1988-07-12

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, the Government's response to Petition Nos. 332-4759, 3324814 to 332-4818 inclusive, 332-4820 to 332-4822 inclusive and 332-4827 to 332-4829 inclusive.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions signed by residents of the City of Winnipeg, Selkirk and a number of other cities. The petitioners say that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and, as the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S., they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from my constituency who state that the paramount right to life is vested in each human being and that the word "person" applies to all human beings. They hope the House will prepare legislation to the effect that unborn persons shall be afforded the same right to life as all others in Canada. The signatories are from such places as Nelson, Riondel, Harrop, Procter, Trail, and Castlegar.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf
of residents of Scarborough, Don Mills, North York, and Toronto who join with thousands of supporters and volunteers in supporting the Rouge Valley in Scarborough as a unique and precious natural area.
They say that protecting the endangered wildlife and wilderness areas in the Rouge Valley is in the national interest. They join with the Scarborough City Council, the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations in working to save the Valley. They petition the Parliament of Canada to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by some 700 residents of the City of Toronto, in addition to ones previously presented in the same form. They point out that on October 30, 1987, the then Minister of State for Immigration promised unmarried sons and daughters of all ages would be considered as members of the family class of immigrants, that married children and brothers and sisters in the assisted relative class would get 15 points instead of 10 points.
These petitions were gathered during the past months and weeks and, of course, they will be pleased to have the Minister's answer at last, though it was originally promised in several months.
They also point out that two years ago the then Minister of Justice promised that the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or more would be eliminated so that both these groups would have equal rights to sponsor parents of any age, and that this promise has not yet been fulfilled. Therefore they call upon the House to ensure that the Government will fulfil its promise now.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions from my riding and other ridings in the Greater Vancouver region. As well, there are over 100 names from Ottawa, Scarborough, Etobicoke and Toronto.
All these people are very concerned with the high incidents of crimes, including murder, robbery and sexual assault, that are committed with knives. This is on the increase in all major

July 12, 1988
Order Paper Questions
cities across Canada. They call upon the federal Government to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places, with some exemptions.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present three petitions today signed by constituents from Hamilton West and the surrounding area. The contents of all three petitions are the same. They call upon the Government of Canada to increase funds in order to increase research necessary for a cure to the disease schizophrenia.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from petitioners who are concerned that Canadian sovereignty is being threatened by the proposed trade deal. They believe that the present Government has no mandate to negotiate and complete a trade deal with the United States.
They call upon Parliament to ensure that a national debate takes place on this trade deal during a national general election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents from Kelowna and other parts of British Columbia who remind the House of Commons that on October 30, 1987, the then Minister of State for Immigration promised that unmarried sons and daughters of all ages would be considered as the family class of immigrants and that married children and brothers and sisters in the assisted relative class would get 15 points instead of 10 points when assessed for immigration to Canada. These petitioners express a number of other concerns and they are asking the House to take steps to make sure the Government fulfils these promises now.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to move on to debate today the Government's position on Bill C-84. As I have said frequently, Bill C-84 forms with Bill C-55 a complementary package that will create a fair, effective way of ensuring that the rights of genuine refugees and our international obligations are respected.
Equally important, we must take the necessary legislative steps to ensure that abuse of the system does not occur.

Bill C-84 must be passed without delay so that the attempts that have repeatedly been made to abuse the refugee determination process can be counteracted. The passage of Bill C-84 is also necessary to ensure that the measures proposed in Bill C-55 will be effective once they are put in place. That is why I consider these two Bills to be a legislative package.
Madam Speaker, I would like to note that one of the controversial points in Bill C-84 was the empowering of the Minister to order ships turned back on the high seas if they were transporting people who hoped to claim refugee status in Canada. Today I want to announce a sunset clause that will do away with this power six months after the passage of Bill C-55.

I just want to make it clear that we are proposing a sunset clause that will eliminate the power to turn away ships six months after proclamation of Bill C-55. In the interim, the Government is also proposing an amendment limiting the power to turn back ships to those carrying illegal migrants which are intercepted outside our 12-mile limit. In addition, we are proposing, for consistency with Bill C-55, that only the Minister will be able to exclude security risks from Canada.
The Government believes that the deterrent measures in Bill C-84 provide ample power to discourage the increasing abuse of our refugee determination system. These measures include increased penalties for the organizers of illegal migration and for their accomplices, including the imposition of ten-year jail sentences and fines of $500,000; heavier fines for transportation companies that bring undocumented arrivals; increased powers to detain security risks and unidentified arrivals; exclusion of security risks and criminals from the determination process; increased powers of search and seizure; improved electronic surveillance capability.
July 12, 1988

The net result of these measures will be a refugee determination system better able to help those truly in need and to handle the unprecedented global pressures we are now facing. We will face these problems with legislation that respects the Geneva Convention, respects our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and respects our humanitarian traditions in Canada.
In conclusion, it is my hope that now that our response to Bill C-84 can be seen to be fair and reasonable the other place will see fit to move with dispatch on Bill C-85 so that we can begin the process of putting it in place.
I move:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, but disagrees with amendments 2(A) and (B) and with the earlier amendments 5(B) and (C), on which the Senate insists, because this House believes they contradict the principles of the Bill for the following reasons:
Amendments 2(A) and (B) would reverse the policy on which the Immigration Act, 1976 was based, which policy was not changed in the Bill as passed by this House. The amendments jeopardize the possibility of successfully prosecuting persons who profit from organizing illegal migration and from counselling fraud among refugee claimants.
Earlier amendments 5(B) and (C) arise out of Senate amendment 5(A), which is amended by this House, and are inconsistent with that amendment.
And, that this House agrees with the principles set out in amendment 3 and in earlier amendment 5(A) on which the Senate insists, but would propose the following amendments:
Amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 14 to 16 on page 24 and substitute the following:
Referred to in paragraphs 19(1)(E), (2)(A) and 48.1(c) and subsections 39(2), 40(1), 41(1), 82.1(2), 83(1) and 91.1(1), and any such power,"
Earlier amendment 5(A) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 13 to 30 on page 8, and substitute the following:
91.1(1) Subject to subsection (1.1), where the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle within twelve nautical miles of the outer limit of the territorial sea of Canada is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of this Act or the regulations, the Minister may direct the vehicle not to enter the internal waters of Canada or the territorial sea of Canada, as the case may be, and any such direction may be enforced by such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.
(1.1) The Minister may make a direction under subsection (1) where the Minister is satisfied

(A)	the vehicle can return to its port of embarkation without endangering the lives of its passengers;
(B)	All passengers who seek Convention refugee status and are nationals or citizens of the country where the vehicle embarked them have been removed from the vehicle and brought into Canada;
(C)	The country where the vehicle embarked its passengers is a signatory to the Convention and complies with Article 33 thereof; and
(D)	The country would allow the passengers to return to that country or to have the merits of their claims to Convention refugee status determined therein.
(1.2) Where the minister believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle within
(A) The internal waters of Canada, or
Immigration Act, 1976
(B) The territorial sea of Canada
Is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of this Act or the regulations, the Minister may direct that the vehicle be escorted to the nearest port of disembarkation and any such direction may be enforced by such force as is reasonably necessary."
That concludes my response, Madam Speaker. I believe if you seek the opinion of the House you will find we have unanimous consent to add an additional amendment to this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Minister is seeking unanimous consent to add another amendment. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I wish to give unanimous consent on the understanding that there will be occasion for debate with respect to the additional motion the Minister has moved.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All motions put to the House are debatable. Of course, the Hon. Member can have this assurance. The Hon. Minister may proceed.


Mrs. MacDougall:: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. Vezina):
That Clause 8 of Bill C-84 be amended by striking out line 17 on page 9 and
substituting the following:
"portation by sea.
4) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-55 entitled An act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof is assented to, this section shall cease to be in force six months after the day on which that Act comes into force."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The debate is on both motions.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus to respond to the latest response of the Government concerning Bill C-84 which was introduced about a year ago. I think it is fitting that on the very anniversary of the boatload of Sikh refugee claimants landing on the East Coast of our country that we would be, first, debating a Bill that was intended to be an emergency and, second, that we would be talking specifically about the whole proposal of turning back boats and the sunset clause introduced by the Minister a few moments ago.
I would also like to pay tribute to the Senators, both the Liberal Senators and government Senators, who have worked very respectfully and thoroughly in providing a forum for organizations and groups from across this country.
Now that the dust has settled with respect to the so-called emergency, the so-called crisis, the national call for Parliament to convene to pass emergency legislation, members on the government side and, indeed Canadians, have been able to

July 12, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
reflect on last summer's activities, the manipulation of the situation, and the creation of hysteria. After several months of reflection and taking a proper perspective on the situation, I believe all government Members and groups now believe that the tabling of such Draconian legislation was not only a disservice to the best traditions which define this country, a country which has offered international leadership to our partners and allies around the globe, but it was also an overkill in terms of the very proponents of the legislation contained in Bill C-84.
That is the reason that Members in this House and Members in the other place, as well as groups across this country, have tried to address what I believe is the worst performance of any government in dealing with immigration and refugee matters. I believe to call a national emergency based on 147 individuals is a shame for this Government and, unfortunately, a shame for this country.
It was only several years ago that the Government, supported by the same citizens, progressively and very courageously participated in a world-wide effort to find homes for the so-called Vietnamese boat people. This country accepted close to 106,000 Vietnamese boat people over the course of approximately a year and one-half. Half of them were sponsored by the Government and the other half were sponsored by individual communities. Only a few years later, last summer, based on 147 individuals, at a time when the Government found itself in the doldrums of the popularity polls, it moved in an unprecedented and very shameful way.
There have been efforts by Members in this House and in the other Chamber, as well as Canadians from coast to coast, to amend and ameliorate a bad piece of legislation. We tried to bring it into conformity with the standards and traditions of our country in terms of immigration and refugee policies. We did so not because, as the Government suggests, we somehow want to legitimize abuse. No one in this Chamber or in this country is in favour of illegitimate refugees, immigrants, or profiteers who simply make their living by taking advantage of desperate human beings in very difficult circumstances. No one in any part of government, whether it is a Department dealing with pensions or UIC, immigration or refugees, condones the undermining of our rules and regulations. However, having said that, nor do we consent to the stripping away of the regulations and the laws to which we adhered which took such a long time to develop and nurture. The fights and debates to get where we are in terms of our processes and in terms of our laws were not an overnight success. It was not an easy debate. In a short span of time we have sacrificed the work and the efforts of so many people and so many previous Governments. In the process we have jeopardized our reputation abroad.
Every legal expert who came before the legislative committee, the standing committee, as well as before the Senate committee, said that many clauses both in Bill C-84 and Bill
C-55 are very much unconstitutional and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which we passed as a Parliament several years ago. The importance of that testimony is in terms of what will happen if the courts agree with the body of opinion presented by legal experts, a nearly unanimous opinion which predicted that if this legislation becomes law it will be challenged in the courts and the courts will uphold those challenges.
What then will the Minister say to Canadians? What then will the Government say to the country when its policies are paralysed as a result of verdicts rendered by various courts? It will then have done the country a greater disservice since in paralysing our policies in the courts public confidence will not be there. Instead of public confidence there will be public cynicism rooted in the belief that the Government was trying to correct a situation but in so doing has made it worse.
Therefore what we were trying to do-and we make no bones about it-was to prevent a piece of legislation from being tied up in the courts and in the result having our system undermined by a court decision. One of the fundamental, if not the foremost, priorities as a Parliament is to draft good legislation, legislation that is in keeping with the first law of the land, our Constitution. If we have doubts about a law's constitutionality, or if we have doubts about the Department of Justice not being in accord with the Department of Immigration, and if we have not seen the justice opinion, if the Government has not had the courage to show its critics and cynics that the decision was rooted on sound judicial ground, then we have an obligation as a Parliament to try to correct that flawed legislation.
In the Minister's response of a few moments ago we saw the same inflexibility that she demonstrated in her response to Bill C-55. When she responded to Bill C-55 it was as a new Minister of Employment and Immigration. She is now somewhat more seasoned. She has had an opportunity to grasp a very difficult portfolio. No one pretends that this portfolio is an easy one with which to contend. However, in the Minister's response we see the same business-as-usual attitude. In her response to Bill C-84 she has failed to break the log-jam concerning two critical areas of concern. The first area of concern is the question with respect to turning back a boat. However, at the end of her remarks today she added an interesting and puzzling footnote with respect to a sunset clause on which I will comment later.
The real stumbling block for most Canadians was caused by the provision to turn a boat back and the aiding and abetting provision whereby individuals and church organizations, including priests and nuns who may be helping refugees come into Canada, will face a potential fine or imprisonment. Those were the two hang-ups that the country had with Bill C-84. Rather than try to ameliorate the two in a real fashion the Minister has chosen to ignore the testimony, the articulate, emotional and passionate pleas that organizations have made for months on end. As well she has rejected the compromises
July 12, 1988

that were put forward by the Senate in its last response to Bill C-84.
The present Minister is the fourth Conservative Minister to hold the portfolio of immigration. There were expectations that she might bring a more moderate view to the Ministry, that she might be more open and flexible to a Canadian compromise in order to de-escalate the polarized views created by this legislation. There is disappointment that she has been unwilling to tackle head on these two very fundamental and serious shortcomings in Bill C-84.
I compliment the Minister on her acceptance of the first and third amendments proposed by the Senate which at the very least in an eleventh hour compromise suggests that if the Government is to refuse any individual entry into the refugee determination process on the grounds of a security threat the Minister is the only person able to bar that individual proceeding through the process. Before this legislation any official was able to exclude an individual. The Minister has accepted a compromise, an eleventh hour suggestion from the Senate which states that only the Minister's signature will be an authorization for a person to be excluded.
I would ask the Minister to be concerned with the proposal which would exclude individuals from the refugee determination process based on information we may receive from other Governments. I also point out that Belgium is the only country in the western world which rejects individuals based on security information provided by other Governments. I would ask the Minister to be concerned about information we may receive from other Governments.
After all, what constitutes a security risk or a security threat in the eyes of another Government? If South Africa were to provide our government officials with evidence that Nelson Mandela was a subversive, a law-breaker in South Africa, then would that constitute barring Nelson Mandela from our refugee determination process? I use that example to suggest that many individuals who may be political refugees and who escape the country of their torture or their harassment may be pursued by those very same government officials who pushed them to seek refugee status in the first place.
Political refugees are the worst public relations campaign for any country. Therefore if we have political refugees who come to this country or others then we can bet our bottom dollar that the countries from which they are running will disavow the refugees' claims these individuals will make. The Governments of the countries from which these individuals flee will try to discredit and undermine those individuals who in the eyes of a dictatorship or a military regime bring instability and pressure as well as media and world attention to their policies.
That is why I moved an amendment during the debate at third reading which suggested that if the Government feared that someone was a security threat, then it should not listen to the advice of some government abroad or information that
Immigration Act, 1976
came to it via a number of different foreign sources, but rather it should issue a security certificate which would be reviewed by the Security and Intelligence Review Committee. Automatically SIRC would conduct an oral hearing, and the Cabinet would be able to argue the case in front of SIRC that this individual is a security threat. If it can be proven at that particular hearing that this individual is a security threat given the proper protections, then this individual will be removed from our country and forbidden re-entry. That would be a guarantee that foreign governments would not provide fraudulent information upon which we would exclude this individual from the refugee process. I draw that information and concern to the attention of the Minister now that she will have the sole privilege of disallowing individuals from participating in the refugee process in Canada.
Amendment number two from the Senate concerned the aiding and abetting section. Unfortunately, the Government refused to budge on the Senate compromise and on the repeated concerns of the Senate and other groups and individuals in the House who were attempting to convince the Government that it would be morally unjust and legally obscene to fine or imprison individuals from churches and organizations who assist refugees with resettling in Canada. The Government proposes to make it an offence against the person who counsels or advises the individual with improper or illegitimate travel documents and the person advising that individual may face criminal prosecution. The Senate attempted to convince the Government to make it an offence for individuals, or members of churches or organizations who counsel unfounded cases with no credible basis, or who counsel in a clandestine manner.
The operative phrase in the Government's legislation now becomes the whole question of travel documents. The Government is saying if an individual does not have proper travel documents and is assisted by an organization, a priest, or a nun to come into this country, then those people assisting the individual will now face imprisonment or a fine.
I would like to point out to the Government that that is going in the wrong direction. A legitimate refugee is more inclined to not have correct documentation. A true refugee who is facing abuse or torture will not have had the luxury or the time to go to an embassy or consulate and pick up the appropriate visa before coming to Canada. If a person is fleeing a military or dictator regime that is harassing this individual then it might be incumbent upon this legitimate refugee to make an illegitimate travel document in order that they can escape the country of torture and abuse as a first step to entering Canada.
We have suggested that in most cases legitimate refugees would be the ones who do not possess real travel documents, but yet they possess a real refugee claim. Fake refugees may be coached into having the appropriate travel documents, but do not have a legitimate case for refugee status, particularly if they are being coached by those who are professional in the art

July 12, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
of manipulation and of profiteering from individuals who face difficult circumstances abroad.
Therefore, why penalize churches or organizations that may be assisting an individual to come into the country? Regardless of the travel documents that he or she may be carrying with them, why penalize those legitimate elements in society who have tried to lend a hand and provide a bridge and a home to those who are fleeing and who are homeless?
Churches have been at the forefront of feeding the hungry through food banks, finding homes for those who live on streets or in parks, assisting senior citizens, the disadvantaged, and the poor. Why penalize those elements in churches and organizations who try to help another worthy cause, namely, those fleeing from persecutions and who are trying to find what you and I have, Madam Speaker, and what we all too often take for granted?
The Minister and the Government have said: "Don't worry. We will never use this particular clause against a church. We will never fine a priest. We will never imprison a nun. We will never undermine an organization that is legitimate". That is not how laws are constructed in this country. Legislation is not passed based on the intentions of one Minister. Today what might be the good intentions of a Minister, tomorrow might be the bad intentions of another Minister, or in 10 years' time from now. We in the House must debate and pass legislation, and analyse that legislation based on the force of this law or of the proposed law, and on the legal force and letter of this proposed law it would be criminal to persist in justifying the indefensible, and in defending and promoting that this piece of legislation should be getting the support of this Parliament and the other place.
I regret that the relatively new Minister did not have the moral fortitude to admit that that clause is onerous, offensive, and is a slap in the face to those voluntary organizations that do not have any malice or criminal intent, and have no profiteering intent, but simply try to lend a helping hand to those whom they feel are deserving of that assistance. Rather than encouraging and applauding those efforts, the Government is potentially prepared to penalize those important efforts across the country.
The other amendment that the Minister refused to accept from the Senate was amendment No. 4. This clause allows the Government to turn ships around. In amendment No. 4 the Senate attempted to amend this very sensitive clause by having the Government recognize that, if it wanted to discourage those captains and profiteers and that type of manipulative business, then the ship must be escorted into port. This would provide the opportunity to impound the boat, sell it, and proceed with prosecution of the captain for having dumped a human cargo off a coastline of our country, or attempting to subvert our regulations and laws. That would send a clear message across the Atlantic or the Pacific. If there was another captain who was prepared to set sail with another human cargo, that captain would think twice when hearing the
news that another captain or his friend lost his boat and is now facing a fine or imprisonment. That would be the deterrent that we would be looking at as a country and as a Parliament.
Instead, the Government, in refusing amendment No. 4, continues to argue that the deterrent would be to turn back the boat. I suggest that that is not the case. If you were to simply turn back a boat on which you or I were the captain, then what is the risk involved for us as a captain navigating that ship? Assuming that we collected the cash from those individuals for that Atlantic or Pacific journey, we would have the money in our pockets and 50 per cent says that we will dump the people on the coastline successively and, at the very worst, the other 50 per cent risk is that the Coast Guard finds out and turns the boat back, without even looking at who is on board, but simply turns it back.
What is the big risk for the captain? He has his money. He either dumps the human cargo further offshore or returns them to the point of departure or brings them to another country. There is nothing to lose for the captain because he has made his dollars and, indeed, has probably made big dollars.
The Government wants to discourage these manipulators, as it should, by throwing the law book at them with all the force and determination. We urge it to bring the boats in, impound them, and charge the captains. That will send a strong message. Instead, how did the Government respond? Not only did it say that it would be better to simply turn the boats around, but it began to define what areas of the sea it would be doing it in.
For instance, the Government, in the response just tabled by the Minister, suggests that between 12 and 24 nautical miles it can turn back a boat if it is satisfied with four conditions. One of the conditions is the seaworthiness of the boat and the fact of there being no danger to the lives.
Now, how are they going to make that determination 12 to 24 miles out at sea? If it is foggy and raining and the waters are choppy, what are they going to send; the Minister in a boat to determine how seaworthy the ship is? How are we going to see the condition of the ship? How are we going to make a determination concerning who is on the boat or what the health of those passengers is or how much food or water is left on that boat if we turn them around? What we are talking about is a very illogical determination that we have to make, almost impossibly, out at sea. That is what is being asked for in this one clause.
The second condition is to suggest that passengers who seek conventional refugee status and are nationals or citizens of the country from which the ship departed are removed from the boat and brought in. What do we do then? Again, in the middle of the night, we send a boat out to sea and we ask for identification. What if there is no identification, no travel documents, and people suggest that they came from a certain country and that they are nationals of a certain country, or lie
July 12, 1988

