Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker, that is fine. But one would wonder if it might not have been more appropriate to let everyone

Business of the House

know in order that this matter could have been dealt with by all concerned.

The most important thing is that while my friend may wish to suggest that the shoe fits and he will wear it, there is no specific reference to my hon. friend. He may want to associate himself with the word "slanderous", and based on past practice I think that would be appropriate-

Mr. Boudria:

You cannot even say that.

Mr. Lewis:

There is no specific reference. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) named no specific person. He named the entire Liberal Party, which I think is appropriate. He did not name the Hon. Member.

Mr. Gauthier:

Turn the page.

Mr. Lewis:

That is afterwards.

Mr. Rossi:

Even if he is the Prime Minister he is not allowed to use that kind of language here.

Mr. Lewis:

Get up and speak to it.

[ Translation]

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to put in my grain of salt on this point of order which touches upon the privilege of one of my colleagues, specially since I was present when the events took place, and since I saw with my own eyes the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) make accusations, and given that along with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), as the record will show-the Leader of the Opposition and myself asked the Prime Minister on two occasions who he was referring to.

When the Prime Minister said, and that is also on the record in the official report:

What the Liberal Party has been doing is: "slander Mr. La Salle and saying that he is guilty without any evidence being brought forward". When we heard this, of course we were not happy because it is not true.

Second, we wanted to make sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would say exactly what he meant, so our Leader is quoted as saying: "Who said that?" The Prime Minister further continued by saying:

This has been said by Liberals in the House of Commons, and that is a

disgraceful way to do it.

Then the Leader of the Opposition again asked, and I shouted too: "Who said that?" Then the Prime Minister is quoted in Hansard as saying: "Boudria". I know of only one Boudria in the House of Commons and he is sitting right here. He does not have the habit of slandering people.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that on the very day of the incident I personally checked the videotaped recording of the debate in the House and it is clear, if Your Honour would care to look at the videotape, the electronic Hansard, that from his seat the Prime Minister accused the Hon. Member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell by name, which by the way is unparliamentary: "Boudria" he said, calling him by his name!

So then, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that for the sake of maintaining order in this House and to ensure that proper respect is shown towards all Hon. Members, Your Honour has no other choice but to ask the Prime Minister to take the first opportunity to withdraw the disgraceful and unparliamentary words he used and to apologize to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

Mr. Speaker:

I will take the matter under advisement. Again, I apologize not only to the Minister of State but to other Members who may have been caught a little unawares by my bringing this matter. However, I want to make very clear that it was brought this morning rather than earlier, at my request and through the courtesy of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I will examine the matter and report back to the House.

I might add that the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) is unable to be here at the moment, but I hope that my remarks are extended to him and it may be that he wishes to address the Chair further.

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would ask the Deputy Government House Leader if he would be kind enough to let us know what business the Government intends to bring before the House in the coming week.

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that today we will continue the debate on the motion to extend the sittings. I would hope that the NDP will let us proceed through Routine Proceedings and get to that piece of business. The House will know that yesterday we wasted an entire day without doing any business whatsoever. I would like to think that we can make some progress today.

Tomorrow we will continue debate on the Government's response to the Senate's amendments to Bill C-55, the Immigration Act. I believe there is an understanding among

the Parties that debate on all matters with respect to Bill C-55 will be completed tomorrow.

On Monday we will either continue the debate to extend the sittings or commence the free trade debate, Bill C-130.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Government House Leader has indicated the business for the next few days. There was some suggestion that we might, at an early date, get to the legislation amending the National Transportation Act concerning the disabled. There has been some discussion among the critics and the Parties. I thought this was coming quite soon. Could he give us an indication when the Government will move on that?

Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to indicate to the Member that we have been discussing various items of business with a hope that the House could proceed to do business. Unfortunately, my hon. friend has been introducing Bills and his Party has been calling for votes about whether or not he should be allowed to introduce the Bills. That blew all of yesterday.

If we can get through today and pass a motion to extend the sittings, I give my hon. friend the undertaking that that and other Bills are very high on our list of priorities. I would say to him, however, that in order to do business we have to get through Routine Proceedings. We have to get through those proceedings without dilatory motions and votes.

My hon. friend is the captain of that particular ship, under today's circumstances, the Routine Proceedings being constructed the way they are. If we get through Routine Proceedings today and get this motion passed, we will be on to Business of the House.

Yesterday my hon. friend's Party delayed him from introducing his own Bills. It was rather tragic, because one likes to think that the House Leader of a Party has his Party behind him and will stand with him when he wants to introduce one of his own Private Members' Bills. But that did not happen yesterday. That may very well be the case today.

When my hon. friend has his team with him and can get us through Routine Proceedings, we will proceed to Business of the House.

Mr. Riis:

Mr. Speaker, I think there must be some mistake. First, I want to say that my caucus, by definition, is behind me on these matters. I want to make it perfectly clear that if the Deputy Government House Leader wishes to bring forward the Bill that would see amendments to the National Transportation Act to assist the disabled of Canada, we would pass that very quickly, perhaps within minutes. However, when Orders of the Day indicate there is no intention, at least today, of introducing that particular legislation or other good pieces of legislation, then one is less than interested in indicating some co-operation.

Business of the House

I want to indicate clearly that when that appears on the Order Paper he can count on at least one Party in the House moving expeditiously. That will be the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker, I and my Party do not want to play politics with amendments to the National Transportation Act for the disabled. If the motion to extend the sittings passes before six o'clock tonight, that item of business will be called immediately thereafter and we will need one short speech to introduce it and it will have second reading debate tonight.

Mr. Gagnon:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am glad to hear that both gentlemen would like to expedite things, but could you tell us why the clock shows the hour to be 6.15? Is someone trying to expedite matters in the House?

Mr. Speaker:

I probably should explain to Hon. Members that once again the clocks have been moving more rapidly than time itself. I wanted to comment earlier that after the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) rose on his question and received his answer, the clock registered that the entire exchange had taken an hour and a half.

Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):

Mr. Speaker, there is a Bill that we in the New Democratic Party are very interested in expediting. I did not hear the Deputy Government House Leader deal with it. It is Bill C-82 dealing with lobbying, which has been promised for three years now. It was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on an urgent basis. We have had first reading of the Bill. We are prepared to expedite that Bill because we believe, with the Prime Minister, that it is an urgent Bill and should be dealt with. I am waiting to find out when Bill C-82 will be brought for second reading.

Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend inadvertently referred to it as the Bill on lobbying. I believe Bill C-82 is the conflict of interest Bill.