1992-06-03

Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, today the regional municipality of Sudbury is being recognized by the United Nations and has been presented with the 1992 United Nations Local Government Honours Award at the earth summit in Rio de Janeiro for its work in land reclamation.
Sudbury is green and getting greener every day. Lands once barren and devastated are covered in grass and trees; all this due to the co-operation of all within the community as well as with the help of all levels of government.
First, Sudbury's efforts were recognized in Ontario and in 1990 Sudbury was awarded the Lieutenant-Governor's Conservation Award. Again in 1990 Sudbury received the Government of Canada Environmental Achievement Award.
Earlier this year Sudbury's work was recognized by the United States and received the Chevron Conservation Award, and now the world recognizes Sudbury's achievements. Sudbury has become a world leader in vegetation enhancement.
All Canadians can be justly proud of these outstanding achievements and of the international recognition. Congratulations Sudbury.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, shelters for battered women give out only their phone numbers and not their addresses because it would endanger the lives of women and children. Abusive men
are most likely to kill their partners when the women attempt to leave them.
Shelter workers and others who have helped battered women have also been threatened, beaten and killed. A Liberal member of Parliament, without consulting the organizations involved, published the addresses of all the shelters for battered women in his riding. Women's organizations wish to hold the member for Broadview- Greenwood accountable.
Women's organizations who help battered women are the experts on this issue. I urge all members of Parliament to consult with these women's organizations in their ridings before sending out any material dealing with violence against women. This recent action which puts abused women and children at further risk could have been completely avoided.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine has brought to my attention the following matter of great importance.
Future eastern Canadian summers without the monarch butterfly are a certainty because of the logging of the few Mexican mountain top sanctuaries where these insects stay over winter. Saving the Mexican winter range for the monarch is of great importance.
Currently our Minister for International Trade is on a mission to Mexico to discuss environmental technology and has said that the President of Mexico has placed a very high priority on improving Mexico's environmental protection and control capabilities.
Sustainable growth should blend a genuine commitment to the environment with a consistent focus on quality. It will take effort by all of us to make this a reality.
Today, as the earth summit convenes in Rio de Janiero, I encourage all members of Parliament to support and encourage efforts to preserve the world's forests, wildlife and beautiful species for the enjoyment of North Americans now and in the future.


BREAST CANCER
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, this year alone there will be almost 16,000 newly diagnosed cases of breast cancer and 5,200 women will die of this disease in Canada.
We cannot understate this problem. Breast cancer today is a crisis of epidemic proportions, and yet it is still being largely ignored.
According to the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, breast cancer research is severely underfunded. In fact the Medical Research Council only spends $1 million a year out of its $182 million research budget to combat a disease that affects one in nine women. The National Health and Research Development Program spends a "whopping" $40,000.
I suspect these figures are correct because when I contacted health and welfare for confirmation it would not release any figures to me despite the fact that it had them. The reason for this was that they had to be cleared by the director of the department.
Could it be that the government was too embarrassed to tell us the truth? It is time that we recognized the scope of this problem and allot the necessary funds to it.
When the government can find $20 million for ad campaigns, I am certain it can do more to combat breast cancer. If we are really interested in equality for women then the logical starting point would be to ensure basic equality for the health and welfare of all our citizens.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, whereas the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right of each individual to have and to exercise on an equal basis human rights and freedoms without distinction, discrimination or preference based, in particular, on race, colour, religion or ethnic origin;
Whereas the Sorel area, as well as the rest of the province of Quebec, is intended to be a host territory for any person who wants to settle there;
Whereas the citizens of Richelieu condemn the distribution of hate propaganda and any other form of violence or discrimination based, in particular, on sex, race, colour, religion or ethnic origin;
Whereas the people of the Sorel area, as well as the people of Quebec, long to live in a harmonious society where each and every man and woman has equal opportunities to live, grow and work;
I decry, as federal member of Parliament for Richelieu, along with several organizations in my riding, any racist, discriminatory rally promoting hate and violence to be held in the Sorel area.


HUMAN TISSUES AND ORGANS
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Law Reform Commission of Canada released paper entitled Procurement and Transfer of Human Tissues and Organs. The document contained several important recommendations regarding this vital medical practice, among them that organs and tissues for use in transplant or research should be obtained through donation rather than purchase.
I believe this recommendation is excellent and I call on this government to act upon it. Besides the moral argument for respect for the living and the dead, there are very sound practical reasons for this recommendation.
Canada has an impressive track record for blood donations. We do not pay for blood, and thus generally those who donate do so for purely altruistic reasons. The United States health care community is forced to pay for certain blood products. This has created a market where people who are knowingly unqualified donors can sell bad blood for the sake of personal gain or compromising their own health for money.
The same holds true for organs and tissue. People should be donating these for the purpose of preserving and protecting life. I support the commission's call for making the purchase or sale of human bodies, organs and other non-regenerative tissue a Criminal Code offence.


BUYING CANADIAN
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, we can never stress enough the importance of buying Canadian. That is why I want to emphasize the importance of encouraging Canadians to shop at home and buy our products.
The economy is getting back on track slowly but surely. Therefore, we must be vigilant in order to keep this recovery going. Yet, certain aspects of the economy are not protected enough, which could jeopardize this upturn.
An example of this is that lots of people want to work in Canada where salaries and wages are the highest in North America. However, a number of those people spend the money they earn in Canada in the United States, and that will have negative effects on our economy. No country in the world can resist such a regime very long.
Therefore, I urge everyone from all regions, particularly the people of my riding, to deal with their own people with trust. Our economic future depends closely on our capacity to save what we have.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, the Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development recently published its annual farm subsidy figures and again the figures are misleading.
The OECD claims Canadian farmers receive subsidies totalling $8.8 million. It has been calculated that this figure is five times the actual support level. The OECD assumes that any amount above the world price for any product is a subsidy.
In the world market, the so-called world price of most commodities is far below the cost of production because
of subsdized surpluses. The Canadian domestic price is higher than the world price because the world price is rock bottom.
If we use the OECD's rationale, we could say that a Canadian factory worker is being subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer because his or her wage is higher than the world salary rate. The OECD's definition of world price misrepresents the real picture.
Canadians receive the best value in the world for food in terms of price, quality, wholesomeness and safety.


THE SENATE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for many months, Canadians and Quebecers have been discussing the Senate reform. In today's La Presse, an article written by Maurice Girard is entitled: "Benoit Bouchard: Should the Senate be abolished?" And further: "Having spoken very clearly today, Mr. Bourassa can take the lead in favor of a more equal Senate". It is quite possible. I ask again: Should we not abolish the Senate outright? It would be a lot simpler.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of a "triple E" Senate. First, Elect the senators as federal members of Parliament, since several of them are competent; second, Eliminate it; third, End it, for the good of taxpayers.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, a Nigerian refugee claimant facing deportation has sought sanctuary in the Vancouver Collingwood United Church after he received a deportation order in early May.
Steven Ogunwuyi was implicated in the April 1990 failed coup in Nigeria, and Amnesty International and the Vancouver Refugee Council oppose his removal because of widespread evidence which indicates that executions, torture and inhumane treatment have been meted out to all who have been accused of attempting to overthrow dictator Ibrahim Babangida.


Moves to provide sanctuary to refugees facing life threatening deportation orders can only increase as the Conservative government further restricts the asylum it provides to people fleeing persecution.
I call on the government to establish a moratorium on deportations to Nigeria until the political situation has been clarified and the outcome of the upcoming elections determined.


CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last week I was in Cyprus. I would like to take the time I am allowed to say to you, and through you to all Canadians, how proud I felt while spending an evening with the Canadian soldiers who are acting as peacekeepers and peacemakers in that region.
I attended the presentation of the United Nations medals to the 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment. I met Lieutenant-Colonel Gagnon and I spoke with French Canadians from the Saguenay, Lac Saint-Jean, the Eastern Townships, Lac Megantic, Laval and other regions. I listened to O Canada being sung in French by all those military, I saw our flag fluttering quite high and well in view, I heard the band of the 1st Battalion of The Worcestershire and Sherwood Forester Regiment play a song I had learned as a child when my mother sang it for me: Vive la Canadienne.
Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be a Canadian and I cried with emotion. I thank the commander of the force, his officers and all the military who gave me the opportunity to strengthen my feeling of belonging.


OPEN HOMES CANADA
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, an exciting event is taking place in London, Ontario this summer which will foster the spirit of goodwill and unity in the country.
Open Homes Canada, Bienvenue Canada, is a unique, Canada-wide exchange program which was initiated in London, Ontario.
Londoners will be opening their homes to fellow Canadians for a four-day visit on the civic holiday weekend of August 1.
This exchange is an attempt to bring people together to share their homes, interests and activities and to understand each other better.
All MPs will be contacted by Open Homes Canada and challenged to try and send one visitor or family from their constituencies to London, Ontario.
Ordinary people from all walks of life have a crucial role to play in renewing Canada. Open Homes Canada is one way we as Canadians can be part of the unity process.
I encourage and challenge each of you to get involved and inform your constituents. With everyone's support and participation a renewed Canada may be only a weekend away.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology spoke in Toronto last week with a message to Canadian business people which deserves emphasis.
The minister stated that prosperity in our country greatly hinges on increased investment levels and cited Japan as an inspiration to follow in the sense that long-term planning accomplishes a higher state of competitiveness.
Our standard of living in Canada is 25 per cent higher than that of Japan and we are second only to the United States. Therefore the benefits of increased investment by the private sector will not only maintain that standard but it will also improve upon it.
We have set an impressive record over the past 30 years by establishing the second highest economic growth rate of the G-7 nations.
These are encouraging statements made by the minister and the message is clear: Increased competitiveness is the key to future prosperity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in Toronto the Minister of Finance told bankers that he was very optimistic. However, since he brought down his budget the minister has revised his economic growth predictions for 1992 downward from 2.7 per cent to 2.3 per cent.
That being said, will the Minister of Finance revise his forecast for unemployment upward to reflect the impact of his economic policies?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is encouraged as I am that we have had positive growth in the last three months of this year. It has been modest and moderate but, nonetheless, it is going in the right direction.
Today we have had new evidence that the economy is strengthening inasmuch as on the manufacturing side shipments are up by 0.9 per cent. Orders were up by 0.8 per cent in the month of March. That, too, is encouraging.
We have indicated all along that because of the restructuring accompanying this slowdown the job side of the picture is not as optimistic as we would like to see it.
Nonetheless, with the continuing decline in interest rates, with the strengthening of the U.S. economy, with the initiatives that have been taken in the budget, and with the improvements in productivity, it all augurs well for a stable and durable recovery.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Bank announced its forecast for the economy yesterday and predicted growth of only 1.4 per cent. This is very much in line with what the Conference Board predicted two weeks ago: growth of only 1 per cent.
Oral Questions
In releasing the report the bank said: "That type of growth is not enough to stop the unemployment rate from rising or lead to a substantial recovery in profits".
Why is the minister sticking to his predictions at this moment for jobs when every indicator makes it very clear that he was wrong on that forecast? Will he revise it so that the Canadian people know the real unemployment situation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to quote from the observations of the Royal Bank of Canada, I will do the same thing.
Mr. Earl Sweet, the Royal Bank's assistant chief economist said in connection with the release of his projections: "On the plus side the significant restructuring by Canadian business needed to regain and increase their share of world markets is beginning to make itself felt in stronger productivity and exports to the United States are growing".
The hon. member and his party continually harp at the government's initiative to try to expand trade opportunities.
It is quite obvious it is the merchandise trade, the exports out of Canada particularly to the United States but also to other countries, that will create jobs and economic activity and is what will improve our standard of living. That is what we are pursuing on all fronts.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since we have been in a recession for virtually 30 months, it is obvious that sooner or later, something will happen. Something will suddenly happen in the Canadian economy when we have a new government in Canada.
In the meantime, we have problems which cannot be denied. Manpower temporary services says that this summer the employment situation is worse than last year. In some sectors it is the worst situation since 1978, when surveys in that field were started.
Why is the Minister of Finance being stubborn? Why does he not want to do anything concrete to give jobs to


Oral Questions
the young people who want to be employed this summer so that they can go back to university next fall?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not being stubborn at all. What we have to do is try to get the fundamentals in place.
We set out in the budget of 1991 to bring down inflation so that we could bring interest rates down and keep them down. As of today treasury bills are trading at 5.95 per cent, one of the lowest levels in over 20 years.
That is a clear indication that if the fundamentals are right and the initiatives are in place it will spur economic activity, particularly in the manufacturing and processing sector.
If productivity is increased you are then more competitive. You can then compete for those markets abroad, not only in the United States, but also in other countries of the world. That is what my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, is working at.
On the training and retraining side, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has expanded the budget for training and skills upgrading.
Those are all important components of a rational, realistic approach to economic recovery. That is what we are following.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has not expanded the budget. In fact, last year, the minister cut $100 million for job training from the Canadian Jobs Strategy. This year he slashed another $100 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy for training. Now he has the unmitigated audacity to admit: "We have a problem. There is no money". Is it any wonder?
Exactly what does the minister intend to do to solve the problem that he himself and his government created?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the minister intends to address the problem by looking at ways where a plan can
be developed within the UI account to provide additional funds this year for developmental uses.
If we are able to put such a plan in place, it will mean that unemployed Canadians in need of training will benefit from even more than the $400 million that we included in the last budget by another increased amount. I should be able to finalize that within the next few days.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the minister has admitted that the UI training fund has run dry.
Under the Canadian Jobs Strategy he has admitted that his government has slashed $200 million to help unemployed Canadians reintegrate into the workforce.
I ask the minister in all sincerity if his government really wants to help the 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed get trained, at the very least will he restore the $200 million that he cut from job training under the Canadian Jobs Strategy?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with Liberal traditions, of course the member does not say who in Canada should be taxed more to raise $200 million. Or maybe he is suggesting that we increase the deficit.
The hon. member leaves the impression that we have used training funds. If he wants to be honest with the House and the people he will admit that training funds in Canada have gone up $400 million this year for UI recipients. That is the reality.
We are in the process of finalizing a plan that will provide additional funds for developmental uses this year. In order to achieve this we will, of course, have to be reallocating funds within that envelope in order to clearly show the government priority to training.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
Certainly, there are many outstanding issues and difficult issues being dealt with in the Constitution now. Every Canadian is aware of that, as is everyone in this House.


I congratulate the minister and all those from the provinces who agreed to have aboriginal people at the table and to discuss aboriginal issues. All Canadians agree it is time for that long-outstanding historical issue regarding Canada's First Nations to be dealt with.
Today the minister is quoted as saying that provinces uncomfortable with the proposed constitutional agreement on aboriginal self-government could opt out of a new constitutional arrangement.
Could the minister tell this House whether or not in his view this jeopardizes the legitimacy of the tentative agreement that was reached last week on the inherent right to self-government for aboriginal peoples?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for her question. Let me take the opportunity to thank all members of the House for the encouragement they have given me through these negotiations.
The answer to her question is that in my judgment, it does not jeopardize the agreement. The question was raised by one of the premiers who indicated that it should not be interpreted that he would be intending to invoke that right. I think that as a matter of law he is correct, but I have no reason to believe that there will be any unravelling of the agreements that occurred on aboriginal issues.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the fact is the matter has been raised. I am sure the minister is quite correct. We all agree he is certainly very familiar with all aspects of the Constitution. It may be that Premier Wells, who made this comment, was not necessarily suggesting that he on behalf of his province would do so, but it does raise a very important question.
I believe Canadians and indeed aboriginal people feel that any agreement reached on aboriginal issues would apply to aboriginal people and First Nations in every part of this country.
I ask the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, on behalf of himself and his government, will he assure this House that it is his intention to support and to
Oral Questions
ensure that the final agreement will contain a clause on the inherent right of aboriginal self-government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me deal with that question directly, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, it is our intention. We think that there has been historic progress made on these matters, not simply in the establishment of the inherent right, but also in the recognition by aboriginal peoples that that must be exercised within Canada, that there must be other recognitions of the sovereignty of Canada, that the right would be inherent, and most important, the agreement by all parties that there would be a three-year period before which anyone would take it to court.
That should give a great deal of comfort to everyone. It gives us three years in which we can work out by negotiation, not by court decree, not by the decision of politicians or by native leaders, but work out by negotiation the form of aboriginal self-government.
The one other thing I should say has to do with the word "agreement" coming out of the process that I am chairing. It is understood by everyone that any conclusions we come to at that table have to be approved by respective governments. So in a sense, there is no formal agreement, but there is a willingness around the table to work to secure the agreement of governments to the proposals that have been the subject of consensus there.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the minister this question. In terms of the position taken by the federal government, if it is clear and if it is his intention to ensure that the recognition to the inherent right of self-government for aboriginal people, as negotiated in this round, is advocated by this government will be that it will be the right of inherent self-government for aboriginal peoples, first nations in all parts of this country. Is he prepared to commit today that this is the position he is taking on behalf of the government and that it is his intention to see this in the final package?

Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is our intention. We have dealt in the discussions with the principle of the equity of access to the right. We are agreed that the right should be available to all aboriginal people.
The other thing that has been done which is of potentially historic importance, if we are able to cany it off, is that the provinces have been forthcoming with regard to undertakings to make available land and to keep in place social and other services for the Metis people in a way that would allow the Government of Canada, with those assurances, to move forward to have all aboriginal people, including the Metis, included under section 91(24).


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the European Community has recently agreed to reform its common agricultural policy in such a way as to contribute to an early conclusion of the Uruguay round of the GATT.
Throughout these negotiations the government has assured Canadian dairy, poultry and egg producers that it will deliver a clarified and a strengthened article XI. Does it still believe that it can do that?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, that is the position of the government. We are encouraged by the movement on the part of the European Community on reform of the common agricultural policy which I would say is a necessary ingredient to a successful resolution of the export subsidies and the internal support limitations for the Uruguay round.
That does not in any way affect our position on article XI. We still have the position of strengthening and clarifying article XI. We continue to discuss this with our trade partners. We would note that other countries have specific items that they want to have dealt with in the negotiations as well. So the book is not closed on that one by any means.


AUTO INDUSTRY
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, in the current North American free trade negotiations, the United States has demanded that automobiles entering its market duty free must have a higher North American content.
In 1988 the government fought hard against higher North American content on the grounds that it would discourage further foreign investment and jobs in Canada.
Is that still the government's policy or is the government now agreeing to a higher North American auto content in the NAFTA negotiations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the rule of origin is a very important part of the negotiations of the NAFTA, particularly as it affects the automotive sector. It has been a key objective of the Government of Canada in the negotiations to have a clarification, a greater transparency, a greater ease of administration and compliance to the rule of origin. We seem to be achieving that during the course of the negotiations.
The question of the level of content has not been negotiated. Some flexibility is provided as a result of the acceptance of the Canadian approach to the calculation of the rule of origin and that will enter into a final negotiated position on what that level might be.


SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister yesterday in this House compared the very existence of Canadian supply management and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Canadians to the importation of bananas into Europe. No Canadian farmer has any idea what the Prime Minister was talking about.
For months now we have been told the Prime Minister's strategy has been to get onside individual leaders, particularly President Bush.


Oral Questions
What support did the Prime Minister get from President Bush after his latest round of talks with the President? If he did not get any support, what further action is he prepared to take to get that support?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend surprises me with his question. First of all, the misstatement is very substantial. I made no comparison whatsoever of article XI and bananas. The Liberals got no bananas; the hon. member is bananas.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: This may take awhile, but let us start again.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will not go any further. I was indicating simply that other countries seek exceptions as Canada has been doing.
If my hon. friend does not know it, the European countries which formerly had colonies are seeking a very important exception to allow for the entiy of the primary product of bananas into the European Community as an exception in much the same way as the United States of America is seeking an exception for the provisions of the Jones Act in respect of its maritime industry, and in much the same way as Canada is seeking an exception in respect of the products under article XI. That is the point I was trying to make.
That is the point I made and that is the point that President Delors of Europe acknowledged here when he said that he would rather have an agreement that was 90 per cent complete with a few exceptions than no agreement at all.
I am sorry that my hon. friend did not understand the background to this complex issue. If there is any other information he would need with regard to developments in the agricultural file, please let me know.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should know that article XI is now in GATT. There is no comparison between article XI and those two situations. Surely the Prime Minister of this country should know that.
The Prime Minister and the government have been telling us to depend on the Prime Minister's personal brand of diplomacy. Canadians have seen this diplomacy
in action and they do not like it. The Prime Minister has given away fish to France and has received no support.
He has caved in on a number of trade issues to Washington and he has received no support. In fact, the head of GATT, Arthur Dunkel says: "Thriffication with no exceptions for Canadian supply management".
What is the Prime Minister prepared to do to get this support from other countries?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that if a guy does not know about bananas he does not know about fish.
The fact of the matter is that we have given away absolutely nothing to France. Due to the efforts of the distinguished Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the European Community has stopped overfishing off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and that is a tribute to the leadership of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: All I can do is indicate to my hon. friend that while there are no guarantees in this business, we have been working very hard with the stakeholders and with the producers to try and protect that provision of the agricultural industry which is so important to a number of Canadian producers and to the Canadian family farm in many instances.
We view it as a legitimate exemption. Other people do not share that view. Perhaps my hon. friend does not share that view because he tries to trivialize it by failing to understand that it is an exemption in much the same way as the maritime industry is an exemption for the Americans, and in much the same way for a developing country whose only export product is bananas constitutes an exemption.
The Liberals laugh at it, but for developing countries which only have that produce to secure foreign exchange, it is of vital importance that they secure an exemption in that regard.
What we are trying to do is encourage that exemption for developing countries. We accept the exemption in respect of the United States and we hope that others will view the exemption we are seeking on behalf of article XI as an appropriate instrument as well.


Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I hope the House will bear with me. I am going to depart from our usual practice and recognize certain visitors.
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Australia led by the Honourable Peter Walsh, Senator for Western Australia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Mr. Jacques Attali, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
When declaring 1985 International Youth Year, the United Nations warned of the potential for explosions among unemployed and alienated youth. We have had youth disturbances now in Canada-in Toronto, Halifax and elsewhere-to which the Ontario government has responded by initiating an emergency job program for youth.
Is the minister and his government prepared to join with Ontario and other provinces in initiating an urgent program for job creation for youth this summer in order to respond to the deep concern about the potential for a long, hot summer?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, obviously nobody is pleased with certain developments that have led to violence in this country and other countries around the world. I am sure nobody condones that.
With respect to this government's programs for youth, my hon. friend will admit we have had programs in place for a long time. We are very pleased that the provinces are ready now to do their part in order to help us find jobs for those students during the summer.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, Manpower Temporary Services indicates the job situation this summer will be the worst since 1982. Meanwhile, this government is spending only 70 per cent as much money now as it was in 1989 for summer youth employment.
With an unemployment rate among youth already at 17.7 per cent and going up this summer, it is more important to have action than rhetoric. Will this government act to introduce an emergency summer program for youth with the urgency it deserves before there is more trouble in this country?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people agree they prefer action to rhetoric; that is why we are on this side of the House and the hon. member is on the other side.
With respect to statistics, Statistics Canada has indicated recently that students have better chances of finding employment this summer than they had last summer. Notwithstanding that, we have increased the Challenge Program this year as we did last year.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and ask him about unemployment in Hamilton.
The Minister for Science, the ministers who visited Hamilton last week, and the minister of employment himself, have all claimed recently things are looking up and are good in the Canadian steel industry.
There are thousands of unemployed steelworkers in Hamilton and they know the situation is not good. What is the minister prepared to do to help these unemployed steelworkers?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I met with the steelworkers a couple of weeks ago in Toronto, and one view among them was that they were quite happy with the efforts this government is deploying to help them adapt to the changes that are happening in their industry.
If the hon. member would like to get details of all the assistance we have given the steelworkers I would be pleased to provide it for her.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, if the minister really believes he is doing enough for the Canadian steel industry then he is totally out of touch with reality.
This government promised free trade would bring jobs to Hamilton. In fact, we have lost thousands of jobs in the steel industry alone. The American steel industry's threatened trade actions against Canada will make the situation even worse.
This government has not resolved the trade dispute. It has run out of money for job retraining. What is the minister prepared to do for the unemployed in Hamilton, except talk through his hat?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern for the steel workers. That is why with CSTEC we have entered into an agreement where I and my predecessor have committed very substantial amounts of money to help these workers retrain and adapt to the restructuring that is taking place.
The member talks about the steel industry. Mr. Fred Telmer of Stelco Inc. made a comment that is quoted in the Hamilton Spectator which I invite her to read. He says: "Indeed, during the first quarter of this year, steel shipments were up 3 per cent, making a 5 per cent year-over-year increase quite feasible. Canadian steelmakers and their customers are also benefiting from interest rates that are at their lowest level in 19 years". That we owe to the economic policy of this Minister of Finance.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Oral Questions
Two weeks ago the minister confirmed that his department would honour the retraining commitments for 1992 that were made to the workers of both the Abitibi and Red Rock mills in Thunder Bay and in Red Rock. He further undertook at that time to review the retraining commitments that had been made to those workers for the years 1993 and 1994.
Would the minister be prepared to give us a status report as to the funding that will be available for those commitments made by his people for the retraining programs to Red Rock and Thunder Bay for 1993 and 1994?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the government is in the process of finalizing a plan that will provide additional funds for developmental use this year. In order to achieve this, we will be reallocating funds to meet what is clearly a government priority. I should be able in the next few days, I hope, to be able to apprise members of the House and Canadians of these changes that will help meet this heavy demand for training on the part of unemployed people.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: A supplementary, if I may, to the same minister. Let me just say that the people of Thunder Bay appreciate the extra added effort that the minister has shown for those unfortunate workers in Thunder Bay and Red Rock.
However, since our last meeting further permanent layoffs have been announced, mainly because of the policy for downsizing the shipbuilding industry in Canada.
My question to the minister would be what plans does his ministry have to make commitments to those unemployed workers who have not yet had commitments made with respect to retraining?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member I am sure would agree with me that what we cannot do, nor should we do, is put every UI recipient on training.
What we have to do, what we can do and what we want to do, however, is to make sure that those who most need training get it. In the case of further layoffs in the area that my hon. friend mentions, adjustment committees are being set up in order to work with both the labour and the business side of the equation in order to find ways where we can help those workers. The hon. member can be assured that in the case of these other lay-offs they will get as fair treatment as we can muster for their benefit.


