for such information?
Could a witness be cross-examined in court on facts relating to a sealed record?
Further questions were raised as to how the Criminal Records Act would affect provisions governing military recruitment and service. As well, concern was raised over the effect of pardons on disqualifications for membership in self-governing professional bodies.
There is a provision in the bill before us today to allow for the destruction of the record and to encourage the offender to be present. This point has been discussed by others already during the course of the present debate. I thought it would be most interesting for the House to recognize that once again our discussions today closely parallel those which preceded the passage of the original legislation.
I wish to quote from the official Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs from Tuesday, April 14, 1970. The committee was discussing the proposed Criminal Records Act.
At that time, in April 1970, Mr. Hogarth made the following comments on the nature of criminal records in Canada.
He said, and I quote:
I was just thinking of the number of places where a criminal record appears and what really you have to effectively seal in order to seal a criminal record.
You have the court record in the first instance. In the Agostino Case on a habeas corpus application they use nothing more than the entry in the court journal that the man was convicted to prove his conviction.
So you have several court records on the first level. You have the entry in the daily journal of the courts, then the court docket or file, you might well have a third record that is kept separate and apart from these first two that I have mentioned. Then you have three, four or even five levels of courts to deal with. You have the juvenile court perhaps and I do not think we are going to be faced with that problem, because I think those records can be dealt with. You have the Magistrate's level; you have the County Court level; you have the district court, Queen's Bench, King's Bench or Superior Court level of the province; you have the Court of Appeal levels; you have the Supreme Court of Canada level-all these people might well have records of the conviction.
You then get into the police records. You have the local police who arrested the man. They might well have a record of his subsequent conviction coming back to them from the police force that they turned him over to on the warrant they arrested him on. Or any one or more detachments of one police force, particularly with the gazetting of criminal records. If you notice the number of police cards that come out with a photograph of the accused, his conviction, the fact that he was convicted, what he was sentenced to so they can keep indices, several types of records kept in the individual police forces at the local level.
March 26, 1991

I continue to quote:
Then you get into the subdivision records; then you get into the central crime index records in Ottawa. Then you get into prison records, and international records. The fact he may have been reported as convicted to the American authorities or the British authorities.
Apart from all the official records, then you have newspaper records and when it comes to sealing a criminal record, in order to make sure that no one can get at it, you are going to have an awful lot of documentation in this country to deal with if you want to do it effectively.
That is the end of the quotation.
I am suggesting, in conclusion, as is evidenced from the debates which have already taken place, that this is an exceedingly complex issue, perhaps more complex than some of us realize. I think it is important that the Minister of Justice and her officials use the legislation, use the bill which is before us, as an opportunity to examine this very important but very complex issue.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: I am
pleased to take part in this second reading debate of Bill C-314, an act respecting amendments to the Criminal Records Act and related legislation.
The member for Mississauga South has done his homework and intends to correct a long-standing anomaly through direct action.
The part of the Criminal Records Act that is the subject of Bill C-314 is an area that has been identified previously as problematic. I therefore commend the hon. member's good intentions.
I would point out that the government has also done its homework in this area. A wide variety of questions raised concerning reform to the Criminal Records Act has led to far-reaching consultations with concerned interest groups, government officials and affected citizens.
The most extensive consultations occurred during the clemency review initiative in 1983 when the distribution of a discussion paper, the circulation of a questionnaire and in-person meetings took place with all provinces and
Private Members' Business
territories. Provincial officials in the departments of the Attorneys General, social services, corrections and justice took part. Many private sector agencies active in criminal justice were contacted, as were criminal justice professionals and concerned citizens. A total of 93 responses were received after the distribution of the discussion papers. Representatives of other federal departments, regional and national parole board members, police forces and associations, correctional officials and the judiciary and counsel, the private sector and individual inmates and inmate representatives were included in the consultation process.
The full 18-member constituency of the national associations active in criminal justice responded. These responses included those of the St. Leonard Society, the John Howard Society, The Salvation Army, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, and the Canadian Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies.
The expectation that changes to the Criminal Records Act were imminent was raised among this wide spectrum of individuals and groups. Proposals for change that came forward were closely scrutinized by those who became actively engaged in this consultation.
A more limited consultation took place in 1986. Provincial deputy ministers responsible for criminal justice were informed, as were selected non-government organizations including the large group of national voluntary organizations which belong to national associations active in criminal justice. The Canadian Bar Association, the Uniform Law Conference, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police were contacted.
When new proposals are brought forward, it should be expected that a very large number of concerned and interested constituencies may wish to address the issues. It seems likely that this will be the case regardless of how limited or extensive the proposed reforms are.
In the present case of Bill C-314, the lack of major change will be contrasted to previous expectations and demands for broader change will almost certainly be raised. Should proposals for broader and more general reforms be brought forward, the many substantive issues

