Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, the report by the Canadian Observer at the legislative and municipal elections in El Salvador on March 20, 1988.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages government responses to 20 petitions bearing Nos. 332-4675, 332-4676, 332-4773, 332-4776 to 332-4778 inclusive, 3324793, 332-4795 to 332-4799 inclusive, 332-4802, 332-4804 to 332-4806 inclusive and 332-4808 to 332-4811 inclusive.

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:

That the legislative committee on Bill C-130 be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada and the United States for the purpose of hearing witnesses on the proposed trade agreement with the United States.

Mr. Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt-

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

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to contest, if I may, the procedural acceptability of this motion being on the Order Paper under "Motions". The reason I do that is this.

Traditionally, the heading "Motions" has been reserved for concurrence requests in reports of standing committees which have been prepared by this House through the efforts of the standing committee, an independent body of this House. Members of standing committees, as the Chair will know, have the right to request that a concurrence motion be put on the Order Paper and then any member of the committee can move that concurrence motion in order to have a debate. I suggest that if motions of this nature are allowed to be put on the Order Paper under "Motions", we will have a complete subversion of the private Members' process.

If you look at the Order Paper under "Private Members' Motions", you will see other motions of instruction which a private Member puts in a draw and takes the chance that the motion will be drawn from a hat and thus go through the regular private Members' motions process. The House will know that process was developed by the parliamentary reform committee to ensure that private Members' motions and Bills had a decent opportunity of receiving full consideration by this House.

A private Member drafts a motion exactly as my hon. friend has drafted his, puts it in a hat and hopes that it is drawn out. When it is, it goes to the private Members' committee for deliberation as to whether or not it will get one hour's debate, such as the motion of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on the Order Paper today, which says:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider

designating as potential parkland all military lands located in urban areas and

presently used for military purposes, once their present use is discontinued.

There are other examples on the Order Paper.

I suggest we have a process for private Members' motions. You will note this motion is on the Order Paper in the name of an individual Member. It did not flow from a committee. It is an individual Member's effort to bring something to the attention of the House. It is a subversion, in my opinion, of the private Members' motion process and private Members' Bill process which was instigated and enacted by this House. For that reason I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend is trying to do something by way of Motions which he should quite properly do by way of a private Members' motion.

Motions

Second, I suggest that the committees in this House are the masters of their own destiny. We set up committees under a legislative chairperson now, not under a government appointed chairperson. The Chair appoints those committee chairpersons from a panel and those committees operate and decide on the business of the committee independent of the House.

I think it is fair to suggest that the arrangement of the business of that committee, unless it is in the original motion sending the matter to the committee, should be left up to the committee. It is my understanding that, in this particular instance, the committee has decided not to travel.

It is very much the exception that committees travel. If one wishes to argue that this particular committee should travel, I would counter that by saying that standing committees of this House, one a joint committee with the Senate and one an independent committee of this House with no Senate membership, have already travelled this country to consider the issue of free trade. Before this legislative committee is the question as to whether or not Bill C-130 accurately brings into legislation the agreement between Canada and the United States on free trade. That is the narrow question before the legislative committee on Bill C-130. I think that speaks to why the committee should not travel.

In concluding my remarks I want to reiterate that I believe this motion should properly come under Private Members' Business, a motion for an allotted day, or proceedings on delegated legislation. Second, I want to refer to the argument which has always been before us, that is, that committees are masters of their own destiny. For those reasons I do not believe that this motion is in order.

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

Hearings were held for a few hours and legions, if you like, of individuals and groups which wanted to have input into the process were turned away.

By the Prime Minister's own admission, this trade deal is the biggest trade deal signed, not in Canadian history, but in world history. If, as the Prime Minister has indicated, this is the biggest trade deal ever signed in world history, surely to goodness it would be appropriate to travel throughout the country this summer so that Canadians, wherever they live throughout Canada, would have an opportunity to participate in this discussion on the most important trade deal in world history.

We recognize the fact that in its present structure under the present rules and traditions the committee is unable to take the initiative to travel. That is why the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor felt it was appropriate to move this motion so that the representatives of all the people of Canada in the House of Commons can give a clear instruction to the committee to do the honourable, decent, and correct thing, that is, to travel throughout Canada and hold hearings on what the Prime Minister himself describes as the most important trade deal in world history.

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):

Mr. Speaker, I think we should start by looking at what a committee is supposed to be. A committee is clearly a subsidiary body to which a matter is sent for consideration by a larger body. The legislative committee which is studying Bill C-130 is clearly a subsidiary body of this House. In spite of the fact that the rules with respect to parliamentary reform may give a standing or legislative committee more authority to do things of their own accord, nothing in those rules has changed the fundamental concept of what a committee is.

A committee, especially the committee set up to study Bill C-130, is not a totally autonomous or independent body. It is nothing more than a subsidiary body of this House, to which this House has literally committed a piece of legislation for the kind of detailed study which was concluded some time ago and cannot be given in this Chamber as a House of Commons or even as Committee of the Whole.