Oral Questions


STUDENT LOANS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
According to the media this morning, this year Canadian taxpayers will have to pay $390 million in interest and recovery costs to lending institutions because students failed to pay back their loans to these institutions.
Can the minister tell us today when the legislation will be amended with a view to making banks toe the line with respect to recovery of student loans in case of defaulting students?
Once again, Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that negotiations with the banks are on the right track. Clearly, the student loans program needs some drastic changes. I have had talks with all the provinces in recent months, and we have now spent about 10 days negotiating with the banks to ensure that the cost to the Canadian taxpayer will be reasonable, considering the program students are being offered. We also want to ensure that students are the real beneficiaries of this program which is not the case today.


GRAIN HANDLING
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of grains and oilseeds.
As the minister knows the grain handling system in Canada is grinding to a halt. Elevators on the west coast, in Thunder Bay, and the river ports are filling up, if they are not full, and we have a real crisis on our hands.
I would like to ask the minister what action the government is taking to ensure that our customers, primarily Russia, are able to receive our grain that they have already purchased.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the member exaggerates considerably when he says that the grain system is grinding to a halt.
There is no question that we have a problem in the seaway and the St. Lawrence River, but there is space in the country elevator system. The west coast ports are likely to set a record this year. In fact, the grain is moving out of the country and we have the possibility of setting an over-all record for grain movement and exports for this crop year.
With regard to the Russians, I think there were erroneous press reports around last week. There have been no lost sales to the Russians because of their lack of ability to pay freight. We have extended considerable credit to the Russians to buy our grain, in fact on a per capita basis, more than any other country except Germany.
We think our credit facilities have been very good and the results are there because, as I said, over all we have the possibility of setting a record this year for grain movement.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister.
The minister should know that this week, CSL scrapped two of its lake boats as a direct result of the situation that exists. He should also know that both the U.S. and the Europeans, which are pumping grain into the Commonwealth of Independent Nations like they have never been before, are outdoing us and are also subsidizing the transportation from their country to the CIS.
Will the minister act today to find a solution so that we can get the grain moving again, and instead of putting people on UI they can be there moving the grain from farm gate to port?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, again there is a serious problem on the lakes. We know that over half of the Great Lakes


fleet is tied up. In fact, the number of boats being tied up is increasing every day. There is a problem.
Let me say again that there have been no lost sales or shipment of grain to the Russians to date because of their inability to pay freight on Canadian grain purchased on Canadian credit. I am aware of what has been going on as far as the Americans are concerned. We are very competitive with the Americans.
I point out that we are the first country to sign a long-term grain sales agreement with the Russians. We did that back at the end of February when President Yeltsin was here. Again, the Wheat Board is dealing with Export Khleb on a continuing basis and has had very good results as far as sales commitments are concerned.
To suggest that we are going to solve all of our problems with the Russians by extending them credit for freight certainly is not going to solve all of their problems.
With regard to what we are doing, we are going to be meeting with the Great Lakes shippers in Winnipeg at the Wheat Board next week. We have also decided to convene some meetings with the shippers to see what we can do to address the over-all problems.
We do not find ourselves in the situation that the member raises.


CALGARY AIRPORT
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
When the Conference on North Atlantic Assembly was being held in Banff from May 14 to May 18, the international airport in Calgary was flying the flags of the participating nations, including the flag of the former Soviet Union and the old flag of communist Bulgaria.
I advised the manager of the airport that the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, that the flags of Ukraine, Byelorussia, Russia and the Baltic States should have been there and that the flag of the Soviet Union ceased to exist many months ago. The manager said that he did not receive orders from Ottawa to remove the flags. They are still there.
Oral Questions
When is the minister going to order the airport management to remove those flags?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member took his complaint to the manager of the airport where it rightly belonged.
I was not aware that those flags were flying, but I will contact the manager.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Sixty per cent of women murdered in Ontario, we now know, are murdered by their partners. Obviously the Minister of Justice is aware that peace bonds and restraining orders are ineffective in protecting women in their homes.
Will the minister indicate to the House today what action plan the Government of Canada has to stem this tide of death and to replace what is clearly an outmoded procedure?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good but somewhat complex question. She will know that the firearms legislation which was passed by the House contained a provision requiring the possibility of a prohibition order for firearms to be considered in all applications for bail or peace bond hearings, the hope being that firearms can be taken out of those very, very dangerous situations.
Arising out of the National Conference on Women, Law and the Administration of Justice in June 1991, there is a federal-provincial-territorial task force addressing the question of the workings of the system of the administration of justice with respect to women.
There is an action plan coming forward that will be presented to me and my provincial colleagues at our national meeting in October. We had hoped to meet in May. Many of my colleagues are involved in the constitutional discussions. That meeting is scheduled for October.
That will enable us to have included in our action plan the results of the interim report of the blue ribbon panel on violence against women. We are approaching this very serious question in a serious and systematic way.


Oral Questions


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments and I know her efforts are sincere, but we are in the position of this being an hour late and a dollar short.
Within the last month a woman in Sydney, N.S. applied for a peace bond and was told to return three weeks later for her hearing. Less than 48 hours later this woman was dead, allegedly at the hands of her estranged husband. We cannot wait until October. We cannot wait another few weeks.
When can the minister give us a response that will protect Canadian women in their homes as soon as possible?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, if I thought there was a legislative initiative or a policy initiative that I could sponsor, I would do so immediately with, I know, the support of all members of this House.
A similar situation was brought to my attention some months ago by the Attorney General of Manitoba. What we are attempting to do is to raise the level of awareness and co-operation with all levels of government that have responsibility in this area through policing, through the prosecutorial function and through our efforts in judicial education, to try to make more widely known what that article or what the recent study has reflected, that is that the pathology of spousal assault is unique and must be dealt with on its own terms in the courts.
The bail laws are strong. They give the tools to the courts, but judges have to know what they are dealing with when they have certain kinds of applications brought before them. They must know the likelihood of reoffence and make their decisions with respect to restraining orders on that basis. We are working with our provincial colleagues and with those who have responsibility in the policing area to-


Mr. Speaker:: We must move on.


MEDAL AWARD CEREMONY
Jean-Pierre Hogue: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was in Cyprus last week where I experienced some exceptional moments with our Canadian soldiers.
My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. How could a special medal award ceremony for soldiers of the Royal Van Doos, a truly impressive occasion, be completely overlooked in this country? Why do the media choose to ignore these colourful ceremonies which would make us even prouder to be what we are?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Outremont was right to draw our attention to the important job being done by Canadians as peacekeepers, in Cyprus in this case. I understand he attended a medal award ceremony, a way to recognize the professionalism and dedication of our soldiers, and I think such ceremonies should be brought to the attention of all Canadians.


AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport.
Recently, Air Canada released a study on the air transportation industry in Canada. The study identified two basic options for the industry: first, the acquisition of Canadian Airlines International by foreign interests, and second, a merger of Canada's two airlines with foreign partners.
Which option does the government prefer, and what does it intend to do to promote that option?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, indeed a report has been prepared and has been presented.
As the hon. member knows there are discussions being held with Canadian Airlines, with a partner. We have yet


to be presented with a recommendation on that particular one. When we hear from that airline we will have more information on which to base our decision.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, everybody is quite aware of the developments that are occurring in the industry with great losses being suffered by both Canadian Airlines.
We now know that Canadian Airlines is close to a deal. We know that Air Canada is talking about a deal possibly including equity with U.S. Air.
When is the government going to take some action to give policy leadership on this important issue which confronts the Canadian airline industry?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the concerns of the airline industry and losses are not concentrated in Canada alone.
Indeed there are changes taking place in the airline industry around the world. Much of the losses that are being incurred are not through policy decisions but rather through changes in the economy and changes in flying patterns.
The airlines are private companies. They are making private company decisions. We as a government will work with them as best we can to make sure we have a healthy industry.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.
I believe the member for New Westminster-Burnaby made statements in the House today which were factually wrong. I would like to review the "blues" and speak to the House at the earliest date.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a question of privilege. I remind the hon. member that statements that may be disagreed with may not necessarily be privilege, but I will certainly go along with the request of the hon. member to have a chance to look at Hansard and bring the matter back to the Chair.
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise to report to the House of Commons on the Canada round, on the distance we have travelled on the road to constitutional renewal, and on the distance we must still go to succeed.
At the invitation of the Prime Minister during 19 days of meetings in seven cities across Canada, ministers and aboriginal leaders have met to find ways to move this country forward.
I believe we are closer than ever to healing the wounds that bind us, to keeping the country that unites us. The progress we have made is unprecedented.
We had set May 31 as a target to conclude, but in Toronto we agreed that we had come so far that we should continue. Our purpose is agreement on all aspects of the Canada round, and that goal is within reach. We agreed in Toronto to a pause to consult, to gain some perspective, to identify areas where compromise might occur.
We have all learned hard lessons from the past. We have realized that we cannot make Canada more inclusive unless the process to get there is inclusive as well. We have all realized that no single part of this country can move forward in isolation and that the Canada round is necessary not just in name but in substance. We have all realized that no single part of this country can move forward in isolation, that a Canada round is necessary not just in name but in substance. We have all realized that closing doors does not open minds. So we are discussing a wide range of issues today: equalization, a new Senate, a common market within Canada, a new relationship with aboriginal peoples.
Nothing is agreed yet. There will be no final agreement until there is full agreement on a full package of change. But we are on the way to real change.


Routine Proceedings
I will not review in detail every issue we have discussed, but I want to report on the major issues. Although serious questions remain to be resolved, the progress we have made is without parallel in the constitutional history of Canada. The glass is much more than half full.

First, we have reached consensus on ways to make Canadian federalism more flexible and more effective. That includes explicit recognition of exclusive provincial jurisdiction in eight areas that we believe are best handled locally-forestry, mining, tourism, housing, recreation, and municipal and urban affairs, labour market training, culture.
In the special case of culture, the Constitution would also explicitly affirm that the federal government would maintain national cultural institutions and granting programs. Any federal-provincial agreements in these areas, and in immigration, could be protected by the Constitution and thereby shielded from unilateral change.
That would also be the case for agreements respecting regional development. Powers made available to any one province would be available to all. The Constitution would constrain the federal government from using its spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
If provinces want to opt out of new national shared-cost programs, they could do so, with compensation, if they undertake programs compatible with national objectives.
The Constitution would protect Canada's transfer payments from unilateral change. The commitment to national economic infrastructure and regional development to reduce disparities would be strengthened. There would be a requirement of regular consultation on equalization.

The fundamental objectives of the Canadian social and economic union would be entrenched in the Constitution. These would include social services, education, protection of the environment, the goal of full employment, of a reasonable standard of living, and a commitment to strengthen the Canadian economic union
through the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital.
There is agreement to repeal the federal power of disallowance and to limit the federal declaratory power.
Second, there is consensus on a new, more inclusive vision of the country.
We have agreed on a Canada clause that would guide the courts in interpreting the Constitution, a declaration of the fundamental features of this country, of Quebec's distinctiveness, of Canada's linguistic duality, of aboriginal rights and responsibilities, including a new third order of government, of our democratic values, of the equality of women and men, of cultures and races, of the provinces in this federation.
We are recognizing the distinct society of Quebec and ensuring that provincial governments have the means to express their identity and goals.
We have agreed to open a new partnership with the aboriginal peoples of Canada, based upon a mutual respect that involves the recognition of their inherent right to self-government within Canada. That idea is not new. The Iroquois Confederacy and other aboriginal governments practised forms of democracy here before most European countries did.
Nor should the idea cause alarm. There are forms of aboriginal self-government now in Canada and they work better than the colonial systems which have created such despondency and such despair among Canadian aboriginals. The difference is that now those governments would be rooted in the Constitution.
The right would not be contingent, nor delayed. It is agreed that all parties would choose to wait three full years before that right was taken to court. That would give everyone time to begin to agree on what self-government would mean in particular communities, and to agree on what it would not mean. This three-year period ensures that the definitions can be worked out by agreement, by negotiation, not by the courts.
Existing provincial and federal laws would continue to apply until aboriginal governments have the authority to adopt new regimes which would operate within the Canadian system but would reflect aboriginal reality. The charter of rights would apply as it does to provinces.


Existing treaty rights would be protected and interpreted in a manner that is just, broad and liberal, taking into account their spirit and intent.
There have also been undertakings by the provinces with respect to land and the maintenance and services that would allow the federal government to include all aboriginal peoples, including the Metis, in section 91(24) of the Constitution.

Third, we are well on the way to improving substantially the national and federal institutions of Canada.
The Constitution would finally entrench the composition of the Supreme Court, including three civil law judges from Quebec. The appointment of Supreme Court judges would be based on lists submitted by the provinces.
First Ministers' Conferences would be strengthened as instruments of Canadian co-operation and the Constitution would require an annual meeting of Heads of Government.
On the Senate, we have not yet settled the basic questions of the basis on which the Senate is chosen, or its powers. But a great deal is agreed. Senators would be directly elected. A system of proportional representation would be defined by Parliament to ensure that the Senate would fully reflect the diversity of Canada. The new Senate would ratify federal appointments or reject them. It would have a 30-day suspensive veto over supply bills.
There would be guaranteed representation for aboriginal Canadians. On issues of French language or culture, a double-majority rule would apply.

On all of these issues there is broad agreement on the principles and on the essence of the proposals. In many areas exact legal text has been agreed word by word, line by line.
The work of the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee has been an invaluable guide in our discussions. In many cases the specific language has been borrowed. Where we adopted a different approach, for example, in describing the jurisdiction of the provinces, I believe there was agreement among the federalist parties whose unanimity gave such authority to the report of Parliament.
Routine Proceedings
There has been extraordinary agreement. But it could all come to nothing because these discussions are not about one item and not about one agenda. This is a Canada round and we need agreement on the whole if we are to have agreement on any parts.
A question of critical importance to Canada is our ability to have the kind of common market in our country that has allowed Europe to offer such tangible benefits to its citizens. When Canada was formed trade was in goods, and the barriers to that trade were brought down by the original Confederation agreement. In that same nation-building spirit we must reduce Canada's own barriers to the free movement of people, capital, services and goods.
Two other major issues stand out: the Senate and the constitutional amending formula for changes to national institutions. I do not believe we can reach agreement on either unless we reach agreement on both. I am confident we can. But that will require flexibility and vision on the part of everyone who wants this country to continue and succeed.
Three Senate models are being considered: equal representation of provinces; equal representation of regions; and equitable representation. All models share the principle that a new Senate must be much more broadly based. All models have aspects that commend them to serious consideration by provincial and federal governments. Each model obviously presents difficulties for others.
Those who argue the absolute equality of provinces put that forward as a principle of a federation, equal in importance to the principle of representation by population. Not everyone agrees and there is equally genuine concern about a reform that would allow six provinces representing 17 per cent of the population to stop or to appreciably delay decisions of a democratically elected House of Commons.
The federal government has said that if there is a consensus in the country on a particular model we could accept that model. However, if it were to be composed on the basis of the equality of provinces its powers must be much more limited than if it were more broadly based.
We need a system that represents the different parts of Canada better but we also need a system that works, reforms that will improve government, not prevent it.


Routine Proceedings
In Toronto I put forward some views on the powers I saw as being appropriately associated with the different models under discussion. I hope this may provide some basis for agreement. So far there is no consensus on the model or the powers of a new Senate.
We must find a consensus or this whole Canada round will fail. Everyone has agreed on Senate reform. The question is whether provinces who have hard positions now are prepared to find some way to agree and to make the Canada round whole.
I believe that if we can find an acceptable model for the Senate we can find agreement on an amending formula.
Sometimes we might wish that we were a simple country: one language, one culture, one clear identity. But that is not who we are and has not been for centuries. We are a complex, accomplished society, whose success depends on our respect for ourselves and our respect for others. If that mutual respect was important in the past, it is even more essential in the modem world in which we must co-operate and compete.
These present constitutional issues are of crucial importance to Quebecers who must decide whether to stay in Canada or not. They are of crucial importance to aboriginal Canadians who have been left outside longer than anyone else. And they are for western Canadians who have felt shut out of national decisions.

We all understand that the only way to achieve our goals is to achieve them all together. But there is more to it than that. Issues which interest Quebec are of profound importance to eveiy other Canadian because if Quebec rejects Canada in October, every Canadian will suffer, materially and for generations.
Aboriginal issues are of profound importance to Quebec because if we can establish an acceptable framework for self-government that can lead to greater certainty for Quebec and more harmony in pursuit of the goals of Quebec.
Institutions which give Canadians a sense of belonging to their country strengthen the whole country. We need each other after the Constitution too, and the respect we show each other now will make it easier for us to make progress together later.
Generosity is not a luxury in Canada. It is what keeps us together as a community, just as the absence of generosity could break us into bitter pieces.
I am encouraged by the sense of generosity I have found around the constitutional table, in this House and in this country. Our real challenge now is to find the ingenuity and the generosity to make the Canada round work and to make Canada work.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the minister for his statement in the House today.
On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and all Liberal members and senators, I can assure him that we hope for a resolution of the constitutional impasse. We support him without reservation in his efforts on behalf of the government to bring the provincial and federal governments to agree on a series of proposals that could break the constitutional deadlock.
Of course we on this side of the House are watching him with some trepidation and even impatience. It is still good to keep in mind that back in April 1991 the Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Liberal Party of Canada submitted not only a procedure for resolving the constitutional impasse but also a nine-point program that the Liberals thought would settle the constitutional issue fairly and equitably.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Ouellet: We are very pleased on hearing the report that the minister just gave us to see today that considerable progress has been made and that almost all of the nine suggestions made by the Liberal Party of Canada were accepted not only by the government but by all the provincial representatives who negotiated with the minister in recent weeks.
Nevertheless, I would like to draw the minister's attention to some points that we consider absolutely fundamental. I will quote what the minister himself said in his speech a few minutes ago: "The constitutional developments now under way are of the utmost importance for Quebecers. Secondly, they are also very important for native people, who have felt excluded for a very


long time, and finally for westerners who also feel left out of national decisions".
If you allow me I will return briefly to each of these three points. We Liberals believe that it is absolutely essential in this constitutional round to give Quebec back its veto on constitutional issues and amendments. That is why we proposed a constitutional amending formula that would ensure a veto for the government and people of Quebec.
We think that the minister will have failed in the discussions now going on if he is unable to convince all his provincial discussion partners of the absolute necessity of an amending formula that guarantees a veto for Quebec.
Secondly, we want to recall-

It is absolutely essential that it be fully understood, as this round cannot only be a Quebec round but ought to be a Canada round, that we do something for the aboriginal people.
I heard the minister saying here today, and I will quote him again: "We have agreed to open a new partnership with the aboriginal people of Canada based on a mutual respect that involves the recognition of their inherent right to self-government within Canada". Then he went on to say: "That idea is not new, nor should the idea cause alarm".
It is quite clear that the Liberals profoundly believe the time has come to recognize the aboriginal right of self-government within our Constitution. For us, there is no alarm. We are very concerned when on the one hand we see the minister speaking and being very open and generous in order to achieve this and on the other hand we see his colleague, the minister of health, on TV making all kinds of difficulties or so-called difficulties about this very simple fact that ought to be part of this current negotiation round.
We are hopeful that every Canadian from every political party and every level of government will be generous enough to understand and accept the wording that has been put in the Beaudoin-Dobbie reports in relation to aboriginal issues.
Finally, the third component of what we think is essential as part of the Canada round is a tangible progress in reforming the Senate in a way that would be
Routine Proceedings
satisfactory to the legitimate aspirations of westerners and people of less populated provinces, who think that the overwhelming representation of Ontario and Quebec in the House of Commons makes them a smaller part of the decision process in Ottawa.
We Liberals believe that there ought to be a reform of the Senate that will allow a better representation, if not in the House of Commons then certainly in the Senate, in order to meet these legitimate aspirations of these provinces.
I want to be quite clear that the Liberal Party, under its leader, has made a series of suggestions regarding the Senate. We made these suggestions thinking that the west and the Atlantic provinces would be well served by this. In the Beaudoin-Dobbie report we dissent in relation to the Senate because we felt that the level of representation could be improved on what was suggested by the government and more particularly we felt that if we are talking of an elected Senate and a more equitable Senate, it ought to be an effective Senate also.
We felt that the proposal of the government was not going far enough in the directions of an effective Senate. Frankly, we are not afraid that the House of Commons would be paralyzed because there would be a more effective Senate.
We believe that if there is a certain price to pay in order to meet the legitimate aspirations of westerners and Atlantic Canadians it ought to be paid.
We are saying that the minister ought to work diligently to convince the representative of the provinces who are meeting with him that they have to give a veto to Quebec on the amending formula. He has also to convince his counterpart to respond in a positive fashion to a reformed Senate which seems to be needed and desired by the Atlantic provinces and the western provinces.

Finally, for everyone to win in this constitutional round we think it is essential for the Government of Canada to clarify its spending power and a new, more efficient, and functional distribution of powers to the federal and provincial governments and also to strengthen the federal government's position in the economic field.


