Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?

Agreed.

Mr. Grise:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. In today's Projected Order of Business, on page 6 under the heading Private Members' Business for Friday, July 22, we read:

Mr. Malepart-Motion-Passage of Bills without final Senate agreement

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), since his leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), decided yesterday that Bill C-130-since he asked the Senate not to accept Bill C-130, does the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie still intend to table his motion tomorrow during the time for Private Members' Business?

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I do not consider this to be a point of order, but if the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) wishes to add something ...

Mr. Gauthier:

What goes for the Parliamentary Secretary goes for the Member for Ottawa-Vanier. Besides, this is not a point of order at all, Mr. Speaker. But I would say that the Parliamentary Secretary has put his foot in his mouth. The debate will take place tomorrow at two o'clock. If he wants to know what we will do about it, let him attend the debate tomorrow and take part in it.

Mr. Riis:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order. I believe that under Private Members' Business for today there has been an understanding among the Parties that while we will proceed with Motion No. 104 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), we will spend a moment to deal with another Private Member's initiative as well. Perhaps we could get a clarification before we get too much further into today's business.

Mr. Gauthier:

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the Hon. Member's point, I think the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) has a Private Members' Bill in which she wants to change the name of her riding. She has consulted with me and I believe with the NDP. I do not know the Government's position, but we are ready to facilitate any passage of that Bill quickly tonight, if she so desires and wants to proceed with it.

Mr. Riis:

Mr. Speaker, that is the offer we are prepared to make, with the understanding that it would not necessarily cut into the time allocated to the Hon. Member for Burnaby. However, to facilitate the request of the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) to change the name of her constituency, the understanding is that we will take a moment to comment in order to facilitate her request. If that is the case, I would like not to see the clock so as at least to allow the one hour allowed for the Private Members' Motion of the Hon. Member for Burnaby.

July 21, 1988

Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker, I understand that those discussions have taken place and that there has been full and proper notice to all Members of the House that the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) wishes to proceed at that time.

While I cannot speak for Members of the House as to what might take place, I can speak for the Government in saying that whatever takes place we will ensure that a full hour of debate is given to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).

Mr. Malepart:

Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order or a question of privilege, you choose! In answer to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary and Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise), I am open to any proposal to give the people an opportunity for a democratic debate and a chance to decide on the Mulroney-Reagan agreement, because I find it unfair that a small group of Conservatives in the House of Commons will force such an important Bill on the people of Canada without consulting them.

Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved

for leave to introduce Bill C-311, an Act respecting Referendums and Plebiscites in Canada on Questions of Public Importance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?

Agreed.

Mr. Boyer:

Mr. Speaker, on a morning when there is controversy in Parliament and the country about whether a specific question such as free trade ought to be submitted to a general election or to the other place, the Senate, I am happy to be able to introduce for first reading a Bill that would point to a third way. The national referendum and plebiscite Act, or La loi Canadienne sur les referendums et plebiscites, is a complete code providing for the holding of referendums and plebiscites in Canada.

This Bill is certified in order, seconded by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). It runs to some 363 pages and attempts to deal in every respect, whether with broadcasting, fairness of publicity, spending limits, and all of the issues that are important to fair and unsullied expression of direct public opinion.

In my view, it is high time that we had such a statute that would give that third option for direct expression of popular opinion. I am happy to bring this Bill before the House this morning for first reading.

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and privilege again to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who are of the opinion that the federal Government has no mandate from the people of Canada to conclude this trade deal with the United States.

They believe that Canada's sovereignty would be seriously compromised. They believe that this deal would undermine our ability as a country to build a society distinct from that of the United States.

They go on to outline all of the reasons why they think this is a bad deal for Canada. I wish the Government would listen to them, do the honourable thing, and call an election.

The petitioners are asking that Parliament dissolve now to allow the people of Canada to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.