I make this point because the Deputy Government House Leader seems to be arguing that somehow or other, under the rules reflecting parliamentary reform, our committees have such a status that once they are set up they are somehow cut loose from any link with this Chamber and it is somehow wrong for this Chamber to try to direct or instruct such committees.

If you consider what is the concept of a committee in principle and look at what our rules say, I invite you to conclude that the Deputy Government House Leader is wrong in inviting you to decide that under our rules it is no longer possible for this House to give an instruction to a committee as to how it should conduct itself. This House has no less

Motions

authority under our current rules than it did before the rules were adopted to give an instruction to a committee.

Incidentally, I find it ironic to say the least that the Deputy Government House Leader is basing his argument on the spirit of parliamentary reform when he and his colleagues on the Government side were so quick, so ready to throw parliamentary reform out the window when it served their purpose to do so in order to suspend the calendar concept under which we have been operating for some years so that the Government could get the House to sit through the summer.

Be that as it may, if the Deputy Government House Leader is interested in parliamentary reform and has returned to the view that parliamentary reform is important and should be supported, I maintain that there is nothing in our current rules under parliamentary reform which no longer makes it possible for this House to give an instruction to a group of Members who are nothing more than a subsidiary body of this Chamber.

It has already been brought to your attention that there are precedents that clearly set out what the authority of the House is to give an instruction to a committee. I want to draw your attention to some of the content of these precedents. You have already had drawn to your attention Citation 756(1) which says:

An Instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do, or to direct it to do something which it might otherwise not do. It directs the order and course of the committee's proceedings and extends or restricts the order of reference according to the discretion of the House.

We already know that this committee has shown itself through the efforts of the Conservative majority unwilling to seek the permission of the House to travel. I think we have clearly reached the point where it is appropriate for the House to adopt a motion giving an instruction to the committee studying Bill C-130 to travel from place to place, to hear directly the views of Canadians, where they live, where they work, where they make their homes, about the Government's trade deal with the United States.

It is clear from looking at Citation 759(1) that the motion which the Government has challenged could not have been called much earlier and that we are now at the appropriate point in time for such a motion to be made. Citation 759(1) states:

The time for moving an Instruction is immediately after the committal of the bill, or, subsequently, as an independent motion. The Instruction should not be given while the bill is still in the possession of the House, but rather after it has come into the possession of the committee.

We are just at that point contemplated by Citation 759(1). I suggest that the motion is very much in order from the point of view of the timing of its being called for debate.

I also submit that it is quite appropriate for this motion to be called under Motions rather than to be treated as a matter of Private Members' Business. I certainly can find nothing in the precedent set out in Beauchesne saying that this motion must be dealt with as Private Members' Business. I would say

Motions

that the whole concept of instructions to a committee by the House would be meaningless unless such instructions could be proposed as a motion during the point in time in our Routine Proceedings for the consideration of motions.

I repeat, there is no meaning whatsoever that could be attributed to the right of this House to give instruction to a committee unless it could be done in a way which would lead to a decision being taken on the request for instruction. This can happen only if it is done during the time set out in Routine Proceedings for motions.

I also suggest that it is consistent with the spirit of parliamentary reform to which the Deputy Government House Leader has once again become converted, after his unfortunate lapse in connection with cancelling our rules respecting the calendar concept.

If he is serious in regard to what parliamentary reform is supposed to mean, giving greater authority to individual Members to do things in the House, surely individual Members not of the Privy Council must be permitted to move motions to give instructions to committees during that item under Routine Proceedings entitled Motions. I believe the Deputy Government House Leader is very much in error when he argues that this motion can be presented only as a matter of Private Members' Business.

My friend, the New Democratic Party House Leader, says that a motion to instruct the committee with respect to such things as travel is rare and last happened during the pipeline debate. I have to take some issue with him on that because at page 230 of Beauchesne, paragraph 6 of Citation 761 states:

Power to adjourn from place to place-Instructions have been given to

committees to adjourn from place to place both within and outside Canada

for the purposes of receiving evidence. Journals, October 21,1976, p. 49.

There is a much more recent precedent on which to base our request that this motion be accepted and dealt with as quickly as possible. As recently as 1980, approximately, the special joint committee on the Constitution was authorized by this House and by the other place, I presume, to broadcast its proceedings after the committee was under way and without receiving any request from the committee that it be given such authority. That is a further precedent of this House giving instructions to a committee to do something it would not otherwise have the power to do. My hon. friend interjects to say that this motion to which I just referred was done on consent, but all consent means in this House is the equivalent of a unanimous decision of this House, but the consent does not always have to be given.

We are discussing whether this motion is in order, and I would like to say that rather than making the argument that this motion is somehow contrary to the spirit of parliamentary reform, if the Deputy Government House Leader and his colleagues have once again become converted to parliamentary reform, after their lapse with respect to suspending the

calendar in order to force the House to sit through the summer, they would welcome the initiative of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), our critic on trade, who proposed motions to allow the committee to travel.

I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I believe this motion is in order not only insofar as it intends to give an instruction to a parliamentary committee, but with respect to it being called during Routine Proceedings under the heading of Motions, and also with respect to the substance of the matter.