Routine Proceedings
While we want this constitutional round to please Atlantic Canadians, Quebecers, Ontarians, and westerners, there must also be something for those who believe in a strong and effective central government for Canada. We think that depends on strengthening section 121 of the Constitution.
We were pleased with what the minister said about this desire to ensure greater freedom for the movement of goods, people, services and capital in Canada and we want to tell him that we support this effort to ensure that Canada is really a common market and that the Liberal Party of Canada will always fully support his efforts to convince the provincial representatives to accept constitutional changes to strengthen Canada's economic union.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that he is entering the crucial phase of negotiations, as he himself knows. Obviously, unanimity would be the best outcome. Of course a unanimous position of the federal government and all the provinces on a set of proposals would be the best of all worlds, but it certainly will not be easy to achieve or even possible.
I would like to quote an article that appeared on May 30 in La Presse. Journalist Marcel Adam wrote that Meech failed because of the unanimity requirement:
That is why Brian Mulroney promised in February to come up with a plan that all provinces would support.
"I do not want nine tenths of an agreement," he emphasized. "I do not want two thirds of an agreement; I want all provinces to sign-"
That is what the Prime Minister of Canada said.
Mr. Adam continued:
Believe me, that statement was heard by all the premiers, who will make a point of reminding him of it when the time comes.
Mr. Adam concluded his article by saying:
If my analysis is correct, the present process will fail for the same reason as Meech: the sacrosanct principle of unanimity.
I think it is very important that we understand why the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada suggested quite a while ago that we had a national referendum to make sure we are not dragged down by provincial Premiers who in their talks and discussions with the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and the Prime Minister of Canada will always try to get more. They will
want this or object to that on the basis that it might not be popular in their province.
But at the present time the Canadian interest is paramount. If we can satisfy the legitimate demands of Quebec, the demands of native peoples, and the demands regarding an effective, equitable and elected Senate, I say to the Minister: "In the end, if you are unable to get unanimity, trust the population of Canada, organize your referendum and you will win it".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Ouellet: It seems certain to us that we can get a majority in the four main regions of the country in favour of a constitutional reform which serves the best interest of Canada as a whole.
We say to the minister: "Good luck. You are entering the final phase of the negotiations; you must succeed. We are behind you, but beware, nothing must be perceived as a gain for some at the expense of others". In this constitutional round, all Canadians, no matter where they live, must be winners.
We believe that if you have a set of proposals which has the support of a majority of premiers, most of the population, including that of Quebec, will vote in a referendum in favour of a renewed Canada, a Canada which would say yes to Quebec and which will let Quebecers say yes to Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, first of all I welcome the minister back to the House. I congratulate him on both his endurance and his patience throughout this process. He has been working very hard at it and I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for the work he has put into this particular issue.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The most important thing as we continue into the final phases of the Canada round is keeping this country united and getting Canadians marching in the same direction once again.
I am pleased from what I have found out about the negotiations to note the state of play to date in terms of what is being tentatively agreed upon. As the minister said there is no agreement until the final negotiations are completed, but the state of play to date reflects a


great deal of what we agreed in this House on the Beaudoin-Dobbie report.
I am very pleased with that because as the minister said to have an inclusive Canada round we must have an inclusive process. Let us turn to what the three parties did in terms of the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee. We had public hearings. We had six national conferences. We involved Canadians in these mini-constituent assemblies across this country. We had long and hard negotiations between the parties. We put aside our political labels. We stood up for Canada and came up with a report that is reflective of what the Canadian people want.
I say today that I am pleased to see that the provinces in the main are listening very carefully to what the Canadian people had to say. I hope later on when the premiers become involved that they too will keep an eye on public opinion and an eye on what the three parties said in the Beaudoin-Dobbie report. I think it is very important.
To date we see in the discussions held across the country some positive news for the aboriginal people of this country. We see an agreement now by all the provinces participating, plus the aboriginal people in the territories, and the federal government, to recognize the inherent right to self-government of aboriginal people. This is long overdue. It is finally going to happen. It is about time in terms of doing justice to our aboriginal people.

As regards the province of Quebec, I think that people everywhere in the country feel that Quebec is different, that it is not at all a province like the others. It is truly a unique and distinct society. Now there is agreement, and that includes Mr. Clyde Wells from Newfoundland, to enshrine the distinct society clause in the Canadian Constitution. There is also a consensus across the country to reform the Supreme Court of Canada in order to amend the Canadian Constitution and allow three civil law judges from Quebec, as well as six common law judges.
It is important for Quebec to protect its unique society, to protect a province which is different and which
Routine Proceedings
constitutes a minority not only in Canada but also in North America.

There has been progressive movement in terms of regional fairness, in terms of regional development and in terms of protecting transfer payments to the provinces from being unilaterally ended by the federal government in the future. There has been progress made in terms of strengthening section 36 of the Constitution, the section on equalization that is so important to six or seven of the provinces including my home province of Saskatchewan.
In terms of the new idea of a social covenant or of an economic union, I am pleased the governments have agreed with a report we made in this House on the details of what should go into a social covenant: the protection of medical care, higher education, primary education, the environment, the right of workers to collective bargaining, and the importance of things like full employment in Canada, decent housing, and a decent standard of living for all Canadians regardless of where they live in this country.
It is the same in terms of minorities and openness: to have some positive changes for minorities, visible and other minorities in Canada-

-and also a change in the Canadian Constitution for linguistic minorities, French speaking and English speaking ones across Canada.

Then we have the Senate. We in the committee probably wrestled more with the Senate issue than any other. I am not surprised the minister is having problems with the Senate issue when he meets with his counterparts across the country.
This is indeed the most important issue, next to perhaps the division of powers, but certainly a very difficult issue to settle in terms of trying to get a compromise and a consensus in the country.
Substantive progress has been made. We now have, for example, agreement all around to have an elected Senate, progress after over a hundred years. We have a very important agreement to have the Senate elected by proportional representation, something that I would not have predicted six or seven months ago would be agreed


Routine Proceedings
to by not only the three national political parties but all the provinces, the aboriginal people and the territories.
With proportional representation we can have a Senate where we can achieve the important goals and objectives of gender parity and representation of minorities, a House that reflects the diversity of this country more than we have today in the House of Commons or indeed in the appointed Senate. Very important progress has been made on the Senate issue.
For the aboriginal people we have agreement now to have aboriginal representation in the Senate. Even three months ago we did not have that agreement. The three parties said in our report that we would recommend aboriginal representation in the Senate if the aboriginal people agreed. At that time there was no consensus in their community. Now there must be a consensus because the aboriginal people have agreed that they should have aboriginal representation in the Senate, again veiy good progress. There has also been some progress in terms of Senate powers. Again I think it is very important.
Finally, in terms of the substantive matters we have on the table to settle the whole issue of whether or not the Senate should be equal or the Senate should be equitable. Tied into that is the amending formula in terms of how we should reform the Constitution in the future.
In terms of the amending formula we have a couple of new ideas on the table. One was proposed by Saskatchewan which would give Quebec and Ontario, the big provinces, and a combination of smaller provinces a veto namely seven provinces representing 85 per cent of the population. This is something we did not have that is worth considering.
We have another idea that is new for the Northwest Territories. Again it is worth considering in terms of the amending formula.
The important matter that will have to be resolved- and this is why I am glad there is a pause this week where people can go back and reflect-is whether the Senate should be equal or equitable.
In the House we have given some pretty clear directions to the minister that we believe the model should be one of greater equity between the provinces.
We have notionally the idea that we have five regions in the country, each with around 20 per cent of the
senators. That would give the small provinces a lot more representation and a lot more clout compared to what they have now. That is the important issue. When we talk about whether it is equitable or equal in the Senate it leads directly to the powers of the Senate. Those two things have to be worked out over the few weeks that lie ahead.
There are one or two other things I want to say. I would like to say to Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, that the rest of Canada has shown its good will. The rest of Canada has gone a considerable distance. The rest of Canada has made some very substantive progress. The time has come very soon when the premier of Quebec should come back to the bargaining table and have some input on behalf of the people of his province.

Madam Speaker, I know that it was difficult following the failure of Meech Lake. However, I also think that the rest of the country is now acting in good faith. We feel that we have the necessary flexibility to make arrangements, not only for Quebecers but also for the aboriginal peoples, the rest of the country, the smaller provinces, and everybody because this is truly a Canada Round.
Given this good faith, it is time for Mr. Bourassa to act. It is time to go back to the negotiation table to represent the population of Quebec. Now is the time to act.

In conclusion, we have a great country. Canadian people are now saying to those of us who are politicians that the time has come to negotiate the deal. The time has come to make the accommodation. The time has come to make the arrangement and to settle the constitutional issue in the next few weeks and put this issue behind us so that in a few months' time we can get back to dealing with the real issues which are issues of hunger, employment, jobs and the recession, real issues that real people face.


Mr. Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I know that this House prides itself on recognizing the right to a dissenting opinion and to freedom of expression. Consequently, I request the unanimous consent of the House so that we can also acknowledge this admission of defeat that was just made by the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I believe the hon. member knows that Standing Order 33(1) provides that only a member from each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly thereon. However, the House can govern its own business and it can give its unanimous consent to give the floor to another member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but there is not unanimous consent.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, during the speech made by the Liberal party member, the hon. member for Beausejour and leader of that party told the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to shut up.


An hon. member:: "Shut up."


Louis Plamondon: Should the member retract his comments? Should he have to retract or will you make your decision later on?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shef-ford might be kind enough to allow me to answer one point of order at a time.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It is on the same point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If it is on the same point of order, I apologize. The hon. member for Shefford has the floor.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I was indeed very upset by those comments. I was hurt by the member for Beausejour and I hope that he will retract.
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the two members for having drawn my attention to that incident. We will check Hansard and make the appropriate decision.


PETITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the Red Sucker Lake community, which had its first school built in 1957.
Whereas this school is in deplorable structural condition and, in fact, was closed by both the community and an inspector from Labour Canada on May 11, 1992 due to safety concerns, and whereas the school has been scheduled for replacement in 1992-93 but this has been postponed for a number of years, and whereas the situation is extremely urgent and of public importance, we the undersigned, which is almost the entire population of Red Sucker Lake, call upon Parliament to request the federal government to consider priorizing the replacement of the Red Sucker Lake school for immediate replacement.
May I just add a word to say that this issue is really pressing and urgent. The children are losing their school year. It is completely deplorable that in this century we have this deplorable situation at the Red Sucker Lake school.


William John Vankoughnet: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by a number of my constituents living in the Arden area, situated in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
These petitioners are supporting the government's commitment as stated in the Speech from the Throne May 13, 1991, to pass legislation which could permit a national referendum on the Constitution.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table before the House two petitions signed by Canadians from across this country opposed to


Routine Proceedings
the government's decision to terminate the Court Challenges Program.
They call upon the Government of Canada to rescind this particular decision and reinstate the Court Challenges Program which has been of benefit to many Canadians across this country in challenging the various laws in this country.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 361 too have the honour and duty to present a petition to this House signed by a number of Hamiltonians.
The petitioners say that whereas the opinion polls continually and consistently reflect mass dissatisfaction with this current government and that the Prime Minister has not listened to the people of Canada, and that since there is no provision for an impeachment process, they are asking Parliament to hold a free vote of confidence so that individual members of Parliament can vote according to the wishes of their constituents and force an election.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I too pursuant to Standing Order 36 am privileged to present a petition on behalf of some 176 constituents of Winnipeg North. They are concerned about the Government of Canada terminating the federal co-operative housing program and pray that Parliament urge the government to immediately reinstate the federal co-op housing program and commit the $6.5 million to the program which had been planned for 1992 and to permit approximately 2,000 co-op housing units to be sponsored this year.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, I have four petitions with many, many names on co-op housing calling upon the federal government to reinstate that program and also to commit the $6.1 million to the program to permit approximately 2,000 co-op housing units to be sponsored this year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, I have another petition calling upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Today, the hon. member for Shefford, and yesterday, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert seemed to be against allowing the questions to stand. If either one has a numbered question, and I am obviously referring to a question under their name, and wants to know at what stage the answer is, I am convinced that the hon. parliamentary secretary will be pleased to reply.
Since there does not seem to be any particular question, all will therefore be allowed to stand.

Are there any Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, yesterday I gave notice of a motion for production of certain papers. I know it would not be appropriate for the parliamentary secretary to have ready today the papers which I am requesting. I wonder if he would take it under advisement to see whether or not he could produce those papers for next week.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I have heard the hon. member's request. I have no idea if what he is asking is reasonable or not. He is a reasonable man so I will take it

on the face of it and will determine whether or not it is a reasonable request and respond accordingly.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's request is on notice. It might be unreasonable to ask that it be produced today.
Before proceeding to Orders of the Day, I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 45 minutes and we will continue until 7.45 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I move pursuant to Standing Order 78(3): That, in relation to Bill C-81, 'An Act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada"; not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of report stage and one sitting day to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day to the report stage consideration and on the allotted day to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 149)
++YEAS
Members
Andre
Belsher
Blackburn (Jonquifcre)
Blenkam
Bourgault
Cadieux
Chadwick
Chartrand
Clifford
Collins
Corbeil
Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret
Desjardins
Dorin
Epp
Feltham
Fontaine
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hockin
Holtmann
Horning
Hughes
Jelinek
Joncas
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Loiselle
MacKay
Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer
McDermid
McLean
Monteith
Nicholson
Plourde
Redway
Ricard
Robitaille
Saint-Julien
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbinifere)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vien
White
Assiniboia)
Winegard
Anderson
Atkinson
Bernier
Blais
Bosley
Brightweil
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cook
Corbett
Crosbie (St. John's West)
DeBlois Della Noce Dobbie Edwards Fee
Ferland
Fretz
Gibeau
Greene
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Hogue
Horner
Hudon
Jacques
Johnson
Kempling
Landry
Larrivee
Littlechild
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Marin
Masse
Mazankowski
McKnight
Merrithew
Moore
Oberle
Porter
Reimer
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tlirner (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle Vezina Vincent Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Worthy-119

Government Orders

Members
Althouse	Anawak
Angus	Arseneault
Assad	Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belair	Bellemare
Bevilacqua	Black
Blackburn (Brant)	Blaikie
Breaugh	Butland
Callbeck	Campbell (South West Nova)
Catterall	Clancy
Comuzzi	Copps
Crawford	Dingwall
Duceppe	Edmonston
Ferguson	Fisher
Fits	Fontana
Foster	Gaffney
Gardiner	Gauthier
Grey (Beaver River)	Guarnieri
Harb	Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Hopkins
Hovdebo	Jordan
Karpoff	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)	Kindy
Kristiansen	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lapierre	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)	MacLaren
MacLellan	Manley
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McCurdy
Milliken	Mills
Murphy	Nault
Nowlan	Nunziata
Nystrom	Ouellet
Pagtakhan	Parent
Parker	Peterson
Phinney	Plamondon
Proud	Prud'homme
Rideout	Riis
Rocheleau	Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Taylor	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief	Venne
Walker	Wappel
Whittaker Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-85	Wood


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Boyer:: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I wanted to mention to you that I was present for the vote but abstained on the vote for time allocation.


Mr. Hawkes:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A number of members who were not present earlier might not realize that because of ministerial statements the
bell is expected to ring at about 7.30 p.m. tonight, with the vote to commence at 7.45 p.m. I thought it might be important to put that on the record.


REFERENDUM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from TUesday, June 2, 1992 consideration of Bill C-81, an act to provide for referen-dums on the Constitution of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is very difficult for the Chair to hear what is going on on the floor. The hon. member for Churchill was seeking the floor on point of order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, to assist members of the House, especially later on tonight, I would give notice that I will not move the motions standing in my name, Motions No. 14, 15, 17, 19, 23 and 47.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. The Table has taken notice and any member who would like to have those numbers written can come to the table.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shef-ford, on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, once the motions are before the House and the member decides not to move them himself, can another member do so on his behalf? Can he withdraw them without unanimous consent? I really would like to know.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: A motion is before the House as soon as the Chair presents the motion to the House. If the hon. member decides not to move his motions, obviously the Chair will not present them. This means the motions bearing the numbers mentioned by the hon. member for Churchill will not be before the House.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Richelieu, on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: These motions were presented to the House at the report stage and they therefore belong to the House. To withdraw them would require unanimous consent. We have had a similar situation already.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No, these motions were not presented to the House. Notice was given that these motions would be presented, but the notice may be withdrawn, which is what happened. As a result, the motions cannot be presented in the House again.


Louis Plamondon: On the second point raised by my leader, can someone else-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Just a moment. Order, please. It is impossible for the Chair to hear a member talking from the floor.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, my question concerns the second point raised by our leader, which was whether another member can present them, since they are already on the Order Paper.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: For another member to present motions that were withdrawn would require the unanimous consent of the House.


Louis Plamondon: Mindful of the great democratic virtues of the people around us, I wish to seek unanimous consent for a vote on these motions.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: You would first need the consent of the hon. member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: No, Madam Speaker. I introduced 25 amendments in the time period that was allocated. After looking at the entire package of amendments, comparing them with the motions of the hon. member for York-ton-Melville and looking at what the government itself has presented, I thought that these six particular motions were not necessary. I still have a number of motions on the floor which we will be forcing votes on.
I think the hon. members of the Bloc will have all the opportunity they wish to vote later on tonight.
Government Orders


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I was reluctant to get up to debate this particular set of motions because there was not much that I needed to say on them, but I felt in light of the proceedings in the House yesterday it was incumbent on me to get up and explain to the public what has been going on in this place in relation to the proceedings on this bill.

What we saw yesterday, Madam Speaker, was an attempt by members of the Bloc Quebecois to kill this bill. TTiey brought in all their members to make ten-minute speeches on every amendment moved in the House by the other members. It's a big change to see all these members here, and I am delighted to see them I must say. But yesterday they were here for the sole purpose to kill this bill and to obstruct the proceedings of this House and I think that should be said, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have a point of order. The hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is interpreting the perfectly democratic approach taken by our members as an attempt to obstruct the proceedings of this House. I know you will not accept this inference when members are merely exercising their rights which it is your duty to protect.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows perfectly well this is not a point of order. However, perhaps I should remind the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands-

-he may have been impugning motives. I would be grateful if he would come back to the substance of the motions in front of the House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I was trying to explain my reasons for taking part in this debate, and I made it clear that I would not have done so if we had not had all these speeches yesterday by members of the Bloc Quebecois. I did not make good speeches, Madam Speaker, but I spoke just the same.
It is clear that this party, the Bloc Quebecois, is out to destroy this country as it is today, to divide it. The referendum proposed under this bill runs contrary to


Government Orders
their aims because the bill will allow all Canadians to vote on a question concerning the Constitution.

For that reason, Madam Speaker, these members have sought to deprive Canadians across this country of their right to vote and they are prepared to block this bill in order to do it.
Their votes will not block it. They know that because the government has a big majority and some support elsewhere, but they feel that they can obstruct it in this House. What we saw yesterday was a parade of speakers designed to bring this bill to a standstill in the House. It has prevented our members from getting on with debates on the motions that we would like to debate.
You only have to look at the debate that went on yesterday on the first clause because it was on the title of the bill, for heaven's sake, and everybody had something to say on the title. When does that ever happen? Never. It is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.
What we want to do now is participate in this debate today so that we can put our views on the record with respect to these amendments and this bill and we are going to be deprived of much opportunity because the government, in order to deal with the obstruction, has had to bring in this guillotine and apply time allocation again.
I will come back to that in a moment because I would like to talk about the role of the New Democratic Party in all this. Its members were willing participants. Last night they obstructed this House in allowing us to sit late so that members could continue to speak to these amendments and allow the various amendments at report stage to be debated.


Mr. Whittaker:: What are you doing now? You are obstructing the bill.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am explaining why I am speaking on this debate and the hon. member knows it.
What the New Democratic Party did was say it will not sit late. Its members all stood up and objected when the question was put last night to continue the hours of sitting.
Why did they do that? Because they are not democratic. Remember the Federal Democratic Republic in
Germany, the FDR? Remember that? Why was it called a democratic republic when it was a communist dictatorship? Because it was trying to cover up its anti-democratic values, that is why. It was trying to pretend it was something it was not.
The New Democratic Party is involved in the same exercise. Those members do not want the people of Canada to have a vote on this issue. They do not want Canadians to express their views in a referendum. They want to tell Canadians what is good for them and jam it down their throats.
We in the Liberal Party do not take that view. I am sorry to make this partisan but we are being deprived of our rights to address this bill in this House because of the tactics, the partisan tactics, of the other parties in this House.
We have played easy and co-operative on this and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader knows that. We worked with him in the committee to get the amendments to this bill. We have agreed to some amendments. We would like more, and we have moved more here that we would like to debate today, but we are going to be deprived of that opportunity because of the government's guillotine and the Bloc's obstruction and the unwillingness of the New Democratic Party to debate late last night.
That is what is depriving us of an opportunity to carry on a reasonable debate on this bill.
We have fault down on one side. We have fault down on another side. Now let us look at the government's hand in all this.
Here we have a government saying it wants to save the country. What a sudden revelation that was to this group because if the government is intending to save the country it would have brought this bill in months and months ago when the Leader of the Opposition stood in this House and asked it to do it. He had a deal with the government House leader to bring this bill in months ago and the government House leader dilly-dallied.
The Quebec caucus on the other side went to the minister of constitutional affairs and got it stopped. That is why this bill was not dealt with months and months ago. Instead the government House leader in his usual dictatorial and bully-boy fashion came waltzing into this House one day and said: "Here is the bill. Pass it".


Government Orders
Here we are debating this bill today, three days of debate on second reading, jammed into committee, three sitting days in the committee with closure threatened on the Thursday night so we walked out.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader moved a closure motion in committee, for heaven's sake. We walked out but got the committee going again Wednesday because of co-operation on our part and a willingness to get on with the job and do it properly.
It was all done on Tuesday which was faster than the government expected anyway because we were so co-operative. We allowed votes. We carried on. We lost a lot of votes but we carried on and we got the job done.
Now we are back here and we are going to have two days of debate on report stage with 65 amendments and one day of debate at third reading. This on a bill to save the country.
You would think the government would allow this House to have a reasonable debate on this issue. Instead it clamps down at every turn. The Bloc in its hypocritical way is nodding "yes, yes" and its members are the ones who caused this particular move on the part of the government.
I can sympathize at least with the bully-boy tactics of the government when I look at what went on in this House yesterday. I can sympathize. I do not agree. I think it is wicked and I think the government should be ashamed of itself for putting itself in this place, but had it brought this bill in before, had it brought it in in a timely way, it would not be in this jam today.
It is its own fault. It was promised in the throne speech a year ago, April as I recall was the date of that throne speech. Here it is a year later and the government is finally bringing the thing in and in its usual bully-boy way is saying, "Pass the bill now, or else".
That is what the country is faced with. That is this government's notion of saving Canada. That is its notion of preserving national unity and doing all it can to save the country.
For the government House leader to tiy to bully us the way he has the last two weeks is an example the most shocking abuse.
He is trying to blame the Liberals, who have co-operated throughout on this bill, with everything that has gone wrong. They are trying to blame the Liberal Party of Canada for failing to co-operate when this party has, in fact, co-operated significantly on this bill. We have suggested sensible amendments and we have other sensible amendments that are being rejected. We will accept that and we are willing to have a fairly limited debate and have a vote. We indicated our willingness to do all that.
However, the government House leader is trying to suggest that it is our fault that the country is in this mess when we urged the government six, eight, ten months ago to bring this bill in and get on with it.
I cannot understand the approach of the government House leader. Unfortunately, he has been a real bully-boy throughout this exercise. It is shocking.


Mr. Gauthier:: It is a disgrace.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is a disgrace. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is right. The government House leader should be ashamed of himself.
Another thing I would mention is his inattentiveness to this debate. He has not sat in on this debate in this House for five minutes since his own speech on the opening of the debate. He got up and left right after that speech. He did not even have the courtesy to stay and listen to the leading speeches from members of the opposition at that time. That is contempt of Parliament. The government House leader has an obligation, especially as an officer of the House, to remain in the Chamber and listen to the debate, particularly on his own bill. This was his bill. He had a duty to be here.


An hon. member:: Order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says order. He should go and speak to the government House leader and say, "Do your job and get into the House". That is where he should be.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He should be in this House defending this terrible legislation and allowing votes and debate on every amendment that has been proposed by the members of this House, 65 amendments and only a handful will be debated.