March 26, 1991
Private Members' Business
would attract the attention of various constituencies on different sides of the issue.
When Bill C-314, or any other bill that might affect the Criminal Records Act goes forward to committee, several groupings of possible reaction and interest can be identified. They include, first, governments: federal, provincial, municipal and international. Within the federal government a substantial number of departments and officials have a special interest in possible changes to the Criminal Records Act.
The Department of Justice will in all likelihood be interested in any amendments which may have an impact on the judicial system by allowing an ex-offender to deny the existence of a pardoned record.
The Department of Defence has been involved in consultations in the past, and would be interested any changes to the present legislation which could affect the disciplinary procedures of the department, as well as have an impact on its record-keeping system. The agencies of the Solicitor General have an obvious interest in the matter. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service clearly has an interest regarding access to pardoned records for both national security and intelligence purposes.
The financial and person-year implications for the National Parole Board and RCMP will need consideration and careful study, since they are the bodies that conduct investigations relating to pardon applications.
There would be other interested departments and agencies, I am sure. In addition to the direct changes proposed by Bill C-314 for the Criminal Records Act and the Criminal Code, other federal statutes which preclude an offender under the circumstances from working in a federal department will need review.
An example of this is the lifetime bar to employment with in a customs office for any employee convicted of accepting a bribe or assisting in the smuggling of any product into Canada. Similar provisions exist in a range of many other federal legislation and regulatory statutes. Changes in the law may also have an effect on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and may need to be congruent with provisions to the Access to Information and Privacy Acts. This latter concern may be particularly relevant in discussions with victim advocate groups.
Provincial governments and municipalities have a strong interest in changes to the Criminal Records Act in those areas which affect policing at the local or provincial level. Any measures which require provincial compliance or co-operation in the administration or delivery of criminal justice services which will be affected by possible changes will require thorough consultations. Changes to the legislation may have an impact on provincial human rights commissions, particularly in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and the Yukon, where protections exist against discrimination on the grounds of a criminal conviction for which a pardon has been granted. A large number of provincial licensing and permit authorities may be affected by provisions of a new act.
International consultations would be useful to ensure that any changes to the act do not diminish the credibility of a Canadian pardon in the eyes of foreign jurisdictions. If reservations were expressed, this might lead to a lower rate of voluntary acceptance of the pardon as a certificate of good behaviour for the purposes of travel by Canadian citizens to other countries.
Second, there is the voluntary sector- victim advocates, offender aid groups. Any proposed changes to the act become the focus for debate among voluntary associations active in criminal justice. Many of these groups have been consulted during the past and all can be expected to strongly represent the views and interests of the particular constituency which they represent. The sometimes conflicting goals of increased protection of the public and assistance to deserving ex-offenders will need to be carefully balanced. Any attempt to isolate a single category of offender to be held to more or less rigorous eligibility requirements for example may cause a reaction from some who will suggest the inclusion of convictions for other crimes as further categories which should require a longer or briefer period before a pardon can be granted.
Offender support groups can be expected to argue strenuously for major reforms which they have been advocating for some time. Special victim interest groups will each support proposals which address their particular concern.