or mislead simply to get onshore? How are government officials supposed to validate who is from where and when, out at sea in the middle of the night?
The third condition is to suggest that if there are individuals on that boat who come from countries which participate in the Geneva Convention, then those people should be sent back and not be removed by the boat. How do you manage to make that determination by going through the boat in the middle of an evening with perhaps documentation that is not up to par? A boat goes out, brings back some people and a determination is made that these are individuals who are nationals from countries which do face refugee problems. They leave the rest on board based on another determination saying: "Well, you come from a country where you have your own refugee process and you respect the Convention, so we are sending you back." How can they verify on the spot, at that moment, out at sea who is who?
The fourth condition is to suggest that they are going to allow the people to go back if the country they are coming from will allow them to return. Again, what are they going to do? If people on the boat say: "Well, I come from Belgium, I come from Argentina", what is the Minister going to do? Will she call the Ministers in Argentina and Belgium overnight and say: "Are you going to allow these people to return?" How are they going to make a determination at sea regarding which country and which Government will allow a person to return? To return means nothing. It does not mean to admit. There is no legal force in having a person return. That could simply mean return them to the country and the shore, keep them at the airport or the port and then send them packing.
The real problem in all these four conditions is how do you make a determination in the middle of the sea, between 12 and 24 miles, after you have stopped a boat, that these four conditions are being lived up to? How can any Government pretend to be satisfied by incorporating these four conditions concerning turning back a boat? These four conditions are an insult to people's intelligence in this Chamber and across the country. I would suggest that no government official would dare try to verify these four conditions in the middle of the sea, 12 to 24 nautical miles outside of this country. It is simply incredible. They are passing it off as legitimate proposals.
The Minister should have a serious rethinking and reevaluation and not try to pass off the very humorous-they are not even that. They are serious. If this is going to become the legislation of this country, it is going to be very serious and indeed a shame to try to make these conditions verifiable in the middle of the sea.
Then they talk about internal waters. Concerning internal waters and up to 12 miles, they basically have the same philosophy. In that particular amendment, the Government is saying that between our internal waters and 12 miles the Government may bring a ship into port. Well, the word "may", of course, is very weak. It means, by the same token, that a ship within those waters may be turned around as well.
Immigration Act, 1976
If you are going to turn them around between zero and 12 miles, where are the conditions? You do not have conditions, first, and second, if you did have conditions, as badly and as poorly and as illogically drafted as the first set of conditions, then those are not a safeguard in terms of trying to validate who is on board, whether the passengers are refugees, whether they are safe, and to impound the boat and fine and imprison the captain.
The Government, while trying to define between 12 miles and 24 miles on four flimsy conditions, is really saying the same thing: "Give us the power to turn boats around". The Senate is suggesting, and we are suggesting that that is not the answer to illegitimate smugglers, because it does not offer a penalty harsh enough, because you cannot get the captain or will not be able to impound the boat, and second, how do you process potential refugees on a boat? How do you turn that boat around? How do you allow those people to return when you do not even know if they are going to be returning to face continued persecution or possible death?
Therefore, the logical and humane thing to do would be to accept the boat and escort it under Canadian supervision into our port, allow the cases to be processed and allow the captain and the boat to be penalized to the extreme. That would be the solution rather than the response that the Government has proposed to us this morning, which I believe is very silly and in essence saying the same thing by using different legislative language.
Concerning the zero to 12 miles the Government uses the language "may bring a ship into port". I will be moving an amendment at the end of my comments to change the word "may" to "shall". At least within internal orders and up to 12 miles the law of the land will be that if you see a boat you will bring it into port, not return it, but "shall bring it into port" so you will offer the processing and the punishment that should be facing the captain and crew.
The Government through the Minister a few moments ago moved a very puzzling and seductive sunset clause. After just arguing the case for turning back a boat, after the sophistication of between zero and 12 miles and 12 to 24 miles, after a full year of the Government defending the absolute need for turning back boats, the Minister now says that the Government will be prepared to consider a sunset clause. The Government is saying that if Parliament gives us Bill C-55, the Government will drop the turning back the boat provision six months after that legislation comes into force. The big question is why do that at this stage. If you accept the point that you need two pieces of legislation, one for reforming the processing-which is Bill C-55-and one for discouraging smugglers, why after arguing for a year does one at the eleventh hour, after offering the stick and carrot routine to the Senate, let go of the carrot? Something is wrong.

July 12, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Either the Government could have admitted that turning back the boat was a very wrong and misguided provision or the Government could have defended it, if that is what the Government wanted to do. Instead the Government has chosen perhaps the worst of all possibilities. It has defended its right to the end today by rejecting amendment No. 4. It then offered the carrot by saying if you give us Bill C-55, we will strike that provision from the books. It is a very seducing carrot that I do not regard as completely being respectful. The Government is mixing the two Bills and is using potential lives at sea as the bargaining chips for it to get through the Elouse and Parliament another piece of legislation. That is bargaining of the lowest kind.
When the Government accepted the principles of having a deterrence and a processing Bill, we advocated that if those two went together we would have one Bill, striking the clause of turning back the boats because that is a wrong direction for this country to go on refugee legislation. If the Government is interested in making that seducing deal with the other place, and it is trying to get Bill C-55 through so it can strike the provision, why make a deal in terms of the provisions in Bill C-55 where there is inflexibility?
If you accept at this stage that you will not be able to turn back boats, why did the Government not accept that principle a year ago when we urged it not to have that provision and urged the Government to have people processed as the Government will have us do if and when Bill C-55 becomes legislation? The Government will now strike the provision. I too would want that provision struck from our laws and books. One can argue that even if this is a very immoral way of bargaining, using people as leverage to try to strike a provision that was wrong from the first, it would still be laudable to have that provision off the books. I am also asking at what price and at what cost is the Government asking us to do it and in what manner is the Government trying to strike it from the books by trading it with another piece of legislation rather than having the principle and the gumption to stand up and say that that particular clause is wrong, we will eradicate it; there are no conditions; there are no strings attached; it will not become part of our legislation?
While I do not want to see that provision in the law books of the country, I find it very disturbing the Government would use desperate people as leverage to strike something that was wrong to start with.
We still have two onerous provisions; aiding and abetting and the turning back of the boats. In terms of aiding and abetting, it is useful to remind ourselves of the words spoken by Nancy Pocock from the Inter-church Committee for Refugees. She was recently given a prestigious award for her work in the area of refugees. She said:
If my Government tells me it is a crime to help these people, I will have to say I am obeying a higher law and I am going to continue to help them when they need me.
We should think about that, Madam Speaker. We should also think about the words spoken by Mr. George Cram also from the Inter-church Committee for Refugees. He spoke about turning back boats and said:
When we had the boat crisis in 1979, we went and saw boats being pushed off the coast of Malaysia. We saw boats being pushed off various countries around the Southeast Asia and we saw refugees dying. Why? Because the boats were not allowed to land.
We are creating that. We are doing precisely what we spoke about in the United Nations in horror, that when boats carrying illegals are not allowed to land, they die.
Finally I refer to a letter that was just sent to the Minister. I believe a photocopy was sent to myself and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), the critic for the New Democratic Party. This letter reads in part:
I am very concerned about the possible passage of Bills C-55 and C-84 as they are in their present state... I also have a great fear that our international reputation for humanitarian conduct has already been somewhat eroded. At this moment, since I volunteer with the resettlement of refugee women, I am not too proud to be a Canadian. I would like to be able to hold my head up high when and after I assist these women to deal with the rules we make in this country.
I trust that you will pay attention to our concerns re. the refugee Bills. Canadians have done years of hard work to achieve for Canada its reputation as a good citizen among other countries. Let's not destroy that now!
That letter was written by Maria Lanthier of the City of Toronto.
I believe those three individual quotes summarize how we feel about this legislation. We hoped that the Minister would have amended those two onerous clauses so we could preserve a domestic system that would do us honour but at the same time would protect our international reputation as Mrs. Lanthier has so articulately spelled out in her letter. We will then continue to be leaders of good policy around the world. We would be trying to build an international resolve for strengthening rather than weakening the international leadership for assisting refugees throughout the world.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau):
That the proposed motion to amend Clause 91.1, subsection (1) of Bill C-84 be amended as follows:
"(1.1) The Minister shall make a direction under subsection (1) where the Minister is satisfied

(A)	The vehicle can return to its port of embarkation without endangering the lives of its passengers;
(B)	All passengers who seek Convention refugee status and are nationals or citizens of the country where the vehicle embarked them have been removed from the vehicle and brought into Canada;
(C)	the country where the vehicle embarked its passengers is a signatory to the Convention and complies with Article 33 thereof; and
(D)	the country would allow the passengers to return to that country or to have the merits of their claims to Convention refugee status determined therein.
(1.2) Where the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle within
July 12, 1988

(A)	the internal waters of Canada, or
(B)	the territorial sea of Canada is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of this Act or the regulations, the Minister shall direct that vehicle to be escorted to the nearest port of disembarkation and any such direction shall be enforced by such force as is reasonably necessary."
The key change, as I articulated earlier, is to change the word "may" to the word "shall" which would have the force of ensuring that any boats within 12 miles of Canada which approach with refugee claimants will have to be brought into port so that the refugee claimants may be processed and the captain thoroughly punished, fined and imprisoned and the boat sold. In this way, we may send a real message that there is a front door for refugee determination and that those who take the back door will pay a very severe price.
That is the direction in which this Parliament should be going. That is progressive legislation for this Government to build on the success and tradition of our victories in refugee legislation. The Government should not shame them by undermining them and by tearing apart the resolve that took years of building and debating.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: At this point, the Chair would like to suggest to the Hon. Member that the Chair will reserve for a while on this amendment. We will continue debate and the Chair will get back to the House as soon as possible.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak again against Bill C-84 and particularly against the Minister's message to the Senate the second time around answering to their second attempt to reduce the wrongs of this Bill.
The Minister's message continues injustice to refugees. It continues, contrary to her opinion, to flout the United Nations Convention in the opinion of those who are expert in the matter. It continues to flout the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that provides to everyone physically in Canada the opportunity to make a refugee claim and it continues to visit special indignity and insult and injustice on Canadians who help real refugees.
This arises out of a so-called emergency 11 months ago when about 174 dark-skinned people came in a boat to the East Coast and asked for refugee status. That was regarded as an invasion. Although the Minister preferred to talk about thousands and tens of thousands, it was 174 people with dark skins whom the Minister used as the excuse for this unjust legislation.
I will not repeat the long list of people who came as individuals or as representatives of the churches and other public bodies to testify against this Bill, and who sent letters and petitions and who organized rallies against this Bill. In contrast, none, not one came from the public to support this Bill, only the Minister and those officials who had helped to write it. The fact is that that opposition has not gone away and
Immigration Act, 1976
the Canadian Council of Churches has vowed that it will raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to make it possible to fight these Bills in court on the basis of Charter challenges.
I will point out the errors in the Minister's response. I will point out also the need that before this Bill and Bill C-55 should be proclaimed, the Minister ought to clean up the overseas refugee selection process as suggested in a report which I delivered to her yesterday morning. I will intend also to offer two amendments.
The Minister has accepted the first amendment proposed by the Senate, but unfortunately, that amendment in itself, as proposed by the Senate, introduces a new kind of injustice into what we are doing here, a new kind of injustice into the Bill. I refer to the words which say that a person may be excluded from the right to make a refugee claim if the Minister certifies that allowing him to go through the refugee process would be contrary to the public interest.
It is bad enough, as was previously being done, to say exclude him if the Minister certifies that he is a security risk. It is bad enough because there is not due process of law for that person within Canada to defend himself. But to say, as the Minister and the Senate say in Section (c), a person that they will exclude from that right guaranteed by our treaty with the United Nations, will exclude a person described in paragraphs 19(1 )(e), (f) or (g), 27(l)(c) or (2)(c), if the Minister is of the opinion that the application of Sections 45, 48, 70 and 71, the refugee process, to that person would be contrary to the public interest.
There are certain security and criminal concerns that are to be recognized and are recognized within the process that Canada agreed to 20 years ago with the United Nations that should be examined after a person has made a refugee claim and been heard, not before. But this goes much further even than the previous bad legislation proposed by the Government because this does not rest on security at all. The Government simply says: "We think it would be contrary to the public interest".
For example, if a man called Santokh Singh asks for refugee status, and if the Indian Government makes it known that it would not like it if he were given refugee status, and if Canada is seeking certain fat computer contracts with the Indian Government, then apparently it might be urged by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), should not allow that person to make a refugee claim. It might be bad for business.
Or, for example, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen) feels that such a person has unsatisfactory ideas, that such a person is perhaps an existentialist or belongs to some philosophical group such as the ones the Hon. Member condemned in his speech a few weeks ago, that Canada should exclude that person and that he would no doubt try to persuade the Minister to say that that person should be excluded on the

July 12, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
grounds that it would not be in the interests of the public of Canada to allow an existentialist to enter Canada. He has a lot of other people whose ideas he does not like as well, but the existentialist was the one that made even the Parliamentary Secretary laugh a few minutes ago.
This is contrary to the Charter, many of us believe, because that person in Canada has certain rights of equal treatment and due process under the Charter. Unfortunately, by the rules of order, I cannot offer an amendment to this because this was amended not by the Government but by the Senate, no doubt after consultation.
The second response to the Senate is to kill the Senate's attempt to soften the Government's section which criminalizes thousands of respected Canadians for doing what is admired by most Canadians and what has been admired by the Government of Canada and what has been admired by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in giving Canada the Nansen Medal. They did not give it to the Government, fortunately. They gave it to the people of Canada for doing the very thing that this law would turn into a crime, helping a person, who did not already have a visa to do so, to come to Canada to claim refugee status.
It has been further demonstrated in the report I gave to the Minister's office yesterday that in places like El Salvador or Guatemala, bona fide refugees, people who have reason to fear persecution by their Governments and their death squads, are often afraid to seek a visa to enter Canada because the Canadian offices are watched by the secret police of those countries. Therefore, they have no choice but to come here without a visa. Those are the people against whom the Government has directed Bill C-84.
It has also directed the Bill against those who help those people in any sense. It has created a new offence. The Government claims it was always an offence, but that claim is patently false because no prosecution was ever attempted during the decade the existing legislation was in force. This penalty applies to people, as mentioned by my friend, such as Nancy Pocock who received the Pearson Peace Medal, who openly help these people get to the nearest Canadian Immigration Office at a point of entry to claim refugee status in spite of the fact they had not been able to get visas. This Bill creates this new offence and the Government tries to conceal that fact by claiming all it is doing is increasing the penalties. That is patently false because the penalties could have been increased without creating a new offence.
Then the Government undertakes to amend an earlier Senate amendment which it had rejected some months ago, but this time with rewording. What the Government is saying is that it wishes to allow these ships to enter under certain conditions and with certain considerations having been looked at in advance. I will not go into all of the conditions proposed in the revised 19.1(1) of the Minister, but I do wish to point to
subsection (d) where she says the Minister must be satisfied that the country to which the boat would be sent back would allow the passengers to return or to have the merits of their claim to convention refugee status determined therein. That is worthless from the point of view of saving the life of a real refugee. They can be returned to that country and the country says yes, you can return, and the next day sends them out. "Return" in immigration legal usage in this country, and that is what we have to work with, does not mean return with the right to stay.
The word "admit" means return with the right to stay, but the Government has consistently refused to allow an amendment that would use the word "admit". I will be asking again that the words "the country would allow the passengers to return to that country" be struck out and replaced with the words "the country would admit the passengers to that country". That is enough to sink the whole clause. That is, without that amendment, the error of sending them back there only with the idea they can return for an hour or a day or a week is enough to sink the whole clause and the whole law.
I wish now to come to the Minister's additional motion which, along with my hon. friend, I accepted by unanimous consent for debate. I wish to point out that with this law for turning away ships, Canada has already become an international disgrace. Canada has the gall even now to condemn Thailand for pushing boats containing refugees away from its shores, the very thing that this law insists on doing. The fact that the Minister has the common sense to say "six months later, when no one is looking, let's just quietly tow it away", may get Canada out of a bad political hole but it does not fully correct the false signals sent to the world to say Canada is now joining Thailand in pushing refugees away from our shores, legally or physically pushing them away. The most I can think of doing to amend that clause is by replacing "six months" with "one month" so that we will be correcting it very soon after C-55 has been adopted and in force, if it is adopted and in force.
I now wish to come to the points on which not only Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 fall condemned, but that there must be corrective action taken if the Minister insists on putting these into law. The effect of these laws is not only to criminalize Canadians who help refugees come to Canada to seek refugee status, but as far as possible to prevent them from doing that and to have all refugees selected overseas. Therefore, the study I commissioned examined Canada's overseas refugee selection process as it relates to Central Americans applying to our overseas offices. It finds three very grave faults in that process.
One is that it favours certain countries. I am referring here to the self-exiled person class regulation in which a person from Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is not required to show fear of persecution. The simple fact they come from those countries is considered adequate grounds for being considered a refugee. That is discriminatory. It is unjust. It is a denial of our
July 12, 1988

obligations to the UN which require that each refugee case be considered on its merits.
There is a similar problem emerging within the region of Central America in which one country, Nicaragua, with a much better human rights record than its neighbours El Salvador and Guatemala, nevertheless has a higher acceptance rate of refugees in Canada, perhaps because they are of a more professional class. We do not know the reasons but we know the fact that there is the appearance of discrimination in favour of Nicaraguan anti-Sandanista refugees as against refugees from the fascist Government of El Salvador and the extremely repressive Government of Guatemala. This again violates our obligations to the UN.
Second, our process fails because it puts immigration considerations ahead of refugee considerations. Refugee claimants in El Salvador and Guatemala are examined first in a prescreening process to see whether Canada thinks they would be useful immigrants. If they flunk that, if they do not have medical degrees or something we would like, then they are not even allowed to state their refugee claim. This is a violation of our obligations to the UN. The prescreening used, and the sequence of interview questions used, are clearly designed to keep out many bona fide refugees and favour those who have only the slightest refugee claim but who are otherwise more desirable immigrants.
The third point is that our security requirements can delay a person for as much as a year during which time it has happened that a refugee claimant is murdered by the people he was afraid would murder him. The security requirements result in risk of physical harm to the refugee claimant and very little benefit to Canada. The RCMP testified last August that during 1986 and to that point in 1987, of 11,000 undocumented aliens that they had examined, they found no evidence of security risk or danger to Canada.
I ask the Minister to clear up these points. If she is going to insist that all our refugees be selected overseas, at least let her ensure that the system is changed to become more honest, open, fair, and in keeping with our obligations to the United Nations. I wish to move the two amendments of which I spoke. The first amendment is to Section 91.1 (1 )(d) as amended by the Government. I move:
That Section 91.1 (1 )(d) as amended by the Government be amended by deleting the words "the country would allow passengers to return to that country" and in insert therefor the words "the country would admit the passengers to that country".
The reason for that amendment is as I have mentioned. The word "admit" in our usage means that that country would allow the person to enter and stay as of right, not to be bounced out again on the next boat or the next plane.
My second amendment is to the Government's new clause. I move:
Immigration Act, 1976
That Clause 8 as amended by the Government be amended by striking out
the word "six months" and inserting therefor the words "one month".
This is an attempt to reduce the scandal caused around the world by the fact that Canada has been proposing for a year now to do what it condemns countries of Southeast Asia for doing, that is, pushing the boats away. I know there will be arguments that they are going to look after the safety of the boats and so on, but the essential point is that unless my other amendment is accepted we will be pushing away real refugees who will not then have an assured chance of having their cases examined. Since Canada has pushed them away without hearing them, Canada has no reason to expect that another country will hear them. I would ask the House to adopt both of these amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would like to deal at this time with the amendment presented by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). It is in order, and will read as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting the word "may" in 91.1(1.1) and
(1.2) and substituting the word "shall" therefor.
As to the motions presented by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), the amendment to Clause 8 is in order and can be put to the House at this time. However, the amendment to Clause 91.1 (l)(d) cannot be put to the House at this time. We must dispose of the motion of the Hon. Member for York West before we can deal with this one. Henceforth the amendment to Clause 8 proposed by the Hon. Member is now before the House.
There is a question and comment period following the Hon. Member's speech.