I think something that is very consistent with the spirit of parliamentary reform is to make it easy for Canadians to have access to their parliamentary institutions. One of the best and most effective ways to do this is through enabling committees to travel when they are considering something as important as this trade deal so they can get the views of Canadians where they work, where they live, where they have their homes, and where they will be affected by measures such as this Government's trade deal with the United States.

It is not satisfactory to say that a committee has already travelled for this purpose. As has already been pointed out, the travel of a previous committee was clearly inadequate with only one day in each provincial capital. In any event, the committee in question did not study the matter that is currently before the legislative committee on Bill C-130. It did not study Bill C-130, nor the trade deal itself.

Mr. Speaker:

I wish to hear all the submissions and certainly those of the Hon. Member for Windsor West. However, with respect, I think the Hon. Member is straying from the procedural point with which I am faced. I will certainly hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West in conclusion, but I would like to put a question to him. Assuming this particular motion is acceptable and receives the support of the House, can the Hon. Member for Windsor West assist the Chair as to whether that would mean that the committee would necessarily have to accept the power given to it and to in fact decide to travel? It seems to me, as the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap pointed out and very properly, that this is framed in terms of a permissive motion and even if it was passed here, it would not necessarily result in the committee deciding to travel.

Mr. Gray (Windsor West):

Mr. Speaker, you quite rightly pointed out that in effect there are two kinds of instructions. There are mandatory instructions and permissive instructions.

I would hope we could have an instruction from this House which is mandatory, which requires this committee to travel and hear Canadians where they live and work and where they will be affected by the Government's trade deal. If that is not the case, there is a motion on the Order Paper presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry which I would interpret as providing mandatory instructions.

I would point out, looking at the previous decisions in this respect, that mandatory instructions are quite acceptable and have been used in the past. As Citation 758 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:

The object of mandatory instructions is to define the course of action which

the committee must follow.

If this Elouse wishes to do so, it can give an instruction to the committee which is mandatory. It may be that there are other examples of mandatory instructions related to exactly how a committee should deal with a particular Bill, but I do not think there is any limitation on the authority or power of this House to give a committee a mandatory instruction with respect to the process or procedure it should follow in study of a particular Bill. If this House agrees, and I think it should because this is what Canadians want this House to do, they want the committee on Bill C-130 to travel and hear evidence across the country, then the motion is quite in order and should be passed, and the committee would be obliged to follow the instruction in its mandatory terms.

Mr. Speaker:

I am going to hear the Hon. Member and also the Minister of State. I will hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Windsor West if necessary, in reply. However, I take it the position of both the Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Windsor West is whether or not a mandatory motion of somewhat the same nature is procedurally in place, this is a permissive motion. The argument that is being put by both the representatives of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party is that procedurally it ought to be allowed, and if it is put into the procedures for Private Members' Motions, the practical result is it may never come back for consideration. Do I understand the position of both spokespersons for the Opposition correctly? The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. I just want to be sure I have the point and I will hear you later in detail.

Mr. Riis:

Mr. Speaker, the intention of putting forward a permissive motion is that the permissive instruction is the most common and most commonly used, particularly coming from an opposition Member. The reason it was put forward as a permissive motion was that during the committee's deliberations of the last day when it was deciding on how to proceed, when the request came from both the opposition Parties to travel throughout Canada to allow people to have input into the deliberations of the committee, the government Members indicated that the legislative committee, of course, had no authority to travel, that there was no opportunity to travel. Therefore, it was in that spirit that we felt that since the committee itself had determined that under the existing rules it had no authorization to decide to travel throughout Canada, the question was put aside because it was not part of the terms of reference of the legislative committee.

It was at that point that we felt a permissive motion ought to be presented both from an opposition Party and a Member, not a Member of the Cabinet, not a Minister. There was also the

Motions

fact that if that was the committee's concern, a clear instruction from the House of Commons would then clearly remove that and would allow the committee to continue.

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Member for Windsor West. I just want to be sure I have the point.

Mr. Gray (Windsor West):

I do not intend to extend my general argument, but I do want to say, first, the one basic point we are making is that any motion with respect to the committee travelling should not be placed under Private Members' Business just because it is offered by a Member not of the Privy Council of the Government. Second, I have to admit that the motion could be read as a permissive motion but, as the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has said, if the concern of the Conservative majority on the committee was that they did not have the power to travel, and if they had the power they would do it, then, let us hope that such a motion as we are discussing now will clear the air and the Conservative majority will follow through if it is passed and allow the committee to travel.

Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I will not take long on this matter. I simply want to point out that as a member of the committee which studied parliamentary reform, I can say quite firmly that as far as I can recollect, it was never the intention of the committee to have motions used in this way.

Mr. Gauthier:

We discussed that.

Mr. Friesen:

Further to that, whether this motion is either permissive or mandatory, one of the effects remains the same as a result of it. That is to say that if the committee travels it will involve an expenditure of funds and someone will have to pay for it.

Ms. Mitchell:

Take it out of your propaganda budget.