March 26, 1991

The third group is the private sector. Such business groups as the Chamber of Commerce may expect to comment on any proposed changes to the act that might affect an employer's right to know the background of his employees. Professional associations governing the affairs of lawyers, doctors, accountants or real estate personnel will have an interest in any legislation which would remove their right to regulate entry to the profession by ex-offenders. School boards, camps, nurseries, and day care providers will have a particular interest in ensuring that changes to the law do not inhibit their ability to screen prospective employees who may pose a threat to the children under their care.
Credit bureaus should be involved in defining the protection which can be provided to ex-offenders regarding the confidentiality of information which is on the public record.
Finally, the public, the fourth group. The general public will be interested in any proposed changes to the act and strategies will need to be developed to disseminate factual information identifying the problems with the current legislation and how any proposed changes will better protect the public, help deserving ex-offenders and create a more efficient system.
While the benefits of Bill C-314 to certain individuals who presently have records is obvious, it would appear that efficiencies would also result. I see little in these proposals to address the concern that the public should not be subjected to undue risk. Specific members of the public may have concerns about how legislation may affect the right for example of children's aid societies to screen prospective foster or adoptive parents. Others may raise questions of whether change procedures for pardon will allow dangerous offenders easier access to firearms, driving privileges, or positions of trust following a conviction and prohibition being imposed.
Finally, the fifth category, the media. Provisions of the act which would change the rules regarding the disclosure of information to the public concerning a pardon conviction and the possible destruction of records has special repercussions for those involved in publishing and research. Consideration is required of how non-disclosure rules would affect the publication of law reference books, what access researchers may have to protected records and what protection would be avail-
Private Members' Business
able to limit the disclosure of information contained in the newspaper and the electronic media data banks and files. The interests of both academic and official government archivists must be considered before a final decision is taken on the best procedure and timing which should govern the destruction of records following a further waiting period after a pardon has been granted.
To conclude, I view Bill C-314 as an example of a positive effort by a member of the government side to take personal responsibility for an action he believes not only to be necessary, but overdue. I admire and support his actions in this regard.
I do suggest, however, that even a well thought out initiative such as the one put forward by my hon. colleague for Mississauga South can open up a consultative process of an intensity and duration that far exceeds that which might be anticipated in light of the modest attempt of the proposed amendments.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-314, a Private Members' bill whose purpose is to correct an obvious discrepancy in our legislation which so far has been overlooked.
The hon. member for Mississauga South has drawn our attention to the fact that individuals whose offences did not justify sentencing by the courts were nevertheless labelled as criminals for periods from between one to three years; this does not include the time required to process their requests for rehabilitation.
I know the hon. member did not want to give the House the impression that everyone who tries to have every trace of a guilty verdict erased from his criminal record and get an absolute discharge has to wait five years, as he said in December.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it seems quite possible that people who have just obtained an absolute or conditional discharge believe- that their run-ins with the justice system are finished as soon as they leave the courtroom. This misconception may never cause problems, but it is also quite possible that a few years from now, they will be denied a job, security clearance or access to a country or they may suffer some kind of embarrassment or inconvenience.

March 26, 1991
Adjournment Debate
People who are unaware their name and criminal record have been preserved or who are not familiar with the procedure under the Criminal Records Act to have their file sealed, are vulnerable to suspicions which may at any time compromise their reputation and their job.
It is reported that the significant increase in applications for rehabilitation has had the effect of slowing down response time. In fact, as was mentioned by another member, the Nelson Task Force felt that the rehabilitation process provided under the Criminal Records Act was costly, unwieldy and unefficient. However, in line with the tenor of the task force report and thanks to excellent co-operation between the National Parole Board and the RCMP, the process was drastically revamped so that a significantly heavier workload could be taken on without significantly increasing the resources allocated to this activity.
Several changes were responsible for this increased efficiency. The first change concerns the documents collected by applicants. A person applying for rehabilitation must now include with his application all the necessary documentation: a certified copy of his criminal record obtained from the RCMP, a certificate of the court sentence obtained where the case was heard; and, if necessary, a record of military conduct obtained from the registry or the commanding officer.
The kit provided for an application for rehabilitation contains all the necessary information and everything applicants need to transmit their fingerprints to the RCMP and receive a copy of their record. The RCMP's Criminal Identity Service apparently has no trouble sending criminal records directly to applicants during the initial stages. This administrative reform has speeded up the process and helped the RCMP accelerate retrieval of the records in question. The number of applications it can process went up to 10,028 in 1984-85.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may conclude very briefly. I believe that by tabling C-314 in this House, the hon. member for Mississauga South has given us food for thought. In fact, judicious interventions of this type often form the basis for wide-ranging legislative reform.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.\nAccordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on March 11, I put a series of questions to the Minister of Employment and Immigration concerning the lay-offs at Denison Mines in Elliot Lake.
A week ago last Friday, Denison Mines laid off approximately 1,050 employees in that community, in addition to the 2,200 people laid off last July and August by Denison and by Rio Algom. The situation in that community has resulted in something like 80 per cent of the miners in the work force being laid off at the present time. The existing lay-off of 1,050 is for a six-week period, but that will be repeated in July and August when the same number will be laid off. Out of that group it is projected that some 400 will be permanently laid off.
Since that time we have had word from the president of Denison Mines, Mr. Bill James, that the likelihood of the company continuing on a permanent basis beyond the end of 1992 is veiy questionable because of the arrangements between Ontario Hydro and the mining company for the supply of uranium to Ontario Hydro. It is impossible to overemphasize the gravity of the situation.
One of my questions to the minister was along the following lines: Can the minister speed up the payments of UI benefits?
March 26, 1991