Mr. Keeper:: Madam Speaker, I have a few questions I would like to ask my hon. colleague to elaborate on. The first takes us back to the genesis of this legislation. I use the word genesis advisedly because it seems to me that this legislation came about a long time ago. Last summer we were called back here in an emergency situation to deal with an urgent crisis which was facing the nation. We were called back under special Standing Orders in order to take quick action. Yet a year later we are dealing with that same legislation.
Would my colleague comment on the nature of this emergency? What kind of emergency was facing the nation which we were called back to deal with, when a full year later we are still dealing with the same legislation? Will my colleague comment on what he thinks was going on when we were called back in an emergency session a year ago and we are now still in the same session dealing with the same piece of legislation?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very appropriate and timely question. I will make two points in response. The nature of the emergency, as presented, was that 174 dark-skinned people had landed on the East Coast of Canada claiming refugee status. Whether they will be found to be refugees under our laws we do not yet know. The Government suggested that there would be many boats of this sort

July 12, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
coming if we did not pass a law quickly to stop them. Eleven months later no more boats have arrived. There have been rumours of boats and rumours of wars, but no more boats have arrived. Therefore, it seems that the Government over-reacted.
Second, had the Government really been interested in simply increasing penalties for people like the Captain of the Amelie, it could have done so within weeks with majority consent of the Opposition and the Canadian public. This was made known to the Government by representatives of churches, bar associations, unions, all the refugee support groups, and immigrant groups including the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. They all said that if certain amendments were accepted which focused the penalties on those who tried to bring refugees in secretly and clandestinely by deception, we would pass the legislation quickly.
The Government did not want to limit the legislation that way. It wanted to criminalize and intimidate thousands of Canadians who have been helping refugees. That is why this law has been held up today and will be held up even after it has been proclaimed because it will not stand in the courts.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have another basic question about the legislation on refugees with which we are dealing. It has to do with how people who claim to the Canadian authorities to be refugees are treated. I am wondering whether my colleague, who is informed in this area, can tell us whether when people from East European countries, for example, apply for refugee status in Canada they are treated any differently than people who apply for refugee status from Chile or El Salvador?
In other words, is the Government pursuing a uniform refugee policy or is there a significant difference in the way people from Central America are treated? I am particularly interested in knowing how someone from Chile who is applying for refugee status would be treated. We know that a young lady from Chile who stayed in Montreal had suffered serious burns as a result of political persecution under General Pinochet in Chile. She is showing great courage by going back to that country.
Can people from Chile who apply for refugee status expect equal and fair treatment as those applying from eastern European countries?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, the answer to my colleague's pertinent question is no. According to the regulations they get unequal treatment.
A person from Chile on the run from a bloody dictator may be rejected. Some of them are rejected by Canadians on the grounds alleged by Canadian Government representatives that they cannot prove satisfactorily that they have a well founded fear of persecution if they stay in Chile or return to Chile.
However, persons who come from Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary,
Poland, Romania, U.S.S.R. or Yugoslavia, according to the government's self exiled person class regulations, are not examined on that point at all. It simply states that they will be considered if they are citizens, former citizens or former residents of a country listed in Schedule 1 and are outside of Canada and are not residing or sojourning in any of the countries listed in Schedules 1 or 2, including those countries I mentioned, and are unwilling or unable to return to their country of citizenship or former habitual residence. It does not say anything about a well founded fear of persecution. The regulation goes on to state that they will be considered if they have not become permanently resettled and are seeking resettlement in Canada. There is a double standard, and it works against refugees from most countries in the world.


Cyril Keeper: According to Government policy, as I am sure was true under past Liberal governments as well, a person from Chile who is applying for refugee status faces an extra obstacle before achieving refugee status in this country. They must establish a well founded fear of political prosecution, of death or other persecution in that country. Is that what my colleague is saying?
How could anyone doubt that someone from a country like Chile does not have a well founded fear? Anyone who visits Chile would have no doubt that the people in Chile live in terror. One only need walk the streets of Santiago to feel the fear and terror under which people live. It is the very essence of that political system.
How could a Canadian Government official ever doubt that a person who has been politically active in Chile would not have a well founded fear? Unless someone is a special assistant to General Pinochet, the very nature of the political system in Chile would provide a basis for someone to have a well founded fear.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I cannot say what is in the minds of Government officials in terms of doubt. I can say what the action was in one typical case. Chileans who were flying to Canada to claim refugee status stopped en route at Buenos Aires. A Canadian consular official went on board and before even talking to them said they were not refugees, just economic migrants. When a reputable Canadian lawyer, an expert in refugee affairs, was sent at private expense to Buenos Aires to examine them, he found a person who had been more than once imprisoned and tortured by the Chilean police for his trade union activities. Yet the Canadian official said he was not a refugee, just an economic migrant. She did not even listen to his story. That is the treatment often, but not always accorded to Chileans but not to people from Schedules 1 and 2 countries in eastern Europe.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, normally one is pleased to speak to a particular Bill. However, I think it is a disgrace that we are here, still dealing with this Bill, on the anniversary of the arrival of 147 Sikhs on Canadian shores. We were called back to the House of Commons on the pretext of a crisis in Which we needed immediate laws to
July 12, 1988

handle this supposed untenable situation. We were presented with this Draconian legislation.
The fourth Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) appears to be more flexible. She obviously understands what needs to be done. I agree with her that we require proper laws in this land. We knew that in 1983 when we asked Rabbi Plaut to chair a committee that would give us an indication of how to deal with refugees who come here. We wanted to be a safe harbour to those in need and legitimately had the right to claim that status here. We wanted the kind of security measures and assurances to monitor and ensure that unworthy and unwanted people coming to this shore would not be given safe harbour. Yet neither problem has been answered adequately by a Government that does not seem to understand how to draft a Bill that reflects the Canadian attitude of openness toward strangers in need. Those who have no right to be in this land are not welcome.
The Minister is right in saying that we must send a message that undesirables are not welcome in Canada. Furthermore, those who confuse the issue by lying and stealing from those who would come here must be dealt with as well. Adequate punishments must be imposed.
The Draconian legislation introduced by the Government is before us once again on the anniversary of the arrival of the Sikhs. The Senate proposed some very intelligent and rational changes. It really was the Chamber of sober second thought. It was all Senators, not just Liberal Senators, who made recommendations. They strongly suggested there were errors made in this Bill both with respect to the methodology of turning back the boats and in the way it was written around the aiding and abetting of church groups and private citizens who, in a sense, were acting like good solid Canadians in lending the kind of help that I think the Minister intended in principle be acknowledged. However, the Bill unforgivably ignored the basic principles suggested by the Senate.
Let us look at how these things were ignored and how the Senate was rejected with respect to the compromises it put forward. Let me say in entre parentheses that I come from a riding in which almost 40 per cent of its membership have come to Canada in the last 30 years. They have built the fabric of the Mount Royal riding into an absolutely exciting and dynamic multicultural, cosmopolitan part of the City of Montreal, of Canada and of Quebec. I have talked to the Sikhs and to the Vietnamese boat people who have built up a wonderful centre in this riding.
If we had had this kind of narrow-minded mentality 20 years ago, we would not be enriched by those people and the kind of economy and personal initiative they have brought to this country, and that goes for the whole Caribbean Diaspora where there are problems, as you well know, Madam Speaker. It goes for the Tamils as well and I think the Minister should come to my riding and talk to these people. She would then
Immigration Act, 1976
correct the errors in this Bill. She would not turn back boats with these conditions and she would not charge as aiding and abetting with fines and imprisonment for people who have had some disagreement with Bill C-55.
The fundamental prescreening process is in some disagreement. The safe third country concept is an unacceptable concept because there is no real way of ensuring a safe third country. There is an inadequate non-universal appeal system which goes to the Federal Court, a court which does not have the kind of training or expertise that is required to examine a refugee claimant in order to determine their status in an intelligent and enlightened way. These are human beings. These are people who have families, who have children and whose lives are in danger. So there is a disagreement on the fundamental process.
These church groups, public advocacy groups, and fundamentally well-intentioned people are there to look at the individual cases to see if they can help them get the proper documentation. When the Senate wanted to protect those who acted in that way in a more open and upfront non-clandestine way, we say no. These are good solid Canadians of good will and we make them cheat. That is ridiculous. That is where we have to make some changes.
There are lawyers who want to help real refugees who are seeking the kinds of information a refugee needs. A refugee cannot stop and run back to his country because he needs his papers. He is fleeing a country which is no longer home to him. Anyone who has had to move from one city to another knows the trauma of dislocation and relocation, language, culture, environment, weather, the whole bit. These kindly and concerned lawyers try to enable a refugee to get their proper documentation but they will be harassed and subject to fines, and unnecessarily so. It is too bad that that was not changed.
I listened to the Minister as she talked about the refugees who were to be excluded from the refugee determination processing system and that she alone is responsible for that final decision. I think the Minister takes a terrible chance with those kinds of responsibilities. One should not disallow in that way for security purposes, but I know she has already said no to that amendment. It boggles my mind that she has said no to so many sound and intelligent amendments.
With respect to the deterrence and punishment procedure of people who are already on boats, my colleague, ho, I would suggest, has given a carefully listening ear to people who have experienced this refugee system. He has travelled and has heard from people who have experienced this particular trauma of dislocation. He has brought to our attention a very credible amendment which I would like to support very strongly. Under Section 91.1 the Minister may make a direction if she is satisfied that the vehicle can return to its port of embarkation without endangering the lives of its passengers. That is utterly ridiculous. Is she going to get frogmen out to take a look at the underside of the boat to see if it is safe? Is she going to investigate inside the boat?

July 12, 1988
There are four conditions here. If the vehicle is 12 to 24 miles outside of our country, it would have to be determined and then decided whether or not to send the passengers back to their country of origin, if they have refugee status, if they are nationals or if they are citizens of that country. The whole thing is just a mess of potash and I would suggest it be returned and looked at again. She should instead bring in the ship, arrest the captain, throw the book at him, throw the key away, and impound the ship. That is the kind of message we should be sending out to the world. We should be saying: "If you bring your boat in here, mister, you will end up in jail and you, the owner of the boat, say goodbye to your property". Believe me, they would not then be involved in this kind of illicit action such as bringing in illegitimate refugees, because we do not want those illegitimate refugees. We want productive, hard working, honourable people. Those are the kind of refugees who are welcome in this country.
I would like to speak about Section 91.1(1), where the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a vehicle within the internal waters of Canada or the territorial sea of Canada is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of this Act or the regulation, the Minister may direct that the vehicle be escorted to the nearest port. Why "may"? It should read the Minister shall be obliged to. That is what Canadians want. It should read, after the boat has been escorted to the port of disembarkation and any such direction "shall" be enforced by such force as is reasonably necessary. In that way the search and the seizure could be done, the bona fides of the refugees involved could be established and the captain could be taken from the boat as well. I hope there will be serious consideration and support in this House for the amendments put forward by my colleague.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) does not appeal to or speak for rational Canadians when he says that Canadians are tired of the trade debate and just want to see the deal approved because they have made up their minds.
Does he not realize that the latest polls show more Canadians oppose than support the deal?
The Minister for International Trade does not appeal to the pride and independence of Canadians when he says that the trade legislation cannot be changed by Parliament. Why should Canadians bother to elect Members of Parliament if they are to sit impotent and approve a Bill which overrides all other federal or provincial legislation that conflicts with the agreement?
The Minister for International Trade underestimates how much Canadians value water when he treats casually Illinois Governor Thompson's demand to triple the flow of water from Lake Michigan to the Midwest rivers.
When will the Minister for International Trade come to his
senses?


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, ranchers in southwestern Saskatchewan are understandably upset over the numerous range fires caused by sparks from locomotives along the right of way of the Canadian Pacific Railway main line. These fires spread rapidly, causing considerable damage to the grassland. As well, the time and effort of countless numbers of local residents, neighbours, and volunteers are expended on the containment of these fires.
The ranchers question whether the spark arresters on the locomotives are properly maintained. They also ask why the CPR does not conduct more controlled burnings of the right of way in order to reduce the fire hazard. Finally, they ask why they should be fighting the CPR's fires thereby placing themselves at risk, without compensation.
Feelings in the southwest are running high. Some ranchers indicate they are prepared to burn the right of way themselves if the CPR will not do so.
In short, residents along the main line of the CPR resent the cavalier attitude of the railway. They ask that action be taken in order to maintain properly the right of way and the spark arresters on the locomotives.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this evening a young woman of uncommon courage

July 12, 1988

and grace is going home. Despite the obscene efforts of a wicked military regime to dismember her body and still her voice, Carmen Quintana is returning to Chile, determined, as always, to serve the cause of justice and democracy.
With the help and support of countless friends in Chile and Canada, caring burn doctors and nurses, she has defied medical odds, and General Pinochet. Tonight, she will do as she always vowed she would-return to her troubled homeland.
For the Chilean people she is living testimony that the human spirit endures and, ultimately, conquers the practitioners of terror. "I want to work with the Chilean people to bring back democracy", Carmen said yesterday as she bid us goodbye.
Albert Camus once wrote: "Those who love and are separated can live in suffering, but not in despair; they know love exists".
Carmen Quintana is returning to a land she loves. She is returning to a people she loves. She goes home with the love and admiration of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, a 14 million dollar agreement was announced today by the Government of Canada and the James Bay Cree; this is a first step in the freeing up of negotiations on the implementation of the James Bay Convention with the Cree.
The agreement marks the end of a dispute revolving around four years' worth of adjustments to the amount of transfer payments to be made to the Cree for part of municipal service charges, that is the operating expenses of local and regional Cree governments, fire-fighting services, public health, roads and the maintenance of public facilities and buildings.
Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments of the James Bay Cree in administering their own affairs constitute a remarkable success for the Cree and for all Canadians.
We should appreciate the work done by Big Chief Matthew Cooncome, as well as by the eight Chiefs from Cree villages, Judge Rejean Paul, federal negotiator Andrew Croll and Roderick Pachano, the Cree's negotiator. Mr. Pachano stated that the permanent relation between the Cree government and the Canadian government is based on respect for the spirit of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Convention. In the absence of goodwill, it is hard to accomplish anything at all.
Today's agreement marks the beginning of the reinstatement of trust.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we are a few weeks or a few days away from an election call and the Conservative government, after four years, still has not settled 12 priority issues important for Quebec: the Space Agency; the Banking Center; the development of the Port of Montreal; the improvements to the Old Port of Montreal; the contract for the construction of railway engines for Bombardier; the CN maintenance shops in southwest Montreal; the paper mill in Matane; a bridge on route 30 for the City of Valleyfield; a specific agriculture policy for Quebec; early retirement, and the Lauzon, Sorel and Montreal shipyards.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with that. This is what we are wondering about at the present time: is the Government delaying its decisions in order to announce them during the election campaign in the hope that Quebecers will forget its incompetence and its neglect of them over the past four years? Or does it simply not have the courage to make decisions because there is disagreement within its caucus about the Space Agency?


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) recently announced that Canadians who served in the Korean War are being awarded Korean Service Badges by Canada for the first time in 35 years.
On July 26 we will celebrate the thirty-fifth anniversary of the end of the Korean War. As we commemorate that day, we can be proud that it was this Government that at long last has seen fit to show Canada's appreciation for the dedication and sacrifice of Canadian servicemen who fought for freedom in that conflict.
Up until the recent announcement by the Minister, Korean War veterans were awarded British service medals and United Nations service medals only, and unlike veterans who served in the First and Second World Wars received no specific recognition from their own country.

The Korean Service Badges recognize the contribution made by veterans who served with the Canadian Forces or associated support groups between June 27, 1950, and July 27, 1954. The Minister also announced that the immediate family of a deceased veteran may apply for the badge.
It is about time that these brave men and women received an official thank you from the people and Government of Canada, and I dm very proud to be a member of the Government that has finally made this possible.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged to live in the nation's capital for nearly three decades. I describe this national capital as a jewel, even though every jewel needs a little polishing. This capital possesses great natural beauty. It is a safe and secure place in which to live, work, and raise a family. It has great schools, universities, research and cultural institutions.
The National Capital Commission recently prepared a discussion paper entitled "The Capital Orientation Plan". The NCC has a mandate to ensure that our capital serves as a meeting place, bringing Canadians together through the democratic process; communicating Canada to Canadians; and safeguarding and preserving those national treasures which are unique in their influence on all Canadians- in short, the mandate to turn our capital into a national symbol.
One of the Commission's principal proposals is to make known the major achievements of Canadians. This could be done by creating a Canadian Hall of Fame in the capital which would recognize both individual and collective achievements and contributions to the quality of Canadian life. I would like to encourage the National Capital Commission in achieving its goals.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, as communications critic for the New Democratic Party, I am concerned about the lock-out by CFTO-TV in Toronto. It looks like the company is simply out to break the union and it is clearly bargaining in bad faith in order to do so.
I quote from someone who is not what I would consider a leftie, and that is Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun. He said:
July 12, 1988
Personally, I don't like unions.
Having said that, if CFTO-TV chief Doug Bassett was my boss, I'd probably be a union man.
I am concerned especially about their biased news reporting of their own strike. That is an abuse of the freedom of the press, abuse of the airwaves, and the CRTC should look into that. I am also concerned that cabinet Ministers have been crossing the picket lines in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says that he would never cross picket lines and cabinet Ministers are not supposed to do so.
This is a mean, vicious strike. The management of CFTO better realize that there are larger issues involved here and get a settlement of the lock-out strike.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, once again innocent men, women, and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Shatila and Bourj-el-Barajneh have been caught up in the crossfire of rival PLO militia groups who have been struggling for control.
Since the beginning of May approximately 170 people have been killed and over 600 wounded as a result of the fighting between the mainstream PLO Fatah forces of Yasser Arafat and those of his Syrian-sponsored rival, Col. Said Mussa's Fatah-Uprising faction. Witnesses say that "virtually every building in the Shatila camp has been wrecked or severely damaged". PLO officials state that 80 per cent of the Bourj-el-Barajneh camp has been destroyed by bombardments over the last 60 days.
On June 27, Mr. Arafat's group was forced to surrender the Shatila camp to Mr. Mussa's men after losing a three-month battle that killed over 90 people. While this brought the fighting in that camp to an end, a number of Fatah fighters requested and were granted safe passage by Libyan mediators to Mr. Arafat's bases near Sidon. There they will undoubtedly regroup to fight other battles and claim more innocent lives. By July 7 the Bourj-el-Barajneh camp had fallen to Mr. Mussa's forces, with 38 people being killed and 93 wounded since the battle for the camp intensified on July 4.
There has been no official Canadian government statement about this slaughter. It is unbelievably strange that such scant media attention has been given this brutal tragedy which has lasted several months. Canada should give consideration to what measures it can take to help innocent people escape the factional warfare of the PLO that inevitably leads to the death of their own refugees.
July 12, 1988


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup are delighted with the adoption on third reading of Bill C-72, the Official Languages Bill.
I wanted to raise the subject today and express my unqualified appreciation of our democratic system, thanks to which the equality of French and English as official languages within our federal institutions has finally been recognized.
Mr. Speaker, the passage of this Bill has corrected a situation that in this day and age was becoming intolerable. In fact, it took a Conservative Government and our Conservative Prime Minister, who has the courage of his convictions, to table and adopt the Official Languages Act, something the Liberal Government under Pierre Elliott Trudeau was afraid to do.
Mr. Speaker, the democratic process has dealt with certain individuals in this country who had a narrow and unbending attitude towards the French fact. Personally, I believe that our diversity and our respect for our differences will enhance our stature as a nation.