Government Orders
I see that my time is about to expire. I am sorry that is the case. I could go on at length on this bill. I have a lot of things I would like to say about these amendments. However, I will bow to the Chair's position and I will sit down.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I want to participate although I know time is limited under the rules. I believe it is ten minutes at this stage.
I want to compliment the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on most of what he said. I was very interested in what he said and I am glad he finally said it. Madam Speaker, you have been in the chair for a good part of the day, the majority of the day. I have been sitting here in the House for the days it has gone on. I got from the table and from the committee clerk the time involved in Bill C-81 in terms of second reading
16.5	hours, about two and a half days. Second reading was two and a half days. Here we are with allocation of time so that at 7.30 p.m. tonight the bells will start to ring for 15 minutes and then we vote on a multitude of amendments. The 64 have been consolidated in either 40 or 23, depending on who you speak to.
The thing is passing strange. We are debating the referendum bill on the Constitution of Canada. We had a statement from the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs this afternoon, thank goodness, and the loyal opposition spokesperson and the NDP spokesperson. They, at least, were elevating the debate in terms of their participation.
As an independent member who used to belong in the government party, I had the fundamental problem on the Constitution with the government party. We are debating the referendum bill that is giving the government, correctly, a vehicle or a tool to put many serious questions to the Canadian people and take it out of the hands of the leaders of the land who have not been able to define the consensus and I do not think they are going to be able to define the consensus.
I watched Premier Bourassa last night on television pretending that the Senate problem was going to keep him away from the bargaining table. I have partial sympathy for that chameleon of political science, the premier of Quebec. I can sympathize that he may not want to get involved in the federal-provincial negotiations now with some of the apparent agreements in principle with no legal text. Therefore, blame it on the Senate. Who wants the Senate-an appointed body that is an anachronism of history and has no place in a democratic elected system?
This may be the hang-up people are pretending it is. Frankly, for Premier Bourassa it is one of the double ironies in the world. He stayed away from the bargaining. I can understand his post-Meech hangover, or post-Meech depression. There was a depression across the country because things had been whipped up in the country, whipped up with a lot of intellectual dishonesty that never should have happened. It was one of the problems I had to face and I finally walked.
Having had the problems, having had the initial backing off and understanding in part-I am very open on this, but I am also a very practical politician-I can see politicians in several parties and/or perhaps the premier of Quebec using the dead Senate issue. I say the Senate is dead until it gets some credibility and if you are going to have it, it has to be elected, I agree with that.
Then we get into all the processes, all the definitions of what we give it, power, and how do you have it elected, and is it equal, is it equitable, and/or regional.
Let us go back to the beginning. Let us eliminate the Senate and give the people a chance to vote as to whether they even want a Senate. The NDP used to be a party proud of at least standing for some principle in reform and it was abolition of the Senate. I do not agree with the objectives of my colleagues the Parti Quebegois but I do give them credit. I am totally against what they want but at least they speak with some conviction on what they want.
We have been in this debate and I agree it has been shortened. I understand the government's problem, but frankly, all members, without obstruction, should have a chance to speak on this issue which is fundamental to the core of the nation. Here we are with an allocation order that is going to terminate tonight and then a third reading tomorrow and we have not had a leader of the three national parties speak in this debate.
With the greatest respect for the House of Commons, jiaving been here longer than most members in the House, this is a terrible insult to the whole history and tradition.


John Diefenbaker would be rolling over in his grave to know we are going to discuss the potential referendum to try and resolve impasse on constitutional discussions. We have not had a national leader participate in this debate. We have had two allocation orders already, one on second reading and now one on report stage.
There are fundamental things. I have listened to the hon. minister for intergovernmental affairs this afternoon and I give him credit. He has brought civility, calm, and patience, patience that frankly is starting to be a yoke around his neck in these delicate discussions as they have had them from coast to coast for months.
We all know the reality and there is now an impasse there and some are blaming it on the Senate, some are blaming it on something else. It is easy to blame the Senate.
Even the NDP spokesman yesterday talked about the mechanics of a bill. All we are talking about is mechanics. Shall it be money here, or committees there, or registered agents there, time allocation here? There has been no discussion at all from of the three national parties as to what they want in terms of a future in this country that a referendum may help to find.
As I say, that is corroborated by the absence of the three national leaders unless they intervene in this debate sometime between now and 7.30 p.m. and I think they dam well should.
They should tell Canadians. We know what the Parti Quebegois stands for. As I say, I am totally against what it stands for but I can understand it to a point. Frankly, unless we become more realistic, compatible, and tolerant, as the hon. minister of intergovernmental affairs said today, we are going to have problems.
It did not help things today not to give the Parti Quebecois a chance to give its view, which we know. You know what is going to happen with the Bloc Quebecois. You know what is going to happen in the Quebec papers tomorrow. Its members are going to be martyrs. They have been cut off at the pass. They could not speak.
Here you are going to have the minister of intergovernmental affairs speak. You could have the spokesperson who happens to be from Quebec, the member for
Government Orders
Papineau speak. You had the member from the NDP speak.
They could speak on something that is fundamental and that we all call the Canada round. What do we do? We shut out those who are dedicated to a Quebec, admittedly by itself. They are in this House but we cut them off at the pass. Wait until we see in the Quebec papers how they become pseudo-martyrs.
Tonight we are going to go through the hocus-pocus and hypocrisy in many ways of voting on 30, 40 or 50 amendments when we usually have agreement. I can understand their interest from a straight political point of view. They have been very definite in their interest and we are going to be here for hours.
That will be a nice story, not you or I, not to the political elite that have been trying to get a consensus, and other political elites that have been trying to break up the country, but to the average Quebecois or the average Canadian. Speaking of the Quebecois, they are going to say: "Hey, our boys did not have a chance. Those dirty anglophones across the country cut them off at the pass". We did that today.
There are so many things to say. I do not know how many minutes I have left.
I want to come back to the minister of intergovernmental affairs because there are so many things one could say and perhaps I may have a chance later on or at third reading. I agree with the majority of what the government House leader said. I really want to put this out in the public domain and I hope that someone from the government side answers it. Yesterday, we saw a set-up question from the member for Fredericton- York-Sunbury to the minister of Indian affairs about Indian self-government.
I want someone from the government side, either the Minister of Justice who certainly knows about it, the minister of Indian affairs and certainly the minister of intergovernmental affairs to try and get through. What happened to Meech? People thought we were actually dishonest. We cannot let the same intellectual dishonesty that affected Meech affect the very sensitive progress now. One of the most sensitive things is the whole question of the inherent right of the aboriginals to


Government Orders
self-government. The minister today said this is not new. I take great exception to that. Then there is the proviso in the constitutional discussions that we are not going to talk about this or adjudicate it for three years.
What I want is for someone on the government side to answer before this debate is completed how to rationalize this potential agreement which is sensitive and which is properly receiving veiy considered response across the country.
There is a court of appeal decision in British Columbia between Delgamuukw, who is the plaintiff, also known as Earl Muldoe, suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Houses of Delgamuukw and Haaxw, et al, against Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada.
In conclusion my point is this. This case which is presently before the courts is on the very issue of the inherent right of the aboriginals to self-government. How can we have ministers of the Crown say in this House or ministers at the negotiating table pretend that there is going to be a three-year moratorium on defining this issue?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do apologize to the hon. member but I think in all fairness, I must at this time, tell him that his time has expired.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I will start by going along with what the previous speaker said. I greatly admired his democratic approach to us and his recognition of the reaction that the French press and French-speaking Quebecers will surely have to our being gagged by this government for wanting to express a different point of view. It is using laws or regulations to limit such a serious debate to a single day. For two years, since the Meech Lake Accord failed, this government has been telling us that it wants to save this country. It wants to come up with an acceptable proposal for Quebec. Two years later, we are still going around in circles, no further ahead but pushing forward, not to save the country but to save the face of this government and its leader. They are trying to rush through a bill without examining some 60-odd amendments that have been proposed. We are now at the second set of amendments and already debate is being cut off. That is unacceptable in a democracy.
The Prime Minister, the leader of the government, has been going around the world for two years at public expense and I would have thought that he would bring back the great democratic virtues of other governments, but no, he has only brought back manners. Is he following the example of the government of South Africa or Iran or some African dictatorship? He has brought back a new way of using our parliamentary system-


An hon. member:: A perversion.


Louis Plamondon: A perversion-to boycott debates, although they are democratic. What bothers me more, as I pointed out a while ago, is that in this debate, as the independent member from Nova Scotia who preceded me said, the government members, especially those from Quebec, are not taking a position.
As a citizen of Trois-Rivieres, across from my riding, said to me the other day: What are the members for Trois-Rivieres, Saint-Maurice, Champlain and Lotbi-niere doing? We don't see them in this debate. They get up only when they have to go to the toilet or close the window. What that person said in my riding is really something. They are so absent from the debate that one would think they are asleep. If they were to wink now, they would have to open an eye. Their constituents have some hard things to say about them.


Jean-C. Lapierre: What are the people of Jonquiere saying?


Louis Plamondon: I went to Jonquiere which my colleague just mentioned. I would not want to see people's reaction to his statement today that Canada must be saved at any cost. Implicit in that was even if it meant suppressing basic rights and not meeting Quebec's historic demands of the past thirty years.
You know other Conservative members sat in this House, and I found out what they said. You will recall that the Liberal government in 1979, before it was defeated, also proposed a Canada-wide referendum. A slew of people in Quebec and in this House rose against it. Let us remember the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Let us also remember that there were not many Conservative members from Quebec then, but there was one very well-known and highly respected member from Joliette, Mr. LaSalle, if I may name him.


An hon. member:: He was the only one.


Louis Plamondon: What did he say about the Canadawide referendum? Madam Speaker, this is what he said on January 31, 1979:
Members from Quebec, in particular the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), urged members of the House to support the government in its endeavour to acquire this repressive too! because she felt the danger which is upon us. I was sorry to see her lack of trust in the decision that Quebeckers will be making, and I think that she has acknowledged her party's failure to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of a province and meet the objectives of a majority of Quebeckers as well as all Canadians, who would want to see, in this constitutional reform, a chance to secure an interesting future for all concerned.
He condemned it, he got up, he spoke, he defended Quebec's higher interests. The hon. member for Joliette added:
- the federal government [the Liberal government of that time] considers it essential to pass a law to oppose a possible decision by a majority of Quebeckers.
History is repeating itself. Why a referendum? To interfere with the democratic process embarked upon following the failure of Meech, with the Belanger-Cam-peau Commission and Bill 150 which will give us a referendum on the real issue: do you want Quebec to be a sovereign state or not?
With its Canada-wide referendum, this government, a government incapable of tabling proposals, incapable of carrying out its duty, incapable of uniting its federalist forces, incapable of making offers, will interfere with that process, as democratic and fair as it is, and with the reflection undertaken by the people of Quebec which will lead to a referendum to be held in the fall.
They are afraid. And not only are they putting forward an act providing for a Canada-wide referendum, but this act is totally devoid of the democratic virtues and the respect for citizens that one would expect from any referendum act, as is the case all over the world. As the hon. House leader said, they are going to try and buy votes by spending millions on publicity. It has already started, with the Canada 125 advertisements we are seeing on the tube, often using very debatable statements such as Canada presumably being number one, very debatable statements indeed. Millions would also be spent during the limitless referendum. Can you imagine a less moral, less acceptable act of democracy than dipping into the public purse-what am I saying?-rath-
Govemment Orders
er adding to the national debt, because the purse is empty.


An hon. member:: Taking money from Quebec.


Louis Plamondon: They are spending tons of money, including money from Quebec. All that money squandered. Such an immoral act is unheard of in the western world.
Today, instead of debating the amendments put forward to limit expenditures-and this happens to be one of them-they will not even take part in the debate. So much for democracy! How undemocratic! What sort of democracy has this country become? It had a great track record as far as following the British parliamentary system was concerned.
We are turning our backs on our entire democratic history by spending millions in an attempt to buy public support. Why not have a yes umbrella and a no umbrella like they had in England for the referendum on whether or not they should join the Common Market and in Quebec as well?
What would we have called Quebec if there had not been a yes umbrella and a no umbrella in the 1980 referendum, if it had failed to provide a start-up grant to both and had spent money through its 39 ministries to convince the public to vote "yes"? We would have called Quebec undemocratic. We would have called it fascist. We would have compared it to the government of South Africa.
But that was not the case. Quebec did respect the principles and the values of democracy. If the Canadian charter prevents you from limiting expenditures, tear it up. It is no good. A charter that does not allow you to prevent millions from being spent in a limitless referendum is no good and should be amended. In closing, Madam Speaker, I condemn both the limit put on this debate and this horrible waste of money to have a referendum which will solve nothing as the hon. member for Joliette said in 1979.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is interesting to listen to the members of this House. The hon. member mentioned the fact that some members of the Conservative Party were not participating in this debate, but he fails to mention that over the course of the past year, he worked in this House a total of five, perhaps six days. In our party, all members get to speak, all members work seven days-

Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Thank you. I would ask the hon. member for Calgary West-


An hon. member:: Shut up his mouth.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I really do not need the kind of advice that I just heard on my left when I am talking to a member in the House. I believe that I worked in a friendly, fair and honest way all week with the members and I think that they can trust me and let me finish when I am talking to another member.

I would ask the hon. member for Calgary West not to imply things that will automatically bring chaos into this place. Out of respect for the institution of Parliament, I would ask him to please come back to the subject at hand. It would be much appreciated.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have great respect for this House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I now have a question of privilege.


Mr. Gerin:: Question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a question of privilege.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, I did hear the comments you just made to the member and government whip. However, given his responsibilities in this government, the member must do more than avoid creating chaos. He just insulted all members of the Bloc Quebecois to whom he refused, as Whip, the right to participate in any constitutional committee, the right to be represented at all the constitutional conferences, in spite of the official requests that we made to him. The member has consistently refused us the right to speak.
I would ask him, through the Chair, to not only comply with the resolution tabled by his government and avoid using abusive language that, as you said, leads to disorder in this House, but also to correct the facts and to retract his comments, because he is at fault.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I listened carefully to the comments made by the member for Calgary West, as well as by the member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead. I believe that we must not mix different things. The hon. member refers to his presence as well as that of some of his colleagues on committees, but this is a decision that was not made by anybody. It is simply based on our rules, and I believe that we all know that. Consequently, we must not mix things up.
I am convinced that the hon. member for Calgary West will, in a minute, formulate comments that will restore peace in the House for the end of this debate. Indeed, some apology might be in order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, perhaps it was my second language. If I went over the bounds of decorum in the House, I do apologize. I have great respect for this Chamber. I heard the member opposite talking about the absence of members on this side of the House, so I assumed that somehow or other it was appropriate to talk about absence on the other side of the House as well. I know that we are never supposed to talk about absence and therefore I will talk about presence, if you do not mind.
I was present on an airplane a week ago Sunday to be available at the-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, I have a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, in order to help restore a better atmosphere, I want to mention that I never said that the Conservative members were not in the House. I said that they were not participating in the debate. That is the difference and perhaps my colleague has-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are now on a point of debate not a point of order. Now that apologies have been received, I would like to proceed in an appropriate manner. The hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, we have had a caucus committee on the Constitution of Canada and a referen-

dum meeting weekly for months now. Our members from the province of Quebec have been present.
We had committee hearings on this particular piece of legislation and the Conservative members from the province of Quebec were present at the Friday meeting. They came back to Ottawa to be present at the Monday meetings. They came back to Ottawa to be present at the Thesday meetings. They were the only representatives from the province of Quebec, other than the member from the Liberal Party who was present at those meetings where this issue and this piece of legislation was discussed in great detail.
I thought the people of this country would like to know. If other members had been present at the committee hearings and the House allows them to be present, the whole country should understand that they could have been there and heard the testimony related to the issues that were discussed-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Shef-ford raises a point of order. I hope it is a genuine one.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I think the government Whip does not do justice to his job when he says he did not see any member from the Bloc Quebecois in committee. Although we did not have the right to speak-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is not a point of order as the hon. member knows. The hon. members had the opportunity to speak on numerous occasions since we started consideration of this bill at report stage. They were recognized regularly and if there is a point of debate on which they disagree, they certainly had the opportunity to refute. I think it would be wise to let someone else take the floor since other members allowed the hon. members to talk without interruption.
The hon. member for Richelieu just completed his 10 minutes of speech. I am convinced that some hon. members disagreed with what he said but they did not rise constantly with fallacious points of order. I would ask that the same courtesy be extended to other members and that an end be put to the raising of blatantly false points of order which seem to be raised only to interrupt whoever has the floor.
Government Orders
I am going to ask the hon. member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead to withdraw. What he said was unparliamentary.


François Gérin: I will abide by the decision of the Chair because the word was unparliamentary. The Whip was saying that no member of the Bloc Quebecois was ever present in the constitutional committee. Friday, the day following the tabling of the bill, 10 days ago, I was there with him.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, in 13 years I have never heard a member denied the right to speak at any committee. Whether they are a member of the committee or not they have always had the right and that continues today. It is part of the tradition of the place. It is part of the tradition of democracy.
Those members who were present on Monday at committee hearings heard testimony from a number of people, including the royal commission report on electoral reform and a law professor that the opposition had picked. I want to say to the Liberal deputy House leader that every witness asked for by anybody was heard by that committee. No witness was refused.
The testimony was rather clear and consistent that under the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the democratic rights are not even subjected to the notwithstanding clause. Those democratic rights are rights which no government can override at any time in any way, whether it be provincial or federal; that is the right to vote, the right to hold office and the right to those kinds of administrative practices that enable you to activate that right. I suggest to the House that includes the notion that you must be able to associate with others to exercise those rights and influence people's votes. I suggest to the member who is moving this particular package of amendments, this is the kind of logic and the kind of practice that comes out of our history that has been around for a long time in this country, but is codified in the Constitution through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Any attempt by the Government of Canada to restrict the rights of people to associate for the purposes of influencing the outcome of a vote would, in fact, be arguable clearly before a court of law and, based on the testimony we heard in committee, would likely lead to


Government Orders
the striking down of those parts of a piece of legislation that attempted to do that.
I would say on that basis where we are fighting for the future of our country, one we hope will be better for our children and our children's children, that we should have as wide open a system as possible to enable people to participate. We should have a referendum wherein people are allowed to participate in unfettered ways, which respect not only the wording of our Constitution but the intent of our Constitution, to activate and maximize those democratic rights that lie at the heart of the entire system of government.
There can be a case made for recognizing associations and the bill attempts to do that. That was the purpose of some of the amendments, to say: "If you want to associate, if you want to spend beyond a certain amount and under another certain amount, associate, register, let us know who you are, where your money is coming from and how you are spending it". That is part of the bill.
However, to say to people: "There are only two groups you can belong to, that some unknown group with an unknown membership is going to be able to tell you whether or not you can participate the way you want in arguing for the future of your country" is to state the kind of principle I would hope this democratically elected institution would not uphold. If we were to make a mistake and uphold it at this point, I am sure that the courts of our land would strike it down as being an infringement that runs counter to the activation and the actualization of the democratic rights and the other rights in the Charter that deal with freedom of association and freedom of speech.
I simply wanted to make that point. I am sorry I was distracted by the rabbit tracks of how hard people were willing to work on behalf of their country. I would like to assure the nation that the members on this side of the House are always willing to be pleasant and work hard, whether they do it in their riding or in the House. They do it in some kind of balanced picture. I am in a position to know because of my position within the party. I doubt if there has ever been a harder working group of parliamentarians who participate more in the major decisions than exists in our party at this moment in history.
It has been a wide-open process from start to finish with a lot of information and a lot of chances to discuss
and influence and that is the way it should be. Any attempt by the Parliament of Canada to pass a piece of legislation that denies others in this country that opportunity to do likewise is a misguided piece of legislation and I would urge members not to support amendments that take us in that direction.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to refer to a statement that was made by the premier of Alberta talking about referendums. I am going to quote him. The quote comes from a conference he attended at Alternatives '91 that was held in Banff, Alberta. I quote: "I have come to the conclusion that in the particular case of a Constitution as distinguished from a mandate for programs arising out of a specific election, I believe we have to have a referendum as ultimate ratification. What I want to impress upon you though, because I am a pragmatist and a westerner, is that it is very important when I think back to the constitutional negotiations of 1981, if you believe in the equality of provinces"-and I think this is the important thing he says-"the referendum has to be by province, not by region and not by simple national majority. We are a confederation".
This is why I believe the colleagues on my left are right. They are certainly not represented in this forum. They are not being allowed to participate in committees and they were not able to respond today to the minister of intergovernmental affairs.
As the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants said, it is important on a national referendum issue for the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to be able to express their feelings on the Constitution. They have not done so.
We have a bill before us on referendums. This bill is not a binding referendum. It is simply a polling of people. As has been asked before, why spend $100 million on a referendum that is not binding? It is simply an indication of what people feel at a given moment and it is a very, very expensive poll. We should not proceed with an incomplete bill.
I introduced in the House two referendum bills that would have been binding on the federal government in its own jurisdiction. It should not go beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government because we are a federation of provinces and we have no jurisdiction to deal with


provincial jurisdictions like the province of Alberta, for instance.
Therefore I think the bill before the House does not respond to the needs of the nineties. People today want to have input into what is happening in this country. They are fed up with all this constitutional talk, this poker game that the government is playing with the people of Canada.
As time progresses we have to look seriously at what options we should have. We have a country that is beautiful but we do not negotiate with the partners. If the Bloc Quebecois, for instance, is representative of the province of Quebec, it should have a say in this issue. It should be invited to committees. It should be invited to participate. Otherwise our country is going to fall apart.
The oldest democracies in the world like Switzerland have referendums. Those referendums can be initiated by the electorate and are binding on parliament and on the government. But it has to be a field in the jurisdiction of the federal, provincial or municipal government.
Somebody mentioned that Switzerland was slow in progressing in certain areas, for instance the rights of certain people, but it had the referendum and it passed.
The people have to have the last word in any government. The problem in Canada as I see it today is that we have been governed from above. We have not been governed from the people. Members come to this House and are ruled by old traditional rules of the 19th century where even a member cannot address another member across the floor. He has to address the Chair. It is not like in the Senate, in the other House where a member can talk across to another member. They were the lords. They were the upper crust. In this House we are simply the commoners and a commoner cannot talk to another commoner across the way. He has to address the Chair. This is an old rule, a rule of the 19th century. I am surprised socialist members have not asked for changes to this rule. They seem to like it.


An hon. member:: Who cares?


Alex Kindy: Some NDP member asks: "Who cares?"
Government Orders


An hon. member:: What difference does it make?


Alex Kindy: What difference does it make? They have difficulty understanding that if we cannot talk across to a member or we cannot address him like they can in the Congress of the United States or even in the Canadian Senate we are not full members of this House.


An hon. member:: What?