I had visited the community the week before that, and the reports were that it would take seven or eight weeks for the benefits to be paid because of the backlog with hundreds of thousands of people receiving UIC benefits in the province of Ontario.
I have received some assurance from the minister, but I would like to have the parliamentary secretary reaffirm that those benefits will start to flow during the fourth week from the time of the lay-off. It is essential that these miners receive benefits a lot sooner than the seventh week as was projected.
The second area concerns the funding for job training, retraining, and upgrading of workers. There was a budget last year of approximately $6 million. A program was put before the minister's department several months ago for a new budget under the Community Futures Program for manpower retraining, for job search, and for community adjustment as well as industrial adjustment activities within the community. We are still awaiting a decision with regard to that Community Futures budget. It is the East Algoma Community Initiatives Incorporated group that cariy it out, but the funding for those workers comes from the Community Futures Program budget.
Those are some of the concerns that are weighing heavily on this community, whether the government is going to provide those funds for retraining and upgrading. At the present time, we have something like 500 people in pre-vocational training and upgrading and 200 in technical.
The additional lay-offs and uncertainty being created will require many more dollars this year for training. As well there will be another 500 people who were receiving UIC before this current lay-off. We really end up with something like 700 people in training programs and around 1,500 receiving UIC during this six-week period. I assume that will be repeated this summer, in July and August, when there will be a seven-week lay-off.
That brings to the fore the other requests and demands I am making of the minister, that we be provided with additional assistance at the Elliot Lake Canada Employment Commission Centre. That centre, with an ongoing staff since the lay-offs last year of about 17 people, is simply not capable of coping with all the counselling problems or the management of 2,200 peo-
Adjournment Debate
pie in training, on UI, or in upgrading courses. I am hopeful that the government will move to provide an additional five people at the Canada Employment Centre in Elliot Lake to cope with the massive load required during this coming calendar year and in the year ahead.
There are many other initiatives the government needs to move on such as funding for the Retirement Living Program, the decentralization of government offices to the community, as well as a number of initiatives being put forward by the province. However, these with regard to manpower are urgent and need to be resolved. We need to have reassurance that the government is going to support, encourage and assist the community in this the most difficult time almost in its history.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the initiatives the government has taken to help laid off workers in Elliot Lake.
Most recently, Employment and Immigration Canada has responded to the latest lay-offs at Elliot Lake by making arrangements with the employer to facilitate the preparation of records of employment and to assist the affected workers in filing their claims for unemployment insurance benefits in Elliot Lake.
Over 900 claims were filed on March 15 and another 100 were filed on March 22. It is expected that the claims will be processed promptly as the Sudbury Canada Employment Centre will assist the Canada Employment Centre in Sault Ste. Marie.
It is anticipated that the claimants will receive their first reporting cards within the next week or two, and should receive their benefits within the normal four to five week period after filing and not eight weeks, as the hon. member has indicated.
In addition to financial assistance through the unemployment insurance system, Employment and Immigration is ensuring that laid off employees have access to the full range of employment and training programs.
First, our industrial adjustment service committee in Elliot Lake is working with Denison Mines and Rio Algom Ltd. Management and the United Steelworkers Union concerning lay-offs this year and last.