AGRICULTURE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the South Kamloops Stockmen's Association recently informed the Minister of Agriculture for Canada (Mr, Wise) about the very critical situation its members are facing as a result of the prolonged, hot and dry weather. With herds representing thousands of head of cattle, their present water supplies are completely inadequate, and many ranchers are forced to haul water. Some have been hauling water since last fall and some ranchers presently have no water supply at all.
The situation looks especially bleak for this fall, and it means that there will likely be no water at all for this winter. The drought in the Thompson-Nicola region of British Columbia is at a crisis stage and these beef producers require immediate and special assistance.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture to take action immediately to provide the members of the South Kamloops Stockmen's Association with a subsidy to offset their recent drought related costs so that they will not be forced to sell off their herds.
These cattlemen form a crucial component of our regional economy and all efforts must be made to ensure their survival during these extremely dry months.
When we think of western agriculture, Mr. Speaker, often our thinking stops at the Rockies. I urge the Minister of Agriculture to remember all those struggling through the drought, including those ranchers in the interior valleys of British Columbia.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is seeking protection from unfair financial service charges on small businesses. It says that a measure of justice has already been accorded to the consumers of Canada, but much more is needed to be granted to small business people affected by financial institutions.
Particularly the Federation asks that financial institutions provide complete information on changes when they are to be made to service charges. It wants charge-back fees on NSF cheques eliminated. It calls for an annual monitoring of service charges as they apply to small businesses, and it seeks an appeal process to redress grievances.
The Government has already made a beginning in responding to these recommendations. I urge it to finish the job. The health of small business is vital to Canada's economy. We are aware that the key problem in this instance is the extreme imbalance of power between the Financial institutions and small businesses. Here is an opportunity for Parliament and the Government to provide the equalizer.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government on June 20 announced the closure of the Newfoundland Railway it said that the town of North Sydney would not be affected. Yet on the same day the President of CN said that he was starting a new boat service from Halifax to St. John's. The very next day, CN sent a directive to all its outlets saying that as of June 25 all containers in eastern Newfoundland, east of Gander, would be shipped from Halifax to St. John's.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Peterson Government has announced that 101 beds at Wellesly Elospital must remain closed in order to meet budgetary restraints. In fact the Peterson Government will soon force more bed closures in all hospitals across the province as a result of its overspending in other fields. What hypocrisy!
What happened to the 1987 election promise of $3 billion toward health care? The Peterson Government recently enacted one of the biggest tax grabs in Ontario history by raising taxes across the board, including substantial hikes in sales and personal income taxes. Yet the Peterson Government is ignoring health care, the most vital of all government services. It is apparent that the Government of Ontario places politics above the health of its citizens.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Last night, our deputy chief trade negotiator, Ambassador Gordon Ritchie, declared for the first time that during the talks with the United States, Canadian experts from the Department of the Environment and experts on our negotiating team had drafted a special clause to exclude, to exempt our water from the FTA, and that the Canadian negotiating team had never insisted on getting this exemption.
Mr. Speaker, this raises some troubling questions. First of all, why have Conservative ministers systematically denied before the House that there had ever been any intention of excluding water? Why this misleading attitude? And second, since the trade legislation has paramountcy over Canada's water policy, why didn't Canada insist on obtaining this exclusion which was judged to be necessary by our experts from the Department of the Environment?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it seems very difficult for the Leader of the Opposition to understand that water was never on the table in the free trade negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Quite frankly, the Leader of the Opposition may not want to understand that because, of course, his past references to water would lead us to believe that he indeed would have put it on the table.


Mr. McDermid:: He would have given it away.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There is no question about where this Government stands on the issue of large-scale diversions of water. We have said that there will be no large-scale diversion of water from this country. What is more, we have done something which the Liberal Party had never done in all its time in office. We have issued a water policy which expressly prohibits the exportation and the diversion of large-scale amounts of water.
I think it is about time that the Leader of the Opposition understood what this issue is all about, without trying to contrive some false approach which simply does not hold water.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I had known for a long time the Minister was Acting Prime Minister today, but I regret to say that she appears to have caught the contagious bombastic disease of her absent seat-mate. We might as well have been listening to the Minister for International Trade today. His philosophy when dealing with the House of Commons is simple.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Deny, deny, deny.


John Napier Turner: No, it is don't read the deal. That is number one. Don't debate the issues. That is number two. Try to bluff your way out of any falsehood you can. That is number three.


LENGTH OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister, while she is in
July 12, 1988

such a benign mood, on such a complex, serious and vital issue for Canada as this, why are Canadians being allowed less than one month to come to Ottawa to appear before the committee and to express their views on this crucial trade arrangement with the United States? Why do the residents of Vancouver Quadra, or of any other riding in Canada, have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to come to Ottawa to get the chance to have their say on this Bill? Why is the Government afraid of the Canadian public?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, once again the Leader of the Opposition expresses his own fears. If there is one individual in one Party who is afraid of the Canadian public, he is sitting opposite in this House of Commons.
The free trade debate has gone on for a long period of time. It has been debated. It has been raised by hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals across the country.
Obviously there will be presentations put to the parliamentary committee within the next month. I would think that the individual Members of Parliament who sit on that committee will give very proper attention to those who come before them. There will be full and adequate hearings, and the members of the committee will give proper consideration to the presentations that are made.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister has a unique opportunity. She is in charge today of the Government of Canada. She can leave the House immediately, go see the Governor General, and let's issue the writ. What about that?


Some Hon. Members:: Go, go!


TERMS OF IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister has been briefed by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown. He is looking real tough there. He had better get back to his constituency and protect his behind.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The Acting Prime Minister talked about fear. More than a month ago the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Burney, in a panic, flew down to Washington because, on behalf of the Government of Canada, he was disturbed about what might be in the American legislation, particularly having to do with the tribunal and with the definition of subsidy.
My question is this. How can the parliamentary committee studying the Canadian legislation implementing the deal have any confidence that Canadian concerns expressed by the Prime Minister's Office about the American legislation have been addressed when that legislation has not yet been made public?
Oral Questions
What is the idea of the Government pushing our legislation through this House in such a hurry when we have not yet seen the American legislation? Why the obscene haste?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Two points with regard to the preamble, Mr. Speaker. One has to do with recent elections. The Lac-Saint-Jean result would not, I think, provide any great support or encouragement to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Second, because he raised the issue-


Nelson Andrew Riis: You bought that election.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Now we are hearing from the NDP which managed 9 per cent of the vote in Lac-Saint-Jean.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition raised another point when he said that Mr. Burney went down to Washington in a panic. I want to assure him that I have never known Mr. Burney to do anything in a panic.
Finally, I want to say that we are proceeding with legislation in this House and in committee because this happens to be a sovereign Parliament. We decide the process and the way this Parliament will implement legislation in this country. We do not, like the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition seems to think, take direction from the people he listens to in Washington. Those are the ways in which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition seems to think this Parliament should operate. We do not think that way because we know this is a sovereign Parliament.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the Acting Prime Minister that if her assessment of the key to electoral success for the Tory Party in Lac-Saint-Jean was $164 million, it will cost the Canadian people $45 billion for it to win the general election.


John Napier Turner: Write the cheque, Mike.


Lloyd Axworthy: It would take that much to win Rosedale alone.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. We have seen a suppression of the rights of Parliament in its ability to provide access to Canadians to proper committee hearings and the ability to make amendments. In addition, the Canadian people are being put at a major disadvantage vis-a-vis the U.S.
The omnibus Trade Bill is now in front of Congress ready to be passed. Our senior trade negotiator, Mr. Ritchie, has acknowledged that Bill would totally undermine the trade

July 12, 1988
Oral Questions
agreement. We have the Chairman of the Finance Committee saying that the U.S. Congress will introduce major new subsidy requirements for Canada as part of its implementing legislation. We now have two damaging pieces of trade legislation before the U.S. Congress, yet we are going to rush our Bill through without proper hearings.


Mr. Gormley:: Do you have a question sometime this afternoon?


Lloyd Axworthy: Why is the Government ready to suppress the rights of this Parliament and put Canadians at a major disadvantage vis-a-vis the U.S. and its trade legislation, rather than taking the prudent, responsible course and ensuring that the two pieces of legislation are at least brought forward at the same time so we can see where the advantages and disadvantages lie?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I come back to the point I raised before. Obviously the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry does not believe that this is a sovereign Parliament. We do. We feel that we should be taking the steps which we as a Government and as a legislature believe should be taken for this country.
There can always be some question as to how many Canadians are in favour of the free trade deal and how many are not. However, every survey which has been taken shows that more Canadians want to have the free trade agreement implemented than are opposed to it.
That happens to be the case with the Opposition, Once again they are backing a losing proposition. They want to tear up the free trade deal. Canadians want to see it implemented and we are doing that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is saying that the Government's decision is dictated by the polls, then I point out a very important poll which appeared last week which indicated that 65 per cent of Canadians want an election on this issue. We can only conclude that the Government is afraid to have one because it is afraid to put the deal in front of the Canadian people. That happens to be the case.


ENERGY-MANITOBA STUDY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy of the Province of Manitoba released a study yesterday which pointed out that if the Canada-U.S. trade deal had been in effect during the last energy crisis, from 1979 to 1982, it would have cost Canadian consumers an additional $72.6 billion because we would not have been able to provide the support and protection to Canadian consumers which was available at that time.
Has the Government undertaken similar studies which would confirm these findings? Would it table those studies? Would it be able to tell us what the cost would be to Canadian
consumers if they faced another energy crisis under the Canada-U.S. trade deal? Would it be another $72.6 billion?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I know the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry likes to pose hypothetical questions to the House-"if it should be this", "if it should be that", and so on.
Quite frankly, with regard to energy deals we saw exactly what it cost the people of Canada in the early 1980s, particularly the people of western Canada, when the former Liberal Government implemented an energy package which did immense damage to this country economically.
We are dealing with the reality of the situation rather than with hypothetical issues. We knew that the national energy plan had to be turned around and we know that this one has to go ahead.


WATER RESOURCES-AMBASSADOR'S TESTIMONY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister as well. On June 16 the Minister for International Trade said, "Water is not affected by the free trade agreement".
Last night in committee Ambassador Ritchie indicated that "there was technical work done" on the question of exempting water from this trade deal. In fact, he indicated that there was a "technical proposition" on the matter prepared, and confirmed "some official from another Department had indicated with great pride that he had some involvement..." in that work.
Given this, why has the Government consistently maintained that there was no connection between water and the trade deal when this preparatory work had been done according to the testimony of our ambassador?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate once again that water and the diversion of water was never on the table. I will repeat that for the Member. Water was never on the table. I hope he will understand that.
In fact, with regard to water policy we have introduced for the first time a water policy which states very clearly that there shall be no diversion of large scale water projects in this country.
I would also like to point out that Mr. Ritchie did say last night that there is nothing in the agreement which would constrain the Government in implementing its water policy. In other words, legislation dealing with water policy could flow from the statements and the policies that have already been introduced, but they are not part of the free trade agreement.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION ON WATER RESOURCES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the point, of course, is that that is precisely what Ambassador
July 12, 1988

Ritchie went on to say. He went on to say that there was nothing which would prevent action being taken to prevent such inter-basin water transfers as are now threatening the Great Lakes.
Given that there was nothing within the agreement which would prevent that, which is precisely what he said, would the Government, on an emergency basis, bring in legislation to prevent such water transfers which will damage people right across the Great Lakes basin?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have two points to make. Last night Ambassador Ritchie said that water for export on a large scale was never considered to be part of the free trade agreement.
Second, I will be glad to send the Member a copy of this document dated November 5, 1987, which says, "Large-scale water diversions to the United States will not be considered by the Canadian Government under any circumstances according to the federal water policy tabled today by the Environment Minister".
I would ask the Member to read this so that he will know what the policy of the country and the Government is.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor but I think the Chair should observe that the last question was, at least in the opinion of the Chair, hypothetical. I know this is a very important matter and Ministers, of course, may answer if they wish. However, I would ask Hon. Members who are asking questions to remember the rule that hypothetical questions are, strictly speaking, out of order. I know the Hon. Member will be able to pose his question adequately.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION ON EMERGENCY BASIS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Acting Prime Minister that in the comments which she quoted from Ambassador Ritchie he went on to say that it may have been in error that they made that conclusion. Therefore, I ask the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Come on, be honest.


Steven W. Langdon: I quote from the transcript of the committee. If the Acting Prime Minister has the transcript, let her quote it back.
Given the fact that the Government can move to put legislation in place to protect the Great Lakes basin, will the Government, on an emergency basis, bring such legislation in at once?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, once again 1 will refer to the water policy which has been enunciated by the Government. I have read what it says. Legislation may indeed at some time flow from this policy, but this is the policy of the Canadian Government. The Minister
Oral Questions
stated, "Let me state categorically that the Canadian Government opposes the diversion of fresh water across our international borders".
That is the statement of the Minister, that is the policy of the Government. We have a tremendous concern about the water resources of this country, about water policy, and about environmental policy. It was for that reason that the Government of Canada this morning signed an agreement with the Province of British Columbia on the South Moresby Park.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is an indication of the kind of concern that we continue to express.


WATER POLICY-REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It flows from her last reply. It is almost one year since the federal water policy was announced and published. It is a policy that has no teeth until it is transformed into legislation. The Acting Prime Minister may be surprised, but it has no teeth until it is law. It is just a policy.
When will the Government introduce a Bill that will give teeth to the federal water policy that is explained in the document itself which is almost one year old? When will that happen?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely amazing that a Member who was a former Minister of the Environment, who never got around to introducing any kind of policy, should now be saying that we have not moved quickly enough. What was he doing all the time he was in the federal Cabinet? Did anyone ever listen to him? Did anyone ever pay attention? Obviously not, because there was no water policy announced.
This has been announced, and people who are concerned know what the policy of the federal Government is. We will see it moving forward as it should and as it has until now.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, it is definitely of secondary importance that I initiated this process of arriving at a federal water policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: It is astonishing to realize that the Acting Prime Minister does not even know that or does not want to recognize it. But that is not the question.


LEGISLATION-TIMING OF INTRODUCTION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if the Acting Prime Minister is serious about this matter she will have to recognize that this policy has no teeth unless it is

July 12, 1988
Oral Questions
transformed into legislation. When will the Government introduce the legislation flowing from the federal water policy so that it will be in the Statutes of Canada, hopefully not to be overridden by Bill C-130 which will have overriding powers on any legislation, according to Article VIII of the agreement? When will the legislation be introduced?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has given some misleding information, probably because he has not read the agreement yet. Bill C-130 has an override only on legislation which pertains to the free trade agreement. The transfer of large bodies of water to the United States is outside the agreement. Therefore, Article VIII of the agreement does not pertain to it. The Hon. Member's preamble is totally wrong.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON ENERGY COSTS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It was stated in an earlier question that the Manitoba Energy Department has issued a report, part of which states that the energy bill to Canadians between 1979 and 1982 would have been some $72.6 billion more had this particular agreement been in effect. Will the Government not finally admit to Canadians that this free trade agreement will mean higher energy costs for Canadians and lower energy costs for the Americans, especially in times of energy crisis?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member was not at committee to hear the evidence that has been presented in the last couple of days on that very subject. Let us consider electricity exports for example.
Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, whoever sells their hydro, will sell it for the highest price they can receive. Nothing in the free trade agreement prevents that, and nothing in the free trade agreement states that people in Ontario, Quebec or Manitoba must pay the same price the Americans are paying for electricity. As a matter of fact, today Ontario Hydro is selling electricity for three or four times more than what Ontario consumers are paying. I think he will find the same thing in Quebec.
The Hon. Member is away off base. He should come to committee because he will learn a lot.


MANAGEMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCES
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, if the Government would only allow the committee to travel-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: If the Government would only allow the committee to start hearing some testimony about how this agreement infringes on the rights of western producing provinces in pricing and developing their energy resources,
perhaps the Government would begin to learn what this agreement means to the rights of western Canada. How can the Government claim that it is supporting western producing provinces when it is stripping the West of its right to manage the energy resources?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, nothing in the free trade agreement prevents the provinces from managing their resources. According to the Constitution, they own the resources. There is nothing in the agreement that states they cannot control their resources. The provinces tell the explorers where they can drill and when. If they are lucky enough to find any oil or gas, the provinces tell them how much they can pump, when they can pump and so on. That has not changed under this agreement one iota.
Let me say something about the Hon. Member's preamble. He tells us about all the opposition in the West. Why are all the provincial Premiers supporting this-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Vander Zalm does not speak for British Columbia.


John Horton McDermid: Why is the support for the free trade agreement in the West so strong? Is the Hon. Member telling-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Call an election on it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Vander Zalm does not speak for British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Neither do you.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members, given the time, to co-operate with other Hon. Members who have been waiting to ask a question. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Anyone who has ever applied for a Canada Pension Plan disability is familiar with the words "prolonged" and "severe".
But nobody seems to know, including the judges of the Appeal Board, just what is meant by the words "substantially gainful occupation".
July 12, 1988

The Oxford dictionary describes "substantial" as something of real importance or value, of considerable amount, well-to-do, and describes "gainful" as lucrative or remunerative.
Will the Minister have the wording defined to reflect its true meaning, or change the wording to reflect some of the Appeal Board decisions which would have us believe that licking stamps and addressing envelopes is substantially gainful employment?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has expressed the frustration many Members have experienced with the Canada Pension Plan. I have been concerned about it as well.
I must explain to him that those words lack some definition, but Hon. Members opposite will know that agreement with the provinces is needed for any changes to be brought about to the Canada Pension Plan. I have asked for a review of those words as well as for a recommendation as to how we might change them.
As the Hon. Member has mentioned, obviously there is concern about the application of those words on a case-by-case basis. The review has been undertaken and I hope some changes can be made. However, until they are brought about I am obligated to abide by the rulings of the Pension Appeal Board which, as the Hon. Member knows, is the final court of appeal. His point is valid and that is why the action was taken by this Government.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public works, or whoever pretends to be the Minister today. It concerns the sale of the Falconbridge radar site in Sudbury for $140,000 as part of the Government's mad rush to privatize anything. Given that this property includes no less than 97 houses valued at $1.5 million, a gymnasium, a theatre, garages, and an industrial park, with a total value by the Government's own appraisers of $5 million, why was the property sold for 3 per cent of its appraised value?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend for the preciseness of his question. Under the circumstances, in the absence of the Minister, we will take it under notice and get back to the Member as soon as we can.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, let me be reminded never to hire the Minister of Public Works to act as a real estate agent for
Oral Questions
me in the future. The people of Canada would not want to hire him either.


SALE OF REAL ESTATE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Public Works a supplementary question. Since the rent alone on the housing units brings in revenues of $250,000 a year, why did the Department sell these properties worth $5 million for $140,000? Why did it not keep these properties and rent homes to people who need them? Why did it give away this public asset?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I simply have to say that I will take the matter under notice and get back to the Hon. Member as soon as we can.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and it concerns the fairness of the bidding process for a $ 150 million integrated information and communication system for the Department of External Affairs, which is one of the largest computer services contracts ever awarded in Canada.
Can the Minister explain why Systemhouse Limited of Ottawa and DMR Limited of Montreal, two of the largest and most experienced systems integration firms in Canada, have apparently been passed over for this contract, while the Government is negotiating to make Fenco Lavalin of Toronto the prime contractor despite its limited experience in systems integration as compared to the two competitors?
Can the Minister also explain why the RCMP Commercial Crime Division is investigating this matter? Is this a criminal matter or is it a bungled contract award?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Supply and Services explained yesterday, the evaluation of the bids has not been completed. The process is ongoing. So I do not think the Member should comment at this point about who or who may not be involved in the bidding process. It is an ongoing procedure.
I also would remind the Member that the Minister said yesterday that investigation, both by the Department of Supply and Services and the Privy Council Office, had concluded that everything that has been done is in compliance with the procedures under which government contracts are evaluated. Finally, I would inform the Member that an RCMP

July 12, 1988
Oral Questions
investigation is being conducted because of a complaint raised by one of the bidders and not because of any internal process.


BIDDING PROCESS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The two companies which have apparently been passed over because final discussions with Fenco are now under way, just cannot believe that a contract whose most important element is systems integration should be given to a company which, however competent in other fields, has a very limited track record in the area of systems integration, particularly when this is a vital element in the future conduct of Canadian external affairs over the next 20 or 30 years.
The Minister has said that internal investigations have cleared the process and now the RCMP is looking into it, but can the Minister say what is going on? Was the bidding process fair, or has there been some kind of influence exercised to lead to a contract decision which seems to be so contrary to common sense?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Member had written out his second question before he heard the answer to the first. I said to him when I replied the first time that the process is ongoing. There has been no award of a contract to date. There has been no decision taken. I would think that he should await the completion of that process before he makes statements about who or who does not have the contract.