Alex Kindy: We are still in the 19th century where the Speaker represents somebody we have to bow to. If we want changes, we have to have in the first place a referendum that is binding. Second there should be initiative. It means that people can initiate a referendum on something they disagree with. We should be open, as I said, so that everybody in the House can be represented on a committee. I as an Independent and other members who are Independent are not invited to sit on committees. The Bloc Quebecois has nine members who are not allowed to sit on constitutional committees affecting the province of Quebec.
If I am right, the polls indicate that the Bloc Quebecois probably represents 60 per cent of the voters on the French speaking side of the population. Those voters do not have a voice in this House and I believe it is not just.
If we want to build a country, we have to be able to speak in the House and be able to represent. Then, naturally, there would be no conflicts and we could resolve the constitutional issues.
The province of Alberta has just introduced a bill on binding referenda. I am sure that the premier of Alberta, Mr. Getty, will represent faithfully the feelings of Albertans. One of the reasons he is going to represent them is that he is a firm believer western Canadians have been shafted by the system that exists right now.
If an election is held in Canada, before it reaches the border of Manitoba the cards have been played and we know who is going to be the government. This is why we need an equal and effective Senate. This triple-E Senate is necessary to maintain Confederation. Whether it is Atlantic Canada or whether it is western Canada, it has to have input in central government.
I want to conclude by saying that the bill before us, Bill C-81 which is called a referendum bill, is really not a referendum bill. It is a bill simply to poll people. It is not binding. It will simply indicate the feeling of the people


Government Orders
in the country. This could be accomplished much easier by having a poll done by some company.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that there must be a large number of people watching this debate on television and wondering what on God's earth we are talking about here.
I heard one member just moments ago talk about the doubt and the loss of confidence in the parliamentary process. Then we had to sit through an exercise which demonstrated that a great deal of incompetence and a great deal of idiocy occur here and is portrayed on television sets across this land with parliamentarians who purport to be participating in a particular debate but utterly fail to do so, insulting one another on bases that have nothing at all to do with constructive contribution to debate.
It strikes me that we could not have had ludicrousness portrayed more starkly than to enter into debate on whether we call one another by our names or our constituencies. The real issue is whether in fact, as the hon. House leader on the other side indicated, a referendum is a noble exercise in the democratic process.
I would submit there are some instances in which a referendum can be a very appropriate means by which the electorate, the common person, can be involved in a decision-making process. As I have said in this House before, if the electorate is to engage in making decisions then the decisions better be clearly set out in terms of what the decision is all about.
What we have before us is the prospect of some fraction of 25 million people, those old enough to vote, making a decision not on whether we should have alcohol, not on whether we should have conscription or any other similarly simple question, but on the very complex package which the record will indicate not even the day-by-day participants understand very well. If they understand very well the variety of propositions which will be the constitutional package, they certainly have serious doubts about what the implications of all of those propositions might be.
If this referendum is to go forward it is going to be exceedingly important that every person who constitutes the electorate understands clearly what the proposition is, that is they understand what the constitutional proposals will be in a whole number of spheres and who is to be trusted to communicate what those issues are.
The House leader on the other side suggested that the most noble form of the democratic process, the most noble expression of freedom of speech and freedom of association, is to have every little group represented that can get up the money and is able to constitute themselves a committee for the purpose of taking one side or another in this referendum. What he suggested was that no spending limit is the most ideal expression of democratic freedom if we mean by that freedom of association and freedom of speech for the wealthy.
Have no doubt about it. This referendum, whether it is decided in terms of what is right to decide as I see it or wrong to decide as I see it, has a very large probability of being decided in direct proportion to the amount of money available to one side or the other.


An hon. member:: Democracy by the highest bid.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Yes, it will be democracy by the weight of gold that can be delivered to one side of the issue or the other.
If you think we are talking from a vacuum of experience, witness the vast majority of referenda that have occurred in the United States where there are no such spending limits and you will learn the lesson. If that is not a sufficient demonstration of the dangers, many of us had those dangers adequately demonstrated to us in the 1988 election where gold by weight determined the outcome.
We are not talking about a defence of democracy by those spokespersons on the other side, we are talking about a defence of manipulation. We are talking about a defence of the capacity of those who have to lead those who have not down the garden path. Do not mistake the prospect. The electorate of this country will never understand clearly what they are voting for and what they are voting against if there is an election based on the premises being defended by this government.


Is there a solution to it? The hon. House leader on the government side indicated there is a preponderance of legal opinion which indicates that any limitation in the number of committees, the amount of money that might be spent, will be seen as a contravention of the charter. That is not ambiguously so. There still exists a difference of opinion.
I believe the principle is correct that there should be spending limits. I believe there is reason in a limitation of the pro and the con to two committees. I believe that strongly. If that is so, then we have included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a principle that all around me I have heard defended when we have pleaded that equality in the charter should be absolute.
We have heard a quick defence of the notwithstanding clause, a defence for no other reason than to ensure inequality. But we have not heard a mention of the application of the notwithstanding clause to ensure that the democratic process as expressed by a referendum would work. I find that strange.
In the absence of a Supreme Court decision that might be gotten by reference or in the absence of an appropriate decision and therefore the application of the notwithstanding clause to ensure fairness, what we will have is not an expression of democracy, but an expression of the power of some to mislead the many and lead them down a garden path. It is not exclusively with respect to the constitutional proposal but in respect to any notion this government or any other might put to a referendum as an excuse for not making the kind of decisions we are elected to make.
I want to emphasize to the people that are watching this debate, look out. Do not be fooled. When that 30-page document comes out which constitutes the constitutional proposal and you are asked to vote yes or no, you had better watch the fine print because this government is like a used car salesman, the fine print is what could kill the country and we had better watch out for that.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and speak on Bill C-81. I was one of the members of the committee last week when the House was in recess who came back and reviewed the bill in committee. I would like to say a few words about the
Government Orders
element of fairness in this debate that is going on here today. During my 10 minutes, I will probably comment on some of the debate that took place in committee.
I am concerned about the rights of individual Canadians. How does the individual Canadian participate in this referendum, if it ever comes to a referendum? Many will write letters to the editors and many will knock on doors. There are many ways that people can participate indirectly and not spend any money that is recorded.
However, how about an individual who feels strongly about Canada and decides that he or she would like to put a small ad in the local newspaper expressing how he or she feels about Canada. They place one, two or three ads. In many small weeklies across Canada the bill might come to $200.
What is wrong with that? What is wrong with thousands of individual Canadians wanting to participate that way? Yet we have heard through the process that somehow this is wrong, it should not be allowed to take place and that there should be rules that if you want to place an ad maybe you have to go under an umbrella committee.
It is important that individual Canadians would have an opportunity to express his or her view openly and not have to worry about regulations.
The legislation states that if over $5,000 is spent, there should be some transparency. Therefore, I am sure in communities across this nation we will see service clubs deciding they would like to do something as a group of 40 women or 70 men. Any organization can get involved in its own way during this referendum campaign which, if it is required, would be less than five weeks in duration. But if it decides it is going to spend over $5,000, it would then have to register as a referendum committee.
Once an organization registers, a tremendous amount of transparency must take place. It must then indicate if it has had people donating over $250 and then register their names. It must indicate its source of funds. It must then list down its expenses. It must appoint someone to be its financial officer or auditor and it has to have its books audited. This is all controlled by the Chief Electoral Officer. The committee must be registered. There are numerous regulations that have been put in place. There


Government Orders
is a measure of transparency for those who want to spend over $5,000.
Some people have suggested that maybe the limit should be $20,000. I think that is too high. Some have suggested the limits be as low as $1,000. That was one of the amendments put forward in the committee but we thought that was too low because although an ad in The Cambridge Reporter is relatively cheap, for a North York service club to buy a one-page ad in The Toronto Star would cost well over $1,000 and then it would have to report. We do not want to take away from individual Canadians the opportunity to participate in their own way. If they get over $5,000, again there are very tight restrictions as far as the reporting goes. We do not think that is taking away a person's freedom to express themselves, their freedom of speech, their freedom of association. All it does is provide a measure of transparency.
In the committee some people suggested that if you are going to spend over $5,000 then you need to have 100 members in your committee. Again, you look at some service clubs that have 40 members in rural Canada operating under a charter for some 30 to 40 years suddenly having to go out and sign up extra people just so that they can be a referendum committee. The government members rightly voted that amendment down. It is common to have service clubs with under 100 members. We thought that would put undue restrictions on them.
Another concern was that some members opposite thought that we should make public funding available. I think constituents have to understand that during an election when one contributes to my campaign or if they contribute $100 to any federal member's campaign, they get a $75 tax credit on their income tax return. In the plebiscite or referendum campaign, if an individual contributes $100, there is no tax credit. There is no public funding involved that way. Because there are no taxpayers' dollars going back, then indeed there should be greater freedom for the individual as to how they want to participate in the referendum.
One of the things that we really want to try to do with this is a precautionary measure. Right now the provinces, the federal government, the territories and other groups are sitting down and are getting close to, hopefully, a successful conclusion. If they reach that successful conclusion, there will be no need for this. Even if seven provinces with greater than 50 per cent of the population or even if there was total unanimity and everybody signed, one of the amendments from the opposition party said that we will go on with this referendum in any event. It is a non-binding referendum. It is non-binding because of the way the Canadian Constitution is written. Even if everybody signed and the Parliament of Canada, the Senate of Canada and all the provincial parliaments went through their procedure, the Liberal member thought we should have this non-binding referendum in any event.
I pointed out to him that the cost of doing a referendum is serious business. The cost is well over $100 million. The government member said: "If we have an agreement and if everyone has agreed with it, why would we want to go on afterward and have a $100 million poll for no purpose at all?" That is an amendment that was defeated.
I would like to sum up by saying that there are many elements in this plebiscite legislation. I think it is important that we not take away the right of individual Canadians in their small way for small expenses to express their view on how they feel about Canada. There are people who would put a $1,000 ad into a newspaper and state their view. That would have a marginal impact. But if some like a Darryl Sittler or Jean Beliveau puts an ad in the paper that also costs $1,000, that probably carries a lot more influence.
We struggle with the people who are talking about spending controls. How do you try and put a value on two different ads, one from an ordinary Canadian and one from a Canadian who has a high profile?
I see that my time is expiring and I want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this bill.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and humility that I come before this House to speak on this bill because Bill C-81 is a very important bill.
I am speaking on behalf of my party, but particularly as a member from Quebec who sat on the Beaudoin-Dob-bie committee for over seven months listening to people's views on referendums and listening to Canadians from coast to coast to coast telling us what they felt was


needed to get out of this constitutional morass we find ourselves in.
In general, I think referenda are a good idea. I am in favour of referenda. I believe in the city of Montreal, for example, that people should be particularly consulted before they are forced to accept these huge tax increases or forced to accept these mega projects, whether it be an Olympic stadium or whether it be any other huge expense. People should be questioned when the situation is one of a yes or no and where there is a process which is fair.
This is not a fair process. Bill C-81 is not a fair law. This law is bad. A bad law is a bad law is a bad law. I do not know when this debate became some sort of morality play where, if you are against this bad law, you are against Canada. How ridiculous can it be?
I heard that patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels but I never knew that it would be the refuge of Liberals and Conservatives, but it seems to be. We have transformed what I thought would be a legitimate debate on a legitimate law. It is a legitimate law. It is a law which is being passed by a legitimately formed House. All of a sudden we have drawn this line in the sand that if you are against this particular referendum, you are an enemy of Canada, you are an enemy of the Prime Minister and an enemy of the people. No, my gosh, that is not the case at all.
We believe this is bad law. We believe that people should be consulted in a fair and honest manner. When it is said that this is not fair, if I was a lawyer before any judge and I consider members here my judges collectively, you would have to make the case why it is unfair.
We had a number of committees saying there must be a double majority. There must be a protection for certain groups in Canada in order to make sure that this referendum is fair. I can talk about Beaudoin-Edwards, which is where that recommendation was. I can talk about Beaudoin-Dobbie and their recommendation or I can go back 10 years and talk about Pepin-Robarts, with the same recommendations.
I intend to vote against the referendum bill. I intend to vote against it for several reasons. First is its unfairness. Second, we are talking about $108 million-not thou-
Govemment Orders
sands-$108 million super survey that may or may not take place, that may take place in every province but Quebec. That is interesting. That means Quebecers are second class citizens and that they may not get to vote. Or it may take place in every province but British Columbia because perhaps they are going to have their own referendum. It may not take place in Alberta because Alberta will be having its own referendum.
It is not a referendum in a traditional sense.
It is not saying: "Look, we believe in you, the people. We are going to trust you. We are going to follow you. You just simply tell us what your opinion is, and we will put it into law". No. It is a non-binding referendum. In other words, it is a referendum which is saying: "Tell us what you think. What we are going to do is make our own law anyhow. We will not guarantee to you that you going into that voting booth is what we are going to do".
What kind of signal does this send to the public, that we really care about their opinion? If this government cared about the opinion of the public, of Canadians, it would have put the GST to a referendum. I would love to have seen it do that. It would have put the free trade to a referendum. I would love to have seen it do that, but it did not.
Let us not be foolish. This government does not trust the people. It does not care about the people. This government just wants to manipulate for $108 million some sort of a rinky-dink kind of referendum that it may not or may have in certain parts of the country.
This is a recipe for disaster. This is not for friends of Canada or enemies of Canada. This is a recipe for disaster. It is surprising for a government which has, I think, made some good progress on the constitutional front with the different committees that have held hearings before. It has done fairly well.
The first ministers right now are just about getting together on some more delicate points. I am saying: Let them do their job. That is what they were elected to do.
I do not see how a referendum could possibly do anything but provoke Clyde Wells, the premier of Newfoundland. Are we going to tell Clyde Wells: "We do not trust you. We are just going to hold this over your head so if your people vote maybe 51 per cent against, you are

Government Orders
going to follow their view". He is not going to do that. That man is not going to be moved by a non-binding poll.
This shows how bankrupt this government is for ideas. I think I have wakened a few of my colleagues on the other side. I am glad for that. The point is if you are dealing with a federal system you do not go trying to hammerlock the premiers into agreeing with you.
You do not do that. You do not threaten them when there is no reason to threaten them, when progress is being made. You surely do not come out with some half-I was going to use an unparliamentary word-donkey, there you go-half donkey kind of referendum which is only going to divide people, which is only going to be ridiculous because it will be so confusing. Finally, it will cost $108 million for very little.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that we have to trust the people. We have to believe in the people. We have to do what we were elected to do. We should be leaders. We should be leaders who say: This is what we can do for the constitutional problems that we have caused.
If we can get together here in this House and put all this stupid partisanship aside and say: "Look, this is what we need", we could do it.
There has been progress with all the three leaders here and other leaders as well who have said that we believe that Canada is much more important than these political games, this referendum here and referendum there because finally, it is not going to be a referendum which is going to solve our problems.
It is not going to be millions upon millions of dollars spent on polling which we have never seen the results of from this government. That is not going to solve our problems, and it is not going to be us constantly making on the government side these TV commercials showing what a great place Canada is.
Of course it is a great place, but we are not responding to the real problems which are constitutional in nature.
I just simply say, let us quit zig-zagging around here. Let us go to the heart of the problem and make sure that the elected officials do their jobs and that we do not waste any more taxpayers' money. I was not elected here to waste money, not to spend $100 million.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognising me and for giving me the opportunity to use the next couple of minutes to make a few comments on this issue.
I will not review in detail the amendments proposed by our colleague from Jonquiere. He undoubtedly put a lot of thought into them and structured them in such a way that they are interesting and can be easily analysed. But our colleague from Edmonton South West raised the issue of the proposed amendments and I believe-as a matter of fact, I am certain of it-he studied-and analysed the consequences of those amendments. During the remarks he made yesterday, he was able to put the whole debate in context.
We are dealing with the very fibre of the Canadian nation. This debate is not solely a parliamentary debate, it is also a debate which makes the members of this House spokespersons. The members opposite should not turn this into a charade. For some time now, these people, who sense that their ship is about to sink, have been manipulating the House and manipulating the members in order to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the hon. member would give the other hon. member an opportunity to speak. After all, he is a colleague from your province and we would all like to hear from him.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I really appreciate that you could put this debate well above partisan politics and, particularly, above personal issues. But, there are in this House members, particularly from the Bloc Quebecois, who make sophisms. Finally, those sophisms become dangerous. On the surface, they appear interesting, but when you dissect them, you fully realize that they are dangerous for society as a whole, not only in Quebec, but across Canada.
They talk about freedom, about gagging, about a lack of democracy, and they revel in a number of notions and concepts. They want yes-and-no committees in order to guarantee freedom. Freedom, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily in controlling. Canadians are able to make their own opinion, their own judgment, their own evaluation, and it is not relying very much on the national conscience, on the conscience of Canadian citizens in each province to think that, if there were umbrella commit-


tees, if the data were too rigid, we could, as much as for spending limits, make sure that issues would appear.
This is a false debate. A fundamental question must be answered here. Do we belong to a country? Do we want to break that country? Canadian citizens, both from Quebec and from the other provinces, are adult enough, smart enough and confident enough of their views and of their sense of belonging to be able to answer a question if a referendum was necessary.
Too much interference seems to be the real danger here. If we start setting all kind of standards, we start interfering with people's basic human values. This debate demands a renewed awareness of where we come from, of our family values and our roots. The umbrella principle as applied to the yes and no sides is so restrictive that it would prevent individuals from making use of their individual freedoms and the freedoms of the groups to which they belong.
In Quebec, in the present as in the past, a great deal has been said about the evils of money. Parti Quebecois members repeat ad nauseam that money leads to the destruction of our moral fibre. I maintain that money is not necessarily associated with negative or evil behaviour. A person can be wealthy and at the same time be capable of doing good, while people with less money do not necessarily have a monopoly on virtue. I think this insistence upon restrictions, and at this point I want to get back to my remarks on sophisms, this sometimes cavalier tendency to associate money and evil is unacceptable. In fact, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was a case in point yesterday.


An hon. member:: As usual.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: In the course of his speech, he mentioned that the money could be used in such a way that members of the Bloc Quebecois or separatists, as they are commonly referred to, would have trouble making themselves heard.
When a cause is just, people can always make themselves heard, and I repeat that anyone who thinks that Canadian citizens and Quebec francophones will let
Government Orders
themselves be bought underestimates the intelligence, feelings and moral fibre of the people of this country. It is insulting, and that is why I am grateful for this opportunity to rise in the House and reject this connection out of hand. My family has been in Quebec, in Canada, in our country, for 12 generations. This is an insult to the integrity of a French Canadian, an insult to the integrity of a Canadian or a Quebecer, period.
I sat with our colleague from Papineau-Saint-Michel on the Belanger-Campeau commission, and we all know what happened there. While the commission was sitting, there were people who were working very hard to advance a cause. However, aside from these efforts to identify certain objectives and implement them, there were also discussions taking place behind closed doors. There was a lot going on in secret. One of the vice-presidents, who ostensibly did not take sides, had already taken a position. Another vice-president is now using all kinds of money to tiy and get a movement going. Apparently what is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander.
Before I finish, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak in this House in my mother tongue, to do so with pride and to tell those on the other side of the House who are trying to sabotage our efforts that since I came to Ottawa, I have had both the privilege and the opportunity to speak French and to be just as good a Canadian as anyone else in this country.
You see how bad tempered and vituperative they get when we start talking about human values, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you right away that when he rose earlier, the government Whip made false statements.
First, he said that no member from the Bloc sat on the referendum bill committee. I would like to tell you-because I want to re-establish the facts-that several members of the Bloc were present. Our members went even though we are denied the right to vote. They tell


Government Orders
members to come; they tell them that they are welcomed and have the right to come. Indeed, the members of the Bloc were told to sit there, not to vote, and remain quiet as much as possible.
I want to re-establish the facts and name my colleagues who attended. There were, among others, the member for Hull-Aylmer, the member for Shefford, the member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, and myself. I believe it is really important to state the facts regarding this issue.


An hon. member:: Put that in your pipe and smoke it whip.


Pierrette Venne: This afternoon we discuss the wishful thinking of the member for Jonquiere. We, the members of the Bloc, asked yesterday for an extension of the sitting; the New Democrats and the Conservatives rejected that request, including the member for Jonquiere.


An hon. member:: He does not want us to talk.


An hon. member:: This is unbelievable.


An hon. member:: He does not want us to discuss his business.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, it is rather surprising that the member for Jonquiere would vote against having an extended sitting on his own motions, that is against a discussion on the substance of his amendments. This is truly unbelievable. He told us that he would like to see umbrella committees-


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not think the record should go uncorrected in that regard. There was not a vote on extension of the hours. There was a test of the House and a formal vote was not conducted. So it is incorrect to say the member for Jonquiere voted against it.


Pierrette Venne: In any case, the member for Jonquiere rose to oppose-


An hon. member:: It is not often that he stands up.


Pierrette Venne: -extending the sitting hours. I want to make that clear.
For the moment, I will keep talking about those umbrella committees for the yes and the no sides that the member claims to want to integrate to the bill by way of his motions. He now asks that these umbrella committees for the yes and the no sides now be included in the act in order to help limit expenses.
As the bill stands now, there could be any number of committees in any given riding, throughout Canada. The government says that it will put a ceiling on expenses, that a maximum of 56 cents per voter will be allowed; yet, the number of referendum committees is unlimited.
Based on my understanding of this bill, a resident of British Columbia could very well register in my constituency-why not?-since there is nothing against it in the present legislation. I do not see any logic in this. If some members find this logical, so much the better, but I personally do not see anything logical in there.


Jean-C. Lapierre: They can spend $8.5 million.


Pierrette Venne: As my colleague for Shefford says, the committees can spend $8.5 million; that is certainly not what I call a limit on expenses. It may be the limit for the expenses incurred by the Conservatives, but for people like us who are used to democracy, this is not what we call limiting expenses.
What I find praiseworthy are the efforts made by the member for Jonquiere when he decides to propose amendments to the referendum bill, in particular his Motion No. 35, at paragraphs (d) and (e). I would like to quote these provisions because I think it is important to emphasize this point. I know you have read these motions yesterday, but I must confess it was a bit fast for me to understand. This is why I am going to read them a bit more slowly, so we can better grasp the meaning of Motion No. 35, more particularly paragraph (d).
It is to prescribe, for each province, the maximum amount of referendum expenses that may be incurred by either referendum committee, that is the one supporting the referendum question or the one opposing it.
Paragraph (e) prescribes the maximum amount of referendum expenses that may be incurred by either referendum committee throughout Canada or in two or


more provinces specified in the proclamation issued under subsection 3(1).
As I said earlier, this is wishful thinking on the part of the hon. member for Jonquiere, he knows that his government will never agree to put a ceiling on spending.
It is obvious when one sees the orgy of spending which is being done for Canada's 125th birthday on the back of Quebecers and with our money. Every night on television we have to endure commercials on the 125th birthday. We are certainly justified in wondering what the government will spend next on the referendum.
I do not see in the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Jonquiere-as I said, I read them quite quickly, since the leader of the government introduced time allocation-anything which would force the government to register with one of the committees. This is not in and it seems rather important to me. If he had wanted amendments that mattered he would have provided for the government to be included in one of the referendum committees.
In other words, the Conservative government can waste public money any way it wishes. The bill does not set any limit on spending by the federal government so I would have expected the hon. member for Jonquiere to include limits in his amendments and motions.
As we can see Quebec conservative members will not be supporting the motions of their colleague from Jonquiere. Apparently he did not manage to convince them to join him, which is regrettable.
I understand his disappointment, I went through that. Personally, I followed my conscience and left that party which can only accept puppets, members who do not think and who obey without murmurs. I left the party-


An hon. member:: You must be glad.


Pierrette Venne: Yes, I am glad now. I would have thought the hon. member for Jonquiere would have followed.


An hon. member:: He does not have the guts.


Pierrette Venne: Indeed, I do not think he has the guts but this is a matter of opinion.
Government Orders
Finally, I would like to mention another point where the proposals are lacking. In his motion No. 35 the hon. member for Jonquiere proposes that the Governor in Council may make regulations governing referendum committees. I would have preferred that they be governed by the statute.
I have one minute left? Then, Mr. Speaker, during that minute I would like to talk about the French language that the hon. member for Outremont was mentioning a short while ago. The French language does fare too well in these motions. On page XXVI of the Order Paper for June 2 alone I could pick four mistakes. In the third paragraph at the third line you can read "-d'une provinces-", with an s at the end. At the last line of that same paragraph we read: "une amende maximale de cinquanate mille dollars". It should probably read "cinquante mille", but it is one more mistake. There is another one in the penultimate paragraph where it says: "Le comite referendaire qui contravient-", instead of "contrevient". And in the last paragraph, "sommaire" is spelt with only one m.
This is to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is obvious this was done in a hurry. Nobody had time to revise. I will admit these are minor mistakes but we would expect better from a government which has considerable means at its disposal.
I only wanted to point that out to the hon. member for Outremont who was taking pride in the fact that he could speak French in this House. I must tell him that I am very disappointed, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the motions presented by the member for Jonquiere. I think it is interesting to support this motion since the member for Jonquiere showed a certain degree of courage yesterday, during four to five hours, when he rose to speak against the opportunity that was given members to debate his own motions.
The member for Jonquiere is suggesting the creation of umbrella committees. He also suggests that there should be a referendum committee in each riding and in each province and that there should be a certain spending limit. I think that what he means is that each province should be allowed to spend, according to its


Government Orders
population, amounts that would be fair for a referendum.
I understand why the member for Jonquiere is presenting these motions. It is because he was sitting on several committees to prepare for what was called a renewed Canada. I understand the member for Jonquiere because at least we realized that those committees were organized and planned by the government, by the Liberal Party, and that they were phoney. These committees were phoney because everything had been planned beforehand. They toured Canada and listened to Canadians from coast to coast, fully aware that their reports were already written. We realized that while the committees were touring Canada, members of the Privy Council and other government officials were in Ottawa preparing the committee's report. It was indeed a phoney committee and the member for Jonquiere, when he realized what was going on-


An hon. member:: Do you really think he realized what was going on?


Nic Leblanc: Maybe he did not but then again maybe he did. Let us say he did and that what he wanted to do with these motions, with these amendments to the referendum bill, was to put a stop to these abuses and make the bill a little bit fairer and more equitable.
Mr. Speaker, for the past months I have been watching TV at home and usually when we celebrate our country, or the Queen, or Dollard, it only lasts a few days. But now, for the 125th anniversary of the country, in Quebec we get advertising every 15 minutes on every TV channel.
It is a case of subliminal advertising. They want Canadians, and Quebecers in particular, to believe that they are living in a great country. We are shown magnificent mountains, beautiful lakes and rivers. That is all very nice but they have magnificent mountains in Peru as well. They also have beautiful lakes and rivers in that country. More great mountains can be found in Africa, in the desert, and there are many beautiful lakes around the world. That proves nothing. It does not show that five years down the road this country will be completely bankrupt because there are too many political powers in this country.
I was listening to the hon. member for Outremont earlier. If I were him, I would not have dared rise in this House, especially after having sat on the Belanger-Cam-peau and experienced first-hand this exercise in democracy the people of Quebec have carried out. That was a good idea to set up the Belanger-Campeau commission, and it showed respect for the public to appoint representatives from management, labour, the cultural spheres, the health sector, the three main political parties-the Liberals, the PQ and even the Equality Party, which is not really a party, with only two members at the present time, but it had three then.
They listened carefully. It was not a mock committee like the one we are trying to establish with this referendum bill here. This is an absolutely appalling bill. Personally, I cannot understand this. It is beyond me. In a country that claims to be democratic, to actually see such a bill being introduced supposedly to seek the opinion of the population while trying to manipulate it, that is appalling. You cannot manipulate people like that. The people of Quebec will not tolerate being manipulated. Quebecers are no longer the water carriers they are thought to be in the rest of Canada. Quebecers are educated. They set up and operate businesses. They are self-reliant and capable of evaluating the performance of this government here in Ottawa.
Right now the House of Commons is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. You think that is what will happen. You think that Quebecers do not see what is going on. Quebecers are currently watching and soon they will take concrete action that will turn against you people, who try to fool them. Quebecers have had enough.


An hon. member:: They will beat you at the election.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, you know that yesterday the Conservative parliamentary secretary said that the hon. member for Jonquiere was a patriot. I recall that somebody else was called a patriot. His name was Louis Riel. It is that same party, the Conservative Party, who hanged him because he wanted to defend French Canadians in Manitoba. Quebecers remembered those same Conservatives and Prime Minister Macdonald for a 100 years. They elected Liberals in Ottawa. Once in a while they threw them out.


That is what Quebecers are going to do to the Conservatives for the next 100 years. Do not think that we are going to be fooled like that for long.


Jean-C. Lapierre: This time they will vote for the Bloc!


Nic Leblanc: I hope you understand full well what I mean. It is a disgrace to see things done that way, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in order to keep Quebecers from expressing themselves.
I have another important point to make, Mr. Speaker. The Conservative government and the Liberals who support it-and I am not the only one to say that-just want to short-circuit the Quebec referendum. Quebecers took a serious step. They want to express themselves so the Conservative government tries to short-circuit the Quebec referendum. It wants to keep Quebecers from freely expressing themselves on their future, and that too is a disgrace. I hope that Quebecers understand-I am convinced they do-that members from the Bloc Quebecois are defending them today and are not going to be bullied.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier- Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is deficient in several respects. It does not provide for umbrella committees; it does not limit the number of committees, so an unlimited number of committees is possible. In fact this means that there is no spending limit. So much so that the hon. member for Outremont asked earlier why have spending limits, while his government referring to its bill tries to have us believe that there is a limit of 56 cents per voter.
The government was not even able to get the member for Outremont to believe this, although he usually swallows whatever he is told. He told us, "There are no spending limits; we don't need any." He is right about that, I understand perfectly; it is for show-there is no spending limit.
Also the government is not subject to these tight limits. It does not have to disclose its spending or reveal its sources. In fact it clearly wants to buy votes. We will see. We have already seen. It has started an extraordinary propaganda campaign; we saw private broadcasters who will invest up to $10 million in a campaign that will start again in September. They said so clearly in a letter to all members of this House in September, a few weeks before the Quebec referendum deadline.
Government Orders
It is not by chance we are told. They will put out propaganda and we are told why. In that, they are following the example of the Liberal government in 1980. The federal government in 1980 did not comply with the Quebec law. It was not subject to the Quebec law so it inundated Quebec with propaganda leaflets. In a meeting with prisoners in Bordeaux jail I saw people who had received a pamphlet in prison touting the merits of Canada. It was headed, "I'm here to stay". They appreciated that a lot I can tell you.
I think that we are overlooking important democratic gains that Canada has made. I am thinking of the Election Act. It sets spending limits and other conditions. I do not understand why this government does not follow Quebec's example with umbrella committees and spending limits; it has worked well. Everyone has boasted about how democratic the Quebec referendum was. The member for Jonquiere uses it as a model but not the government.
We are told that the charter would not allow limiting spending or the number of committees, but the charter is there to support freedom of expression. We may ask who are free to express themselves. Those who have money? That is the answer the government gives us. Basically they are confusing the purposes of the charter with some of its technical aspects. The purpose of a charter of rights and freedoms is to ensure a greater measure of justice, freedom, equality, fairness; everyone should have the same right to speak. This bill totally contradicts that principle.
Nevertheless this charter has a mechanism to allow spending limits or to limit the number of committees without violating it. The notwithstanding clause could be used. The clause is part of the charter. Now, either the clause is faulty and we get rid of it, or the charter is acceptable in its present form, and we use the mechanisms provided in the charter.
I am in favour of these amendments, and I imagine the hon. member for Jonquiere will vote against the bill, unless it is amended. I imagine the hon. member for Chambly will do the same since they both said they could not accept the lack of spending limits and the anti-democratic tenor of this bill was unacceptable. I imagine that all the members-the hon. members for Richmond, Louis-Hebert, Rimouski-Temiscaouata, Bellechasse and Roberval, for instance-who took part in the 1980


Government Orders
referendum on the yes side and who all have organizers who belonged to the Parti Quebecois and who took advantage of the PQ organization, as well as part of the Liberal Party which in some ridings supported the Conservatives, I imagine all these members will remember their roots.
I would also like to touch on some of the points the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel raised during this debate. He felt that Quebecers and the Bloc Quebecois were scared. We are not afraid of a referendum. However, we have certain principles. We maintain Quebecers should determine the future of Quebec. That is called the right to self-determination, recognized long ago by the NDP and recognized with a lot of fanfare last August by the Conservative Party at its convention in Toronto. So far it has not been recognized by the Liberal Party, but that is also a matter of principle. They never said so. I had discussions with Liberals and I asked them whether they agreed with the right to self-determination. They always answered: "We took part in the 1980 referendum." But when I suggested they say it, their jaws seemed to lock. They cannot say "Yes, we agree".
I think Quebecers should determine Quebec's future, just as Canadians in the other provinces should determine theirs. It is not up to the Americans. We will do it in Quebec, under Quebec legislation.
I repeat, we are not afraid of this referendum in Quebec. Who is? The federalist parties are afraid of a referendum on sovereignty as proposed by the Liberal government. We are not afraid to join the very broad consensus reached by Belanger-Campeau. Three members remained outside this consensus: the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, together with Robert Lib-man and the ineffable member for Outremont, who did not even have the guts to say no anymore than he did to say yes.
The Bloc will support these amendments in order to show its opposition to the anti-democratic tenor of this bill. However, the fact remains that the bill lacks any legitimacy. If it were democratic, it would still lack legitimacy in Quebec, because it was rammed through at the last minute for the sole purpose of short-circuiting the serious process that has been taking place in Quebec
for the past two years, starting with Belanger-Campeau and followed by Bill 150, a carefully controlled process light-years removed from the Spicer circus, Beaudoin-Edwards, Castonguay-Dobbie and Beaudoin-Dobbie or BoDo.
Our process was not one of those expensive circuses like the constitutional caravans we have had in Canada for the past thirty years.
Mr. Speaker, we will support these amendments but we will vote against the bill.


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention earlier to participate in this debate. What sparked it for me today, I guess, was that in some ways this is a special and historic day in the development of constitutional democracy. Not only are we debating this piece of legislation, as is proper, but one of the authors of the notion of supporting referenda legislation on this side of the House published a rather interesting book today. I thought at some point someone should mention that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore deserves a great deal of credit for his support over the years in attempting to move many of us in the direction of this form of legislation or this genre of legislation.
I read part of it this afternoon and it reminded me that he and I have debated this subject internally and privately for many years. I am sorry that members opposite who preceded me-while we are on the subject of amendments with regard to spending limits and so forth which I will come back to-think that all there is to this process or all there is to this legislation is an attempt by some to muzzle the province of Quebec. I hope they will conclude at the end of it that that is not the intention of this legislation.
Therefore, let me put it to you this way. I do not examine this legislation in the context of whether there will or will not be a referendum in the province of Quebec by Quebecers for their purposes in their absolutely legitimate right to consult themselves about what they want their future to be. Should they do that, I hope they will conclude that they want to stay in Canada.


Therefore I ask myself the question I think members of the Bloc Quebecois should be asking themselves. Should that happen, and the province of Quebec feels comfortable about being in Canada, what should the legislation be that the members of the province of Quebec will be dealing with here that would govern future constitutional amendment procedures? Because that is what I think this is about.
It took us 125 or 127 years to get to what is an historic piece of legislation. It is the kind of legislation that, as the hon. members will know, five or ten years ago I would have said I would not support for all of the old and traditional reasons of "I am a Tory". My colleague from Montreal, the dean of the House, knows full well what that means. I am not just a Conservative, I am a Tory. I have old fashioned views about representative democracy, the rights of this legislature and the importance of this place. Both the Meech process and my hon. friend for Etobicoke-Lakeshore have convinced me that if we are going to make people believe that the Constitution of this country is their own, they are going to have some part in the process of adopting it.
They have to feel it is theirs and they have to feel ownership in it. The other way to say it is that those things you can change by changing the government may not need to be put to referendum. For those things that you cannot change by simply electing a different group of people to government perhaps you need a different vehicle to decide. What lay behind those who have been promoting this kind of legislation for many years, and I salute my friend, is not that this is about the admitted difficulties we face in trying to find a resolution to an existing constitutional dilemma. It may or may not be a useful tool. One does not know entirely. In my own heart I do not know the answer.
The member for Outremont will know that there are dilemmas for many of us as to whether the use of such a tool is a useful thing in the circumstances. One has to answer that question separately from whether Parliament should have this tool. After all these years in every town hall, every public meeting that I have attended on constitution making, the people have to have some sense that it now belongs to them. In the end, all of the consultation we do will be blessed if we have faith in their capacity to say that it is theirs. I think that is what this was meant to be.
Government Orders
Within that context, if I may put it in the amendments from another old friend, the hon. member for Jon-quiere-some members opposite are attempting to play the divide and conquer game-I accept that. It is sometimes done by members opposite. We never did it when we were in opposition.
I take entirely legitimately the intentions and the bon esprit of the hon. member for Jonquiere that these are motions that he thinks would be useful in amending the bill. I struggle in a different context with the notion of whether one could limit expenses in election acts and what one does with that.
I am on record elsewhere as saying that if we could avoid limiting what people spend to express themselves in election procedures, I would be for it. The only reason we have ever been forced to it in that context is the notion that we have invented a concept of limiting the rights of candidates to spend and that therefore perhaps we have to limit the rights of others to spend in order to defend the candidate's right to get through a campaign properly. Even now properly the courts struck out our attempt to say people could not spend anything. We are now dealing with election expense amendments that are trying to find some way through the need to control what can be spent in elections and at the same time to defend the essential liberty of Canadians to do what they want and to express themselves.
My dilemma with these amendments is that I think they probably come too far in the context of giving people the right to own their Constitution. These particular amendments come too far toward the notion of saying when we give you liberty, which we do not really give you if one thinks about it, we just really let you find a way to express your own liberty through referenda.
Then we should somehow say how you choose to express yourself and how you choose to group yourself needs as much control or the form of control we found necessary to put into the Elections Act. I have difficulty with that because essentially I am a libertarian. I therefore have that difficulty. That is my problem with these amendments.
I rose only to say in the context of the book that was published today that we may be down into the morass of the details, and we do that at report stage, that is sometimes necessary, but that is not really what this is about. In the end I hope it is not about the premiers. I hope it is about, I think it is about, giving back to Canadians a sense of ownership of the rules of their beloved country.


Government Orders


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, that was a good exchange, true parliamentarians talking to each other. It is not political. It is basically important for me, absolutely important. Reflecting on his speech, I would like to ask him to comment on a question that is really troubling me as a federalist.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead as the next speaker. Does the hon. member for Saint-Denis have unanimous consent to ask the hon. member for Don Valley West a short question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


George Albert Proud: I graciously thank the House. [Translation]
The hon. member knows I am a federalist. What federalism means essentially is that Canada is not a unitary country, it is a federation made up of majorities and minorities.
I do not mean to object to the right of a government to hold a referendum. What concerns me is this: In its wisdom, does the government think it would be right to hold a referendum to ask the Canadian people to decide? I acknowledge that. But what would happen if by chance an overwhelming majority, having English as its official language, decides one thing, while as we have seen before another majority, from my province of course, decides just the opposite? How do we solve this dilemma in a federal system?


John William Bosley: My hon. colleague knows full well that a referendum will not solve this issue. I can see he stands by his principles when he asks this question.

I do not think a referendum is going to solve the problem he raises. It becomes necessary if the result is divisive. If the result of a consultation is divisive it will be necessary for those of us in this place who must ultimately make the final vote to reflect upon what that referendum will have told us if it achieves the result he describes.
In principle if you ask me the question: Because the anglophone part of this country accepts constitutional
amendments that are not accepted among the majority of francophone parts of this country in the example my hon. friend poses, is it up to me to be reflective of the duality of this nation and say we must therefore not pass those amendment? Yes it is, in my view.
That does not make it wrong to try to use the methodology of a referendum, national, local, or regional it seems to me anymore, to ask folks do you accept this notion? Eventually I say to them it seems to me it is logical that that step will become even more complete. It will no longer be in the terms of the technical language, a plebiscite. It will become eventually I suspect, in Constitution-making, true referendums. We will eventually be doing what the Danes did yesterday about the union in Europe. We will eventually be saying that in some form or other, the people of this country will have to make the final decisions about adoption of rules and that if they are rejected on a regional basis, they will have to be rejected on a national basis. It seems to me that is where this logically goes which is the only way that I can see in law to overcome the member's concern.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for this opportunity to say a word on this very important issue for the future of Quebec, the future of English Canada and the dismantling of the country.
Mr. Speaker, you are the voice of wisdom and I would like to remind you that we are now in the process of examining the second of 64 amendments to this bill, only the second one. Since there is approximately 20 minutes left in this debate, it is obvious that we will not have time to discuss the other 62 amendments.
Mr. Speaker, because the government decided to resort to a gag order we will have properly examined two amendments out of 64. Imagine that one of those-and I am going to make all Canadians laugh-


An hon. member:: Or cry.


François Gérin: I would like to make them laugh rather than cry.


In those two days, we spent more than half of our time discussing whether the title of the act should be a referendum or referendums. Just imagine. Do you have any idea how much one day of proceedings in the House of Commons costs? There are about 135 days in a year. Not many of those days are useful ones but there are 135 in all. The budget of the House of Commons is somewhere between $700 and $800 million. You can imagine the costs when the House wastes its time. The government did that purposely in order to avoid a debate on important amendments among the 62 that are left.
Later on the Conservative and Liberal members, among others, will vote one after the other on these amendments without having had one minute of debate in the House on those, simply because the government decided to cut off the debate.
You know that the two days of debate will end this evening, and with tomorrow, because the government will again resort will to the same procedure at third reading. Those three days represent one of the shortest periods of time to examine a piece of legislation.
If Canada decides to pass a law to protect small butterflies during the winter it may take ten days in the House. However it is not worth discussing for more than three days a Canadian referendum that everybody opposes, including Mr. Bourassa who said today that he hopes the federal government will not hold a Canadian referendum in Quebec. Moreover, more than half of those three days will have been spent discussing trivialities.
Mr. Speaker, you are a just and sensible man and I wonder if you have the authority to extend the sitting hours this evening, during the whole night if necessary, so that we can keep discussing motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8? Come on; this does not make sense. We will not have time to discuss those motions.
As one who worked really hard regarding public financing, among other issues, I would have liked to tell you about those things. I found some interesting things. The Quebec Conservative caucus got involved. The Prime Minister had promised that it would be done before election time. He reneged on that just like he reneged on everything else, and today he uses closure to keep us from talking about this issue.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, you listened to me carefully and I wonder if you think that it is fair that the studies in the hands of the government House leader on the issue, among others, of spending limits, of popular financing, and of the application of the charter of rights are not made available to members? What does the government House leader want to hide from us? Where is the public interest in hiding the findings of a study financed with taxpayer's money? What do we want to hide? Why not deposit them on the Clerk's table so that we may consult them? We are not crazy in Quebec. We know how to read. Today's issue of La Presse headlines: "A referendum calls for as rigid a framework as an election". The article is by Patrice Garant, a Laval University law professor. He quotes judicial precedents, Mr. Speaker: the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1976, Buckley vs. Valeo; and then, a Manitoba case. Unless I'm mistaken, Manitoba is still part of Canada. He mentions the Belloti decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning a Massachussetts statute; he then refers to Mackay, another Canadian case, and applies the test set out in the Oakes decision. Why are we being hoodwinked? Then he comes up with another extremely detailed document, the Ford decision.
Do you feel that the supposedly secret studies or documents which the government House leader is deliberately hiding from members would not provide this professor, a political science expert, with greater insight? Is this the freedom recognized by the charter of rights? Is this part of the gag decree? Is it logical for the government to act in this manner? No more so than barring Bloc Quebecois members from the Castonguay-Dobbie committee on the Constitution, the various constitutional conferences, the travelling circus which criss-crossed Canada during three months, or the legislative committee which concluded its work last week and was a monumental farce. No witnesses were called. The whole thing was over in a day and a half, not even two days, barely three to four hours. The whole process was prearranged.
The Liberals, NDPs and Conservatives had agreed beforehand that there would be no legislative committee. The Bloc Quebecois, who oppose this bill, was not given a single seat on the committee in order that they might tell Canadian men and women, and Quebec men and women, what is going on. Some think they can convince the Canadian population, English and French Canada, English Canada and Quebec, by veiling the truth, by some fancy window dressing, by gagging opponents.


Government Orders
Is there a private conversation going on while I am speaking, Mr. Speaker, or were you talking to me?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was telling the hon. member that you have another two or three minutes left as far as your debate is concerned. I regret if I have disturbed the hon. member's train of thought.


François Gérin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You have a rich experience here, you have been a member of this House of Commons for more than 15 years. As for me, I have only been here since 1984.1 don't know if you remember but when I first came to this House as a young member, I was told by my English-speaking Tory colleagues-because Quebec did not have any Tory members before- "Here, my friend-

-you are in the House of Commons. You will see fair play".

Where is this fair play? Is that what the House of Commons is all about? In French, the word communes or commun does not have quite the same meaning.
Were they telling me that the fair play of democracy, the fair play of the British, the fair play of English Canada, the fair play of English Canadian members, would mean gagging a group of members who had faith enough in their ideas and beliefs to the point of leaving this puppet government? Is that fair play? Is that what the House of Commons is all about? Is that democracy? Do you have the right to prevent me from speaking on 62 out of 64 amendments? Is that fair? Is that correct? I am asking you, Mr. Speaker. Answer me, is that correct?


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take a few minutes only. I know other hon. members would want to speak too and I do intend to co-operate in seeing that others have also the opportunity to express their feelings.
I must say that I listened to what the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead had to say, but there is something I do not get. If I understand him correctly, he does not intend to vote for the bill, nor to propose any amendment. He does not want to improve the bill in any way, and he certainly does not want to do anything that would give this bill the credibility it is so lacking, according to him.
If this hon. member and others do not wish to propose amendments, do not wish to vote for the bill, when this legislation is passed later on today, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I know that you are as familiar with the rules of this House as if you had written them yourself. Tell me, Mr. Speaker: is a member of Parliament allowed to presume how another member will be voting later in the evening? That is what the member for Glengarry-Presscott-Russell just did, and I know that we are-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am not a
magician and I do not think that we presume anything. Honourable members are honourable members. I would like to listen to his debate. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, of course, listened to what the speaker before me had to say, even if I was not in total agreement with him. Perhaps he and his colleagues could have reciprocated, especially on this memorable evening in the history of the House of Commons. The point I want to get across to the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, is this:
What do they care whether we are dealing with section 3, 14 or 33? How can they object since they do not want to change a thing in this bill to improve it and have a better bill? I find it extremely difficult to understand the thinking of the hon. member who spoke before me-


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have a problem. In his speech, the hon. member, referring to me, maybe not by name, but in no uncertain terms, asked


me a very direct question. I will ask for the unanimous consent of this House to reply immediately to the hon. member or at least to use his speaking time to respond to the comment he just made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am nearly done. In closing, I will ask the hon. member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead again and those like him who seem prepared to listen to their own speeches but not that of others.
If his constituents can express their views on the future of Canada, why is he denying that same right to mine, in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell? Why would the people of my riding be entitled to less than the people the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead and others are representing?
I for one, believe that all Canadians have the right to express their views on the future of this country. Of course, I would like certain amendments to be made to improve the bill. But the main question remains: Do Canadians have the right, and should they have the right, to ratify the Constitution once an agreement has been reached, hopefully, between all governments in Canada? and I hope there will be such an agreement-
The hon. member for Shefford is asking: Has one not been reached?
Mr. Speaker, I think that, to most people watching this debate on TV, including members of this House, the answer to that question should be pretty obvious. In the absence of an agreement, how could we vote on a non-existent agreement? You do not need to be too clever to figure that out. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that most people understand that.
That being said, I will now let other hon. members have the floor seeing that there are a few minutes left. I want to thank the House for allowing me to make this brief comment and to conclude I would say that the
Government Orders
voters in my riding definitely have the right to express their views on the future of this country. That is why I intend to vote for granting them that privilege which I believe they should have in that day and age, today, on this 3rd day of June, 1992.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I realize there are very few minutes left in this debate. I would like to say a few words about some of the issues that have been dealt with and some of the ones we are not going to have the chance to deal with because of the time allocation motion.
As the previous member from the Liberal caucus mentioned, some members of this House did put forward amendments. Others chose not to put forward amendments on this legislation. I would like to indicate on behalf of our caucus, the New Democratic Party caucus, that the critic, the member for Yorkton-Melville, and myself, looked through the amendments that were proposed by Conservative members, by Liberals, and by some of the independent members of this House. We found that we could support a lot of those amendments. Regardless of what part of the House those amendments came from, we considered them on their merit.
On this issue where the government has been talking about a non-partisan approach, I wish it had taken the same attitude. I talked to members of the government caucus who put forward motions. I am told that the word has gone out among the government benches not to vote for those motions. That is what I hear. We will see what happens later on.
The concern I have is that the government felt throughout this process once we, that is the three parties in this House, voted to allow this to go to second reading, we went to committee stage and entered report stage with the idea that the government would be open to amendment. We were told that by the government House leader.
We indicated at the outset that we had some concerns with the legislation, not with the principle of a referendum, and I reject some of the comments made by other members of this House, especially among the Liberals, that we are against a referendum.
Our caucus has voted-

Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes, you are against the referendum. You are anti-democratic. They are against the people making decisions.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The member for Kingston and the Islands is a fool sometimes. He knows darned well that at second reading our caucus voted for a referendum. He knows darned well that our representatives in the various committees of this House voted for a referendum. We have not changed our minds. We want to make sure it is a fair game.
If that party, which has a fundraising letter out at the present time on its position on referendum, a fundraising letter which it sent out prior to the government giving it the wording, feels committed to its fundraising letter and does not think it is important to look at legislation, that is its own concern.
We look at the legislation and it should not try to be devious. I left the Liberal Party 25 years ago because it lacked principles. I am not surprised it has not changed over these years.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the duties you perform in the chair, Mr. Speaker, I know you were taking a moment to discuss probably another very urgent matter with someone who approached the chair at the moment. During the oration of my NDP friend he accused my colleague, someone I respect very dearly in this House, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, a distinguished and learned member of not just the policies we have in our party but also of course the way in which this House operates, referring to him as a fool.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you in your capacity would ask the NDP member who was speaking previously to go-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 7.30 p.m. pursuant to order made earlier this day, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Jonquiere. It will be applied to Motions Nos. 7, 35, 50, 51, 54, 55 and 59. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Patrick Boyer: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-81 be amended
(a)	in Clause 1 by striking out lines 4 and 5 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"1. This Act may be cited as the Plebiscite Act.";
(b)	by substituting, in the French version, the word "plebiscitaire" for the word "referendaire" wherever the latter word occur in the Bill;
(c)	by substituting, in the English version, the word "plebiscite" for the word "referendum" wherever the latter word occurs in the Bill; and
(d)	by making such modifications as may be required in consequence thereof.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-81, be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 6 at page 1 the following:
" 'Aboriginal Peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada."