March 26, 1991
Adjournment Debate
By the end of 1990, of the 427 employees then laid off at Denison Mines, 351 had positive plans for employment or training and 53 were taking early retirement.
The government is also helping Elliot Lake through the Community Futures Program.
In August 1990 a $1 million training program and relocation assistance were allocated to Elliot Lake under this program.
In November 1990 the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced additional funding of $1.7 million. This meant more training programs, relocation and adjustment assistance for workers who lost their jobs.
For the fiscal year now ending our total commitment to Elliot Lake and nearby communities is well over $9 million.
The member is aware that an application for further funding under the Community Futures Program has been submitted. It is now being reviewed by the minister's office and every consideration will be given to this application.
Finally, the member should be aware that beginning in April 1991, the claimant re-employment strategy will be in operation in all our Canada Employment Centres. A claimant re-employment strategy is a simple yet efficient procedure that will be delivered through our Canada Employment Centres to assist workers.
This process enables UI recipients to meet with employment counsellors and discuss in detail their particular training and employment assistance needs. This assistance will be there right at the very beginning of the employment period.
Anybody can see that Denison Mine workers who were laid off will and have received assistance to help them through this difficult period.



Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the question that I raised some time ago, as a matter of fact it was back in November 1990, was a question regarding the future of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program. For the information of the House and people listening, the Fraser River Estuary Management Program was a five-year joint federal-provincial program of which there were five different funding components. The majority of those components were through different ministries of the federal government as well as ministries of the provincial government.
That funding has essentially come to an end and the reason that I posed the question in November 1990 was that the funding was essentially wrapping up in December of that year. The five-year funding was essentially grinding to a halt. That funding has now come to a halt, although I understand there have been some limited extensions of that funding.
I might point out that the reason for the Fraser River Estuary Management Program was to look at the environmental health of the Fraser River and to tiy to come up with a system of monitoring the environmental parameters as well as monitoring the health of the foreshore around the river.
It has been fairly successful. It has been a program that has worked and has worked reasonably well. There has been a lot of scientific data that have been brought to use as a result of the last five years that the program has been in place. The problem is, and now we have passed that December deadline, that essentially the funding has now run its course. The five-year mandate was up in December 1990.
I understand that there is a retroactive clause which can be applied and under which funding can be extended to some degree. I understand that there has been a three-month extension for the program. That three-month extension I might add comes to an end on March 31, 1991, and we are now at March 26 of that year. We have only a matter of days left before in fact that extension has run its course.
I understand there have been a number of deliberations between the Fraser River Estuary Management officials as well as the federal and provincial governments looking at extending the funding. I want to point out that in the recent green plan, which is the environmental document of the federal government, with regard to the Fraser River basin there is very little mentioned. In fact nothing is really mentioned in terms of ongoing funding for the Fraser River Estuary Management Program. It does give reference to it. It says co-operative mechanisms such as the Fraser River Estuary Manage-
March 26, 1991

merit Program have made progress on pollution prevention in recent years.
Despite this program, many parts of the river basin are in need of urgent clean-up action. For example, high levels of heavy metals have been found in non-migratoiy fish in the lower Fraser River close to waste treatment plants and industrial sites.
The document, which is supposed to be the federal government's bible of environmental clean-up initiatives, remains essentially silent on the future of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program. Nothing is mentioned there about a commitment to continue the funding of the program. There has been no recognition with regard to the development of management strategies for other parts of the Fraser River basin. There have been no specifics in the document as to the assignment of powers of enforcement which could be applied to the Fraser River Estuary Management Program.
To make my point once again, there is no commitment in this green plan for the federal government to continue to fund the Fraser River Estuary Management Program and no commitment for the government to in fact expand the mandate of the program.
I might add that in a detailed document, which my colleagues and I and the New Democratic Party released on November 29, 1990, we did in fact call for an integrated management structure to create agencies similar to the current Fraser River Estuary Management Program, which should be developed, as we pointed out, for all areas of the Fraser River. The FREMP only takes care of the lower part of the Fraser River and we have called for the development of parallel or similar agencies to look at the mid-Fraser and the upper reaches of the Fraser River that are also affected by industrial and domestic sources of pollution.
The reason that I wanted to pursue the question further today is to ask the government whether it has made any final decisions as to the ongoing funding and financing of what has been a very, very valuable environmental initiative, one whose future is currently up in the air. The program has had to wind down because at this point, at least to my knowledge, there has been no final commitment to put that funding into place, nor has there
Adjournment Debate
been any final commitment, as I mentioned, to expand the mandate of the program to create similar agencies.
Perhaps the member who will be presenting the rebuttal in just a moment will want to discuss just what plans the government has in place for the ongoing funding of the current FREMP and what possible initiatives it is willing to commit itself to at this time in terms of demanding or developing an expanded mandate for these kinds of environmental initiatives.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on the very important issue of the environmental well-being of the Fraser River system and in response to the hon. member's question.
First of all, I would like to assure the hon. member that the government is well aware of the environmental needs of the Fraser River system and is well aware of the stress under which it is operating.
I would like to take the opportunity, if I may, to thank my caucus colleagues from the province of British Columbia who have been very, very diligent in ensuring that the minister and his officials and myself, as parliamentary secretary, are kept constantly informed on the needs of the river system. I might say, in return, that I appreciate their ongoing commitment to the environmental agenda of the Government of Canada.
As the hon. member who asked the question is well aware, there have indeed been ongoing talks with the province of British Columbia, particularly with the new minister who is responsible in British Columbia for the environment. We are currently negotiating a three year renewal of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program. It is a program that should include an expanded budget and an expanded membership. I would anticipate that there would be some hard information provided as a result of those talks in the very near future.
I think, as most members of this House understand, the Fraser River Estuary Management Program really addresses only a small part of a very major issue. Although it is a major achievement in itself in terms of interjurisdictional co-operation, it is really the entire Fraser River ecosystem that must be considered and that is very much what is on the agenda at the moment. The

March 26, 1991
Adjournment Debate
hon. member did refer to the green plan. I was pleased that he did so, but I do not think he really did justice either to the green plan or to the attention it has paid to the Fraser River system. I think you will see, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that all members of the House will applaud, that there will be an expanded program in place in the not too distant future with respect to the Fraser River ecosystem.
We are looking at curbing pollution throughout the entire basin using increased enforcement, if that is necessary; the question of the cleaning up of waste sites, the restoration of wildlife and fishery habitats and the improvement of water quality. That can be done only with the co-operation of all levels of government.
I am sure the hon. member will contribute toward that co-operation.


AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue this evening in the few minutes allotted to me a question I posed in the House to the Minister of Transport on March 18. It concerned the open skies negotiations that will be taking place in a few short weeks. The open skies negotiations refer quite simply to the revisiting of the existing air agreement between Canada and the United States that was last amended and modified in 1974.
The major dilemma in the open skies negotiations, from Canada's perspective, is the whole concept of cabotage, which is a fancy term for simply saying, do we allow American carriers to go beyond simply coming into Canada, as they do now, and dropping off passengers? Do we go the extra step and allow American carriers the ability to pick up Canadian travellers in point a and bring them to another Canadian destination? That is what is meant by the word cabotage, which in essence would allow the American carriers to freely access Canadian points and probably offer reciprocal cabotage rights to our Canadian carriers.
The problem is that our industry is very different from that of the Americans. It is a lot smaller and the feeling among the air industry in Canada is that if we granted American carriers cabotage, that is to say if we allowed American carriers to roam freely in and around Canada,
we would probably not have a Canadian industry as we know it in very short order.
In fact, when the government appointed a special parliamentary committee to investigate the dossier in anticipation of the negotiations, we found two things. First, by and large the Canadian industry and the many witnesses who came before us advocated that when we enter into negotiations, we clearly tell the Americans that cabotage should not be on the table as far as it is concerned toward giving the American carriers those rights in Canada. If we enter into negotiations and want to raise cabotage, it should only be done in the context of granting it to the smaller Canadian carriers in the United States, but not reciprocal.
Second, we had an agreement that was unanimous. In fact, members of Parliament from the Conservative, Liberal and NDP parties signed the unanimous committee report that said quite clearly to the minister that we should not pursue giving cabotage rights to the Americans and that if we want to pursue cabotage, it is only for Canadian carriers in the United States.
The minister at the outset of that special committee suggested that he would take the committee report very seriously and that he would listen enthusiastically to the recommendations of the report. Therefore, it came as somewhat of a surprise and also as a frustration on my part, as the transport critic for the Liberal Party, to hear the Minister of Transport going to Washington and giving a major speech on February 12 which put cabotage clearly on the table.
Therefore, my question on March 18 was to have the minister give his undertaking to the House and to the Canadian industry that cabotage for American carriers would not be advanced by our Canadian negotiators.
If it was placed on the table by the American side, we would clearly say no, that as a bare minimum and as a bottom line there would be no deal if it involved giving American carriers the right to travel anywhere they please in Canada.
We said so because the industry is going through some troubling times. We have seen the lay-offs of thousands of workers. Presently we have a monopoly between Air Canada and Canadian. We have the regional interests that want to maintain a sense of quality service. While some cities in the regions have had an additional number
March 26, 1991

of flights, many of those cities no longer have jet service so one can debate whether the quality of air service to those regions is getting better.
Therefore, the whole question of allowing cabotage for American carriers puts in jeopardy an industry that is already going through some difficult times.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport will give his assurance on behalf of the minister and the government that when the minister talks about protecting the viability of the Canadian industry, we want to know what that means.
We believe that protecting the Canadian viability of our industry means being prepared to say and to have the courage to say to the Americans, no, to cabotage.
We want to improve our air treaty. We want to improve the access points between Canadian and American cities. We want to continue to do business with each other. That is fine. But if it is going to mean cabotage, then it means we are not interested and we are going to walk away from the table, not as sore losers, but in a very pro-Canadian industry way that says: "Our bottom line is the integrity and the independence of our own system. Cabotage would infringe on that, and therefore, we would rather make no deal than make a bad deal."
I hope the parliamentary secretary will give the House this assurance because it is certainly anticipated in the Canadian industry that if we enter negotiations and we are weak on cabotage, I think we are going to come out in a worse situation that we were in when we went in.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I find it most unfortunate that my hon. friend opposite from York West would take this kind of approach to negotiations.
We were both members of the Special Committee on the Canada-U.S. Air Transport Services. We both participated in the preparation of the unanimous report of that committee. Indeed, the report of the special committee gave an endorsement to an early negotiation of a new liberalized air agreement.
Adjournment Debate
I would have thought that my hon. friend would have left it at that, but he is insisting that we turn around put very strict restrictions on various things before the negotiations even commence.
The Minister of Transport has repeatedly said that he is committed to getting the best deal possible for Canada in the interest of the travelling public, communities that are served, airports, businesses, the airline industry and its workers.
The hon. member will also know that while he has been rehashing his arguments about cabotage over and over, the Minister of Transport has been meeting with, among others, the airline presidents of our two major carriers.
The meeting of Claude laylor of Air Canada and Rhys Eyton of Canadian Airlines was part of the continuing consultations to ensure that the minister and the Canadian negotiating team have a full understanding of the concerns of the airlines, Canadian consumers, communities and business and tourism interests before entering into formal negotiations.
The airlines understand that we need a new agreement. Certainly the communities we hear from on our travels want a new agreement. Indeed, some presenters were quite aggressive in their demands for a new agreement.
The Minister of Transport has been very clear, whether in Washington, Ottawa, Edmonton or Toronto, that he is not prepared to sign a deal that does not ensure the continued viability of the Canadian airline industry.
We know these will not be easy negotiations. The special committee acknowledged that as well, when it refrained from "tying the negotiators hands", to quote from the report. Cabotage is just another market entry tool, as are gates and slots, et cetera.
I am sure that my hon. friend has not forgotten that the airlines will be at the table. I certainly do not expect them to sit passively on the sidelines.
We on this side of the House firmly believe, contrary to the apparent position of my hon. friend opposite, that through continued consultations, hard work and tough bargaining, an agreement can be reached that responds to the needs of both consumers and the aviation industry in Canada.

March 26, 1991
Adjournment Debate
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 27, 1991