DAY CARE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Metro Toronto has basically frozen the amounts to be given to subsidize day care spaces in that city. The reason is because the municipal Government, although willing to subsidize day care spaces, cannot do so unless the Ontario Government shares the cost, and the Ontario Government, along with other provinces, does not want to get caught spending money that may not be matched by Ottawa. In the meantime, the number of families awaiting day care subsidies has doubled, and in view of the lack of legislation provided to us by the Conservative Government in March, no one is quite sure what funds the federal Government will allocate.
In view of the hardships faced by parents across the country, can the Government provide us today with immediate assistance to day care users?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. If she has patience for a day or two, she might have her answer.


DAY CARE CENTRES-ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL CHILDREN- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to know that the Government is planning to give us an answer on day care. Since we will have an answer soon and we know all the difficulties that face parents and children as a result of the Conservative Government's decision to limit its participation in federal-provincial cost sharing for child care facilities, where before its participation was unlimited, can the Minister tell us whether the Conservative Government is ready to reconsider this aspect of the program within two days and give access to day care to all children instead of limiting it to those with money?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government came in with a plan which was very reflective of a special committee on which the Hon. Member sat. It was a majority opinion of the committee, and we have been discussing various configurations with the provinces.
My first answer stands with respect to the second half of her question.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE OF ARGENTINA
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Ernesto Figueras, Minister of Agriculture of Argentina.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In light of the report I sent to the Minister yesterday concerning defects in Canada's process for overseas refugee selection, will the Minister assure this House that before proclaiming Bill C-55 and Bill C-84, which have the effect of restricting persons from coming to Canada to claim refugee status, she will bring Canada's overseas refugee status standards into line with the United Nations, for example, by eliminating discrimination on the basis of country of origin, whether it is eastern Europe, Chile, India, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, or wherever else?
July 12, 1988


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well aware that we do not discriminate against refugees by country of origin. According to this Government, a refugee is a refugee. It does not matter from which country they come, their source of origin, or whether it is a left wing regime or right wing regime, if someone is fleeing genuine persecution they are welcome in Canada.


EXAMINATION PROCESS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Minister to study the regulation on self-exiled people which completely contradicts what she just said. I would ask her further whether before proclaiming Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 she will ensure that Canada's overseas refugee selection process is corrected so that our overseas officials will examine the refugee claimants about the grounds of their fear of persecution first, before examining them as to their economic suitability for immigration to Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, that is very much a part of our process now. The Government increased quite considerably the number of people we have brought from refugee camps in our overseas selection process. Private organizations have done the same thing.
We have also introduced a program called "Women at Risk" which ensures that women heads of households and women with particular problems can be brought out of the camps and to Canada. We intend to continue to focus on improving our standards for overseas selection.
At this point there is no discrimination. We intend to ensure that our policy continues to be fair and humane.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The National Capital Region is the fourth largest metropolitan area in Canada. It is trying to diversify its economic base and lessen its dependence on government. The newly redeveloped Ottawa International Airport is a key element to that diversification.
I would like to ask the Minister what plans his Department has to allow for the introduction of more direct flights to the USA, coupled with possible US customs preclearance, in order to allow for the National Capital Region-
Oral Questions


Ms. Copps:: What are the people of Hamilton supposed to do with their airport?
Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton: -to attract more business development to this area.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton for his question.
Recently the United States indicated that it is reluctant to provide preclearance services at additional points in Canada. The people at Transport Canada are working with officers of the United States. However, we have our own reluctance because the United States would like to have some immunity, something with which I disagree. It has not been easy to find a way where we could have that agreement. However, we are always working on trying to find an answer to the problem which, by the way, is not any easier than trying to close the mouth of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has to do with the deteriorating situation in Haiti.
In the last few days, we learned that General Namphy had suspended the constitution. Today, we were sorry to learn that one of the great defenders of human rights, Joseph Lafontant, was assassinated.
I would like to know what the Canadian Government intends to do. Will it finally come down on the side of democracy or will it continue to support dictatorship?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, we were of course very affected by the assassination of Joseph Lafontant, whom I know the parliamentary delegation met during its trip to Haiti. We know how much this man is recognized for his stand on human rights.
I asked our ambassador to convey to the Haitian authorities our deep indignation at the death of this esteemed man and I also asked our ambassador to express how urgently we expect the Haitian Government to act to punish the guilty ones.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I must add how really puzzled we are by the present situation in Haiti, given that the authorities there undertook to respect human rights, freedom and democracy. We have serious questions, Mr. Speaker.

July 12, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Scott (Hamilton

Wentworth)


PROPOSALS MADE TO GOVERNMENT BY QUEBEC-HAITI SOLIDARITY COALITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister. Haitians, as the Minister ought to know, want only one thing and that is a democratic country where they are free to exercise their fundamental rights.
The Coalition de solidarity Quebec-Ha'iti has made some very specific proposals to the Government, asking it to transmit certain instructions to the staff of the Canadian embassy.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the Canadian Government has accepted these proposals and whether the Government will, in fact, immediately proceed to implement the proposals, as suggested by the Coalition de solidarity Quebec-Ha'iti.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this letter which was, of course, sent to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who intends to reply as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, I can inform the Hon. Member that we have suspended bilateral aid planning and that we are taking a long, hard look at the continuity of bilateral aid.
We shall, of course, consider the Committee's recommendations in terms of respect for human rights, the application of democratic principles, and also the freedom that should exist in a country like Haiti.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to have to say that that closes off Question Period. I know that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt was hoping to catch the Speaker's eye. If he is here tomorrow I guarantee him that he will.
The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Hamilton

 Wentworth on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order which I believe affects directly all Members of this House and indirectly the vast viewing audience of these proceedings.
My point of order arises not out of one isolated incident this afternoon but from an accumulation of exchanges that I have witnessed during recent days and weeks. I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to the continuing flagrant abuse of parliamentary rules during Question Period, particularly the unholy length and argumentative nature of preambles and some answers-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: -which limit Members on all sides the right to ask questions.
Let me state at the outset that through you, Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere in this House during Question Period has improved. By and large dirty words are out and during the recent past no Members have been thrown out for unparliamentary behaviour. That is a credit, I think, to all MPs, and most assuredly to you, Sir, as a very fine occupant of the chair.
That being said, what has deteriorated, and where improvement is needed, is with the conduct, dispatch and presentation of Question Period. Since this daily 45 minutes to one hour amounts to the most highly visible and newsworthy time of our parliamentary day, it is only natural that Hon. Members will use every opportunity to play to the Press Gallery and to the home-viewing audience. When Members ask a question they are not talking to the Government, they are talking to the national media. We all do it.
In the process we are forgetting that this is Question Period-not debate. My reading of the parliamentary rules, and in particular Beauchesne's, says that questions should be preceded by short, sharp preamble, and that questions should be seeking present or future government policy.
You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that there are some terse, telegraphic and pointed questioners in the House. I will just give the Chair three or four examples. I think of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) who always gets an answer whether she likes the answer or not. Her questions are always well briefed. I think of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) who regularly punches through his material with brevity. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso (Mr. O'Neil) is another who had an exchange yesterday with the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick).


Sheila Maureen Copps: What is my grade, sir?


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) is an expert questioner as well.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, this is an abuse. Come on. Sit down! This has to be a big farce.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: He is giving us all a report card.


Sheila Maureen Copps: And he gets an F.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is some agitation among some Hon. Members about this point of order, and there is a suggestion that it is an abuse of the rules. It is a point of order. It concerns conduct in this place. I do not know how the Speaker, because I may not altogether enjoy hearing this, can cut it off. I will hear other Hon. Members in a moment. I will not let it go on unduly long.
July 12, 1988


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I know of too many cases, which I will not cite here, of lengthy preambles which are irrelevant and argumentative. These diatribes-cum-political statements are being smuggled in. Some Members are speaking for too long and other Members are suffering the penalty of the clock running out at the 45-minute mark. Moreover, these violations of rules are annoying to the public because once Your Honour rises to intervene, those watching hear only the barracking, name-calling, and general schoolroom hubbub which does nothing to enhance the dignity of this place.
I realize, Sir, that the lengthy partisan pitches put you as Speaker in a difficult position. A Minister will naturally move in and take on the argumentative nature of the preamble before he or she gets to the substance of the question, and that is only fair.
But we are also having constant repetition because when one opposition Party happens to pre-empt a second opposition Party on a question, then the question is asked not once, not twice, but five times or ten times to try to get different answers and to try to make the national news. When constantly repetitive questions are asked again we are in clear violation of the rules under Beauchesne's.
Mis. Copps: We never get any answers and we will continue to ask the questions.
Mir. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth): If the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) will quieten down for a moment more, I can remember former Liberal Government appointed Speakers and I think particularly of the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, and Speaker James Jerome, who were constantly admonishing Conservative and New Democratic opposition Members about repetitious questions which clearly are out of order, and detailed questions which should be placed on the Order Paper.
In conclusion, if we do not exactly need to overhaul Question Period, there are a couple of routes that we could take to restore some of the dignity and decorum of this place. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that one route we could take would be to refer Question Period concerns to the House Leaders of the three Parties, or second, and perhaps preferable, to the House Leadership of the colleagues who have enough on their plates these days, it might be advisable to set up an ad hoc committee of concerned colleagues on all sides of the House to compile our thoughts and suggestions on tightening up Question Period.
The goal would be to allow for better exchanges and more questions, thereby making life easier on Members and on our viewing audience. Clearly we need some mechanism to resurrect the true nature of Question Period and to make more effective this most high profile hour of any sitting day.
Point of Order-Mr. Scott (Hamilton

Wentworth)


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, with an unusual display of crocodile tears unheard of in this Parliament, if not in the history of Parliament, whether or not he realizes it, the Hon. Member has reflected unfairly on your conduct, Sir, of Question Period. The Hon. Member has made continued reference to what he calls the "rules". There are only two references in the rules, that is, the Standing Orders of the House with respect to Question Period. One Standing Order relates to when in the day Question Period takes place, and how long it should be, and it is 45 minutes, not one hour. Second, Standing Order 65(l)(a) states:
Questions on matters of urgency may, at the time specified in Standing
Order 19(4), be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided
however that, if in the opinion of the Speaker a question is not urgent, he or
she may direct that it be placed on the Order Paper.
This has always been interpreted to mean that the Speaker has the absolute discretion as to the type of questions and, for that matter, the answers, that may be allowed during Question Period. However, from time to time individual Speakers have announced guidelines as to how they would use the power given to them under the Standing Orders with respect to Question Period. These guidelines have been published in successive editions of Beauchesne's.
My hon. friend has failed to note that the most recent set of guidelines were those announced in this Parliament by your distinguished predecessor. Those guidelines were set down some time after this Parliament began, and some time after the practices which my hon. friend appears to be complaining of were established and very much in terms of precedents as to what were accepted, not only by yourself, but your predecessors in other Parliaments.
I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that if my hon. friend is complaining about preambles, if my hon. friend is complaining about the content of questions, then in all fairness he should also talk about the answers. He should particularly talk about the length of answers and what often appears to be a deliberate effort, and I hope I am wrong in this, on the part of Ministers answering to talk out Question Period and to do the very thing my hon. friend complains of, that is, to prevent Hon. Members on both sides of the House from putting questions within the time limited by the rules for Question Period.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this rather strange and unfortunate lack of balance in the point of order of my hon. friend. Everything my hon. friend complains of was done over and over again in previous Parliaments by members of his Party when they were in Opposition and therefore precedents were established in terms of preambles, in terms of length of questions, and in terms of content of questions which I do not think that my hon. friend can credibly complain of at this time because of what he and his colleagues did when they were in Opposition.
In conclusion, as far as I am concerned you have the judgment, Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of the authority given to you under our rules to deal with the matter of Question

July 12, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Scott (Hamilton

Wentworth)
Period fairly with respect to people on all sides of the House. If you want to give consideration to the point raised by my hon. friend, there is no way it can be done in an equitable way unless you pay particular attention to the length and content of the answers given by Ministers.
Question Period is one of the few checks and balances in our system, particularly when a Government has a majority. Question Period is particularly an instrument of opposition Members to hold to account the members of the Government. If members of the Opposition, through such points of order as this, are prevented from carrying out their duty on behalf of the Canadian people, then this entire Parliament suffers, and the entire parliamentary institutions are undermined.
I will concede that my hon. friend has raised this point of order today out of some sincere concern, but he has obviously forgotten the past and the precedents created by the past. He has obviously forgotten the role of answers with respect to Question Period, and today, perhaps most important of all, from the perspective of the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis), with his point of order he is eating up time which the Government and other members of this House hoped to spend debating and making decisions on legislation.
Mir. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to participate in this debate. While the points raised by my hon. colleague in his point of order reflect concerns that all of us share, raising it in this manner was inappropriate. It is a direct attack on the Chair and the work that the Chair is doing in terms of conducting the affairs of the House. However, the point the Hon. Member made was that the members of the Opposition have extremely long preambles. I would ask my hon. friend to do a content analysis of yesterday's Hansard. If he does, he will notice that time after time members in the Opposition asked questions of the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). Some of these questions are three or four or five lines and then a half a page for the Minister for International Trade's reaction. Time and time again, it is short, concise and then a long, convoluted bafflegab from the Minister for International Trade.
It is very clear. It does not take any particular analysis to simply glance at Hansard and find that it is not the opposition Members' questions that are exceedingly lengthy, but the incredibly convoluted answers. Actually, they are not answers.
I guess that is why it is called Question Period, because there are never any answers; there are only questions.
I would ask my hon. friend, before he is so critical of the Opposition, to take a look at what his own Ministers are doing in terms of using up valuable time during Question Period, to kill the clock. Yesterday's Hansard portrays that very clearly.
I also want to take this opportunity to remind the House that a year ago we in the New Democratic Party, during the
routine Question Period, would average about seven questioners on a typical Question Period day. We are now often down to an average of four questioners.


An Hon. Member:: Like today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am not saying that we are not guilty ourselves at times of perhaps a lengthy preamble. When the questions raised are long and the responses are doubly long and nobody is ever criticized or ever taken up for that fact, it encourages others to participate on longer questions and longer responses.
As my hon. colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam indicated, the designated time for statements allows a Member to have up to 60 seconds to make a comment. That is the maximum. Perhaps we want to consider some time allotment so that the Member could use that time in terms of a concise question, with the idea that the response would be of an equal period and equally concise.
While I do not appreciate the point raised or the way my hon. friend has raised a point-because I do think it is a direct attack on the Chair-I think that his comments reflect a great number of concerns from Members on both sides of the House in terms of the interplay during Question Period, and the recognition that it has to be tightened up.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to exercise the prerogative of the Chair and close off this debate. First of all, I am going to close it off because, while I have listened to it as a point of order, as I think I am bound to do, if it is to be carried on, this is not the place in which to carry it on.
If there is complaint and concern on both sides of the House with respect to any matter of order in this Chamber, naturally the Chair must hear that concern, but having had the point made and having heard the reply, which I have heard from eloquent spokespersons of both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, the debate ought to carry on in another place.
Now, may I just say this. There is nothing particularly easy for Hon. Members who are sometimes asking questions in this place, or Ministers who are replying.
I have said on other occasions that this is not a tea party. There are strong views held and those strong views of course will be replied to in a strong way. If a question has an argumentative turn to it, it is understandable that some argument will come back by way of reply. I invite all Hon. Members to repair to the Table Officers and take a look at the exact time of questions and answers, not just over the last couple of days but over an extensive period of time. I think that they will probably be well instructed to do so.
In any event, I have listened to the observations of the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), and I would ask other Hon. Members to co-operate with the Chair. If they want to
July 12, 1988

Canadian Multiculturalism Act
continue this discussion further, there is, of course, another place to do so.
It may well be that the Chair, with the help of Members on both sides, can have more Members up. The Chair is concerned about that and it has ideas that may be helpful to both sides. If I am requested to share them with Members in a constructive way, I would be quite prepared to do so.
I might just say, in remarking on something that the Hon. Member for Windsor West said, that other Speakers have set out a long list of suggestions, guidelines and guides as to the proper conduct of Question Period. These guides are of course always helpful. Ultimately, this place operates on the basis of what it collectively is prepared to accept.
I am a servant of all of the Members here, and as soon as you wish me to conduct these affairs in a different way, where I feel that there is support for some change one way or the other on both sides of the House, I give you my complete assurance that I will certainly try to do that.
[DOT]	(1530)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, July 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean) that Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division. Call in the Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out one thing. I think it is important that we all understand that while at times exchanges are noisy and may be too lengthy in Question Period for some and despite the fact that there is very vigorous debate and exchange in this place, for the most part, over many, many months this has been a civil place where it has been possible for the Government and the Opposition to engage in discussion as to the conduct of business, without rancour, and with particular expedition in a great many places. Now, that says something for the general mood in this place. I say this as your Speaker. It also says a great deal for the co-operation which Hon. Members have given to their Speaker, for which I thank you.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the intention of the Deputy Government House Leader to present a motion to the House with respect to the time of adjournment today. Can he indicate if he is ready to do so now or very soon?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Immediately after the three o'clock vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it from the whispered exchange that the Minister of State may speak later.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Windsor West satisfied at the moment?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes.
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	Gagliano	MartinAxworthy	Garneau	MayerBaker	Gauthier	MazankowskiBelsher	Girard	McCainBenjamin	Gormley	McCurdyBlackburn	Gottselig	McDermid(Brant)	Graham	McDonaldBlackburn	Gray	(Broadview-(Jonquiere)	(Windsor West)	Greenwood)Blenkarn	Gustafson	McDougallBoudria	Halliday	(St. Paul's)Bourgault	Hardey	McLeanBradley	Harvey	MitchellBrisco	Heap	MitgesBrowes	Hicks	MooreCaccia	Hockin	NicholsonChampagne	Holtmann	(Niagara Falls)(Champlain)	Hopkins	NickersonCochrane	Hudon	NowlanCooper	Jardine	NunziataCopps	Jepson	OberleCossitt	Jewett	O'NeilCote	Johnson	OostromCrofton	(Bonavista-Trinity-	OrlikowCrosby	Conception)	Ouellet(Halifax West)	Joncas	PennerDarling	Kaplan	PennockDaubney	Keeper	Petersonde Corneille	Kempling	Pietzde Jong	Kindy	PlourdeDomm	Ladouceur	PriceDuplessis	Langdon	Prud'hommeEdwards	Lanthier	RavisEllis	Layton	ReimerEpp	Lewis	Riis(Thunder Bay-	MacDonald	RobichaudNipigon)	(Kingston and	RodriguezEpp	the Islands)	St-Julien(Provencher)	MacDougall	ScottFennell	(Timiskaming)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Finestone	MacKay	ScottFontaine	MacLellan	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Fraleigh	Mailly	SkellyFriesen	Manly	StackhouseFrith	Marchi	
July 12, 1988
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Business of the House
Valcourt
Van De Walle
Vincent
Waddell
Weiner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)-130
++NAYS
Members
nil/none


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.
* *
*


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. There have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find that if you were to call Bill C-84 immediately, a recorded division could be taken immediately without the necessity of ringing the bells.
I also wish to advise the House that, after that, in taking up the business of the House, if there are any other recorded divisions requested, those divisions will be deferred until 6 p.m. tomorrow.
Having made those points, I would advise the House that there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to business, and in view of the progress we are making I move: That this House adjourn at 6 p.m. this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion made by the Hon. Minister of State. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976.


IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 MEASURE TO AMEND-CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal code in consequence thereof; and
the motions of Mrs. McDougall (p. 17445) and (p. 17445); Mr. Marchi (p. 17450); and Mr. Heap (p. 17453).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 declare the amendment lost.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand from the ruling this morning that an amendment that I introduced was not appropriately before the House at that time, but would be at this time, the previous amendment having been disposed of. If so, I ask leave to move the amendment now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, we would agree to the vote being taken at this time but that the previous vote would apply to this vote.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I would have no objection to the Hon. Member's suggestion after I have moved my motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I move:
That Section 91.1(l)(d), as amended by the Government, be amended by
deleting the words "the country would allow passengers to return to that
country" and inserting therefor the words "the country would admit the
passengers to that country".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Now that the amendment has been put I think you should seek unanimous consent to apply the same vote to the amendment as was taken on the amendment of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member will allow me to put the question officially to the House. Is there unanimous consent that the previous vote be applied to this amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Immigration Act, 1976
Kaplan	McDonald	PennerKeeper	(Broadview-	Prud'hommeLangdon	Greenwood)	RiisMacLellan	Mitchell	RobichaudManly	Nunziata	RodriguezMarchi	Orlikow	SkellyMcCurdy	Ouellet	Waddell-39NAYS	Members	Belsher	Hicks	O'NeilBlackburn	Hnatyshyn	Oostrom(Jonquiere)	Hockin	PennockBlenkarn	Holtmann	PetersonBourgault	Hudon	PietzBradley	Jardine	PlourdeBrisco	Jepson	PriceBrowes	Johnson	RavisChampagne	(Bonavista-T rinity-	Reimer(Champlain)	Conception)	St-JulienCoates	Joncas	ScottCochrane	Kempling	(Victoria-Haliburton)Cooper	Kindy	ScottCossitt	Ladouceur	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cote	Lanthier	StackhouseCrofton	Layton	TardifCrosby	Lewis	(Charlesbourg)(Halifax West)	MacDonald	TaylorDarling	(Kingston and	ThackerDaubney	the Islands)	TowersDomm	MacDougall	TupperDuplessis	(Timiskaming)	TurnerEdwards	MacKay	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ellis	Mailly	Van De WalleEpp	Martin	Vincent(Provencher)	Mayer	WeinerFennell	Mazankowski	WenmanFontaine	McCain	WhiteFraleigh	McDermid	WilsonFriesen	McDougall	(Swift CurrentGirard	(St. Paul's)	-Maple Creek)Gormley	McLean	WilsonGottselig	Mitges	(EtobicokeGraham	Moore	Centre)-93Greenaway	Nicholson	Gustafson	(Niagara Falls)	Halliday	Nickerson	Hardey	Nowlan	Harvey	Oberle


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. McCain:: Madam Speaker, may my vote be recorded with the Government in the recording of the last division?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As the Table Officers heard, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) has asked that his vote be added to the last division.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

July 12, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Once again, Madam Speaker, I think you would find a unanimous disposition to apply the previous vote to this question, but in reverse. Some day we will win one.


Mr. Tobin:: Madam Speaker, could my name be added to the count on this latest vote for which I would have been present, and to subsequent votes?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Table Officers have heard the request by the Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 declare the motion carried.
The next question is on the first amendment of the Hon. Member for Spadina. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: May I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the motion of Mrs. McDougall, which reads:
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
That clause 8 of Bill C-84 be amended by striking out line 17 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"portation by sea.
4) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-55 entitled An Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof is assented to, this section shall cease to be in force six months after the day on which that Act comes into force."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-l 10, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are 15 motions on the Order Paper and Notices offered in amendment to Bill C-l 10, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof.
Motions Nos. 1 to 7 inclusive, 10, 11, 13 and 14, stand in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Lang-don).
Motions Nos. 8, 12 and 15 stand in the name of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).

The Chair has some hesitation about Motion No. 1 which adds to Clause 2 a definition of the term "domestic producers of goods". According to the definition, this term would cover any firm employing, or any trade union representing, workers producing the goods involved. If I understand the Bill correctly, the right to file a complaint directly with the International Trade Tribunal, on the grounds of injury as defined in the legislation, is granted to all Canadian producers.
Under Paragraph 26(1 )(b), an inquiry by the International Trade Tribunal into a complaint may not be initiated unless the complaint is made by or on behalf of domestic producers who produce a major proportion of domestic production of the like or directly competitive goods. There is no provision for direct access to the International Trade Tribunal by a firm employing, or any trade union representing, workers producing the goods involved.

Furthermore, the Member is attempting to take the power away from the Governor in Council to make regulations with respect to defining the term "domestic producers" in Clause 40(b).

July 12, 1988

Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act [ Translation]
For the reasons just mentioned, I have concluded that this amendment is beyond the scope of the Bill as adopted on second reading in the Elouse.
Furthermore, this is a substantive amendment of the interpretation clause of the Bill. I would refer the Hon. Member to citation 773 (10) of Beauchesne's, Fifth Edition, page 233, and I quote:
(10) A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification to the interpretation clause of a bill. Journals, May 21, 1970, p. 835.
Consequently, the motion is ruled out of order.

1 have concerns with regard to Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4. These motions are related because the intent is to grant the International Trade Tribunal the power to initiate injury-related inquiries on its own. I understand that an identical motion as to Motion No. 3 was ruled out of order at the committee stage. In Clause 16, the powers, duties and functions of the International Trade Tribunal are stated. These powers are further elaborated in Clauses 18, 19 and 20 which provide for the kind of references of inquiries which the Governor in Council and the Minister of Finance may authorize the International Trade Tribunal to undertake.

According to the Chair, it would be beyond the scope of the Bill as adopted on second reading by the House to give the International Trade Tribunal the power to conduct inquiries as a matter of course. The motion is therefore ruled out of order.

Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 10 are in order but they will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 5 will also apply to Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 10.

Motions Nos. 8 and 9 which are also in order will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 8 will dispose of Motion No. 9.

Motion No. 11 is in order and it will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 12 and 13 concerning reports following inquiries by the International Trade Tribunal will be grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 12 will dispose of Motion No. 13.

Motions Nos. 14 and 15 are in order but will be debated and voted on separately.
The House will now proceed to consideration of the first group, being Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 10.
That Bill C-l 10 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 18 to 24 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"22. In Sections 23 to 30 'complaint' means a written complaint filed with the Tribunal under subsection 23(1), and, for the purposes of those sections, a complaint is properly documented if it contains the information required by section 23 together with such other information as the Tribunal may reasonably require pursuant to Section 24."
That Bill C-l 10 be amended in clause 23 by striking out lines 25 to 35 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"23.(1) Any domestic producer of goods that are like or directly and competitive with goods being imported into Canada, or any person or association acting on behalf of any such domestic producer, may file a written complaint with the Tribunal alleging that the imported goods are being or are about to be imported at such prices, in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious or other injury to domestic production of like or directly competitive goods."
-That Bill C-l 10 be amended in Clause 26 by striking out lines 13 to 22 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) that the information provided by the complainant and any other information examined by the Tribunal disclose a reasonable indication that the goods that are the subject of the complaint are or are about to be imported at such prices, in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious or other injury to domestic production of like or directly competitive goods."-
Bill C-l 10 be amended in clause 27 by striking out lines 33 to 42 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"27.(1) The Tribunal shall, in an inquiry into a complaint, determine whether, having regard to any regulation made pursuant to paragraph 40(a), the goods that are the subject of the complaint are being or are about to be imported at such prices, in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious or other injury to domestic production of like or directly competitive goods."
He said: Madam Speaker, I thank you for your ruling with respect to this Bill. As Members of the House will recall, the Bill attempts to put together the three trade tribunals which presently exist in this country: The Textile and Clothing Board, the Tariff Board, and the Special Import Tribunal. In doing so there are some serious powers which at the moment are presently held by the textile and clothing board, including powers to put recommendations to the Minister, to initiate inquiries, and I must say myself that I am disappointed the Government has chosen to reduce the independence and capacity of this new institution to act at arm's length from the Government as compared with the textile and clothing board _ from the past.	I
Motion No. 6
[English] Motion No. 10

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor moved:
Motion No. 5
[Translation] Motion No. 7.

July 12, 1988

Perhaps more important for the specific industries to which I refer, these industries themselves are treated quite differently under the international regime which exists under GATT. Textiles and clothing have been, since 1962, the subject of special consideration under, first, the long-term cotton arrangement and subsequently under the multifibre arrangement. Yet we in this Bill have a treatment of these industries which represents completely the same kind of very tough and strict definition of injury which is to apply to all industries across the country, despite the fact, as I say, that there is a difference recognized at the international level and a difference applied there.
It is for this reason that I have moved these amendments. They have some relationship to some other amendments about which I will be talking later. However, with respect to the various motions, if I can go through them in order, Motion No. 5 is an attempt to loosen up and perhaps clarify also for companies the information which they have to provide to this new Canadian international trade tribunal in order to have a hearing in front of that tribunal. An industry is asked to provide certain information and the information for this complaint, as in the present Clause 22, left it very much to the tribunal to decide if it is satisfied that it has been presented with the material required by Clause 22.
My amendment to the motion suggests that it is not up to the tribunal to make this decision but simply that if the details which are outlined in Clause 23 are in fact provided to the tribunal, then the complaint must be heard. In short, it opens up access to the tribunal itself so that our industries across the country, which are affected by import pressure, can put their complaints before this tribunal successfully.
With respect to Motion No. 6, what we are attempting to do is to set forth a somewhat looser definition of what constitutes import pressure or import damage. The key point in comparing the two clauses, the existing Clause 23 and the suggested amendment, is that we have to take account, in analysing what import damage is, not just of the quantities and the conditions which might cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers, but the prices at which these imports are coming into the country. If these prices are, for instance, such as to themselves constitute a threat which could cost us thousands of jobs, even if there has been no change in the quantities or in the basic competitive conditions which exist within the industry, the difference which is constituted by such prices is something which should be taken into account by the tribunal.
I should indicate that a number of these amendments have been directly influenced by the testimony put before our trade tribunal hearings on Bill C-110 by the various witnesses who made presentations from industry, from the existing textile and clothing board chairperson and from certain testimony written and provided by trade unions.
With respect to Motion No. 7, the suggestion here refers to Clause 26. Again there is an attempt to introduce into Clause
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
26 this same notion of prices as an important consideration in considering the potential impact of imports coming into the country. I think, if I may say so, that to ignore the price at which imports are coming into the country is really a serious gap in this present Bill.
With respect to the other motion which is grouped here, which is Motion No. 10, precisely the same point is being made with respect to Clause 27. Clause No. 27 in this case also leaves out the question of price.
As economists would want to point out, price and the potential undercutting of price which exists with respect to those items which are produced here in Canada are important considerations. One really cannot determine what is supposed to be determined by each of these clauses, which is the potential to cause or threaten to cause serious or other injury to domestic production of like or directly competitive goods.
If I can conclude, Madam Speaker, these are minor amendments but ones which I believe will improve significantly this Bill with respect to the benefits which Canadian industry may expect to receive from the Bill in the future.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to my hon. friend's proposed amendments to this Bill. I commend him for the close interest he has taken in this piece of legislation. I have to disagree with him when he says that these are minor amendments. In fact, they add up to a major attack on the whole concept of the GATT. His Party has often suggested that the GATT be appealed to in the place of, for example, the free trade agreement. In this particular set of amendments, and in others which I think he will propose later, he is attacking in essence fundamental standards behind the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I want to address myself to those amendments in order to make this clear to the House.
I would also like to say that there may be a misunderstanding in his close study of the Bill in terms of the wider context in which this Bill is placed. He began his comments-and this may be the source of his troubles-with reference to some of the powers that the present Textile and Clothing Board has, in particular its authority to self-initiate an inquiry about injury. I remind the Hon. Member that the Textile and Clothing Board has only used this authority in the past to self-initiate an inquiry about injury in the context of reviews of existing textile and clothing import quotas to determine whether or not they should be continued or varied. One would have to be pretty conversant with the board to know that. But that in fact has been the history.
Inquiries into new product areas, something which may be at the heart of the Hon. Member's concern, which can be initiated at the request of industry or the Minister, are different. The provisions of this Bill, Bill C-110, will continue to let industry petition the tribunal for inquiries into new product areas or to let the Government request an inquiry.

July 12, 1988
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
That is not being blocked. There is no power that the Textile and Clothing Board has today that would not be available with regard to new product areas under Bill C-110 for the new trade tribunal that we are establishing.
I think the Hon. Member is concerned about where the restraints come from to prevent us from having a flood of imports, textiles and so on into Canada. That is part of the broader context, too, that I want to point out to him. These broader restraints imposed on textile and clothing imports into Canada come from the negotiation of bilateral agreements with exporting countries under the multi-fibre arrangement. This arrangement, known as the MFA, which is a derogation from the GATT in that it provides for border actions on the basis of bilateral agreements rather than on a global basis against imports from all sources, is still in place. I made that point in committee. However, I do not know whether or not the Hon. Member was there that day. Nothing will change that. The MFA only requires evidence that textile and clothing imports are causing what is called market disruption. No compensation is required to be paid when these arrangements are worked out.
In comparison, a safeguard action, which is what we are talking about this afternoon, is totally different. So that whole process, the non-safeguard part of the textile and clothing arrangement, those bilateral agreements under the MFA, remain. It is business as usual for them.
During the past 10 years, and more particularly since 1981, the Government has used bilateral restraint agreements to protect the textile and clothing industry. These restraint agreements permitted under the multi-fibre arrangement are very flexible and much less costly than taking safeguard actions. That is not the way to deal with this matter. The way to go is to work on those bilateral restraint agreements if flexibility is wanted.
It is important for me also to tell the House that External Affairs officials are responsible for the bilateral negotiations and deals with industry problems. They deal with these problems as requests arise. It is a very flexible system. The industry is well aware of the process in that area. I gather the industry said that during the committee hearings that were held on the morning of May 19. This is a broad context to deal with all of these amendments which have been suggested.
Let me deal precisely with the motions. I gather Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, if I heard the Speaker properly, are out of order. I will speak now to Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 10, which I believe are to be debated at this time.
Motion No. 5 deals with Clause 22. The basis of the Hon. Member's amendment would seriously weaken the requirement that a complaint be documented properly. As a matter of fact, if one starts to attack the concept of proper documentation, one can find the whole evidence of safeguard actions tumbling down.
I understand the desire that the Hon. Member has expressed to avoid imposing an undue information requirement on producers petitioning the new tribunal. However, for the tribunal to undertake an inquiry and to examine for serious injury it is absolutely indispensable that the tribunal be satisfied that the documentation it has before it is adequate at the outset and thus later avoid no injury findings because of inadequate initial information.
Because of the lower standard in the proposed amendment, the complaint may be deemed to be properly documented, even if the tribunal is not able to satisfy itself that the complaint contains the necessary information. This is a very awkward posture for the tribunal to be put into. However, once a complaint is accepted as properly documented the tribunal has only 30 days to decide whether or not to initiate a safeguard inquiry. In such cases the tribunal may not be able to initiate an investigation because the complaint may not have disclosed an acceptable indication of increased imports causing serious injury. Because of the documentation problem this amendment is flawed.
With respect to Motion No. 6, in essence, it would put Canada ultra vires with respect to our obligations to the GATT. The changes embodied in this proposed amendment to Clause 23 and the corresponding change to Clause 26 would put Canada ultra vires with respect to its GATT obligations for Article 19, safeguard actions. These are obligations for everybody and not just for Canada under the GATT. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is proposing that there be a right of direct access in the case of a threat of increased imports, whereas GATT requires an increase in imports, not a threat, not a dark cloud, but actual empirical proof that there is an increase in imports.
Aside from the amendment being inconsistent with GATT, opening up the system in this manner would have a very chilling effect on trade. If this process were used in this manner, we would cause reverberations with our trading partners. Similarly, allowing for direct access where only injury rather than serious injury has occurred would also be inconsistent with the GATT safeguard provisions. Injury is not consistent with GATT; serious injury is consistent with GATT.
The amendment of the Hon. Member makes its case on injury rather than on serious injury. The Hon. Member may be attempting to alter the basic purpose of the legislation to allow the tribunal to undertake direct access inquiries for nonsafeguard purposes. That may be what the Hon. Member's attempt is. However, the legislation is not designed for nonsafeguard purposes. It is there for the whole safeguard process. That amendment is a serious mistake.
I now want to speak to Motion No. 7 which speaks to Clause 26. It is the same problem, and I already spelled out my concerns with this motion when I addressed the amendment proposed to Clause 23 in Motion No. 6. GATT does not permit
July 12, 1988

Article 19 safeguard action on the basis of a threat of imports, or on the basis of any other type of injury funding other than "serious injury". Therefore, there has to be serious injury to put this process in place under Article 19 of GATT. My argument for Motion No. 7 is the same as my argument for Motion No. 6.
Finally, Motion No. 10 speaks to Clause 27. The amendment proposed in Motion No. 10 to Clause 27 would radically change the concept of the legislation in its entirety. This clause was discussed at great length in committee. The committee endorsed the concept that increased imports must be the principal cause of serious injury. The amendment set out in Motion No. 10 eliminates this concept, and at the same time introduces the notion of other injury. This is contrary to Article 19 of the GATT provisions which only provide for safeguard injury in the case of serious injury. The revised language also contains the concept of threat of imports which, as I have already stated, is not permitted under GATT.
I commend the Hon. Member for following this Bill carefully, but for those reasons the amendments are not minor. They are quite major mistakes, and I say that the House must not support those amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has already had the floor on this grouping. I would need unanimous consent to recognize the Hon. Member.


Steven W. Langdon: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I am not mistaken, it is my understanding that at report stage it is possible to speak a number of times, within the constraints of time; is that not correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: That would apply to Committee of the Whole. At report stage normally an Hon. Member can speak for 10 minutes on each of the groupings, unless there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is not unanimous consent so I cannot recognize the Hon. Member at this time.
Is the House ready for the question on the first grouping? The first question is on Motion No. 5. I should remind Hon. Members that the vote on Motion No. 5 will also apply to Motions Nos. 6, 7, and 10.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motions negatived.
Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 10 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next grouping is for Motions Nos. 8 and 9.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I think that if you ask for unanimous consent you will find that the House is disposed to allow the Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) to introduce the motion of the Member for Trinity (Ms. Nicholson).


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-l 10 be amended in Clause 26 by adding immediately after line 27 at page 9 the following:
"(c) that what constitutes total domestic production under subparagraph (b) excludes the production of those domestic producers who are related to any exporter or importer of the like or directly competitive goods or are themselves importers of such products; and".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? On debate the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Mr. Raymond Garneau (for Ms. Nicholson (Trinity)) moved:: Motion No. 8.
-That Bill C-l 10 be amended in Clause 26 by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"behalf of any domestic producer".
Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Motion No. 8. Essentially, the Bill proposes to allow groups of domestic producers who are responsible for or represent an important part or the major proportion of a given production to file a complaint with the Tribunal asking it to conduct an inquiry to determine whether or not they have been the victims of an injustice.
The amendment I am moving on behalf of my colleague the Member for Trinity (Ms. Nicholson) is to the effect that a producer who feels that certain circumstances have caused him injury could himself file a complaint with the Tribunal to ask it to conduct an inquiry to determine whether or not Canadian

July 12, 1988
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
industry has been adversely affected by massive quantities of imported goods that might suddenly flow into the country at a certain point.
Madam Speaker, when the Legislative Committee debated the Bill we broadened the clause somewhat, because the original text of the Bill used the following expression, in English: "a major proportion of domestic production". "A part or a proportion of more than 50 per cent" ... and an amendment was made to modify the clause somewhat, and to say "an important part".
But there are several types of industries in Canada where large producers may represent 55, 60, or 65 per cent of production, and very often those major producers are controlled by national interests or, quite frequently, by nonresident shareholders. And for all sorts of reasons related to international ramifications, those large producers might object to complaints being filed with the Tribunal to ask that Tribunal to conduct an inquiry on the import of unreasonable quantities of goods or the sale of goods at unjustifiably low prices.
The result would be that domestic producers, or the smaller ones at least, would find it impossible to file their complaints with the Tribunal to ask it to investigate massive imports affecting them.
The Government claims that this would be an excessive simplification and might increase the complaints. In any case, small producers or producers representing 5, 6 or 7 per cent of a given production are often represented by associations that could make representations on their behalf to the Tribunal and file a complaint asking that an inquiry be conducted into the massive imports of goods being sold at overly competitive prices in the light of production costs in Canada.
It is nice to think that things might happen that way, but here again, there are several types of production where the number of producers is so small that the associations, even though they represent everyone, may have different objectives and perspectives, especially if one producer is totally dominant for a given product.
Thus, the purpose of the amendment is to make the inquiry process accessible to a domestic producer who feels that he has really been wronged. Pursuant to the clauses that precede clause 26, he would have to provide sufficient information to show that an inquiry is justified, but the amendment would allow a producer to file a complaint and initiate the process on his own.
The need is obvious if one looks at what has been done in other countries; I believe that in some recent cases in the United States, concerning potash particularly, the major producers were not the ones to file the complaint that was judged to be in order and that triggered the whole inquiry process which led to the result you are familiar with.
If American producers are protected in that way, I don't see why we on the Canadian side could not offer the same
possibility to a producer who feels that the survival of his business is threatened, as well as the jobs he offers to a certain number of Canadians; he should be able to benefit from the advantages of complaining to the Tribunal which could analyze the exaggerated increase in imports which might have occurred.