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 6 at page 1 the following:
" "aboriginal Canadian" means any self-declared aboriginal Canadian who wishes to be enumerated as such for the purposes of voting.
"aboriginal vote" means a separate addition of votes cast by aboriginal Canadians for and against any referendum question."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Nowlan is not in the Chamber to move Motion No. 11. Perhaps Mr. Kindy could move it for him.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 24 to 34 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"3. (1) The Senate or the House of Commons shall not during 1992 adopt any resolution authorizing the Governor in Council to issue a proclamation in order to amend the Constitution of Canada on any question relating to it, before the Governor in Council, by proclamation, directs that the question be put to the electors of Canada at a referendum called for that purpose."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 2 the following:
" "national referendum committee" means any referendum committee that campaigns or intends to campaign in at least fifty (50) electoral districts."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-81 be amended by adding immediately after line 39 at page 12 the following new clause:
"13. There shall exist an umbrella committee that represents the supporters of the affirmative for the referendum question or referendum questions. There shall exist an umbrella committee that represents the opponents of each referendum question."


Government Orders
Motion No. 49.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately
after line 31 at page 15 the following new clause:
"(c) The umbrella committees established in support of or in opposition to one or more referendum questions shall limit their spending to 56.4 cents per registered voter as determined by the returns of the most recent general elction preceeding the holding of a referendum."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 13 by adding immediately
after line 23 at page 13 the following:
"(vii) the name, address and signature of 100 electors from each electoral district in which the committee intends to support or oppose the referendum question;".


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed
will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 13 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 13 the following:
"(d) any registered referendum committee that has indicated it will be opposing or supporting the referendum question in fifty electoral districts or more must register as a national referendum committee."
Motion No. 46.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately after line 31 at page 15 the following:
"(3)(i) For the purposes of subsection (2) each national referendum committee shall be entitled to incur additional referendum expenses in the number of 10 cents."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 38. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 13 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"porting or opposing during a".


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 42.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 10
and 11 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"period that, in the aggregate, exceeds nine hundred and ninety nine dollars."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will be please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 43.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately
after line 11 at page 15 the following:
Government Orders
"(2) No person or group shall incur referendum expenses during a referendum period in co-ordination with one or more persons or groups if the aggregate amount of the referendum expenses exceeds the limit authorized by this Act for that person or group."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 44.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately
after line 11 at page 15 the following:
"(2) The Government of Canada shall not incur referendum expenses in excess of the limits provided in this clause."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Government Orders


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 26 at
page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"1992 is 20 cents; and".


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 10, standing in the name of the hon. member for Jonquiere. As the hon. member is not in the Chamber will somebody else-


Some hon. members:: No.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 24 to
31 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The wording of the referendum question will be prepared by an independent commission.
(i) The membership of the committee will be approved by the House of Commons after consultation among the political parties having a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 43 to 46 at page 5 and line 1 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"sitting day of the House following the day on which notice of the motion was given.
(5) On the expiration of the third sitting day of the House of Commons on which the motion is considered, or at such earlier time as the House is ready for the question."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 5 by adding immediately after line 4 at page 6 the following:
"(6) No motion shall be adopted unless supported by at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons present and voting."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would like to mention that the hon. member for Jonquiere has arrived and will now move his motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is a little late. [Translation]


Mr. Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The rules which were given to me for information purposes state that you have to be present at the time the motion is moved, as was the case yesterday when the said motions were being debated in the House. However, no one told us that at the time this procedure would apply we would also have to be present. In other words, you are asking us to be here almost day and night.
I insist that these motions be debated and voted on. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the motions are put the member should be in the Chamber. I regret that we have to stay here all night but that is the way the Standing Orders are.
I can ask for unanimous consent from the House if we can put Motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Jonquiere. Is there unanimous consent?
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hear a no. I regret.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 1 to 12 at page 7.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask which of the motions I introduced as a member of Parliament will not be voted upon? Does that apply to all motions starting with Motion No. 2?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It just had to do with Motion No. 10. The hon. member was not in the Chamber. Just that one motion.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 7
(a)	by striking out line 41 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:


Government Orders
"Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Commons at least"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 4 to 12 at page 8 and substituting the
following therefor.
"of the Senate stands referred to such committee of the Senate, if any, as is designated or established, prior to the deposit, to review the regulation and a regulation deposited with the with the Clerk of the House of Commons stands referred to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform established on February 14,1992, or if the Special Committee no longer exists, to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established to review the regulation, and the committees may make such recommendations to the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to the regulation as they consider appropriate."


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 9 to 12
at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"established to review the regulation.
(8) Every regulation made pursuant to subsection (3) to (4) is subject to the approval of the aforementioned committee of the House of Commons and shall not take effect until seven days after it is approved by that committee, or such later date as may be specified in the regulation."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 24. Mr. Milliken is not in the Chamber. Is there unanimous consent to allow another member to move his motion?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent if I were to take the position of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands in order to move this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. member:: No.


Mr. Rocheleau:: Mr. Speaker, we will consent but vote against.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret there is not unanimous consent.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 8
(a)	by striking out line 44 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"the issue of the writs of referendum, the returning officer";
(b)	by striking out line 1 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"names are not provided by those parties by the thirty-first day
before polling day, may"; and
(c)	by striking out lines 3 to 10 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) Where more than one enumerator is appointed in a polling division or there is more than one polling division for which only one enumerator is appointed, the returning officer shall, as far as possible, appoint half of the enumerators in the polling division or divisions, as the case may be, from among the persons nominated by the registered party whose candidate finished first in the last election in the electoral district and half from among the persons nominated by the registered party whose candidate finished second in that election."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed
will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 13
Government Orders
(a)	by striking out lines 11 to 13 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"registered if the name or logo of the committee is the name or logo of a federal party or a provincial party or so resembles such a name or logo that the com-"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) any name, or abbreviation of a name, used to identify the party in election".


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 52.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 33 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d) the name and full address of each contributor, listed".


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On Motion No. 53 standing in the name of Mr. Ouellet, I need unanimous consent for someone to move the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.


Some hon. members:: Yes, yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will ask again. Is there unanimous consent for Motion No. 53 standing in the name of Mr. Ouellet to be put?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is unanimous consent.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 53.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 14
and 15 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"hours of broadcasting time and a minimum of three hours of broadcasting time for purchase during prime time."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 56.
That Bill C-81 be amended by adding immediately after line 26 at
page 23 the following new clause:
"26. Each network operator as defined in this Act will provide a maximum of 3 additional hours of paid time which will be allocated in a similar fashion to free time broadcasts by the Broadcast Arbitrator."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 58.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 32 by adding immediately
after line 42 at page 26 the following:
"(4) Regulations made persuant to subsection (3) may be appealed to the Public Service Commission which has the power to review and uphold, or overrule the regulation."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 60.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 39 by adding immediately after line 12 at page 30 the following:
"(1) Each Returning Officer shall within one week of the election writs being issued appoint sufficient revising officers and agents to ensure that each household may be visited to ensure the lists are accurate."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Motion No. 61.
That Bill C-81 be amended by striking out the heading immediately proceeding line 13 and lines 13 to 19 on page 30 and substituting the following therefor:


&quot;REVIEW OF ACT
[Stage Direction]
40. (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming into force of this Act, this Act shall be referred to such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing this Act.
(2) The committee to which this Act is referred shall review the Act and submit a report thereon to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement of any changes the committee recommends.
Government Orders

[Stage Direction]
41. This Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council."
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 62.
That Bill C-81 be amended by deleting Clause 40 and substituting
the following therefor:
"40. (1) This Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor Council and, subject to subsections (2) and (3) shall remain in force for a period of three years.
(2)	At any time while this Act is in force, both Houses of Parliament may, by joint resolution, direct that it shall continue in force for a further specified period from, or indefinitely after, the day on which it would otherwise expire.
(3)	Where this Act ceases to be in force after the issue of a proclamation and before all requirements of this Act have been met in respect of the referendum held as a result of that proclamation or before all proceedings arising during or out of that referendum have been completed, this Act shall be deemed to continue in force in respect of that referendum until all such requirements have been met and all such proceedings have been completed."


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 63.
That Bill C-81 be amended in Clause 40 by striking out lines 15 to
19 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"council, and shall remain in place until either a referendum has been held or until the end of November 1993, whichever occurs first."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 61. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Government Orders


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate having the unanimous consent of the House so that the hon. member for Jonquiere can move his Motion No. 10.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, we give our consent to that.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, we just gave our unanimous consent, but I heard a Conservative say no, however.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we would be delighted to give unanimous consent to the hon. member opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 64.
That Bill C-81 be amended by adding immediately after line 40 at page 30 the following new clause:
"42. The provisions of this Act and any regulations made pursuant to this Act are not to be interpreted by the Courts in any manper that would prevent changes to the electoral laws of Canada."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of the bill now before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I give the floor to the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, on a point of order.


Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I see several male members wearing hats in this House. I believe that is completely contrary to the rules of decorum in this place. Of course, I find it very nice. If we want to change the rules, I want to admire them, but I believe it is not proper behaviour in the House.


Mr. McKnight:: Madam Speaker, if you check in Beauchesne's I think you will find that the member uncovering is recognized. Therefore it is appropriate that men may wear hats, but they may not be recognized until they uncover.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a question of whether they can wear hats or be called or not. We from all parties, including the Independent, have been working very hard on improving the decorum in this House. I hope the gentlemen will respect that and remove their hats.


Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I would also like to add that I think male members are required to wear ties in this House. Many of them are not wearing ties today.


Mr. Johnson:: Madam Speaker, I am appalled by the sexist comment made by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.
I remember a few weeks ago on St. Patrick's Day a female member of Parliament was wearing a bright green hat and nobody said a word. I think that should be taken into consideration. These types of comments are not needed in this House.


Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Citation 329 of Beauchesne's 6th edition says:
The Standing Orders of the House are virtually silent on the subject of Members' dress. Standing Order 17 requires that a Member who wishes to speak must rise uncovered.
So when a member rises, his head must be uncovered. That is exactly the ruling applied on another occasion, which the hon. member for Calgary North referred to recently, when a member wore a hat during a vote.
Citation 330 of Beauchesne's 6th edition also says:
A jacket and tie are required to be worn by male Members.
To be recognized and have-May I finish my sentence? The hon. member for Longueuil will please remain seated while the Speaker is standing.

The first question is on Motion No. 1.
The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 150)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie
Edmonston
Gardiner
Grey (Beaver River)
Heap
Karpoff
McLaughlin
Nystrom
Saint-Julien
Taylor
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-25
Angus
Black
Butland
Fisher
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
McCurdy
Murphy
Parker
Skelly (North Island-Powell River) Whittaker
++NAYS
Anawak
Arseneault
Bernier
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Boudria
Callbeck
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Collins
Cook
Corbeil
Crawford
Crosby (Halifax West) Dingwall
Members
Andre
Belair
Bevilacqua
Bosley
Cadieux
Campbell (South West Nova)
Catterall
Comuzzi
Copps
Corbett
Crosbie (St. John's West)
de Cotret
Duceppe
Epp	Ferguson
Gaffney	Gagliano
Gauthier	Gerin
Guarnieri	Halliday
Harvard	Hawkes
Hockin	Hopkins
Jelinek	Jordan
Keyes	Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kindy	Landry
Lapierre	Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacAulay	MacKay
MacLaren	MacLellan
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McDermid
McKnight	McLean
Merrithew	Milliken
Mills	Nault
Now lan	Nunziata
Oberle	Ouellet
Pagtakhan	Phinney
Plamondon	Proud
Redway	Reimer
Rideout	Rocheleau
Siddon	Thacker
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Valcourt
Vanclief	Vankoughnet
Venne	Vezina
Walker	Wappel
Winegard- 87	
PAIRED MEMBERS	
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Thmer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. This vote will also apply to Motions Nos. 7, 35, 50, 51, 54, 55 and 59.
The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:


Government Orders (.Division No. 151)
++YEAS
Members	
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)	Belair
Bevilacqua	Black
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blaikie
Boudria	Boyer
Butland	Callbeck
Catterall	Comuzzi
Copps	Crawford
Dingwall	Duceppe
Edmonston	Ferguson
Fisher	Gaffney
Gagliano	Gardiner
Germ	Guarnieri
Harvard	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Hopkins
Hovdebo	Jordan
Karpoff	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Lapierre
Leblanc (Longueuil)	MacAulay
MacLellan	Marchi
Marleau	Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
McCurdy	McLaughlin
Milliken	Murphy
Nault	Nystrom
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Parker	Phinney
Plamondon	Proud
Rideout	Rocheleau
Saint-Julien	Shields
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Taylor
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Vanclief
Venne	Wappel
Whittaker	Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-
Anderson	NAYS Members Andre
Atkinson	Belsher
Bernier	Bosley
Bourgault	Brightwell
Cadieux	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cardiff	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	Chartrand
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cole	Collins
Cook	Corbeil
Corbett	Couture
Crosbie (St. John's West)	DeBlois
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Duplessis
Edwards	Epp
Fee	Feltham
Ferland	Fontaine
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Hogue	Holtmann
Horner	Horning
Hu don	Hughes
Jacques	Jelinek
Johnson	Joncas
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Larrivee
Layton	Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Marin	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McDermid
McKnight	McLean
Merrithew	Monteith
Moore	Nicholson
Now lan	Oberle
Paproski	Plourde
Porter	Redway
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Robitaille
Roy-Arcelin	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Tetreault	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Timer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Van De While	Vankoughnet
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Winegard	Worthy-111
PAIRED MEMBERS	
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Timer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare rejected as well Motions Nos. 7, 35, 50, 51, 54, 55, and 59.

The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order. However, I would like to remind him-I will hear him now-but I would like to tell him that, according to our rules, between the time that a motion is voted on and the time that the results are announced, the Chair cannot entertain any point of order.
I will now hear the hon. member for Shefford.


Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, the reason I got up as soon as the results were announced was to make sure that you would not proceed to the reading of the next motion.
In fact, you read motion No. 2, but you omitted the other motions which were in the Order Paper and which were standing in the name of the hon. member for Jonquiere. I regret, but you did not ask permission from the House to dispense from doing so, and I would like to hear those specific motions.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like the hon. member to re-examine a bit the ruling of the Chair. What it says is that the motion that was voted on was Motion No. 2. So, I put Motion No. 2. The ruling of the Chair then said that the vote on Motion No. 2 also applied to the other motions that I enumerated. I did not have to read them to the House.

Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. If Motion No. 4 is negatived, we will have to vote on Motion No. 5.


An hon. member:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I cannot accept a point of order once the question has been put. I will explain as far as Motion No. 11 is concerned after. It was not presented to the House for a very simple reason.
The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 154)
++YEAS
Members
Alt house	Anawak
Angus	Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Belair	
Bevilacqua	Black
Blaikie	Butland
Callbeck	Catterall
Copps	Dingwall
Edmonston	Fisher
Flis	Gaffney
Gagliano	Gardiner
Guarnieri	Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Heap
Hovdebo	Karpoff
Keyes	Kindy
MacLellan	Mac William
Marchi	Marleau
McLaughlin	Murphy
Nault	Nowlan
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Parker	Phinney
Rideout	Saint-Julien
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Taylor
Wappel	Whittaker-46
 NAYS Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Belsher
Bernier	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bosley	Bourgault
Cadieux	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cardiff	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	Chart rand
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cole	Collins
Cook	Corbeil
Corbett	Couture
Crosbie (St. John's West)	DeBlois
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dobbie
Duceppe	Duplessis
Edwards	Epp
Fee	Felt ham
Ferland	Fontaine
Friesen	Gerin
Gibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Greene	Grey (Beaver River)
Guilbault	Gustafson
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hicks
Hockin	Hogue
Horning	Hudon
Hughes	Jacques
Johnson	Joncas
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Lapierre
Larrivee	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacKay
Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski
McLean
Moore
Plamondon
Porter
Reimer
Rocheleau
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Turner (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle
Venne
Vien
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek -Winegard
Lopez
Marin
Masse
McDermid
Merrithew
Oberle
Plourde
Redway
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth) Siddon Soetens Stevenson Tetreault Thompson Tremblay (Rosemont) Tremblay (Lotbiniere) Valcourt Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Assiniboia)
Worthy-109


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Tbrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
i
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
I may want to answer the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants on his point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, actually I am glad we had the vote. I was trying to curtail the vote because of the fact that the Speaker ruled earlier that my main motion was not in order.
This motion was to help my main motion because I was trying to involve the aboriginal Canadians in the process.

Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Thank you. We will not get into a debate as to the reasons.
I will take 15 seconds to explain what happened earlier so that people who are watching this long vote will know.
When Motion No. 4 was put to the House earlier tonight, the hon. member was not in the House. Still that motion was brought forward even though it should not have been. When we arrived at a later motion, someone brought it up to the Speaker's attention and the motion was not put to the House because the proposer was not present at the time.

Since Motion No. 4 was lost, the next question will be on Motion No. 5.

The next question is on Motion No. 5.
The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:
(.Division No. 155)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Anawak
Angus	Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Belair
Bevilacqua	Black
Blaikie	But land
CaUbeck	Catterall
Copps	Dingwall
Edmonston	Fisher
Flis	Gaffney
Gagliano	Gardiner
Guarnieri	Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Heap
Hovdebo	Karpoff
Keyes	Kindy
MacLellan	Marchi
McCurdy	McLaughlin
Murphy	Nault
Nowlan	Ouellet
Pagtakhan	Rideout
Saint-Julien	Skelly (North Island
Taylor	Wappel
Whittaker-43	NAYS
	Members
Anderson	Atkinson
Belsher	Bernier
Blackburn (Jonqui&re)	Bourgault
Cardiff	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	Chartrand
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cole	Couture
DeBlois	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dobbie
Duceppe	Duplessis
Edwards	Fee
Felt ham	Ferland
Fontaine	Friesen
Gerin	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks	Hogue
Horning	Hudon
Hughes	Jacques
Johnson	Joncas
Kempling	Koury
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Marin	Moore
Plamondon	Plourde
Porter	Ricard
Robitaille	Rocheleau
Roy-Arcelin	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Tetreault	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
"Rimer (Halton-Peel)	Van De While
Venne	Vien
Vincent	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-
Worthy-77	Assiniboia)
PAIRED MEMBERS	
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	CatteraU
Clancy	Clark (YeUowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
"Rimer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner


Madam Deputy Speaker:: : I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.	
The House divided on	Motion No. 6, which was
negatived on the following division:	
(Division No. 156)	
	YEAS
	Members
Anawak	Angus
Arseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Belair	Bevilacqua


Government Orders
Black	Blackburn (Jonquifcre)	Mazankowski	McCreathBlaikie	Butland	McKnight	McLeanCallbeck	Catterall	Milliken	NaultCopps	Dingwall	Nunziata	O'KurleyEdmonston	Fisher	Ouellet	PagtakhanFI is	Gaffney	Phinney	RedwayGagliano	Gardiner	Richardson	RideoutGuamieri	Harvard	Rompkey	SchneiderHarvey (Edmonton East)	Heap	Shields	SimmonsHovdebo	Karpoff	Stewart	ThorkelsonKeyes	MacLellan	Timer (Halton-Peel)	ValcourtMacWilliam	Marchi	Vezina	Weiner
McCurdy
Murphy
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Skeliy (Comox-Albemi) Whittaker
McLaughlin
Nault
Nystrom
Rideout
Taylor
Young (Beaches -Woodbine)-42
++NAYS
Members


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Iain Francis Angus: I rise on as point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that Motions Nos. 6, 37, 30, 49, 38 and 46 were grouped together for the purpose of debate, I was wondering whether there might be consent to have the vote just taken apply to those.
Andre	Belsher
Bernier	Bosley
Bourgault	Cadieux
Cardiff	Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Clifford	Cole
Collins	Corbeil
Corbett	Crosbie (St. John's West)
de Cot ret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Duceppe
Edwards	Epp
Ferland	Fontaine
Friesen	Gerin
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Jacques
Joncas	Kempling
Landry	Lapierre
Layton	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lopez	MacKay
Martin (Lincoln)	McDermid
McLean	Merrithew
Moore	Oberle
Plamondon	Plourde
Redway	Reimer
Robitaille	Rocheleau
Saint-Julien	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Siddon
Sobeski	Sparrow
Tardif	Thacker
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt	Vankoughnet
Venne	Vezina
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Winegard-68	-Assiniboia)
PAIRED MEMBERS	
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blond in	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not have unanimous consent.
The next question is on Motion No. 30.
The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the following division:
Allmand	(Division No. 157)
 YEAS Members Anawak
Angus	Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Belair	
Bevilacqua	Black
Blackburn (Jonquifere)	Butland
CaUbeck	Catterall
Copps	Dingwall
Fisher	Gaffney
Gardiner	Guamieri
Harvard	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Hovdebo
Karpoff	Keyes
McCurdy	McLaughlin
Murphy	Nault
Nunziata	Nystrom
Pagtakhan	Phinney
Rideout	Skeliy (North Island-Powell
Taylor	Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-
Anderson	NAYS Members Andre
Atkinson	Bosley
Chadwick	Corbeil
Corbett	Couture
Crosbie (St. John's West)	de Cotret
Dobbie	Duceppe
Duplessis	Epp
Fee	Felt ham
Ferland	Gerin
Gibeau	Greene


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 46 lost as well.
Black
Butland
Gardiner
Heap
McCurdy
Murphy
Taylor-13
Members
Blaikie
Fisher
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Karpoff
McLaughlin
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
++NAYS
Members
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 160)
++YEAS
Allmand
Bevilacqua
Callbeck
Copps
Couture
de Cotret
Anawak
Bosley
Cook
Corbett
Crosbie (St. John's West) Dingwall
Duceppe
Feltham
Gaffney
Gibeau
Greene
Guamieri
Hogue
Keyes
Koury
Lapierre
Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacLellan
Merrithew
Now lan
Pagtakhan
Plamondon
Robitaille
Saint-Julien
Siddon
Venne
Wappel
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek
Fee
Flis
Gerin
Gray (Bonaventu re-i les-de-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
HalUday
Horning
Kindy
Kristiansen
Larrivee
Lopez
McLean
Nault
Oberle
Phinney
Redway
Rocheleau
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vezina
-Assiniboia) -54



[Stage Direction]
Allmand
Arseneault
Blondin
Cadieux
Campbell (South West Nova)
Clancy
Cooper
Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling
Ferguson
Harvard
Kaplan
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) MacDonald (Dartmouth) Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-limard) Masse
Mazankowski
McKnight
Milliken
Anderson
Bird
Caccia
Callbeck
Catterall
Clark (Yellowhead)
Copps
Danis
de Cotret
Gustafson
Jelinek
Karygiannis
Layton
Maheu
Marleau
Martin (Lincoln) Mayer McCreath McLean
Members
Allmand	Anawak
Angus	Bevilacqua
Black	Blaikie
Butland	Callbeck
Copps	Dingwall
Fisher	Flis
Gaffney	Gardiner
Guamieri	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Karpoff
Keyes	MacLellan
Marchi	McCurdy
McLaughlin	Murphy
Nault	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Taylor	Wappel-30
++NAYS
Members
Bernier
Bourgault
Champagne (Champlain)
Clifford
Desjardins
Duceppe
Edwards
Feltham
Fontaine
Gibeau
Greene
Guilbault
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Cardiff
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Dobbie
Duplessis
Fee
Ferland
Gerin
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
Hicks
Hogue
Hudon
Jacques
Joncas
Koury
Layton
Lopez
Nowlan
Plourde
Robitaille
Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Horning
Hughes
Johnson
Kempling
Lapierre
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Moore
Plamondon
Porter
Rocheleau
Saint-Julien
Sobeski
Soetens
Thrdif
Tremblay (Rosemont) Tremblay (Lotbini&re)
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Sparrow
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Venne
Worthy-58
[Stage Direction]

Government Orders

[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Timer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 42.
The House divided on Motion No. 42, which was negatived on the following division:
(.Division No. 161)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Angus
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
CaUbeck
Dingwall
Fisher
Gardiner
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Karpoff
MacLellan
McLaughlin
Nault
Pagtakhan
Skelly (North Island-Powell River) Wappel-31
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Black
Butland
Copps
Ferguson
Gaffney
Guamieri
Heap
Keyes
McCurdy
Murphy
Nystrom
Phinney
Taylor
Della Noce	Duceppe
Edwards	Epp
Fee	Feltham
Ferland	Friesen
Gerin	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Grey (Beaver River)
Halliday	Hawkes
Hicks	Hogue
Horning	Jacques
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Lapierre
Layton	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lopez	Martin (Lincoln)
McDermid	McLean
Merrithew	Nowlan
Oberle	Plamondon
Redway	Reimer
Robitaille	Rocheleau
Saint-Julien	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Shields	Siddon
Sparrow	Tetreault
Thacker	Thompson
TVemblay (Rosemont)	Vankoughnet
Venne	Vien
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)-61



[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Timer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 43.
The House divided on Motion No. 43, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 162)
++NAYS
++YEAS
Andre
Bernier
Bosley
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cook
Corbett
Members
Belsher
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bourgault
Collins
Corbeil
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Black
Butland
Fisher
Gardiner
Karpoff
Anawak
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Callbeck
Gaffney
Harvey (Edmonton East) Keyes


Government Orders
Lopez	McCurdy
McLaughlin	Murphy
Nault	Nystrom
Phinney	Saint-Julien
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Thylor-24


Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I just saw the hon. member for Windsor-St.-Clair vote and leave the House. I hope, to say the least, that his vote will not be counted.
NAYS	Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Meeantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.
Members	ox-	A
Belsher	Bernier
Blackburn (Jonquifere)	Bourgault
Cardiff	Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Clifford	Della Noce
Desjardins	Duceppe
Edwards	Ferland
Fontaine	Friesen
Gerin	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Hogue	Homing
Hughes	Johnson
Kempling	Koury
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Nowlan	Plamondon
Rocheleau	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields	Sparrow
Thompson	Venne
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)-39


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point.
While the last vote was taking place, I noticed that at least 10 members came in and left the House during the vote. I am convinced that several of the votes taken today are absolutely illegal.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 44.
The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was negatived on the following division:



[Stage Direction]
(Division No. 163)
Allmand	Anderson			
Arseneault	Bird			YEAS
Blond in	Caccia			
Cadieux	Callbeck			Members
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall			
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)	Althouse	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)Cooper	Copps	Blackburn (Jonqutere)	BlaikieCrosby (Halifax West)	Danis	Butland	FisherDarling	de Cotret	Gardiner	Grey (Beaver River)Ferguson	Gustafson	Harvey (Edmonton East)	KarpoffHarvard	Jelinek	McLaughlin	MurphyKaplan	Karygiannis	Nystrom	Skelly (North Island-Powell River)Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton	Taylor-15	MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu	Marchi	Marleau	Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)	NAYSMasse	Mayer	Mazankowski	McCreath	MembersMcKnight	McLean	Milliken	Nault	Anawak	AtkinsonNunziata	O'Kurley	Bevilacqua	ChadwickOuellet	Pagtakhan	Duceppe	FeePhinney	Redway	Feltham	FergusonRichardson	Rideout	Flis	GaffneyRompkey	Schneider	Gagliano	GerinShields	Simmons	Gibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)Stewart	Thor kelson	Greene	HogueTbmer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt	Homing	KeyesVezina	Weiner	Lapierre	Leblanc (Longueuil)Lopez	MacLellanMarchi	NaultPlamondon	RocheleauSaint-Julien	SoetensStevenson	TetreaultThompson	Van De WalleVenne	VienMadam Deputy Speake	r: I declare the motion lost.	Wappel Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)-36[Translation]	PAIRED MEMBERS	Allmand	AndersonArseneault	BirdThe hon. member for	Saint-Hubert	on a point of	Blondin Cadieux	Caccia Callbeckorder.	Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Government Orders
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Tamer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Miss Grey:: Madam Speaker, I would just like some clarification. Normally, when a motion comes from this side of the House it is votes for first on this side and then those who would vote against. It would start with the government benches and then come over here to the Liberals, the Official Opposition. I am wondering why on that particular vote the Liberals began on the second vote and then followed by a few Tories who needed to make up that number. Why the difference? Is that standard procedure?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There was really no particular reason for the vote to be taken one way or the other, as we do have people from both sides of the House voting yes or no on different motions.
The next question is on Motion No. 45.
The House divided on Motion No. 45, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 164)
++YEAS
Members
Alt house	Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Bevilacqua
Blaikie	Butland
Dingwall	Fisher
Gardiner	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Karpoff	Keyes
MacLellan	McCurdy
McLaughlin	Murphy
Nystrom	Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Taylor-19
++NAYS
Members
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Dobbie
Duceppe	Duplessis
Fee	Germ
Gibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Greene	Grey (Beaver River)
Guilbault	Hogue
Horning	Hudon
Hughes	Koury
Lapierre	Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lopez
Nowlan	Plamondon
Porter	Robitaille
Rocheleau	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Sobeski
Tetreault	Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Van De Walle
Venne	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-
Assiniboia)	Worthy-35
PAIRED MEMBERS	
Alim and	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Tarner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	
The next question is on Motion No. 13.	
The House divided	on Motion No. 13, which was
negatived on the following division:	
(Division No. 165)
 YEAS Members	
Flis	Althouse
Anawak	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie	Butland
Dingwall	Fisher
Gaffney	Gagliano
Gardiner	Grey (Beaver River)
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Keyes
Marchi	McCurdy


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was
agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 166)

Anawak
Atkinson
Bevilacqua
Bosley
Boyer
Champagne (Champlain)
Clifford
Collins
Corbett
Desjardins
Dobbie
Edwards
Fee
Ferland
Gaffney
Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Horning
Hughes
Johnson
Kempling
Landry
Marchi
McLean
Moore
Plourde
Redway
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Members
Andre
Bernier
Blackburn (Jonqutere)
Bourgault
Chadwick
Chart rand
Cole
Corbeil
Della Noce
Dingwall
Duplessis
Epp
Feltham
Fontaine
Gibeau
Halliday
Hawkes
Hogue
Hudon
Jacques
Joncas
Keyes
Lopez
McDermid
Merrithew
Oberle
Porter
Reimer
Robitaille
Saint-Julien
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Van De Walle
Vien
Thacker
Tremblay (Lotbinifere)
Vankoughnet Wappel
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Winegard	Worthy-78
++NAYS
Members
Duceppe	Gerin
Grey (Beaver River)	Lapierre
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Nowlan
Plamondon	Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Venne-10



[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
[Stage Direction]

Government Orders
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Himer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This archaic and nonsensical exercise proves that this House of Commons needs an electronic voting system.
I do not know how we revise the rules and procedures, but it is a very legitimate point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The point is well taken. Tonight we will go on with the votes as ordered. We cannot change the rules at this moment.
The next question is on Motion No. 18.
The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the following division:
Soetens	Stevenson
Tetreault	Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Van De Walle
Venne	Vien
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Worthy-36



[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Turner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 20.
(Division No. 167)

Althouse
Angus
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Dingwall
Flis
Gagliano
Grey (Beaver River) Keyes
McLaughlin Nowlan Taylor-23
Members
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Black
But land
Fisher
Gaffney
Gardiner
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Kristiansen
Murphy
Skeily (North Island-Powell River)
The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 168)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Angus
Black	Blaikie
Butland	Fisher
Gardiner	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	McLaughlin
Murphy	Skeily (North Island-Powell River)
Thylor-13	
	NAYS		NAYS
	Members		Members
Atkinson	Blackburn (Jonquiere)		
Chadwick	Dobbie	Anawak	AndreDuceppe	Duplessis	Bevilacqua	Blackburn (Jonqutere)Fee	Feltham	Bosley	CookGerin	Gibeau	Dingwall	DuceppeGray (Bonaventure-	-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Guilbault	Epp	FlisHorning	Hudon	Gaffney	GaglianoHughes	Johnson	Gerin	Gray (Bonaventu re-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)Lapierre	Leblanc (Longueuil)	Halliday	KeyesLopez	Plamondon	Lapierre	Leblanc (Longueuil)Porter	Robitaille	Lopez	MacKayRocheleau	Roy-Arcelin	McLean	NowlanSaint-Julien	Sobeski	Oberle	Plamondon
Government Orders
Redway	Robitaille
Rocheleau	Saint-Julien
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Van De Walle
Venne	Wappel
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)-35
PAIRED MEMBERS	
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
TUrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
Van De Walle	Vankoughnet
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Winegard-56
++NAYS
Members
Duceppe	Gerin
Lapierre	Plamondon
Rocheleau	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-7



[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-£mard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
TUrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 21.
The House divided on Motion No. 21, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 169)
++YEAS
Members
Anawak	Andre
Beisher	Bernier
Bevilacqua	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bosley	Bourgault
Boyer	Cardiff
Chartrand	Clifford
Cole	Collins
Cook	Corbeil
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dingwall	Edwards
Epp	Ferland
Flis	Fontaine
Gaffney	Gray (Bonaventure-I les-de-la-Madeleine)
Guilbault	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Jacques
Joncas	Kempling
Keyes	Landry
Lopez	MacKay
McDermid	McLean
Oberle	Plourde
Redway	Reimer
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Sparrow	Thacker
Thompson	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 25.
The House divided on Motion No. 25, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 170)
++YEAS
Members
Anawak	Beisher
Bernier	Bevilacqua
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Bosley
Bourgault	Boyer
Cardiff	Chartrand
Collins	Cook
Corbeil	Couture
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dingwall	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Ferland	Flis
Fontaine	Gaffney
Gagliano	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Halliday	Hawkes
Hogue	Kempling
Keyes	Landry


Government Orders
Lopez	McDermid
McLean	Moore
Oberle	Redway
Reimer	Robitaille
Saint-Julien	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Sparrow	Thacker
Thompson Vankoughnet	Van De Walle
Wilson (Swift Current-Winegard-51	-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
	NAYS
	Members
Duceppe	Gerin
Lapierre	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Plamondon	Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Venne-8
	PAIRED MEMBERS
Allmand	Anderson
Bird	Blondin
Caccia	Cadieux
CaUbeck	Campbell (South West Nova)
Catterall	Clancy
Clark (Yellowhead)	Cooper
Copps	Crosby (Halifax West)
Danis	Darling
de Cotret	Ferguson
Gustafson	Harvard
Jelinek	Kaplan
Karygiannis	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Layton	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Maheu	Marchi
Marleau	Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
Mayer	Mazankowski
McCreath	McKnight
McLean	Milliken
Nault	Nunziata
O'Kurley	Ouellet
Pagtakhan	Phinney
Redway	Richardson
Rideout	Rompkey
Schneider	Shields
Simmons	Stewart
Thorkelson	TUrner (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Vezina
Weiner


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I am wondering if there might be unanimous consent to take the division just recorded and apply it to votes on Motions Nos. 27 and 39.


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent has not been granted. The next question is on Motion No. 27.
The House divided on Motion No. 27, which was
agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 171)


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the	


The next question is on Motion No. 39.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The House divided on Motion No. 39, which was agreed to on the following division:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 52.
(Division No. 172)
The House divided on Motion No. 52, which was negatived on the following division:
Anawak
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Collins
Couture
Epp
Gaffney
++YEAS
Members
Andre
Black
Bosley
Corbeil
Dingwall
Fee
Gagliano
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
Halliday Hawkes Keyes MacKay McLean Nystrom Parker Reimer Saint-Julien Thompson Vankoughnet
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek-Assiniboia)-38
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hogue
Landry
McDermid
Now lan
Oberle
Redway
Robitaille
Thacker
Van De Walle
Althouse
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Duceppe
Gaffney
Gerin
Keyes
McLaughlin
Nystrom
Plamondon
Taylor
Whittaker-23
(Division No. 173)
++YEAS
Anawak
Black
Dingwall
Edmonston
Gagliano
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Murphy
Parker
Rocheleau
Tremblay (Rosemont)
++NAYS
++NAYS
Members
Duceppe Lapierre Plamondon Tremblay (Rosemont)
Gerin
Leblanc (Longueuil) Rocheleau Venne-8



[Stage Direction]
Atkinson
Bernier
Bourgault
Chadwick
Cole
Della Noce
Dobbie
Fee
Fontaine
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hughes
Johnson
Kempling
Lapierre
Belsher
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Cardiff
Chartrand
Couture
Desjardins
Edwards
Feltham
Grey (Beaver River)
Hogue
Jacques
Joncas
Koury
Lopez
Allmand	Anderson	Moore	NowlanArseneault	Bird	Porter	Roy-ArcelinBlondin	Caccia	Saint-Julien	Scott (Victoria-HalitCadieux	C allbeck	Sobeski	SoetensCampbell (South West Nova)	Catterall	Sparrow	ThompsonClancy	Clark (Yellowhead)	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbinifcre)Cooper	Copps	Van De Walle	VenneCrosby (Halifax West)	Danis	Vien	Darling	de Cotret	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)-44Ferguson	Gustafson	Harvard	Jelinek	Kaplan	Karygiannis	PAIRED MEMBERS	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton	MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu	Marchi	Marleau	Allmand	AndersonMartin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)	Arseneault	BirdMasse	Mayer	Blondin	CacciaMazankowski	McCreath	Cadieux	Call beckMcKnight	McLean	Campbell (South West Nova)	CatterallMilliken	Nault	Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)Nunziata	O'Kurley	Cooper	CoppsOuellet	Pagtakhan	Crosby (Halifax West)	DanisPhinney	Redway	Darling	de CotretRichardson	Rideout	Ferguson	GustafsonRomp key	Schneider	Harvard	JelinekShields	Simmons	Kaplan	KarygiannisStewart	Thorkelson	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	LaytonTbrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt	MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MaheuVezina	Weiner	Marchi	Marleau
Government Orders
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)	Blackburn (Jonquiere)	BlaikieMasse	Mayer	Dingwall	EdmonstonMazankowski	McCreath	Flis	GaffneyMcKnight	McLean	Gagliano	GardinerMilliken	Nault	Harvey (Edmonton East)	KeyesNunziata	O'Kurley	Mac William	McLaughlinOuellet	Pagtakhan	Murphy	NystromPhinney	Redway	Parker	Skelly (North Island -Powell River)Richardson	Rideout	Taylor	Whittaker-24Rompkey	Schneider	Shields	Simmons	Stewart	Thorkelson	NAYSTimer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt	Vezina	Weiner	Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Guy St-Julien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,


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


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have some clarification regarding motion No. 24; more precisely, I would like to know why there was no vote on this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is because the mover, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, did not move his motion. Consequently it was not put to the vote.
The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: A little while ago there was unanimous consent to allow a member to move a motion. Maybe we could ask if there is unanimous consent to move this one.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no consent.

The next question is on Motion No. 53.
The House divided on Motion No. 53, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 174)
Andre	Belsher
Bosley	Bourgault
Clifford	Collins
Corbeil	Della Noce
Desjardins	Duceppe
Edwards	Epp
Ferland	Fontaine
Gerin	Grey (Beaver River)
Halliday	Hawkes
Hogue	Horning
Hughes	Johnson
Kempling	Koury
Landry	Lapierre
Leblanc (Longueuil)	McDermid
McLean	Nowlan
Oberle	Plamondon
Redway	Reimer
Rocheleau	Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Sparrow
Thacker	Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Vankoughnet
Venne	Vien
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	- Assiniboia)-45



[Stage Direction]
Alim Anri	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blond in	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Timer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
Althouse
Angus
Bevilacqua
++YEAS
Members
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Black
The next question is on Motion No. 56.
The House divided on Motion No. 56, which was
negatived on the following division:


Government Orders
(Division No. 175)
The next question is on Motion No. 58.
++YEAS
The House divided on Motion No. 58, which was negatived on the following division:
Members
Alt house
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Edmonston
Harvey (Edmonton East)
McLaughlin
Nystrom
Taylor
Angus
Black
Blaikie
Gardiner
MacWilliam
Murphy
Skelly (North Island-Powell River) Whittaker-16
++NAYS
Anawak
Bevilaqua
Clifford
Della Noce
Duceppe
Flis
Gagliano
Grey (Beaver River)
Hicks
Horning
Johnson
Koury
Leblanc (Longueuil) Plamondon Saint-Julien Sparrow
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vien
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple
Members
Belsher
Bourgault
Comuzzi
Dingwall
Edwards
Gaffney
Gerin
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hogue
Hughes
Keyes
Lapierre
Nowlan
Rocheleau
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Thompson
Venne
;-Members Assiniboia)-36



[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blond in	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle - Iimard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
"Rimer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion is lost.
(Division No. 176)

Members
Althouse
Angus
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Dingwall
Fisher
Gaffney
Grey (Beaver River)
Karpoff
MacWilliam
Murphy
Nystrom
Skelly (North Island-Powell River) Whittaker-27
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Black
Comuzzi
Edmonston
Flis
Gardiner
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Keyes
McLaughlin
Nowlan
Parker
Taylor
++NAYS
Members
Cardiff
Chartrand
Desjardins
Duceppe
Fee
Ferland
Gerin
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hogue
Koury
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Moore
Plourde
Robitaille
Roy-Arcelin
Sobeski
Chadwick
Cole
Dobbie
Duplessis
Feltham
Fontaine
Guilbault
Hicks
Hughes
Lapierre
Lopez
Plamondon
Porter
Rocheleau
Saint-Julien
Soetens
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Van De Walle Vien
Stevenson Tetreault
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Lotbinifcre)
Venne
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)-43



[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Nunziata	O'Kurley	Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)Ouellet	Pagtakhan	Masse	MayerPhinney	Redway	Mazankowski	McCreathRichardson	Rideout Members	McKnight	McLeanRompkey	Schneider	Milliken	NaultShields	Simmons	Nunziata	O'KurleyStewart	Thorkelson	Ouellet	PagtakhanTbrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt	Phinney	RedwayVezina	Weiner	Richardson	RideoutRompkey	SchneiderShields	SimmonsStewart	ThorkelsonTbrner (Halton-Peel)	ValcourtVezina	Weiner
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the
motion lost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the The next question is on Motion No. 60.	motion lost.
The House divided on Motion No. 60, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 177)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Black
Blaikie	Edmonston
Fisher	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Karpoff
Mac William	McLaughlin
Murphy	Nystrom
Parker	Skelly (North Island -Powell
Taylor	Whittaker-16
	NAYS
	Members
Anawak	Belsher
Bevilacqua	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Comuzzi	Dingwall
Duceppe	Fee
Fcltham	Flis
Gaffney	Gagliano
Gerin	Grey (Beaver River)
Hogue	Hughes
Johnson	Keyes
Koury	Lapierre
Larrivee	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Now lan	Plamondon
Robitaille	Rocheleau
Saint-Julien	Sobeski
Thompson	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Van De Walle	Venne
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)-33
PAIRED MEMBERS	
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	CaUbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
The next question is on Motion No. 61. If Motion No. 61 is agreed to, the votes on Motions Nos. 62 and 63 will be obviated. If it is negatived, we must vote on Motion No. 62.
The House divided on Motion No. 61, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 178)
++YEAS
Members
Anawak	Andre
Atkinson	Bevilacqua
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Bosley	Boyer
Cardiff	Chadwick
Chart rand	Cole
Collins	Comuzzi
Corbeil	Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dingwall
Dobbie	Duplessis
Edwards	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Flis	Fontaine
Friesen	Gaffney
Gagliano	Greene
Grey (Beaver River)	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hogue	Hudon
Hughes	Johnson
Kempling	Keyes
Koury	Landry
Larrivee	Lopez
McLean	Moore
Nowlan	Oberle
Plourde	Porter
Redway	Reimer
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Tardif
Tetreault	Thacker
Thompson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Vien
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)-71


++NAYS
Members
Duceppe	Gerin
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Lapierre
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Plamondon
Rocheleau	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne	Whittaker-10
PAIRED MEMBERS	
AUmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
Thrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 64.
The House divided on Motion No. 64, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 179)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Black Blaikie	Edmonston
Fisher	Grey (Beaver River)
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Heap
Karpoff	MacWilliam
McLaughlin	Murphy
Nowlan	Nystrom
Parker	Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Taylor-19
Government Orders

Members
Bevilacqua	Anawak
Atkinson	Belsher
Blackburn (Jonquifcre)	Blais
Chadwick	Chartrand
Comuzzi	Cook
Couture	Dingwall
Duceppe	Fee
Flis	Fontaine
Gaffney	Gagliano
Gerin	Greene
Guilbault	Halliday
Hogue	Johnson
Keyes	Koury
Lapierre	Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lopez
McDermid	Oberle
Plamondon	Redway
Rocheleau	Saint-Julien
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Van De While
Venne	Vien
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)-43



[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blondin	Caccia
Cadieux	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
*Rimer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Harvie Andre: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
++NAYS
Members


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blaikie
Edmonston
Gerin
Heap
Lapierre
Mac William
Murphy
Parker
Rocheleau
Taylor
Venne
Angus
Black
Duceppe
Fisher
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Karpoff
Leblanc (Longueuil)
McLaughlin
Nystrom
Plamondon
Skelly (North Island-Powell River) lYemblay (Rosemont) Whittaker-26

And more than five members having risen
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 180)
++YEAS
Members
Anawak	Andre
Atkinson	Belsher
Bevilacqua	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blais	Bosley
Boyer	Cardiff
Chadwick	Chartrand
Clifford	Cole
Collins	Comuzzi
Cook	Corbeil
Couture	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dingwall
Dobbie	Duplessis
Edwards	Epp
Fee	Felt ham
Ferland	Flis
Fontaine	Friesen
Gaffney	Gagliano
Greene	Grey (Beaver River)
Guilbault	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hogue
Horning	Hudon
Hughes	Johnson
Joncas	Kempling
Keyes	Koury
Landry	Larrivee
Lopez	McDermid
McLean	Moore
Now lan	Oberle
Plourde	Porter
Redway	Reimer
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Siddon
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thacker	Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Van De Walle	Vankoughnet
Vien Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Winegard	Worthy-84



[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Anderson
Arseneault	Bird
Blond in	Caccia
Cadieux	CaUbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Clark (Yellowhead)
Cooper	Copps
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Ferguson	Gustafson
Harvard	Jelinek
Kaplan	Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Layton
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Maheu
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McKnight	McLean
Milliken	Nault
Nunziata	O'Kurley
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Phinney	Redway
Richardson	Rideout
Rompkey	Schneider
Shields	Simmons
Stewart	Thorkelson
TUrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Vezina	Weiner
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.

It being 13 minutes past 11 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 23.13 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 4,1992