Steven W. Langdon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, on your ruling with respect to the grouping of these two motions together for debate, while I have no objections to that it does raise for me a very serious problem. I do not support, and my Party would not support, Motion No. 8, while of course I have moved and my Party would support Motion No. 9. So I would ask if, for purposes of voting, these two could be divided, even if you would wish to carry on the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think I can certainly ask for two separate votes on these two motions.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I would certainly agree to splitting these two votes. The Hon. Member does not support Motion No. 8.1 would like to speak to Motion No. 8 before we go to the Hon. Member's comments on Motion No. 9.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Would the Hon. Member allow the Minister to-


Steven W. Langdon: Since we are debating the two motions together and then voting separately, it might make sense for the Hon. Minister to respond to both motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It will allow the Chair to make life easier for every Member this afternoon.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to respond, after hearing the Hon. Member's comments, on Motion No. 9.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, these models of politeness are what the House should be all about.
I would like to say why I think the motion by my colleague, the Hon. Member from Trinity (Miss Nicholson), moved by the Hon. Member from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), is not something that makes sense. With many of our industries in this country, as all Members of this House know, we have vast numbers of extremely small producers. This is certainly the case with respect to the auto parts industry, which is prevalent in my constituency. It is certainly the case with respect to the clothing industry. I think it does make sense to insist that there be some proportion of the industry which has to bring a complaint. I have some concern about the existing level which has been established. It represents a compromise on the Government's part which it took in committee, and I am therefore pleased to live with that compromise.
With respect, however, to my motion, in attempting to assess the proportion of the industry which brings its complaint
July 12, 1988

before the tribunal, it is important that domestic production include or be considered to be production, leaving aside those firms which are, as my amendment suggests, related to exporters or importers of the like or directly competitive goods, or are themselves importers of such products.
We could certainly see a situation in this country where the great bulk of domestic producers were related to importers and would therefore have no interest in bringing a complaint before the tribunal. So, to leave out of the analysis what constitutes a major proportion of the domestic production of this particular good, it seems to me absolutely critical that we exclude those firms which are themselves associated with importers. Otherwise, we will be in a situation where true domestic producers are not going to be able to go before this tribunal to ask for safeguard or for other action.
I want to make a point with respect to this entire section which deals with complaints by domestic producers. This section does not, through any definition or statement in the Bill itself, limit itself to safeguard actions. It may well have been the Minister's intention that it should have been limited to safeguard actions. If that is the case, there is a major mistake in drafting because there is no indication whatever within the Bill that that is the point. This is very important, Madam Speaker. At the present time domestic producers in the textile and clothing industry have the right to go to the Textile and Clothing Board and to take to that board complaints which are non-safeguard action complaints. If the Minister intends to apply this safeguard action test, that will, in fact, take away from our domestic textile and clothing firms the right to be able to take complaints, as they have always done in the past to the Textile and Clothing Board, to this new international trade tribunal.
If that is the case, Madam Speaker, then the textile and clothing producers will not just have lost the right to see the Textile and Clothing Board initiate inquiries, they will not just have seen the Textile and Clothing Board lose the right to make recommendations, but they themselves will have lost the right to be able to take anything before this new international trade tribunal except those matters which are related to safeguard actions. Of course, safeguard actions are themselves only one sub-set of the kinds of activities which, as a result of injury, textile and clothing firms might wish to carry forward to this trade tribunal.
I recognize that these are technical issues which are difficult to deal with especially at this stage of the session, but I hope very much that the Minister will recognize, for the textile and clothing producers particularly, that this right to take their complaints to the new international trade tribunal is an important right which they have always had with respect to the Textile and Clothing Board. If we wipe it out, it will be an unfortunate and sad result for the textile and clothing manufacturers and workers of this country.
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, let me speak to these two motions. The first one was originally in the name of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and is now moved by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). The second one is in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
The first one astonished me. The second I think is unnecessary. I know it is unnecessary but I think the best way to summarize my complaint is that it is redundant and not needed to accomplish the purpose to which the Hon. Member is speaking.
Let me speak to the first motion. In terms of a single producer having trouble with imports and wanting inquiries to be conducted, to argue that no inquiry could ever be conducted, of course, will not necessarily be the case at all. The new tribunal will be able to do general economic inquiries, conduct tariff-related inquiries and injury inquiries. It will have the responsibility for all injury inquiries, as the House knows.
In addition, the Government will be able to direct the tribunal to inquire into the injurious impact of imports which are not dumped or subsidized. The Government currently has the authority to request such inquiries under the Special Import Measures Act and in the case of textile and clothing products, under the Textile and Clothing Board Act.
The key problem with Motion No. 8 is that one sole producer could trigger what the Hon. Member is asking for. That is as protectionist a device as I have ever heard in this House from a Party which purports to believe in liberalized trade around the world. Just one producer, Madam Speaker. GATT, decades ago, threw out that standard as being nothing more than a standard of harassment, and is this the Liberal Party's position on this trade tribunal? I find that astonishing and I am very surprised-I have great respect for the Hon. Member for Trinity-that she would bring that motion forward.
This amendment would allow direct access to the tribunal by a single producer. I know why the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor does not support it, because it is so dangerously protectionist that it would hurt our reputation as supporters for liberalized trade around the world. For a Party to propose this amendment that says it does not believe in the free trade agreement with the United States but does believe in GATT and liberalized free trade, I find, is inconceivable and I will remind Liberal Members of it in the future.
Members who participated in the committee know that there was extensive discussion about what proportion of the industry should be represented in a petition. That was a serious question and we had a good discussion. I think everybody learned from it. The Government agreed to what it believed was a consensus on the concept. Instead of saying "a majority of producers" we agreed that "a major proportion of producers" should be able to have direct access to the tribunal, and the Bill before the House has been so amended.

July 12, 1988
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
I must ask the House, in the name of GATT as well as in the name of liberalized trade around the world, to defeat that proposed amendment. I think I am supported by members of the New Democratic Party on that.
Motion No. 9 is only about safeguard actions. I hasten to tell my hon. friend that that is what this Bill is about and that is what this particular clause is about.


Steven W. Langdon: It doesn't say so.


Thomas Hockin: Therefore, 1 am making that clear in my remarks now. The Hon. Member says it does not say so. The whole Bill is about this kind of safeguarding inquiries, and that is what it is meant to be.
The amendment set out is intended to exclude from the definition of industry those producers who are related to importers or exporters of the goods in question. I know what is behind this question. We had a good example from Windsor with the auto parts industry and so on. I also asked these questions during my work on this Bill.
Motion No. 14 proposes a related amendment to Clause 40 which would eliminate the authority of the Government to make regulations defining what is domestic production. The legislation deals with the definition of industry and related definitions through regulations because the definitions cannot be put into a piece of legislation. We would have to put that in regulations because we are negotiating it with GATT now. The draft regulations-and this is why I feel the Hon. Member's motion is unnecessary-will be put through the accepted regulatory process, including pre-publication, and will contain a detailed definition covering the concept which is included in the amendment of the Hon. Member from Essex-Windsor. That is why I called the motion unnecessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion negatived.
Motion No. 8 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 9.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion negatived.
Motion No. 9 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next motion before the House is Motion No. 11.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-l 10 be amended in Clause 27 by striking out lines 43 to 49 at
page 11 and 1 to 4 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) In determining the question of injury under subsection (1), the
Tribunal shall consider
(a)	all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual or potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, utilization of capacity, production, employment, wages and volume of other imports; and
(b)	Canada's obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and, in the case of textiles and apparel, under the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles."
He said: Madam Speaker, there are two key points which are made in this motion which I think should be taken seriously by the Government and adopted in this legislation. The first is that the question of injury itself to a domestic producer here within Canada should not be some kind of narrow, restricted formula but, instead, should take into account, as I suggest, all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual or potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, utilization of capacity, production, employment, wages and volume of other imports.
*


July 12, 1988

This would give us a framework within which it would be possible for the new International Trade Tribunal to deal with some of the pressures and threats which we will face in the future. It would not be a protectionist framework in itself. Rather, it would require the tribunal, in analysing what it is undertaking, to assess very broadly the state of the industry and the impact that imports are having on it and, in considerable detail, to analyse the points which bear on the state of that industry itself. It seems to me that the narrow formulations of the past have not in fact given to our industries a sufficient safeguard against sudden thrusts from low-wage countries which undercut the jobs of Canadians and affect their families and communities.
Second, the amendment recognizes what the Bill does not recognize. The Bill has made a serious mistake in not recognizing that, for most industries, GATT and the GATT regime is what constitutes the framework within which there are certain obligations. There are also certain other goods which are outside GATT obligations, as, for instance, those goods which we used in our retaliation against the United States on the shakes and shingles case.
Most important, there is a class of very important goods in Canada which is not subject to GATT obligations but is, instead, a subject of the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles. In Canada, over 100,000 employees work in the clothing industry. I would venture to guess that close to
90,000	employees are working in the textile industry. These industries are located in small communities.
The potential impact on those firms is very serious. That is why we have seen at the international level the establishment of a completely separate regime with respect to textiles. It is why, in the trade tribunal and the clause which deals with domestic complaints, we should also recognize that some of those complaints may be brought by the textile and clothing industries, complaints which should be analysed with consideration, not to our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but instead with respect to our obligations under the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles.
If this amendment is accepted, we will see before us a much better Bill, a Bill which, first, does consider all economic factors which are important for an industry, and also recognizes the significant distinction which exists in the case of trade between those obligations we have under GATT and those obligations which affect the textile industry producers, workers, communities and people.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the amendment to Clause 27 in Motion No. 11 would, quite frankly, further twist the intent of the legislation. This was the import of what the Hon. Member was doing with the two previous motions as well. There would not be a requirement any longer that increased imports be the principal cause of serious injury. However, that is what this whole Bill is about.
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
Increased imports is the principal cause of serious injury. With any lower test than that, the system would degenerate into one used for nothing more than harassment, and Canada could quickly be called to explain itself by our major trading partners. It is a chauvinistic kind of approach.
We are members of GATT and this totally undercuts GATT. The Hon. Member opposite is proposing that the injury criteria be embodied in the legislation. The injury criteria are similar to those used in dumping and countervail inquiries and are incorporated in the rules of the Canadian Import Tribunal. Because injury criteria are not exhaustive and never can be, and are subject to constant multilateral negotiations, it is the Government's intention to include them in the rules of the tribunal.
I do not think I need say more. Those are the fundamental reasons why this amendment is not acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 11 (Mr. Langdon).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next group of motions is Motion No. 12 and Motion No. 13.
Motion No. 12 is in the name of Miss Nicholson (Trinity). Do I have unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond Garneau: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-l 10 be amended in Clause 29 by adding immediately after line
18 at page 13 the following:

July 12, 1988
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
"(2) Where, as a result of an inquiry, the Tribunal determines that the goods that are the subject matter of the inquiry are being imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of like or directly competitive goods, the tribunal shall make a written report to the Minister setting out the results of the inquiry and containing a recommendation as to whether, in its opinion, special measures of protection should be implemented.
(3) The report of the Tribunal made pursuant to subsection (2) shall specify the recommended scope and duration of the special measures and shall be published in the Canada Gazette."


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-l 10 be amended in Clause 29
(a)	by adding immediately after line 18 at page 13 the following:
"(2) The Tribunal's report shall set out
(a)	whether the goods that are the subject matter of the complaint are being imported at such prices, in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious or other injury to domestic production of like or directly competitive goods;
(b)	in cases where the Tribunal determines that the goods that are the subject of the complaint are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to the domestic production of like or directly competitive goods, a recommendation as to such special measures of protection, if any, that in the opinion of the Tribunal appear necessary or prudent to remedy or prevent such injury;
(c)	in cases where the Tribunal determines that the injury to domestic production is other than serious, a recommendation as to the removal of any applicable preferential tariff or concession granted by Canada in respect of the goods or the country of export that is not an obligation of Canada under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade;
(d)	nothing in this Act shall be taken as limiting any provision or power under the Special Import Measures Act."
(b)	by adding immediately after line 11 at page 14 the following:
"(6) In making recommendations under this section the Tribunal shall consider Canada's obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade."


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 10 deals with the reporting powers of the tribunal. As the Bill presently stands, the new tribunal will not have the right to make recommendations to the Government for action in light of a finding of serious injury. Members of Parliament suggested during the course of the meeting of the legislative committee that the tribunal should have the right to make recommendations. However, to give the tribunal an automatic power to make recommendations would, the Minister stated, be tantamount to an abdication of the Government's policymaking responsibilities.
This is a strange fear. Even if the tribunal makes a recommendation, the Government will still have the power to reject or act upon it. Recommendations are essential. At least they provide some guidance to officials and the Government. One questions why the Government is opposed to even hearing a recommendation on an injury finding from an expert body like the proposed tribunal. The amendment would ensure that recommendations are reported by the tribunal and published in The Canada Gazette.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, with respect to Motion No. 13, I want to point out to the Minister that, contrary to his constant refrain that we are trying to escape from our GATT obligations, we make quite clear in Motion No. 13 that we wish to add something to the Bill which will in turn make it quite clear that in making recommendations under this section, the tribunal shall consider Canada's obligations under GATT. We are making it quite clear that we are, have been and will continue to be a committed member of GATT.
The point that the Minister continues to miss is that these domestic complaints are not simply complaints brought under GATT. They will be brought by textile and clothing producers who are not subject to GATT, except for the special set of considerations established by GATT under its textile regime. These are separate and distinct from the obligations Canada has under GATT.
We have recommended that the tribunal, in making recommendations, shall consider Canada's obligations under GATT. We make it absolutely clear, but there are other parts of what will be undertaken by this tribunal which the Minister and his Department will recognize. Certainly some witnesses who testified before us in committee recognized them. The textile and clothing producers came before us, and the clothing workers communicated with us in writing, and indicated that they expect that, just as with the Textile and Clothing Board which is being amalgamated into this new tribunal, they will continue to have the right to bring forward complaints as domestic producers which will not fall under our GATT obligations but instead under our obligations under the various multi-fibre arrangements which have affected textiles, as I said, for 26 years.
As I pointed out to the Minister, there are a number of goods which he knows are not covered by GATT. Yet producers of those goods will also have the right to bring complaints before this tribunal. In those cases where they are not covered by GATT, surely the Minister is not saying he is going to impose GATT obligations on them? Surely he is not saying the same thing with respect to textiles and clothing? Despite the fact that they are not covered by GATT, he will, through this Bill, cover them under GATT. I think it is sheer nonsense for the Minister to put that into effect.
I would point out to him again that we are not talking about a single board, a special board which existed in the past, the Canadian Import Tribunal. We are talking about three tribunals, one of which, the Textile and Clothing Board, permitted domestic complaints from textile and clothing producers. Surely they will continue to have that right in the future. In doing so, it is simply inconceivable that they will be bound by GATT obligations when no other country forces its textile and clothing producers to be bound by GATT obligations. Surely the Minister is not trying to put our textile and clothing industries in much tighter strait-jackets than American, British, French and Italian textile producers. That does not make sense.
July 12, 1988


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I hasten to respond to the Hon. Member on Motion No. 13. I think I have good news for him if he will listen carefully. The amendment set out in Motion No. 13 amplifies the provisions on the issue of recommendations and whether or not the tribunal should be making recommendations. The amendment goes further and requires the tribunal, in case of non-serious injury, to recommend the removal of preferential tariff concessions which are not obligations of Canada under the GATT.
We know that this amendment is targeting the general preferential tariff regime which Canada has in place. That is the concern of the Hon. Member. In the Government's view this provision is entirely unnecessary. The good news is that that Government now has a standing general reference to the Tariff Board on the GPT which will be given to the new CITT. This regime has operated satisfactorily in the past and there is no reason why it should not operate satisfactorily in the future.
The advantage of this is that if offers flexibility, given the future MTN negotiations and, more important, is less offensive to developing countries than would be a legislated obligation to remove the GPT. I would not want to have to go with our developing country friends with that legislative obligation. It should be part of a more flexible MTN negotiation. I ask the House again to reject these amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare Motion No. 12 negatived.
Motion No. 12 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The vote on Motion No. 12 applies to Motion No. 13.
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
Motion No. 13 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next motion before the House is Motion No. 14.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-l 10 be amended in Clause 40 by striking out lines 43 to 45 at
page 16 and 1 and 2 at page 17.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am mostly provoked to speak briefly because of the last intervention of the Minister which, so far as I could see, had absolutely nothing to do with the section which was being analysed. Section 29, which was being analysed with Motion No. 13, simply suggested the various ways of defining the nature of the report which the tribunal would itself put forward. It had absolutely nothing to do with developing country partners of Canada, with the GPT, or with anything else.


Thomas Hockin: The implication of what you were saying.


Steven W. Langdon: Well, if the implication of what I was saying was that, then that simply proves that the section which the Minister has claimed all along dealt only with safeguards deals with much more than safeguards, which I do not think follows logically from the positions he has taken previously.
In any event, the motion to which I am speaking now is Motion No. 14 which deals with Clause 40 and attempts to take out the power of the Governor in Council to make recommendations with respect to domestic producer and domestic production and, therefore, is a companion piece to a motion which was ruled out of order earlier. I would assume, therefore, that if this motion were in fact carried, the original motion which I wished to move, Motion No. 1, which defined domestic producers of goods as "any firm employing, or any trade union representing, workers producing the goods involved", would conceivably be in order.
I will speak very briefly to that principle which I think the House should take seriously since our neighbour to the south, the United States, is among a number of countries which permit trade unions to carry complaints to their various trade tribunals in order to ensure that the trade unions can ensure that their workers benefit from the improved protection of either safeguard action or action for textile and clothing workers under the regime which applies to them.
I think that we as a Parliament are about 20 years behind the times in recognizing the important, positive role which trade unions can play in our economy. One of the studies which I undertook as an economist before my election to the House examined the restructuring of the textile industry in the Netherlands and found that the trade union movement had in fact played a major constructive role in helping to restructure that industry so that much more in the way of Third World imports could come into the country and, at the same time, workers were able to transfer successfully to other jobs at higher wages and were able to restructure their own firms in

July 12, 1988
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
such a way as to make them viable in the new context which they faced.
For some reason we in this country seem to believe that the trade union movement should be treated as some kind of pariah to be left out of major economic decision-making except in cases of propaganda value such as the national economic conference of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) some years ago.
I hope that we can carry Motion No. 14 so that it will then be possible to look once more at the advisability of permitting debate on Motion No. 1.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties. 1 think you will find agreement to the following proposition: That the House complete report stage debate on Bill C-110, with all motions being put and any recorded divisions that are requested deferred until 6 p.m. tomorrow evening; that the House then proceed to all stages of Bill S-17; that the House would not see the clock at 6 p.m. in order to allow for all stages of Bill S-17 to be completed today, and that during that time there would be no quorum calls and,naturally, no further business called.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I want to confirm that indeed there have been negotiations with the Deputy Government House Leader. The Official Opposition, in its usual cooperative mood, will tell him again that we are achieving a lot of work in the House even though we are in the middle of July.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I want to confirm that negotiations have taken place. I believe it was my suggestion to one of his Members that the House proceed in this way so that Bill S-17 can be dealt with in all stages today. We are happy to see the type of co-operation being exhibited here. Hopefully the Government will take note of how co-operative we have been to pass legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Being a servant of the House and in a co-operative mood as well, the Chair will stay as long as is necessary. The Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) has the floor.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, in a spirit of brevity and co-operation, I will make a brief comment on the Hon. Member's motion. His amendment would remove the authority of the Government to make regulations defining domestic production. When I addressed Motion No. 9, I gave the reasons why this power must be retained by the Government and why the amendment should be rejected. I call upon the House to reject this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the motion negatived.
Motion No. 14 negatived.


Raymond Garneau: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-l 10 be amended in Clause 59 by adding immediately after line
21 at page 27, the following:
"(5) A person appointed to hold office as a member of a former authority shall be entitled to be given or paid by Her Majesty in right of Canada such compensation, damages or indemnity for ceasing to hold office under this Act or for the abolition of that office by this Act as may be agreed by such person or such amount as may be determined by the Federal Court under paragraph 17(3)(a) of the Federal Court Act, and, for the purpose of that paragraph, Her Majesty shall be deemed to have agreed in writing to pay the amount so determined."
He said: Madam Speaker, since three tribunals will be abolished, this motion deals with compensating board members who will not be hired to sit on the new tribunal. This Bill originally contained a clause explicitly stating that former members had no right to compensation. This clause was removed.
However, changes to the Tariff Board Act, the Textile and Clothing Board Act and the Special Import Measures Act have the effect on the coming law of depriving the former board members of any rights to compensation or damages for breach of contract. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to add the subclause that explicitly grants former board members the right to compensation.
The Canadian Bar Association made representations to the committee and stated that the discharge of former members without compensation was arbitrary, fundamentally unfair, and contrary to the Charter. Many of these former authorities are distinguished citizens who have interrupted or indeed have ended their careers in order to add their expertise and experience to these boards.
Si
July 12, 1988


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, we support this amendment. It seems unfortunate that the pushing and shoving in the legislative committee which succeeded in persuading the Government to drop its prohibition of any such compensation should not have ultimately led to a more open and generous spirit and the incorporation of a clause that committed the Government to make such compensation available in the future.
When people serve their country, as has been the case with those on these three tribunals, it is very important that they not simply be shoved out the door without some promise of compensation in the future.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I think it would be absolutely exceptional to have a compensation obligation written into a statute. As as general rule, compensation issues are handled without statutory requirement. It was agreed in the committee to remove clause 39(5), to remove any potential conflict of interest situation. I see no reason for this proposed amendment which, in essence, would prejudge the nature and scope of any court action on the matter. I ask the House to defeat this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the motion negatived.
Motion No. 15 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the Bill now before the House. However, pursuant to the agreement reached earlier this day, the recorded divisions on the proposed motions will stand deferred until 6 p.m., Wednesday, July 13, 1988.
Montreal Trust Company of Canada


ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE CONTINUATION OF THE MONTREAL TRUST COMPAGNY OF CANADA MEASURE TO ENSURE CONTINUATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Mr. Lanthier moved that Bill S-17, an Act to authorize the Montreal Trust Company of Canada to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the Province of Quebec, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
On Clause 1-authorization
Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, to expedite debate, I did not intend to speak at the second reading stage of this Bill. However, after some conversations with the Minister, during which I had a few questions for him about financial institutions, I had the impression he would agree to respond to some of these questions which are related, though indirectly, to the Bill before the House. The Bill before the House today constitutes a request by a private company for a change in jurisdiction, that is, to have part of its operations, which were under federal jurisdiction, transferred to that section of the same group that was under the provincial jurisdiction of Quebec, and which in fact represented the majority of the assets of Montreal Trust.
After my conversations with the Minister and after reading the comments made by the President of Montreal Trust, Mr. Gratton, before the other honourable Chamber of this Parliament which examined the Bill in committee and heard witnesses, I was generally satisfied with what was said by the President of Montreal Trust, and I have no real problem with the Bill itself and its wording, so that as far as I was concerned, once the Minister answered some of my questions, clause-by-clause consideration could be done very quickly.
Madam Speaker, without being a cause for concern, and I am sure there are reasons, one does wonder why this is the third company that, for practical reasons, has expressed the desire to be transferred from a federal to a provincial charter. We had Les Cooperants in December 1987, TAlliance Industrielle a little earlier, and today, there are also rumours about La Sauvegarde and of course we have Montreal Trust.
When we look at how our financial institutions are evolving, we can say there have been various developments. First of all, we had a Green Paper, I think in April 1985, tabled by the former Minister responsible for financial institutions, which was examined by the Standing Committee on Finance

July 12, 1988
Montreal Trust Company of Canada
and Economic Affairs, under the distinguished chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Mississauga-South (Mr. Blencarn). This Committee did a considerable amount of work. It heard witnesses and reported to the House on developments in our financial institutions and on their ties outside the financial sector, with commercial and industrial sectors. The report also touched on issues such as the ownership of these institutions. Who may own or own shares in a bank or trust company or insurance company, and what percentage of the total share capital?
How many shares are in foreign hands? What are we supposed to do about issues such as selling insurance, and so forth? Quite a few quesitons were raised, especially in the subsequent document, the Blue Paper which was tabled, if I am not mistaken, in 1986. We had a report by the Commons Committee and the Senate Committee. We had a number of documents published by the Economic Council of Canada. All this goes back to 1985 and 1986.
The Minister tabled a Bill on financial institutions, which dealt with the restructuring of the role of the inspector of insurance companies, trust companies and banks, consolidating all these responsibilities under the same person. The Minister also tabled a Bill on certain conflicts of interest. Basically, however, there are a number of points that have yet to be dealt with, and which to a certain extent may lead financial institutions to consider a change to a federal or a provincial charter. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government intends to table its Bill on ownership very shortly. We were informed some time ago that the Government felt that non-financial businesses should not be major shareholders in new financial firms. I am thinking of industrial and commercial groups that acquire a controlling interest in financial institutions or vice versa. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government has reached a final decision in this respect. Will it be possible, in future, for financial institutions to be owned by commercial groups? I understand it was always agreed there would be a grandfather clause for existing groups.
Could the Minister inform the House what the Government's policy will be in this respect and when we can expect the appropiate legislation to be tabled?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Chairman, this particular set of questions does not relate directly to Bill S-17, but I will be happy to help the Hon. Member with his questions. As he knows, in December the Government released a draft Trust and Loans Companies Act which is really a boiler-plate or new model of legislation for insurance companies, banks, the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society, as well as trust and loans companies.
The reason we had the legislation released in draft form was to ensure that we had very intense consultations with the industry, not on hypothetical things but on the practicalities of the Bill. As a result of the consultations which have been very widespread with the provinces and industries, we have put
ourselves into a position whereby we can hasten the process of putting in place a new regime when the Bill comes into the House.
Frankly, this is the most important legislation ever in the history of Canada for restructuring our financial institutions and our financial system. Sweeping changes for the industry are proposed in it. I placed a great deal of importance on consultation. Because of the strategic importance of the financial institution industry in the country, we have to get it right and rather than present a Bill that was flawed and that had not had the benefit of proper consultation. We put forward a draft piece of legislation and encouraged consultation. During the period of talking to both industry and the provinces, numerous representations and many helpful suggestions were made upon which I am now acting.
As I noted in my press release on June 15, 1988, one of the constant themes throughout the consultations with both industry and the provinces was that the Government's over-all financial sector policy goals were applauded and supported, but it was felt that it could be accomplished with a lesser degree of reliance on the policy in that draft trust and loan legislation of separation of financial and commercial enterprises. It relied very heavily on that separation.
I am now investigating, as I said in that press release, whether any modifications in ownership policies should be made and whether the changes would require a strengthening of prudential rules. If we move back somewhat in our reliance upon the separation between commercial and financial links, then we should ask the question whether more prudential requirements are needed in the over-all legislation.
That is what we are examining now. We have virtually completed that examination. I expect to be in a position shortly to announce any changes. I remain committed to the notion and the commitment of moving the legislation ahead as quickly as possible while ensuring that the policy serves consumers and the industry well.
Introduction of the trust and loan legislation will be followed by changes to the Bank Act. After that the new insurance companies Bill and the Canadian Co-operative Credit Associations Bill will follow. That is a huge set of legislative changes. They will follow quickly because the thinking will have been done and the principles will have been revealed in the first Bill that is brought before the House.
We are resolved to move quickly. The new legislation will look different from the draft legislation because it will have less reliance on commercial financial links.


Raymond Garneau: I am all for consultation. I agree that it is very important, particularly in this very sensitive field of activity. Nevertheless, this consultation process has been ongoing since 1984, if not before that time. The Government was sworn in in September of 1984. We have had the Green
July 12, 1988

Paper from the former Minister. There has been the report from the House of Commons and the report from the Senate. There has also been the report of the Economic Council of Canada. There have been long, long discussions.
When the Minister says that it is not linked with the actual piece of legislation that we are studying, I agree that it is not linked; but it could be linked. When there are a great many financial institutions federally chartered and they cannot see and know exactly in what context they will develop in the future, then they will look for other ways and means to achieve their goals.
Thus there is a link with the raison d'etre of this Bill. However, no chief executive officer would tell that to anyone. Certainly, ownership is a very important situation. I am not very pleased with the answer that we should wait and see, or that we may have an answer in legislation that will be tabled soon. We have been told that for the last two or three years. We even studied one piece of legislation. Under pressure from the Finance Committee and members of the Opposition-in fact from everybody-the Minister stripped the Bill and introduced a new one. If I recall correctly it was entitled Bill C-56. We are now being told that the measures will come as early as possible.
A great many people are talking about elections. You may have heard about it, or perhaps read about it in the papers, Madam Speaker. If we have an election this fall, as a great many people suggest, it will take at least another six months for the new Minister from a new Party to organize another piece of legislation and have it adopted. In the meantime the financial world will be in a difficult situation.
I am asking the Minister to be more precise, if not with respect to the timing of the legislation then at least will he tell the financial institutions, as well as the Members of this House, when the legislation will be tabled. Will it be before the election? Will commercial and financial links be acceptable in the new legislation?


Thomas Hockin: I am very pleased to answer those questions. Since I do not know when the election will be called, I cannot make a prediction on whether or not the legislation will be before the election or after. Is that not logical? If I knew when the election would be called, I could answer the Hon. Member's question.


Mr. Layton:: Give us a hint.


Thomas Hockin: Elections aside, the legislation itself will be tabled very soon. The Hon. Member will not have to wait very long at all.


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, in the same context, the legislation will have to settle a certain number of questions. Among others, I was reading articles in the papers published following the annual meeting of Montreal Trustco, such as the one published in The Globe and Mail, and another written by
Montreal Trust Company of Canada
Franqois Shalom and published in The Gazette last March 17, which said that the president had held a press conference and that Mr. Gratton said the following:

This company, which has a federal charter, is eager to get into insurance, as a distributor of home insurance against fire and theft as well as car insurance.
But Gratton said Montreal Trust does not want to penetrate the life insurance market.
If the government does not scrap its regulations on trusts, Montreal Trust could be restructured to fall within provincial jurisdiction, he said, which has fewer restrictions.

Similar comments were reported in The Globe and Mail. I would like to ask the Minister this: will future legislation allow trust companies to penetrate the insurance field? I would also like to know what will happen in the area of automobile leasing. There has been intensive lobbying, and the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and my colleague from Regina East will certainly remember all of the testimony we heard at our Committee in 1986. Even though the Bill we have before us is not directly related to those issues it has ramifications that might affect other financial institutions.


Thomas Hockin: I am very anxious to respond to those two questions. As far as Mr. Gratton's comments are concerned, I think that the Hon. Member has read the testimony which was given before the Senate committee. In Mr. Gratton's own press release and comments he has made it clear that even if the federal rules were the very same as the provincial rules, he would still be moving his charter provincially. The content of our Blue Paper has in no way been part of his thinking in this respect. It was a business decision. It was based on Quebec being the home of that institution for a long time. When the two companies were amalgamated it made sense for them to find one home, and Quebec seemed to be the natural place.
As for possibilities for Montreal Trust, or any trust company in the future, I suggest that the Hon. Member read my Blue Paper. In it I made it very clear that this is a magnificent new opportunity to have-

a removal of barriers among the various financial institutions. [English]
As a result of that, and following on the Blue Paper, we can have trust companies buying an insurance company, a property and casualty insurance company or a life insurance company. We can have a bank buying an insurance company or a trust company. This opening up of ownership is provided for in the Blue Paper. In no way was it mooted in my press release of June 15 that that would be changed.
The second question has to do with a more technical aspect concerning the leasing of cars. I would be very interested to know the Hon. Member's position with respect to that. My view, and I have stated it publicly a number of times recently,

July 12, 1988
Montreal Trust Company of Canada
as well as when I brought the draft trust and loan Bill forward, is that I do not believe that banks should be allowed to lease cars.


Raymond Garneau: I am not sure if I understood the Minister well. As long as I am in the Opposition I will ask the questions. If he wants to change sides, then I may answer his questions. I am prepared to do that if his boss calls an election. Nevertheless, on many occasions I have been public on that issue.
I am not sure if the Minister understood my question. I am asking if the trust company will be able to sell insurance in its branches. That is what my question was. Mr. Gratton said in his press conference on March 17, 1988 that he wanted to sell car insurance and home insurance.
The other part of my question dealt with the other financial activity, and in French we say "le credit bail". I would like to receive an answer from the Minister on those two points.


Thomas Hockin: I think the Hon. Member knows that my position is clear that the retailing of insurance in bank and trust company branches Under federal jurisdiction will not be allowed. I have made that clear on a number of occasions, and I have reiterated that since my press release on June 15.


Raymond Garneau: What will the Minister do if provinces make it possible to retail insurance under provincial charter, be it Ontario, Quebec, or any other province? Is the Minister going to defend the transfer of federal charter to provincial charter in the future, or will he change his mind? How will the federal chartered financial institutions be able to compete with provincial chartered institutions in the field of insurance and other financial activities that some of the companies are asking for?


Thomas Hockin: I am very interested that the Hon. Member put on the record that he would like federal financial institutions, banks, and trust companies to retail insurance in the branches. That is his position.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


An Hon. Member:: That's not going to sell in western Canada.


Sheila Finestone: That's not what he said.


Raymond Garneau: That is not what I said. If the Minister wants to debate that, he should bring in a piece of legislation. That is what I am asking for. That is what the Hon. Member for Mississauga South has been asking for for many months.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The Hon. Member and the Minister have entered into debate. The Chair is quite willing to allow them to debate, but one person at a time will make it a lot easier. The Hon. Minister had the floor.


Thomas Hockin: I look forward to the debate on this question, Madam Chairman.
The fact is that the provinces will have to make their own determination on this question. They will make their own determination as they see fit. We have made our determination.


Simon Leendert de Jong: That is exactly the point that disturbs me. I have no problem with Bill S-17. In reviewing the testimony made before the Senate committee we see that it is a move by Montreal Trust that is based on sound business reasons. The fact remains that $4 billion worth of assets presently under federal jurisdiction will be moved to provincial jurisdiction. Out of this we will get a trust company with some $8 billion in assets.
What disturbs me is that policy is being made on the run. The Government has promised some action. Certainly it has been obvious from the types of failures of various trust companies we have seen in the 1980s that co-ordinated action was necessary. Basic agreements with the provinces were needed, in order that there was some sense of security in this country by depositors about where the financial institutions were going. I am afraid that there is still not a coherent set of policies nor a coherent set of federal-provincial agreements in order that depositors will know what is happening with our financial institutions.
The Minister stated that he is opposed to financial institutions such as trust companies selling insurance, and so are we. What the provinces are going to do nobody knows. We have moved $4 billion in assets with Bill S-17 from under federal jurisdiction to provincial jurisdiction that at some stage might allow-


An Hon. Member:: Will allow.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Chairman of the Finance Committee is more certain and he states "will allow" the selling of insurance in branch offices.


Thomas Hockin: It might.


Simon Leendert de Jong: And that might change. There is confusion. What we are doing today is making policy on the run. As John Lennon said, "Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans". The Government is busy making other plans, but life is going on, another $4 billion of assets are being moved over to a provincial jurisdiction, and we have no idea where that will lead to.
We have co-operated by allowing Bill S-17 to pass today in all stages in an easy manner. I wish to tell the Government that this is the last time. We will not allow other pieces of legislation like this one to go through as smoothly, without having the promised legislation from the Government and without having a coherent policy in this country. As we move to financial deregulation, having 10 or 11 different policies
July 12, 1988

with the federal Government not knowing quite where to go is not responsible government.


Thomas Hockin: I am not too sure whether there is a question in all of that, but I am very anxious to reply. First, I do not think a federal Government has ever presented a more coherent or more comprehensive new set of principles for financial institutional reform than has this Government. The Blue Paper, the draft trust and loans legislation, is a blueprint the Hon. Member and the provinces can read if they want to know where the principals are going, and the provinces can also read. We would also like to do some fine tuning to maximize harmonization with the provinces.
I am very proud of the principles that we have laid down: to remove the barriers as much as possible among financial institutions, to allow capital to move, to allow ownership across the pillars, and to allow a great deal of one stop shopping. I am very proud of the new supervisory organization and procedures that have been put in place since Bill C-56 and Bill C-42. The reconstitution of the CDIC is all in place now and is off and running. Quite frankly the financial institutions in this country know where they stand. They never knew where they stood before. We want to maximize harmonization with the provinces. That is why we took a couple of extra months to do it, and I am very proud that we have.


Mr. Taylor:: I could not follow the thinking of the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party, because the Hon. Minister had made it abundantly clear that insurance would not be sold by banks and trust companies, and properly so. Let the banks carry out their financial matters, and let the insurance companies carry out theirs. The Minister has been absolutely definite on that throughout the years. There is nothing wishy-washy about it. I commend the Minister on it, and 1 hope that he sticks to that policy, because it is a sound policy.
Since this comes under the Trust Companies Act, will there be any adverse effect at all on people in other provinces who have deposited money in the Montreal Trust Company?


Thomas Hockin: I am very happy to respond to my hon. friend, and it is a responsible question. We have no reason to believe that in any way there would be any negative effect on depositors. As a matter of fact, they might find that life is clarified. Now there is an amalgamated institution that they are dealing with, and some of the overhead costs that were involved in running two institutions will be gone. Therefore they will probably have a slightly stronger institution that they are part of because they do not have to operate in two different jurisdictions. Depositors should feel confident, not the opposite.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The government Member took issue on the point I was attempting to make, that provincial Governments can have their own regulations dealing with trusts which might allow the sale of insurance. What we have done here is move $4 billion worth of assets under federal control to provincial
Montreal Trust Company of Canada
control. What the Province of Quebec will do in terms of its regulations we do not know. I am not certain what influence this Government will have on it.
I want to ask the Minister about another point. I think it is fair to say that Quebec has a pretty stringent and competent regulatory agency. We have not heard of too many financial institutions going Under in Quebec because of negligence in their regulatory agencies. Certainly we have seen this in other provinces.
Would the Government have facilitated this Bill had the request been, for example, to have it incorporated in Alberta or in Saskatchewan? In other words, what is your opinion of the Alberta regulatory agency?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Chairman, I think it is a first rule of Parliament that one does not ask hypothetical questions, let alone answer them. In fact, that question is not really appropriate. We have a situation in front of us with a good jurisdiction, which can do more than an adequate job with depositors' funds, and that is our concern.


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the question that was raised by the Member for Bow River concerning depositors. I agree with the Minister when he says that this should in no way affect the quality of the financial institution, all the more so since a financial institution that is under provincial jurisdiction still has the obligation of reporting to each of the provinces from which it obtains a licence to operate. Because a company that is registered or incorporated under the laws of Ontario, Quebec, or Alberta, and wants to do business in another province, must obtain a licence to operate in that field of provincial jurisdiction and present quite lengthy reports to each of those provincial jurisdictions. This does not in any way, I think, affect the quality of deposits, it may even improve it, because transfers are now allowed, and the consolidated assets will be greater and will protect all depositors.
I would like to raise another point. I do not think the Minister answered me. Of coure I understand the need for a little electoral bombast, the urge to say that one will protect banks and insurance salesmen. I understand that. I can appreciate the Minister's objections and comments, and I agree that the distribution of insurance by specialized agents is a valid service for consumers, and that to a certain extent, if all of these agents were private businesses, it might affect that service. I have no quarrel with the Minister's objective, but by not acting and by not solving the problem, as my colleague for Regina East just said, we will see businesses moving to the jurisdiction of Ontario or Quebec or other Provinces where those activities are permitted. Then the Minister will swell his chest and say: we have prevented the sale of insurance in our federal institutions, in banks, but finally this will be done

July 12, 1988
Montreal Trust Company of Canada
everywhere else under other jurisdictions and the situation the Minister hoped for will not even last as long as the election.
But I would like to go back to the financing of fleets of automobiles, to car leasing. Does the Minister intend to allow federally chartered financial institutions to take part in such activities, because it is important to them to know what the Minister thinks and what he intends to do. If we want to avoid having to study other Bills on these issues eventually, Bill S-18, S-20, it would be desirable that the Minister indicate the Government's intention on this issue of automobile leasing. He answered earlier on insurance, but I do not think that he answered the question on automobile leasing.


Thomas Hockin: I thought clarity came through brevity, Madam Chairman. I said that in no way would I support the leasing of cars through banks. I do not know how I can be more clear on that subject. We have in Canada close to 5,000 independent car dealers and hundreds of employees in each institution. They make very important contributions to their communities, and I do not want to see them disappear from the landscape. I want to see them stronger, not weaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lanthier:: Madam Speaker, as a Quebecer and a Montrealer, I wish to thank our Government as well as the Opposition parties for their exemplary cooperation in presenting this Bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I thank the Hon. Member for his remarks.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock, according to the agreement reached earlier today, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, July 13, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers