1988-05-30

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it is understood that later this morning we will have an opportunity to raise various points of order concerning the Bill to implement the trade agreement, Bill C-130, and it is my understanding that these points have to be raised prior to the calling of the motion for second reading of the Bill.
I want to make very certain that, through some inadvertence, we will not actually get to the point where the motion is called before the points of order on Bill C-130 are raised, thus making it impossible, in the light of various precedents, to argue these points of order.
I want to have an assurance from the Government House Leader that this will not be done as far as he is concerned, and that you, Sir, will be very vigilant to ensure that somehow or other the motion for second reading is not called before these points of order can be argued.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give my hon. colleague the assurance that it is our intention simply to trigger the debate on the procedural acceptability of Bill C-130, if in fact my hon. colleagues have anything to raise at that the time, and the Government has no intention of actually calling the order today. Once there has been discussions on Bill C-130 at the procedural level only, I would expect-and I do not mean to anticipate your decision-that you might want to reserve and have an opportunity to consider the arguments.
As soon as the debate or discussion is finished, it would be our intention to move immediately to continuing debate on Bill C-129, the privatization of Air Canada. That would be the business before the House today.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that prior to getting to Government Orders of the Day, after we go through Routine Proceedings, the Deputy House Leader for the Government will rise to indicate the Government's intention to bring forward Bill C-130, and it would be at that point that you would entertain
remarks regarding the appropriateness of this legislation in its present form.


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful for the interventions of Hon. Members and of the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). I might reply first to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). The Chair, of course, always has a duty to be diligent that the points of view that are necessary for the working of this place be heard. In the circumstances, I think the Chair is assisted by the arrangements and the understandings, at least, that there are at the present time between the Government and the Opposition. I am answering the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) as well and the Minister of State in this respect.
I will proceed to call, at the end of Routine Proceedings, Orders of the Day. I will then wait until I see whether Hon. Members wish to rise. I am anticipating that that will be the case. I think it would be appropriate first to recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor West. I will then recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, and then I will recognize the Minister of State who will address the Chair with respect to the Government's view.
The Minister of State said that he did not want to anticipate my ruling, and properly so, and I appreciate that courtesy. However, I want to indicate to the House that certainly at the moment, it is not my intention to give an immediate response by way of ruling. It is my intention to consider very carefully what will be brought before me later on. I think Hon. Members can anticipate that, unless something quite extraordinary develops, the Chair will reserve and will return to the House at some appropriate time.
So far as the Chair is concerned, it would be completely inappropriate to proceed with debate on Bill C-130 until the Chair has returned to the Chamber with a ruling or we have, if necessary, some further argument or further questions.
[DOT] (mo)
In any event, I fully understand the importance of this matter to all Hon. Members, and I want to assure everyone that every diligence will be exercised. However, it is also important that Hon. Members and the public realize that this very important matter is proceeding in a manner, which is a credit to this place, as a consequence of an understanding so that we will have a debate under civil circumstances and the Opposition need not fear that something will be done in an impetuous manner or in any way to take the Opposition

May 30, 1988
Tabling of Documents
unaware. I am very aware of the situation and I want to assure Hon. Members of that.
I want to thank Hon. Members on both sides for the understanding they have worked out among themselves. That makes it much easier for the Speaker.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that you acknowledged the very distinguished parliamentarians from Windsor West, Kamloops- Shuswap, and the Minister of State. I presume those remarks did not mean that you would be excluding other Members who felt they had points of order or wanted to comment on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. My answer is of course no. I most certainly will hear some other Members if there is a desire on their part to contribute to the debate. It was in the interests of clarity, and so that we all know what we are doing and how it is going, that I indicated that that would be the order in which I would open the debate.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the fine City of Calgary, Alberta, as well as residents of Black Creek, Courtenay, Nanaimo, Cumberland, and Comox, British Columbia.
While they are different petitions, they deal with the same concern that the federal Government lacks a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade deal with the U.S.
They believe that the deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to develop a society distinct from that of the U.S. Therefore, they ask Parliament to dissolve now to enable the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by Canadians indicating their opposition to the Government's free trade arrangement with the U.S.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's responses to seven petitions, Nos. 332-4240, 332-4311, 3324325, 332-4380, 332-4448, 332-4450, and 332-4603.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
*
* *


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That pursuant to Standing Order 82( 15)(a), consideration of Environment Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 of the Main Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1989, by the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry, be extended beyond May 31, 1988.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 82(15)(a) the motion is deemed adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The petitioners believe that the trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade arrangement through a national general election.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to our petitioners, namely that the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada without obtaining anything in exchange; that Canadian industries are still not protected against U.S. trade laws; that the United States has obtained everything it wanted in major areas, including agriculture, energy, the automobile industry, financial services and the investment industry; that the jobs of thousands of Canadians are being threatened, and that the Conservative Government has failed to provide any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to condemn this Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from Canadians living in
May 30, 1988

places like Mississauga, Guelph, Cheltenham, Bramalea, and Etobicoke, all of which are in Ontario and around Toronto.
Since the Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the U.S., since the agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S., and whereas the trade agreement denies Canadians the promised secure access to the U.S. market, the undersigned petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present, on behalf of a number of constituents from the community of Shellbrook, a petition which suggests that the trade agreement threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty and our policy freedom to determine our own economic future and undermines our ability to build a distinct society.
Consequently, the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement through a national general election.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of southern Ontario, particularly the City of Guelph, who protest that the Conservative Government does not have a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the U.S.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised later in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. However, the trade agreement negotiated by the Government in fact threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities among the regions.
For these and other reasons these petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and give them the opportunity to reject the free trade agreement in a federal general election.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the understanding that we have, I now call Government Orders and recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Second reading and Reference:
May 24, 1988-Mr. Crosbie-Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free
Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I believe that a number of points should be made in order to demonstrate that Bill C-130 is out of order and cannot be considered by the House in the form in which it has been presented. However, I want to raise at this stage a point of order dealing specifically with the omnibus nature of Bill C-130. It is my intention, once argument has been made by myself and others on the omnibus nature of Bill C-130, to raise other points which I think are valid and deserve to be accepted by you, Sir, as Speaker of this House.
I refer specifically, although not exhaustively, to points which would include the fact that Bill C-130 intends to amend measures before this House which have not yet been adopted and also to the issue of whether or not Bill C-130 is a disguised and improper way of amending the Constitution of this country. However, at this stage I am raising a point of order specifically about what I submit is the unacceptable omnibus nature of this Bill.
I want to point out that Bill C-130 consists of 123 pages. It would appear to attempt to amend 27 existing federal laws and to compel all provinces and municipalities to make all their present and future laws consistent with it. It purports to be a measure that is presented to the House to implement the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
The parliamentary implications of dealing with a Bill of the kind before us are very serious, both for the orderly consideration of the Bill itself and for future legislative procedure on similar Bills.
I submit that the starting point for your consideration, Sir, of the issue as to whether or not this Bill is of an unacceptable

May 30, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
omnibus nature is the famous ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamou-reux of January 26, 1971, in which he said:
However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital, "O" and a capital "B". But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
I must say immediately, Mr. Speaker, that Speaker Lamoureux went on to rule that in the instance then at question that that point had not been reached. I also want to say immediately that it would appear that neither he nor any of his successors have as yet ruled that that point has been reached.
However, I submit that the principle has been clearly established by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in the precedent I just quoted. It is open to you, Sir, to decide that that precedent applies here and that the Government has gone too far, that it has passed that point where, to quote Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, "we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint".
I submit specifically that this trade Bill, Bill C-130, is exactly the kind of Bill Mr. Lamoureux had in mind when he said that there were Bills of an omnibus nature which went beyond the point of what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
The essential defence of an omnibus procedure is that the Bill in question, although it may seek to create or to amend many disparate statutes, in effect has one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes.
The energy security Bill of 1982 is the last famous or, in the minds of some, infamous occasion when the matter as to whether a Bill is or is not of an unacceptable omnibus nature arose. The energy security Bill of 1982 included in its long title an exhaustive list of the statutes concerned. I will not take the time of the House to read that title. It is a matter of record as to what it says. I think I am entirely correct in saying that this long title laid out all the statutes that were to be affected by that Bill.
When the House looked at the energy security Bill of 1982, the argument was made by the Government that the entire Bill had to do with energy security and that, therefore, it was entirely appropriate to use the omnibus approach.
I want to say parenthetically that at that time the Opposition of the day had at its disposal an additional argument that arose from the requirement at that time that all Bills based, even in part, on a Ways and Means Motion were referred, not to a standing committee but to a Committee of the Whole, and that, therefore, under the procedure of the day would make it
impossible to hear witnesses whose affairs were vitally affected by the legislation.
This is not exactly the case under the present rules. Bill C-130 will go to a legislative committee if it is ruled procedurally acceptable and adopted on second reading. We are, however, talking about only one legislative committee which could have as few as seven members. One cannot say at this time just how detailed the study of the Bill in that committee would be.
I want to recall to the House that the ruling on the question as to whether the energy security Bill of 1982 was of an unacceptable omnibus nature was made by Madam Sauve, the Speaker of the day. I do not think it is improper for me to say that Madam Sauve's ruling in that case was so brief as to be almost peremptory in its nature.
We know, of course, that that ruling was followed by what is commonly referred to as the bell ringing incident, when the bells rang for some two weeks because the Conservative Members of the House, on whose behalf the point of order about the unacceptable omnibus nature of the energy security Bill had been raised in the first place, refused to come into the House in order that a vote could be taken. I believe that the motion at that time was a motion that the House do adjourn.
The whole incident was ended by the Government proposing a motion to the House, which was adopted by the House, that in effect the legislation in its original form be withdrawn and be divided into several individual Bills.
What happened after Speaker Sauve's ruling was not simply the disorder that ensued through what is known as the bell ringing incident but, more important, the concession by the Government of the impropriety of its course of action and the offering to the House of an order dividing the omnibus Bill into several Bills, which was accepted by the House. That provides strong evidence that from the point of view of acceptable parliamentary usage in Canada, Madam Sauve's ruling should be found by yourself to be distinguishable from the present situation and to stand by itself in a way that does not mean it should be taken into account in the present case or any subsequent cases where the omnibus nature of a Bill is argued.
Let me point out that in her ruling Speaker Sauve simply found that the Bill was not an unacceptable omnibus Bill in the light of previous precedents as she understood them, but she gave no analysis of the energy security Bill in comparison with other Bills to which previous precedents had been connected, and she gave no analysis of or answer to the lengthy argument on the point of order offered on behalf of the Official Opposition, the Conservative Party, by a Member of Parliament from Alberta who now sits in the House as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre).
May 30, 1988

She also said that it was open to the House, if it wished, to do something further about the matter, saying in effect that the House itself could deal with the matter.
I submit therefore that Speaker Sauve's ruling should not be followed by yourself for two reasons. First, it clearly applied only to the one energy security Bill of 1982. It did not in any way attempt to set out any principle of general application on omnibus Bills that would be, if not binding as a precedent in future cases, at least helpful to Speakers like yourself who would come after Speaker Sauve and have to deal with questions of omnibus Bills.
I repeat that Speaker Sauve's ruling was so brief as to be almost peremptory in nature. There was no attempt to analyse the energy security Bill in light of other Bills on which previous rulings had been based. There was no effort at all to respond to the very interesting and lengthy point of order that had been argued on behalf of the Conservative Party.
I respectfully submit again without any disrespect to one of your distinguished predecessors, Madam Sauve, that her ruling on the energy security Bill should be distinguished from this particular case, set aside, and looked on as something of a nature that applies only to the particular case under which it arose.
Second, let me say that if Speaker Sauve's ruling has any application at all to the present case, it is with reference to what it said about the House dealing with the matter. I submit that the House did in fact deal with the matter when it accepted the request of the Government that an order be adopted withdrawing in effect the original energy security Bill and allowing it to be replaced by a series of individual Bills, because in effect the Government admitted that the original Bill was of an unacceptable omnibus nature.
I submit that the House, in dealing with the matter as it did, adopting the order it did to permit the withdrawal of the energy security Bill and its replacement by a number of individual Bills, created a precedent of general application that should apply and must apply to the consideration of the question of whether or not Bill C-130, the trade Bill, is of an unacceptable procedural nature.
In short, I am saying that therein you have a precedent which, taken together with the very wise and compelling words of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, must lead you to find that Bill C-130 is of an unacceptable omnibus nature and cannot be proceeded with in this House in its present form and, instead, must be withdrawn. If it is to come back to the House for consideration by this House, it must come back in a series of Bills reflecting the fact that it is intended to deal with as many as 27 different Acts.
I am also saying that this situation is one where it is clear that the point spoken of by Speaker Lamoureux has been reached, has been crossed, and has been transgressed so that it must be found by you, Sir, that Bill C-130 is of an unacceptable omnibus nature.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I want to make some additional arguments about the unacceptable omnibus nature of Bill C-130. First, let me deal with the matter of the umbrella of the Bill. It is a rather technical but important point because the umbrella of the Bill basically is that under which the drafters seek to include its various facets. Second, there is the matter of whether or not the implications that exist with respect to the omnibus procedure are harmful to the parliamentary process.
In the 1982 energy security Bill the drafters used what might be called the "kitchen sink approach" to the long title of the Bill. The title of the Bill creates the umbrella under which the drafters seek to include its various facets and is relevant as to whether or not the Bill is of an unacceptable omnibus nature. This also has implications for the extent to which the Bill can be amended.
In the present case the drafters have given Bill C-130 a very general long title. It reads: "An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America". They went on to combine it with a preamble that attempts to do the work of the long title by including the phrases:
Whereas the Agreement applies generally throughout Canada;
And Whereas it is necessary, in order to give effect to the Agreement, to make related or consequential amendments to other Acts;
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 703, bears directly on this aspect of the matter. It states:
Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill.
Beauchesne's goes on to say, in the same citation:
Some of the constituent parts of a bill are essential; some are optional. The title is an essential part; the preamble is not.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 704, goes into more detail on the long title. It states:
The long title sets out in general terms the purposes of the Bill. It should cover everything in the bill.
Citation 705 provides further evidence of the unimportance or even irrelevance of the preamble:
The purpose of a preamble is to state the reasons and intended effects of the proposed legislation. Though a preamble is not necessary in a public bill, it is sometimes inserted in bills of great importance in order to place on record the intentions of the framers of the bill.
I submit that it appears that the Government has departed from accepted practice, even in the attempt to define the all important umbrella of its omnibus Bill. It has resorted to what I might call a two-punch vagueness, if one can combine vagueness with the concept of a punch. It has done so by adopting an excessively general long title and by attempting to insert an ill-defined reference to the real legislative purpose of the Bill in the preamble which is dispensable, which is not necessary, rather than in the essential long title where it properly and in a better defined manner belongs. In other words, this Bill is of an unacceptable omnibus nature because

May 30, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the Government failed to list in its long title all the statutes which Bill C-130 intends to amend or change.
By adopting this vague approach the Government has failed to provide a procedural justification for the inclusion in Bill C-130 of amendments or changes affecting upward of two dozen statutes. Thus, if the Government attempts to cite to you, Sir, precedents for its approach, I think you will find, in examining these precedents, that they refer to Bills in which the long title also included the Bills to be amended by the proposed Bill to which the long title was appended.
I also want to say that if the Bill is permitted to be proceeded with in its present form, that is, with its general long title referring only to the agreement and not to the amendment of Acts, the Government at some future point if debate on Bill C-130 is allowed to continue may try to argue that virtually all or any amendments to the Bill are beyond the scope of the Bill by virtue of the Acts not having been included in its title. If this argument is made, and if it is accepted, it would have the effect of making all proceedings during the detailed consideration of the clauses of the Bill irrelevant and even farcical.
What I have said in this regard leads to the procedurally relevant objection to the omnibus procedure, that the agreement and therefore the Bill by their very nature affect an extremely wide range of activities and issues going well beyond what one normally thinks of under the heading of "Trade". Such vital issues as investment policy, regional development policy, policy on financial institutions, policy on energy security-and I could go on and on-are included in Bill C-130.
In some cases the provisions of Bill C-130 represent a substantial departure from what has been the heretofore generally accepted policies in the form of statutes adopted by this House. I submit that it is very much in the Canadian parliamentary tradition that citizens affected by such radical changes be permitted to have the fullest possible input into the legislative process as it affects each and every one of these policies.
This is another reason that there should be separate Bills on each and every policy set out in the statutes adopted by this House which are intended to be changed by Bill C-130, because if there were separate Bills rather than this one omnibus Bill, Bill C-130, there would have to be separate committee stages carried out by legislative committees for each and every one of those Bills. This would give interested members of the public an opportunity which they would not have if this Bill were allowed to proceed as an omnibus Bill to present their views to the legislative committees studying the proposals in the separate Bills, which I submit should be before the House if two dozen or more individual statutes are to be amended.
I suppose in a way I am also asking you, Mr. Speaker, to use your authority in the famous Standing Order 1 of this House
which was recently argued in another context, and I do not intend to repeat it at this time. Parliamentary tradition certainly must mean that the opportunities of not only Members of this House, but equally and perhaps more important, of members of the public, to have an input into each and every facet intended to be covered by Bill C-130 should not be abridged or lost by allowing the Government's intentions of adopting the trade deal with the United States to be carried through by an omnibus Bill in the form of Bill C-130.
As I have indicated, Bill C-130 is a massive Bill and will only go to one committee, a committee which will inevitably lack the breadth of expertise required for consideration of a Bill of such scope and size. Furthermore, the work-load of that committee, even if it is permitted by the government majority on the committee to undertake a proper examination of the Bill, will be so onerous as to make it difficult for it to give due consideration to all relevant opinion. I repeat that dividing the Bill into several components would lead to several committees constituted of more experienced members in specialized areas who would be able to give far more effective consideration to these matters. That also would make it possible for informed public input into each of the aspects covered by this Bill, which I think is consistent with our parliamentary tradition.
One should take note here of the sabre-rattling public statements of the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) who is sponsoring this Bill. He seems to be trying to establish the ground that he and his colleagues intend to use the Government's massive majority to prevent proper consideration of the Bill by the House or by whatever committee will be given responsibility for the Bill, if it is allowed to proceed in its present omnibus nature. This declared intention to run roughshod over the parliamentary process makes the Speaker's intervention on this matter essential in light of the importance of our parliamentary tradition. Again I repeat, Sir, that I think this is supported by the very clear words of Standing Order 1 of this House.
I want to put on record that neither Bill C-130 nor the trade deal which it is supposed to implement, has yet been submitted to even one minute of formal parliamentary consideration through debate in this House and in committee. That is the basis of our whole parliamentary system and which is clearly understood by members of the public to be the way in which the people they elect to represent them in Parliament deal with measures before the House.
It is not the fault of the Opposition if the Government has dithered for months and months before getting ready and tabling legislation in the House which attempts to implement this trade deal negotiated between our Government and the American Government. Arguments have been made outside the House-and they may be repeated in this procedural debate or in other forums offered by the House-that the trade deal has already been considered. I repeat that the consideration established by rules of the House on second reading, consideration and study in committee, consideration
May 30, 1988

of amendments at report stage and debate on third reading cannot be argued to have been replaced by some discussion outside the House in a forum offered by a private sector group, even if it is a public forum. It cannot be said to have been replaced by a study by a parliamentary committee which completed its work before the full text of the deal was available and did not formally consider that text.
No matter how often there may have been meetings of business groups, labour groups, or social policy groups which considered this Bill, they cannot be said to substitute for or replace what is established as a fundamental feature of our parliamentary democracy: debate in the House and study in its committees of a measure as important as the measure to implement the trade deal negotiated between the Conservative Government and the Government of President Reagan of the United States.
This debate has not yet started, which is certainly not the fault of the Official Opposition. Under our rules the Government could have put down the legislation to implement the deal in its full terms any time it wanted and could have caused that measure to be debated any time it wanted. I hope that the Government will not be able to get away with an effort to paint any other kind of picture for the public.
Obviously this debate can begin in the forum provided for by our rules only if you, Mr. Speaker, decide that this Bill is not unacceptable on procedural grounds, either on the basis that it is an unacceptable omnibus Bill, along the lines that I have been outlining, or is unacceptable on other grounds that I intend to argue at a later stage.
I also want to ask-and this is perhaps a point that may be considered of an ominous nature by those studying the issue of being able to offer amendments to this Bill-what are the implications of the long title that I have been discussing previously? Amendments to a Bill must be relevant to and within the scope of a Bill. Erskine May indicates in several places that the long title is an important factor in determining the scope of the Bill. It is possible that in choosing the long title in the form that it presently exists the Government may be seeking to provide a basis for arguing later on that it will be able-and I think that if it does so it will be unacceptable and unjust-to limit the scope for offering amendments.
I wish to put before you, Sir, and the House at this point that Erskine May's Twentieth Edition also makes it clear that it is in order to offer amendments to the clauses of a Bill even if that Bill implements an agreement. Erskine May states:
When a bill is introduced to give effect to an agreement or to confirm a scheme, the text of which is contained in a schedule to the bill, and the independent origin and status of which is described in an introductory provision in the bill, amendments cannot be made to the schedule, but the contents of the schedule can be modified or qualified by amendment to the clauses of the bill.
I want to say, by way of conclusion, that if one looks at Bill C-130 there is no doubt that it is of an omnibus nature. I want
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
to say, by way of summing up, that it is open to you to find, Sir, that this Bill in effect is one which passes the point stipulated by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux as being of an unacceptable nature procedurally. This is buttressed by what this House decided as an outcome of the bell ringing incident of 1982.
I submit that the ruling of Madam Sauve should be looked at as something limited to its narrow application to the energy security Bill, as she then saw it, in light of the absence of any argument or discussion in her ruling. It is open to you, Mr. Speaker, to apply the principles stated by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in light of the precedent created by this House in the order it adopted making it necessary for the Government to withdraw the energy security Bill and to divide it into several different individual Bills.
There are other points which I have made. I would just repeat one. It is that the title of the Bill makes the Bill defective. It cannot be accepted because the Bill has a title which does not include all the statutes that are intended to be amended.
Finally, I again want to say that what the Government is trying to do here is something which I think, if allowed to proceed, would undermine our parliamentary tradition and the effectiveness in future of the application of that tradition to the responsibilities of this House to debate properly, to study properly, and to hear properly the input of members of the public in order to allow it to make good decisions, the best possible decisions, on the important matters in question. We see here a procedure which the Government has already said it intends to use as part of a process for rushing through this measure without allowing either the House or the public to have proper and full opportunities to consider the measure, to debate it, to have input, and for the House then to make decisions based on that consideration, debate, and input.
For all the reasons I have given, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that this Bill is of an improper omnibus nature. Therefore, Your Honour should not allow debate on second reading to proceed. Rather, you should rule that it cannot be dealt with in its present form and that therefore the Government must withdraw it and reintroduce it not as one omnibus Bill but as a number of individual Bills. This is consistent with what I consider, and I respectfully submit to be, the relevant precedents. This is consistent with the traditions of this House and, more important, the purpose of those traditions in terms of the relevance of this House to the life of the country now and in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons the very first Standing Order indicates: "procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker-whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in

May 30, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House".
Today, I rise on a point of order to argue that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, is procedurally out of order in its current form in that it combines more than one principle or proposition under the umbrella of a single Bill.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 411(1), states:
Every matter is determined in the House of Commons upon a question put by the Speaker, on a proposition submitted by a Member, and resolved either in the affirmative or negative as the case may be. This proposition, called a motion, is a proposal moved by one Member, in accordance with certain well-established rules, that the House do something or order something to be done or express an opinion with regard to some matter.
Beauchesne talks of a proposition put by a Member, not about many propositions but a single proposition. Beauchesne goes on in Citation 411(2) to state that this method, that is, of putting a single proposition, "has been expanded into a system of rules whereby the judgment of the House may be ascertained with facility and precision".
It is a fundamental and long-standing right of Members of Parliament to be able to force the division of a motion that contains several distinct propositions. Citation 415(1) of Beauchesne's states:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately. The Speaker has a discretionary power to decide whether he should divide a motion.
If you refer, Mr. Speaker, to Journals, pages 427 through 431, for Monday, June 15, 1964, you will find an occasion when one of your predecessors exercised, just that prerogative, the power to force the division of a motion.
The issue before the House at that time was the great flag debate. When Speaker MacNaughton was faced with a single resolution that contained two distinct propositions, he ruled in favour of upholding the ancient and undoubted rights of Members of Parliament. He stated:
1 must come to the conclusion that the motion before the House contains two propositions and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them-
Here, Mr. Speaker, there is a clear and unequivocal affirmation of the Speaker's prerogative, as outlined in Beauchesne's, to divide motions that go beyond the normal practices of this House and combine more than one proposition into a single motion. So it is, in my estimation, with Bill C-130.
Bill C-130 is an omnibus Bill intended to implement the ill-conceived trade deal negotiated between this Government and the Government of the United States. It is important, however, not to confuse the objective of that Bill with the manner in which that objective is achieved. Even the most cursory examination of this Bill will show that it contains several
distinct and separate elements and, I submit, my right as a Member of Parliament, to cast judgment in principle in each of these elements in a separate vote.
One of the principles in this Bill is the necessity of establishing a new trade dispute settlement mechanism. It was a fundamental belief of the Government that existing international trade dispute settlement mechanisms as established by the GATT were, in the case of the Canada-U.S. trade, insufficient vehicles for settling trade irritants between our two countries. That we should have this new proposed mechanism put to a vote in the House is not at issue. What is at issue is the fact that it is included as simply one of a number of many proposals and initiatives that leave us, as Members of Parliament, incapable of registering our vote on this fundamentally new and important issue.
There is also the whole question of the move toward a continental energy market which this agreement creates and this legislation attempts now to implement. This, as is recognized by all, is a radical departure from any previous government policy in this most critical resource sector. This is a fundamentally important issue, and this public policy decision of the Government should stand alone and be voted on separate from the other proposals included in the legislation.
There is also the whole question of establishing greatly liberalized investment rules between the two countries. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the whole question of the extent and scope of the regulation of direct foreign investment in Canada has been a matter which has been on the public policy agenda of our country for 25 years to 30 years. Yet this Bill, if left in its present form, will deprive Members of Parliament the opportunity to debate in full, to amend, and to vote in principle on this fundamental change in our investment laws vis-a-vis the United States.
In recent days, Mr. Speaker, as you undoubtedly will be aware, several provincial Premiers, including those of Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, have all expressed reservations about those clauses of this Bill that suggest that the federal Government will be allowed to trample on areas of provincial jurisdiction to ensure that the provinces comply with the terms of the agreement.
Surely this most delicate issue of the federal-provincial jurisdictional balance cannot be lumped together with these other matters in any reasonable way. This matter goes to the very heart of our federation, and any attempt by the federal Government to tamper with the jurisdictional boundaries between the two levels of Government must be seen as a most serious and potentially destructive initiative that Members of Parliament must be allowed to address independently of the other issues included in the Bill.
I have now listed what I consider to be at least four separate and distinct propositions brought together in Bill C-130. It is my contention that the tradition and customs of this House supported by Beauchesne's leaves you, Mr. Speaker, with the responsibility to uphold the rights and privileges of all
May 30, 1988

Members of the House and to ensure that this Bill is broken up into its appropriate constituent parts.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware this is not the first time that the procedural acceptability of an omnibus piece of legislation has arisen in the House. On January 26, 1971, the then Hon. Member for Halifax-East Hants rose on a point of order to object to the introduction of Bill C-207, an Act respecting government organization. In his argument the Hon. Member stated, at page 2760 of Hansard for that day:
If we were to pass Bill C-207 and it became an Act of this parliament, there would have to be 10 separate entries made in the index of statutes passed this session. There would have to be nine consequential amendments to seven additional statutes that are amended by schedule B of this measure, and these would also have to be indexed separately. I am suggesting we have a measure here that covers the waterfront.
Further in the argument on this particular point of order the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, Stanley Knowles, offered the following insightful observation, as recorded at page 2762 of Hansard-.
-it is not a very giant step from this to one bill which would include the work of the whole session. The government could bring us here and while we were debating the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne a huge omnibus bill could be brought in for the improvement of life in Canada ... So, I say that in terms of the operation of Parliament this point of order is very important. How far can government go in combining a host of different subjects into one Bill and ask Parliament to vote on them en bloc without any regard for the individual points?
That is a conversation that many of us have had in the last few days. Recognizing that if we were to proceed in the fashion that the Government is proceeding with regard to Bill C-130, presumably we could conduct all of the business of the Government of Canada within one large omnibus Bill. For that reason, we are very concerned in terms of the way the Government is proceeding at this point.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, in his ruling on this point of order later that day, made the following observation, as recorded at page 2768 of Hansard'.
-where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus Bill with a capital "O" and a capital "B". But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
I think that that is the critical point that is being made here. There is a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
Speaker Lamoureux was saying that indeed there can be Bills that are out of order because they are omnibus in nature. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this point gave your predecessor much cause for concern. He expressed this concern in relation to Bill C-207 that sought to enact or amend 18 or 19 statutes. Bill C-130, which the Government wishes to call for debate at second reading today, seeks to amend a whopping 27 statutes. Mr. Speaker, if the scope of Bill C-207 gave Speaker Lamoureux so much concern, then I would suggest that Bill C-
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
130 should cause much greater doubt in your mind as to its procedural acceptability.
Several years later on May 11, 1977, the Hon. Member for New Westminster rose on a point of order to object to the omnibus nature of Bill C-51, a Bill dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, and the Prisons and Reformatories Act. At that time he sought an order from the Chair, as permitted by Citation 415(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, to divide the Bill. In his ruling Speaker Jerome made the following observations, as recorded at page 5523 of Hansard:
I think an hon. member of the House ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question.
Speaker Jerome then went on to argue that the then Standing Order 75(5), dealing with the ability to move amendments at report stage to delete certain clauses of the Bill, allowed Members effectively to isolate those sections that the Member thought ought to be voted on separately. However, without attempting to cast any doubt on the validity of the ruling, I would simply like to point out that at the moment we are about to commence second reading, which is debate in principle on the entire Bill. At this point Members are asked to cast judgment, not on specific clauses that they can isolate by way of amendment, but on the entire Bill.
On February 10, 1982, the then Hon. Member for Yukon rose on a point of order to object to the procedural acceptability of Bill C-93, an Act to amend the statute law relating to the certain taxes and to provide other authorities for the raising of funds. The argument advanced by the Member for Yukon at that time was that Bill C-93 unnecessarily joined together three separate Bills, two tax initiatives arising out of a Budget, and a traditional request for borrowing authority. During the course of his argument, Mr. Speaker, the Member made a most perceptive comment that I would like to repeat here today. At page 14865 of Hansard, the Member is reported to have said:
What we have here is a continuation of the Government's practice of surreptitiously closing off and guillotining debate, not through the open invocation of Standing Order 75 or pure closure, but by means of a constant testing of the House and of the Chair with new legislative combinations. If one step works, then the Government goes a little further the next time. We are moving with slow and steady stealth in a direction the Government dares not openly avow or pursue.
The only difference between the Hon. Member's observations in 1982 and what we are seeing today is that this Government, rather than moving with stealth, is moving quickly and openly in its attempt to muzzle debate and crush the Opposition, and when it cannot do that within the scope of the rules as they exist now, it seeks to suspend these rules. It is quite simply, as I see it, government by force with the Opposition left to appeal to the Chair to ensure that an ancient and historic right to be heard is not tossed out in the Government's zeal to impose its will without adequate debate.

May 30, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
You will recall that on May 7, 1982, after some discussion between the three Parties, the Government finally realized it had transgressed the proprieties and customs of the House and, with consent, withdrew Bill C-93 and split it into two Bills.
Lastly, I come to what was perhaps the most infamous parliamentary dispute involving an omnibus Bill; that was, of course, the deadlock in this place over Bill C-94 in March, 1982, which was intended to implement the National Energy Program. You will recall that Bill C-94 sought to enact or amend some 15 statutes. On March 1, 1982, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) rose on a point of order to object to the Bill as having been introduced in imperfect form. During the course of his argument the Hon. Member from Calgary Centre suggested the following, as reported at page 15485 of Hansard:
This Bill violates a number of those fundamental precepts of Parliamentary law. It is impossible to have a reasonable transaction of public business in an orderly manner when one has this kind of omnibus Bill to consider. It would be a travesty and a precedent of scary proportions to allow this type of Bill to go forward with so many disparate and different items collected together for no other reason than to obfuscate and confuse.
I would concur in full with that observation now as it applies to Bill C-130. In fact, Mr. Speaker, so concerned was the Hon. Member and his colleagues about the threat to parliamentary democracy posed by the omnibus nature of Bill C-94 that they closed down the House of Commons for over two weeks in protest. For many of us, that was a very sad day in parliamentary history in Canada. To make the point, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre and a number of his colleagues who stormed the Speaker's chair on that black day demanded that Parliament be closed down until the Government came to its senses. As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, the Government of the day did eventually see the wisdom of breaking the Bill into several different items. I hope this Government will exercise the same common sense and respect the rights of Members of Parliament by splitting Bill C-130.
However, recent comments made by my friend, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), leave me doubtful about the prospects for such an initiative by the Government. Indeed, the Minister has taken some delight in telling all who will listen just how the Government intends to ram this Bill through Parliament and, if necessary, impose some form of closure or some form that would limit debate.
Citation 1 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition reads, in part:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, have always been kept steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament; these are: To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express his opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.
I submit that Bill C-130 is in violation of these longstanding precepts of parliamentary law. One of the obvious surprises when you begin to study Bill C-130 is the title at the
very beginning. I just referred to Bill C-94, an Act to implement the National Energy Program. The title of that Bill included the names of all different statutes that would have to be amended if that legislation were to be enacted. In other words, the title of the Bill is to send a very clear signal quickly and clearly to all people in Canada on the general scope of the legislation.
In Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 704, it reads in part:
Long Title-The long title sets out in general terms the purposes of the Bill.
It should cover everything in the Bill.
By definition, the short title would not do that. The title of Bill C-130 is simply "an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America". That, I submit, fails to indicate clearly the full and complete scope of the legislation.
I think, if I may take one moment in closing, the title should clearly indicate and outline the entire scope of the legislation. It ought to mention those particular Acts that will have to be amended if the legislation is to succeed. They would include: the Special Import Measures Act; the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act; the Department of Agriculture Act; the Bank Act; the Broadcasting Act; the Canadian Wheat Board Act; the Copyright Act; the Customs Act; the Customs Tariff Act; the Excise Tax Act; the Export and Import Permits Act; the Canada Grain Act; the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act; the Income Tax Act; the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act; Investment Canada Act; Investment Companies Act; the Loan Companies Act; Meat Import Act; Meat Inspection Act; the National Energy Board Act; the Seeds Act; the Standards Council of Canada Act; the Statistics Act; the Textile and Clothing Board Act; the Trust Companies Act; and, finally, the Western Grain Transportation Act.
If the Bill were to be submitted in proper and acceptable form, its title ought to have included a reference to all those 27 Statutes that were to be amended by this legislation.
You, Sir, are the ultimate guarantor of the rights of minorities in this Chamber, and it is within your purview to force the Government to withdraw this Bill and bring it back as separate pieces of legislation. The precedent of 1964 which I mentioned in my opening comments clearly establishes your right to do just that.
You must act to preserve the ancient and undoubted rights of Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker. You must act to ensure a respect for the customs and traditions of this place, and you must act to ensure that parliamentary democracy, as we know it, cannot be pushed aside for the sake of political expediency.
You, Sir, are the first occupant of that chair who owes his position to the direct will of all Members of the House and not simply the Government. This gives you a special responsibility and authority which is perhaps unparalleled in our history. You are truly the Speaker of the whole House. I ask you now
May 30, 1988

to exercise that authority and responsibility, in the name of this House of Commons, so that we may not betray its past nor jeopardize its future.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this procedural debate. I noted that my hon. friend from Windsor West at first confined his argument to the omnibus nature of the Bill and then made reference to constitutionality, whether or not the committee would travel, and several other things. What I thought was interesting was that he then made the point that the Government should be calling the Bill for debate.
I suggest that what we tried to do with this morning's events was focus the debate on procedure. We feel it would be more appropriate to consider all the procedural matters at one time and then to allow you to retire and consider your opinions on the omnibus nature of the Bill, on whether or not there is more than principle, on constitutionality and the like, and then return to the House so that the business of the House could proceed.
I think that Canadians want the substance of the issue of free trade, the substance of Bill C-130, debated and discussed. They do not want a protracted procedural wrangle. I invite you to consider, as events wear on, whether or not you want to expand and to deal with all arguments at one time, something which I think is more appropriate in view of your time and the time of the House.
Having said that, I want to deal briefly with the one argument put forward by my learned friend from Kamloops- Shuswap which was not referred to by my friend from Windsor West, that is, the question of Mr. Speaker Mac-Naughton's ruling in the flag debate.
I would distinguish that particular incident by pointing out to the Chair that the flag debate was on the question of a resolution which contained two propositions, and the Chair in that case, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton, found that he had the authority and perhaps the duty to divide them. I would submit that here we are dealing with a Bill and the same precedent does not apply.
Much was made of the question of an omnibus Bill. That seems to be the main concern of my friends opposite, and I would like to take a moment or two to review some of the precedents and some of the comments that were made by my hon. friends. I think it should be pointed out that the fact that the Bill is an omnibus Bill is not in itself sufficient cause to have the Bill withdrawn and thrown out. Throughout the history of this Chamber, there have been omnibus Bills which have occupied the time of the House.
I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to two rulings which have already been dealt with. One is the ruling of Mr. Speaker
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Lamoureux on January 26, 1971, and one is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome on May 11, 1977.
I notice that my colleague from Windsor West quoted one of the paragraphs from Mr. Speaker Lamoureux's ruling. I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the preceding paragraph. My friend pointed out what he considers to be an abuse of a Bill that goes from one end of the spectrum to the other. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux did say the following:
There is no question, without going further into details, that this is a long established practice. We have had this type of omnibus bill before the House on many occasions. The President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Agriculture have quite rightly argued their case that this is long established practice and that the government has followed past practice. That is their argument and it has to be respected. Certainly the Chair must take that into account because of the importance of the precedent in our system.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux recognized that there may be a point at which an omnibus Bill goes too far, but he declined, in that particular ruling, to take that authority upon himself.
Mr. Speaker Jerome was even more specific about his unwillingness to intervene and reject an omnibus Bill, and I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 5522 of Hansard of May 11, 1977, in which he stated as follows:
I should emphasize as well that the remedy sought by the hon. member is not to divide the bill according to the separate statutes to be amended but by subject matter. Were that to be attempted, it would place before the Chair, it seems to me, questions of interpretation and responsibility for the drafting of an extremely complex order, which in my opinion the Chair ought not to attempt.
I suppose there is no need to speculate on whether circumstances might arise in the future in which such a remedy might be available.
However, I am certainly bound by the clear language of our precedent rulings and previous practices to reject the point of order of the hon. member for New Westminster, and I decline to make the order which he requests.
Even when my friend from Calgary Centre objected to the most infamous of all omnibus Bills, the energy security Act, he recognized the legitimacy of the omnibus concept. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 15482 of Hansard of March 1, 1982, in which he stated:
I certainly recognize that in many instances omnibus bills are not only properly admissible, but, indeed are also the best way to proceed since the grouping of certain amendments or certain items aids in providing a coherence to the debate and discussion, and attempting to handle the subject matter by a different set of separate Bills would not only be wasteful of time but would also be confusing.
I submit that omnibus legislation is a well established means of conducting government business. Both of the two Speakers' rulings cited expressed concerns with respect to omnibus legislation and they commented that, because of the nature of this omnibus legislation, it was difficult for Members to demonstrate properly their support for or opposition to different principles within an omnibus Bill.
The rulings point out that there are avenues, in the case of a Bill, for Members to establish clearly their positions. For example, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, at page 285 of Journals for January 26, 1971, pointed this out:

May 30, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
One or two honourable Members have argued that there would not be an opportunity for Members to express their views by way of a vote on individual parts of the bill or individual clauses. That is perhaps not entirely correct. I am not here referring to the Committee of the Whole; I have made this distinction before now. For honourable Members to express their view in Committee of the Whole on a particular clause of the bill is not the same as being given an opportunity to express their views on a clause of the bill by way of a recorded vote.
The House must note that there is a third reading stage of a bill. When a bill comes to the House at the third reading stage there is not one clause or one part of the Bill that cannot be brought into question by way of an amendment proposing that the particular clause or section be referred back to committee. I think this gives every honourable Member an opportunity to vote either for or against, or to express his views in the House either for or against, a particular clause or part of the bill, and to do so by way of a recorded vote. Accordingly there is still a measure of protection afforded honourable Members.
Mr. Speaker Jerome, on May 11, 1977, at page 5522 of Hansard pointed out:
The use of the omnibus amending bill is well enshrined in our practices, and I really can Find no reason to set aside my predecessor's very clear and sound reasoning for the practice. Nor can I find any authority which would support an order of the Chair at this second reading stage that the Bill be divided.
He went on to point out that there were remedies for Members to deal with this, that was, by a motion to delete at report stage pursuant to the Standing Orders. He stated that that had not been fully developed in the past but that the remedy was available to Hon. Members. He then completed his argument.
I argue that both these approaches are available to Members when we consider Bill C-130, and the way we distinguish the energy security Bill from Bill C-130 is this: that Bill would have been dealt with in Committee of the Whole House and that would not have allowed Hon. Members to have a recorded vote of the House on each and every clause. I submit that this Bill, in its present format and under our present rules, will give every Member the opportunity to vote, either at second reading, in committee, or at report stage if the proper amendments are put, on where they stand on the various clauses of the Bill.
I have referred specifically to omnibus legislation, and let me now just revisit some of the arguments, if I may. We have discussed Speaker Lamoureux's point that one can go too far and there must be a limit on what is done. I submit this Bill does not go beyond what has been suggested in keeping with the rules and practices of the House. On March 2, 1982, at page 15532 of Hansard, Madam Speaker Sauve recognized the previous comments of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux with respect to authority and stated as follows:
It may be that the House should accept rules or guidelines as to the form and content of omnibus bills, but in that case the House, and not the Speaker, must make those rules.
Therefore, having heard arguments and having examined Bill C-94, I must now rule on the basis of existing precedents, which do not support the proposition that the Bill should be divided or struck down.
There have been suggestions that the House come up with rules for handling omnibus Bills. However, since Mr. Speaker
Lamoureux's ruling, the House has not yet decided to take up that option.
To revisit a precedent that was not referred to by my hon. colleagues, I want to refer to the comments of the then Minister of Justice, now the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), who introduced Bill C-150 in 1969 which covered in the ambit of omnibus legislation such diverse topics as abortion, lotteries, gun control, and breathalyser tests. Here is what my hon. friend said, as reported at page 4717 of Hansard, on January 23, 1969:
HON. JOHN N. TURNER (MINISTER OF JUSTICE) moved second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act.
He went on to say:
I speak this afternoon with the confidence that this legislation is the most important and all-embracing reform of the criminal and penal law ever attempted at one time in this country. The omnibus measure contains matters of deep social significance which, in the course of time, will affect the lives of most of us, perhaps each one of us, in varying degrees.
In 1977 another Bill was introduced, once again Criminal Code amendments of an omnibus nature, dealing with items such as wire-tapping, gun control, and dangerous offenders. In none of those cases was there a unifying theme which I suggest you will find in the legislation presently before the House, and that is the implementation of a specific agreement between Canada and the U.S. respecting international trade. I suggest to you that it is that single overriding principle which links all of the clauses of the Bill together. That was not the case when the energy security Bill, which I am going to get into a minute, was brought in and finally divided into 10 separate, distinct, and unrelated Acts. Here we have one unifying principle: implementation of the free trade agreement.
We anticipated that the comments of my colleague from Calgary Centre in 1982 might be brought forward today, so I want to try and specifically distinguish that Bill, if I may, in a little more detail. There are some very significant differences that I want to point out. First, the principle of the energy security Bill was complicated. I want to just read the title:
Second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-94, an Act to amend and enact provisions related to the Petroleum Administration Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Petro-Canada Act, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act; to repeal the Energy Supplies Emergency Act; to amend an Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act; to amend the Adjustment of Accounts act, and to enact the Petroleum Incentives Program Act, the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act, the Energy Monitoring Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.
All of those were brought forward in that one Bill. However, I refer you to the Act we are dealing with today. In Bill C-130
May 30, 1988

the principle and title of free trade are clear and precise. It reads:
This Act may be cited as the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act.
I suggest there is one unifying purpose in Bill C-130 to which all of those clauses relate.
Second, the energy security Bill contained a number of different elements capable of surviving independently. However, with the Bill before us, all of the elements are needed to achieve the purpose of the Bill, which is to implement the signed agreement between the two parties. Just to expand on that I will refer to the argument made by my hon. colleague on March 1, 1982. He divided his argument in dealing with it. He referred to Part A and the Petroleum Incentives Program Act, the new Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act, amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act, as well as amendments to the Foreign Investment Review Act. He went on to say that we then had Part B which refers specifically to energy monitoring, and Part C which was energy administration. There were four different parts which dealt with amendments to oil and gas production. Then there was the creation of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. My colleague was pointing out that these were all separate and different, whereas in this Bill there is one principle, that of implementing the free trade agreement which is attached to the Bill.
I referred earlier to the fact that there was one difference. This Bill is going to a legislative committee. We will have full and ample debate at second reading. A legislative committee will then have a chance to hear witnesses and review the Bill clause by clause. Members will have a chance to vote at report stage if they wish, and third reading, and say that they like the Bill except for this part or that part, and then put forward an amendment to delete. That was not the case in the energy security Bill. It was going to Committee of the Whole House under the rules as they existed at that time. I suggest that is the difference.
I want to just take a glance at this Bill itself as I near the end of my argument. Members opposite dwelt on the omnibus nature of the Bill. I understand that. We knew that was going to be the main focus of their argument. However, as I have suggested, this House has in the past dealt with several omnibus Bills, and the question on the Bill before us is this: Does it have more than one principle and does it put Members in the position of having to vote on multiple principles at the conclusion of second reading? I suggest to you that the Bill before us contains one outstanding principle, and that is implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. That is what it is entitled. I referred to Clause 3:
The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement, the objectives of
which are to-
Then it lists them.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Bill itself is divided into four parts. The first is entitled "Implementation of Agreement Generally", under which there are some six clauses which provide for general powers to implement the agreement. Part II is entitled "Procurement Review Board". It establishes the forums, the duties, and the powers of the Procurement Review Board which is established subject to Annex 1304.3 of the free trade agreement.
Part IV is entitled "Related, Etc. Amendments". This covers some 120 clauses amending a number of statutes in accordance with the agreement. If you examine those clauses, Mr. Speaker, you will find that in many cases they focus on the agreement itself which, after all, is what the Bill is designed to do.
Part V is entitled "Transitional and Coming Into Force". That contains the provisions which are common to many Bills and is in no way a new principle. Finally we have the agreement itself, which is contained in the Bill as Schedule 1.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that nowhere in the Bill is there a clause or proposition which contradicts the free trade agreement. The Bill contains one clear, fundamental principle set out in the "purpose of' statement and reflected in virtually each and every clause of the Bill.
I would like to discuss for just a minute, if I may, the question of constitutionality and when Bills are tested in the courts. I am prepared to argue this at length at a later time. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the House is responsible for what it deals with, and that it is the function of the courts to decide on the constitutionality of laws after they are passed by the House.
It is not up to the Chair to adjudicate on matters of law. That is not your position, Mr. Speaker, and I think that has been clearly stated in other cases. We have a clear division of responsibility in this country between the powers of the legislatures and the judiciary. I suggest to you-and if we have to argue this at length, I can bring out the cases-that it is the responsibility of Parliament to pass laws and the responsibility of the judiciary, when these laws are challenged, to review the laws, that is, the question of whether or not this Bill is constitutional.
There is also another question, that is: Who is to challenge the Bill? I think it is interesting to note that in the past week the provinces have not come forward stating that there will be legal challenges. In fact, Quebec said that as the federal Government may appear to pick up some of the powers which Quebec reserves to itself, it will therefore legislate within its jurisdiction to come into compliance with the Bill.
The Province of Ontario which, it was suggested, was to be a major opponent of the Bill, has decided that in fact the federal Government has the right to bring this Bill forward.
We are prepared to argue constitutionality at a later date. We are fully confident that this Bill deals with one principle, that is, the enactment of the free trade agreement with the United States. We believe that it is not what might be called

May 30, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
an omnibus Bill. In fact, there is no precedent of an omnibus Bill being thrown out. We submit that there is a difference between this Bill and the energy security Bill.
Having said that, I urge a good, solid procedural argument on all aspects of the Bill immediately, in order that we can have Your Honour's decision on its acceptability and then move on, as my friend from Windsor West invited us, to debate the issue. Surely Canadians want us to debate the issue of free trade.
We must allow for procedural argument, and that is why we initiated this way of dealing with it. This is the first time, in my experience, that it has been done this way. We brought it forward and said that we were not going to call it per se but were inviting procedural argument, which we hope can be packaged into today. Then Your Honour can reflect upon the arguments of my colleagues opposite and the arguments of the Government and decide. Pending approval, we can then proceed to the debate on the substance, which we are more than ready to do. We think Canadian people want us to get on with it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that I can raise a point of order at this stage, but I want to remind the Deputy Government House Leader that in opening my remarks I specifically said that I had a number of points of order relating to Bill C-130 but that, in the interest of orderly discussion, I intended to limit my remarks at that time to the matter of whether the Bill was an omnibus Bill of an improper nature. I reserved the right to argue the constitutional issue and some other issues at a later stage.
I hope it will not be taken that, because I did not include any comments on other matters that I consider to be relevant to whether or not the Bill is in order, I had waived my rights to raise them at the proper time.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to assure the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that the Chair certainly did not take it that he had waived any of his rights. Hon. Members will remember that in his opening remarks he made it very clear that there are some other matters which he wants to bring to the attention of the Chair, although I do not think he necessarily set them all out at that time.
With respect to the comments of the Hon. Minister of State respecting the fact that he is prepared to argue constitutionality and perhaps some other matters at a later date, I think the appropriate thing at the moment is for the Chair to keep that in mind and to carry on with any further argument on the matters which have been raised, attacking the Bill in its omnibus form.
I think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) indicated to the Chair that he would like to intervene. I will hear the Hon. Member and then proceed to some other Hon. Members.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood that the point of order which was raised just after Routine Proceedings by the House Leader of the Official Opposition was a point of order on whether or not the Bill was acceptable, whether it was admissible. Members may have different reasons for believing it not to be admissible, but it is my sense that as Members rise they should deal with the aspect of admissibility.
I heard the cautions, but surely all the arguments about admissibility will be made in the course of the process we are into in order that you, Sir, can reach a decision about admissibility. Surely we are not going to have a ruling on whether each individual piece has a relevance for admissibility. The House needs a procedural decision about the admissibility of the Bill in order that we can get on with the debate. If Members have arguments, they may choose to put them in series or at different points in time, but surely-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I did not mean to cut off the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I do not think he had concluded.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I would like clarity on whether or not the arguments that we are all making here today are about the procedural admissibility of the Bill. Is it a Bill which the House should debate? If Members have different reasons for believing it should not be, or Members have different reasons for believing it should be, they have an obligation to put those as early as possible in the process, in order that you are in a position to make the basic ruling about the point of order on whether or not the Bill should go forward and be debated.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary who I think has appropriately addressed something to which we must, of course, pay some attention. However, at the moment I take it that there may be some further argument. I think that has been indicated, not only by the Hon. Member for Windsor West but also by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. It may be that at some later stage I may have to make an indication about whether or not a line of argument is even appropriate.
Perhaps we might be into a subject which is not for the Chair to decide. However, I think I will leave that until I hear what further points may arise.
It may well be that there is no particular need to argue further points after we get through this round, but I want the Hon. Member for Windsor West and others to know that I am conscious of the fact that Hon. Members may raise some other matters with me.
Returning to the point the Parliamentary Secretary makes, which is very important to the Chair, for now at least I want to hear arguments, both for and against, on the issue of whether or not it is appropriate for me to allow the Bill to be before the House. Of course, that is a very important matter for the Chair and for the House.
May 30, 1988

Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, I want to assure other Hon. Members that I notice they are indicating that they may have a contribution to make.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be addressed specifically to the issue raised by the House Leader of the Official Opposition concerning the omnibus nature of the Bill and whether that document should be considered admissible in the House.
I believe the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), the Deputy Government House Leader, has in part put his finger on the nub of the matter. He said that the real issue is whether this particular Bill enables the people of Canada, through their duly elected institution of Parliament, to have the fullest, broadest, and most extensive examination of what I believe we all agree is one of the most important legislative initiatives to come before Parliament since the Second World War, as stated by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie).
My comments are based upon the principle of what is the most effective way we in this Chamber can assure that Canadians will not only have but will be satisfied that they had the opportunity to be heard and to have their concerns responded to.
We know the old cliche about what is in a name. Simply calling this a free trade Bill does not make it exclusively a free trade initiative.
As one goes through the pages of this legislation, it is clear that it covers a much broader and more extensive range of interests than those one would normally consider trade interests. Normally, trade legislation deals with changes to tariff rules and occasionally ventures into non-tariff areas. However, the concept of trade has a very strict and fairly well defined generic use relating to the increase or reduction of those barriers between countries.
My argument is that this legislation goes substantially beyond the principle of free trade and into changes in areas that are very much within the domestic economy and affect a broad variety of sectors in this country. In fact, it affects our entire economy and social fabric.
Let me give one clear example. What does investment have to do with trade? The change in financial institutions is not a trade matter, but clearly a question of how one regulates the financial management of the country. Yet, that is contained in the Bill.
Clearly, the question dealing with Crown corporations, whether federal or provincial, is not a trade matter. Yet, it is an issue that is within the scope of this legislation.
Clearly, the matter of energy supply is not a trade issue. It very much concerns the control over basic natural resources in Canada.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I could go on to give examples from the annexes which deal with health services, the question of management of professions, education, the environment, and a whole host of matters which have enormous ramifications for this country. When one considers that this Bill affects virtually every Canadian, Parliament must be concerned about how and to what degree those Canadians will have an opportunity to make their case.
I was a member of the special joint committee in 1985 which was commissioned at that time simply to examine the principle of free trade. The hearings lasted more than two months and sometimes extended into the late hours of the night, listening to perhaps 25 representations per day, yet we were only talking about a principle and had not seen the enormous complexity of the Bill. Even at that point we barely touched the surface of interested parties who wanted to be heard.
We must take into account that the Minister for International Trade is saying that the Government will force this measure through by the end of July. If it is to force it through on the basis of an omnibus Bill, that means it will use its majority between now and the end of July, and it will be impossible for Canadians to be heard. It will be impossible for people in agriculture, in energy, in financial services, or in cultural fields to have an opportunity to make their case.
The only way for the Government to meet the timetable set out by the Minister this weekend is to have a number of Bills, each focusing on a specific sector. Then there could be a series of hearings in a variety of locations throughout the country, so that those who feel directly affected, whether it is in printing or the food processing industry, would be able to make their case in front of a select committee where there may be some expertise, as our House Leader suggested, and they could focus on those areas.
We must take into account the practicality of the issue. In order for Parliament to deal properly with such a massive initiative, it requires a series of separate legislative initiatives, focusing on each sector that will be affected in order to facilitate the matter.
I suggest that the Deputy Government House Leader made that very case, although I am sure he did not intend to do so. He pointed to the parallel between this and the energy Bills implementing the National Energy Program in 1982. It dealt with only one sector of the economy and it affected five or six different pieces of legislation.
When one turns to the back of this legislation, one sees that we are dealing with 27 different pieces of legislation, including the Broadcasting Act, Canadian Wheat Board Act, Canada Grain Act, investment Acts, Meat Inspection Act, National Energy Board Act, Textile and Clothing Board Act, Trust Companies Act, and others. Fundamental changes are being made to the operation of government legislation and regulation in each of these areas.

May 30, 1988
Incidentally, a close perusal of the Bill demonstrates that there is a massive transfer of delegated authority from Parliament to Cabinet in each of these areas. I suggest that this requires an even closer examination by Parliament before it transfers that authority. It is probably the greatest single delegation of legislative power to an executive in the history of the country. Surely that requires a very careful parliamentary examination before it is allowed.
The Deputy Government House Leader said that the energy Bill was complicated. What does he call this? This legislation is like a bowl of spaghetti, with more strands in it than one can wrap around one's fork.
The Government is making this an omnibus Bill and signing it because it says that there is an international agreement. Does that mean that if the Government of Canada signs an Act for the union of Canada and the United States-probably the next step in this procedure-it would simply call it that and introduce an omnibus trade Bill with which we would have to deal? I will continue my argument at three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I will certainly recognize him this afternoon in continuation of his argument.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today once again to condemn the Government for its inaction concerning the erosion of CN jobs in New Brunswick. Over the last few years many communities have been severely affected, most notably Moncton, Campbellton, and Edmundston. Jobs were cut by the dozens and at times by the hundreds. Throughout all this the Conservative Government refused to intervene and review the actions of its Crown corporation.
Once again, cut-backs are being mentioned. This time it concerns the proposed transfer of the train dispatching offices from Moncton and Edmundston to Toronto. Another 39 jobs are at stake.
It is time for the Government to say no. It is time to say enough is enough. The New Brunswick economy has suffered
enough from CN cut-backs. Workers have suffered enough from lay-offs and transfers. It is time for the federal Government to stop sitting on its hands. It is time to act.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last night I had the privilege of attending a banquet honouring one of my constituents, Bill Wen, a Canadian of Chinese origin recently appointed a Companion of the Order of Canada. Although Bill only came to Canada in 1953, he is in fact a third generation Canadian. Both his grandfather and his father came to Canada many years earlier, but because of the Chinese Immigration Act Bill Wen was not born here and was not even allowed to come to Canada until that Act was repealed in 1952.
As a teenager Bill worked fifteen hours a day, seven days a week, without pay in his parent's restaurant in Hay Lakes, Alberta. Today he still works fifteen hours a day, seven days a week, but now in his own world renowned Sai Woo restaurant in Toronto.
Bill is deeply involved in many charitable and community activities such as bringing the Giant Pandas to Canada from China. "Because we are so privileged to live in Canada, we have a duty to serve", says Bill Wen. With a philosophy like that, it is no wonder we are so proud of this Canadian.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, just one year ago the House of Commons voted unanimously to set aside the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a national park reserve. The federal Government would provide compensation for those affected and ensure the continued participation of the Haida people in matters affecting South Moresby.
That was on May 14, 1987. By July a Memorandum of Understanding was reached and signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premier of British Columbia. A final agreement was to be signed today. Apparently the signing has fallen through over resource compensation and recognition of Haida rights.
Surely the unanimous vote and voice of Parliament must prevail. The rights of the Haida people in Haida Gwaii, in particular, in South Moresby, are undeniable. Why is the
May 30, 1988

Government of Canada holding back on reaching an agreement with this First Nation and first citizens of South Moresby?
I call upon the good will of all Members in this House, in particular upon the Prime Minister, to direct that the title and rights of the Haida nation be recognized and affirmed. They have above all others called for the preservation of South Moresby. It is their home since time immemorial. They have proven to be caring stewards for the land.
Parliament voted unanimously, let Parliament now act.



NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT WEEK


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, today we Canadians celebrate the beginning of Environment Week. All this week concerned citizens across this great land will participate in organized events aimed at breaking new ground in finding solutions to environmental problems.
Our theme today, "Talk It Up", shows the important role information plays motivating people to action. Actions begin with ideas. By discussing issues of concern actions will result, actions to combat environmental problems, problems such as acid rain.
This Government more than any other Government has made people aware on both sides of the border about the seriousness of acid rain. This year's theme, "Our Common Future", shows how Canadians can continue to be world leaders in responsible environmental development.
I will be leading a parliamentary delegation to Washington next week as government and Leaders from both sides of the House will work with our American counterparts in an effort to make acid rain a thing of the past.



CONGRATULATIONS TO YOUNG HOCKEY PLAYER MARTIN GELINAS

Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, youth is often criticized, but today I would like to draw the attention of the House to the courage, determination and energy with
which a young hockey player from my area has pursued his all-important goal: To become a member of the National Hockey League as soon as possible.
During the last few years, in the summer when most of us like to relax, this young man rode his bicycle 40 miles and did two hours of Nautilus training every day to improve his level of fitness and prepare for training camp.
Martin Gelinas from Shawinigan South, who is here today with his parents, has done everything he could to achieve excellence. It wasn't easy, but thanks to his strength of character and determination, and also thanks to the support of his parents and his trainers, the year 1987-88 was to crown more than ten years of constant effort and hard work to get to where he is today.
At their last dinner, the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League named Martin recruit of the year, and in the Memorial Cup tournament Martin was named Canadian Junior Hockey's star recruit.
I want to pay tribute to Martin, who plays for the Hull Olympiques. In a few weeks, Martin will be a first-round draft pick for the National Hockey League and certainly the first Quebec player to be drafted.
Good luck, Martin!



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Indian subcontinent threatens to become a flash point for a major confrontation. India is pursuing a massive armament program which has included the successful testing of a nuclear device, and a delivery system. It soon will receive a used Soviet nuclear powered submarine.
Pakistan, reacting to its neighbour's build-up, has embarked on its own armament program which has included the testing of a missile capable of carrying a nuclear device.
Canada is a major contributor of aid to these countries. I am concerned that Canadian tax dollars which are earmarked to aid the people will help indirectly to subsidize this arms race. Canadian aid will allow these two nations to be able to divert more of their own resources to either produce or acquire arms.
In light of these developments the Government must examine our aid to these two nations and all other nations which put armaments above the well-being of their people.

May 30, 1988



THE ENVIRONMENT


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Environment Week, but there is really no cause for celebration.
The federal Government has dropped the acid rain issue, and the clean-up of toxic waste in the Great Lakes was not even mentioned at the recent Summit, despite promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).

The Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain has not had its funding renewed. The agreement on South Moresby Island which was supposed to be signed today has not been signed.
A closer reading of the so-called free trade agreement reveals that controls over our environment were bargained away. Even our precious non-renewable resources become goods on the market. Conservation as an objective becomes ever less likely.
Water, too, is a good, according to the agreement, so that once exports begin we will have to continue sharing this valuable resource.
The Government's water policy is not legislated, which it should be, but even that will not provide real protection, for the free trade agreement will take precedence over mere legislation.
The best way for the environment to be celebrated this week would be for the Government to call an election on the issue. Canadians want real action on the environment, not a token Environment Week with government controlled PR.



NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT WEEK


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, this week, from May 30 to June 5, is National Environment Week, and the theme is: Our Common Future.
I think we all realize the threat to humanity today and that our survival depends directly on the concrete action that will be taken during the next decades.
This week is an opportunity for Canadians to express their environmental concerns and to make a personal commitment to protect our environment.
One of this week's themes is: "Talk it up!". Mr. Speaker, I hope that across this country, in our classrooms and our educational institutions, at our jobs and in the media, we will talk a lot about the environment this week.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all environmental groups, especially those in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, our environmental watchdogs, for their major contribution towards building a better and healthier world.



BOXING-LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT WORLD CHAMPION DONNY LALONDE

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Port of Spain a young man from the Fort Rouge district of Winnipeg successfully defended his light heavyweight world championship.
In this House many of us at times pay tribute to Canadians who have demonstrated exemplary prowess in various fields of endeavour. We all acknowledge the great accomplishment that Donny Lalonde has made on behalf of Canada.
There is a special case for paying attention to the accomplishment yesterday. Donny Lalonde has not only shown courage in the ring, but courage in bringing to public attention his own childhood experiences of abuse. He has since devoted his position to bringing other Canadians to understand the terrible scourge of that travesty that takes place with so many young people.
The best way for Members of the House of Commons to acknowledge the accomplishments of Donny Lalonde would be to devote our own attention and interest to the problem of child abuse which Donny Lalonde so eloquently and forcefully expresses on behalf of so many Canadians.
I hope that those of us who applaud his skill in the ring will also recognize that he has fought back from the terrible handicap of his childhood and now provides a real example of leadership to many other young people in this country who face a similar problem.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 1988, Pavel Wonka, a 35-year old human rights activist, died suddenly in a Czechoslovakian prison. The circumstances surrounding his death have raised grave suspicions.

May 30, 1988

Wonka was an associate of Charter 77, and attempted to stand as an independent candidate for the federal Assembly. He helped many of his fellow citizens who were unjustly or erroneously prosecuted, but in the end was unable to save himself.
He was arrested for so-called incitement to rebellion, detained for 12 months, and subjected to torture. When released, he brought suit against the authorities who had persecuted him, but was once again detained and sentenced to five more months in detention. Although he had no signs of any fatal illness, Wonka died in prison six days after his trial.
I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to join with other western leaders in demanding an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of this brave and determined champion of human rights.



NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Nikani group of companies is a major economic development initiative of the Keewatin Tribal Council in my riding. The Keewatin Tribal Council represents 10 Indian bands.
The project was submitted and has been discussed for the past five years with Native Economic Development Program officials. It has not been approved. Seven different staff members of NEDP have handled this proposal. Several policy changes have also occurred.
Last month the Government again shifted its priorities without notice to the applicants, asking the Keewatin Tribal Council to revise its proposal yet again and face another long delay. This policy change occurred one month prior to the final submission.
I ask that the Minister responsible for NEDP take the necessary steps to ensure this native controlled economic institution is in place as quickly as possible, including the assignment of one staff member to see this project all the way through.



PRIME MINISTER'S POPULARITY

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, a CROP poll carried out for the newspaper La Presse between May 15 and May 18, 1988, indicated that in Quebec, the Prime Minister
(Mr. Mulroney), according to Quebecers, was felt to be best qualified to be Prime Minister of Canada.
The Prime Minister alone obtained as many popularity votes as the two leaders of the liberal-socialist coalition combined.
Mr. Speaker, this is because Quebecers are grateful to the Prime Minister for Meech Lake and free trade.
Quebecers realize that only the Conservative Party and only the Prime Minister can get final legislative approval of the Meech Lake Accord and free trade, and that is why, when Quebecers go to the polls, they will say yes to Meech Lake, yes to free trade, yes to the Conservatives, and yes to Mulroney.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in these tumultuous times of robberies, rapes, and murders, isn't it nice to know that some enforcement agencies are worrying about the real important wrongdoings? Some of these do-gooders, taking care of real crime in society, work for the National Capital Commission. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are in safe hands. The NCC is purging all the evil in our capital city.
Just the other day the NCC stopped Eric LeClair from running afoul of the law. Eric is a 14-year-old boy who was selling flowers and vegetables from a semi-rural property that his father rents from the NCC. So good is Eric at his job, or crime-depending on how you look at it-that he now hires two other kids to help him in these evil things. Now the NCC will put an end to all this, Mr. Speaker.
Surely the lemonade stands will be next. Aren't we glad we have the NCC to protect our society against all the wrong things that are going on? I suggest if the NCC and the staff who cooked up this crazy scheme have nothing better to do, then perhaps they should find a real job.



NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, last night at the National Arts Centre a moving, joyful event took place. To celebrate the first National Access Awareness Week, a gala, featuring the talents of disabled artists, entertained and enriched us. From the Rolling Thunder theatre group to the MacKay Centre dance troupe featuring wheelchair and deaf

May 30, 1988
Oral Questions
dancers, these entertainers exemplified the potential of the disabled.
That is what this week is all about, to identify and remove the barriers that separate the disabled from the rest of the community so that they, as Rick Hansen so often has said, "be the best they can".
Let us all be partners in community action with disabled persons so that we can all achieve the goal of this week's activities-"Independence-That's living".



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Prime Minister. We have now received a copy of the formal drafting instructions agreed upon by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives on the Prime Minister's deal with the United States. The Congress has formally decided, and I quote:
In the event of a conflict between U.S. law and the free trade agreement, U.S. law shall prevail.
Those are the words of the drafting instructions.
In shocking and indeed ludicrous contrast to that, the legislation introduced in this Parliament says that in the event of any conflict between Canadian law and the trade agreement with the United States, the trade agreement shall prevail.
I would like the Prime Minister to answer this question. Why does the trade deal prevail over Canadian law and over Canadian sovereignty? Why indeed does it impede provincial jurisdiction while American protectionist law will continue to apply and outrank the trade deal? Why is no specific exemption given to us from United States protectionist law which will continue to prevail under the terms understood by the United States?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I have explained this matter now several times because of questions asked in the House. I am sorry the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has not understood the answers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Each country has its own separate-if you wish to answer, you can and I will sit down. But if I am being asked the question, Mr. Speaker, I will say this-


Mr. Broadbent:: You weren't asked the question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Prime Minister was.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are you going to say who is to answer on our behalf and who isn't?


Mr. Speaker:: The Right. Hon. Leader of the Opposition has put a question. The Hon. Minister is attempting to respond to it. I would ask Hon. Members to give the Minister the courtesy so we can hear him.


John Carnell Crosbie: Each country has its own statutory drafting and interpretation. In the United States, Congress prefers to have the wording to which the hon. gentleman has referred. If, of course, there are any U.S. laws that are inconsistent with the free trade agreement then the United States will either have to amend those laws or pay a penalty to Canada once the free trade agreement goes into effect.
In Canada, we use a different drafting technique. In the United States the Americans have a provision in legislation that any inconsistent provision in state legislation will be overridden. Would the Leader of the Opposition like us to include such a provision with respect to the provinces?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman already has in Article 6. He overrides provincial jurisdiction in any area in which the federal Government decides he has to fulfil the objectives of the agreement with the United States. Article 8 says that in the case of any conflict, the trade agreement will prevail over any other law of Parliament. The United States, on the other hand, can amend the trade agreement by any subsequent Act of the United States Congress. We have been taken for suckers here and the Minister has not caught on.


RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this agreement is terrible! It is binding on Canada and it deprives us of our sovereignty, but it is not binding on the United States. The Prime Minister can't dodge the issue. The U.S. Congress has formally decided that in the event of a conflict between U.S. law and the free trade agreement, U.S. law shall prevail. However, in our case, in the event of a conflict between Canadian law and the trade agreement with the United States, the trade agreement with the United States shall prevail. There is an incredible double standard at work here. How can the Prime Minister expect Canadians to accept anything as preposterous as this agreement? How can he expect Canadians to accept this kind of double standard?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition thinks that somebody has been taken for a sucker. That seems to be the conclusion of his whole caucus with respect to himself, that they were taken for suckers two years ago. With respect to-
May 30, 1988


Mr. Rossi:: Why don't you answer the question, you dumb no-no?


John Carnell Crosbie: There is an intelligent comment. That is the first time I have ever heard the hon. gentleman speak in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


UNITED STATES DISCUSSION DRAFT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we should encourage the Minister to continue just as he is doing because he is becoming the best salesman against this deal. If I thought it my responsibility to caution him, I would say that Canadians do not like clowning around with a most important political item affecting this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: In this discussion draft the United States Congress singles out, despite our agreement with the United States, specific attacks that will outrank the agreement in terms of its drafting priorities, attacks on programs for assisting farmers, our coal industry, our mining and smelting industries, our forestry, our fisheries, our poultry industry, the Crow's Nest rate, our auto parts industry, our energy and even our cultural industries. In terms of the legislation contemplated by the United States-


Mr. McDermid:: Nobody believes you any more, John.


John Napier Turner: It's right in the document, my friend, it's right in the document. Go back to Brampton and consult a man who understood what this deal was all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: I will debate you there any time. Come on down again, John.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


John Napier Turner: The Americans, despite all of that, in this document intend to slam with heavy penalties any Canadian industries that grab a larger share of the American market than the U.S. trade representative thinks proper, right within the terms of the instructions for the American drafting.
This deal is worse than we thought. The Prime Minister did not have the guts to stand up to the Americans. I ask him, has he got the guts to stand up to Canadians and call a General Election so that Canadians can have an opportunity to-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain again the American governmental system. There is a separation between the executive and the legislative branch, and the legislative branch known as Congress does not trust the executive always.
The congressional drafting rule is that they do not wish to have any legislation that amends any other legislation unless they know specifically what has been amended. Although the U.S. administration suggested there be a clause in their legislation which would state that any possible inconsistent federal legislation should be overridden by this particular Bill, the congressional committees changed that recommendation back to their traditional practice.
I would suggest to the hon. gentleman, after he consults Legal Aid, that he go down and address his objection to the American congressional committees. We simply do not control them.


COMMERCIAL BLOOD BANKS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister if he has the courage to respond.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member will want to put her question properly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Last Friday, in response to questions about why commercial blood banks are included under the trade agreement, the Minister for International Trade stated: "Whether people wish to sell their blood for profit or not is, I suppose, up to the individual". I ask the Prime Minister whether that is the position of the Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement has no more effect on the provision of blood and blood services in Canada than would a vampire bat down in Central America. No one in Canada is forced by the agreement to sell blood or have anything to do with blood. The Canadian Red Cross Society will continue with the blood service it now provides.
It is just like water. The agreement does not force Canada to sell or transfer water. It does not force us to charge for blood or sell any blood. The question is quite irrelevant. Why does the Hon. Member persist in this kind of footling nonsense?


MARKETING OF BLOOD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister why, if there is no connection

May 30, 1988
Oral Questions
between the free trade agreement and commercial blood banks, the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare and Dr. Denise Leclerc-Chevalier are now examining the agreement and its implications for commercial blood banks? And why did the Department of National Health and Welfare get a phone call this morning from a representative of an American company who wanted to know whether, under the terms of free trade, they could come here to purchase blood from Canadians for a price, and not, as has always been the case, on a volunteer basis? Can they come here and buy Canadians' blood and export it to the United States under the terms of the free trade agreement? And why is the Red Cross afraid that blood banks will be included in the free trade agreement, if, according to what was said by the Minister for International Trade this morning, the FTA has no connection with blood? And why would U.S. companies already be trying to come here?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, repetition does not make a statement correct. Here is the position. The agreement creates no new rights for the establishment of commercial blood banks in Canada. In Canada, as we all know, that function is carried out mainly on a volunteer basis by the Red Cross. The blood is distributed freely to Canadians. The FTA will have no impact on the operations of the Canadian Red Cross. It is a non-profit organization and is not affected in any way by the agreement.
Making this kind of allegation is a disservice to the people of Canada and is participating in a conspiracy to spread falsehoods about the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He knows that the House now has before it legislation intended to implement the agreement reached between Canada and the U.S. on trade. He knows the Government did not receive a mandate in 1984 for such an agreement. He knows the opposition Parties would welcome an election on this issue and a large majority of Canadians have said they would like an election on this issue. Finally, he knows that he said on the weekend here in Ottawa that at some point the people of Canada would have an election.
Given all of the above would the Prime Minister explain to the House why the Government would prefer to force Parliament to debate this very important matter instead of going directly to the people of Canada and letting them have a say on this issue first?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, because we had the responsibility of providing the national Government. Included in that, of course-


Mr.   de Jong@: You don't have the mandate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I'll try to answer, Mr. Speaker, if the NDP will let me. Included in this is the responsibility to create new wealth, new prosperity, and new jobs for Canadians.
In an era of growing protectionism following 1984 and pursuant to a very excellent report submitted by the Hon. Donald Macdonald, the former Liberal Minister of Finance, pursuant to recommendations of that Royal Commission, we initiated discussions which have now produced great benefits for Canada and, according to the Economic Council of Canada, will result in 250,000 new jobs.
My hon. friend will no doubt support the move to ratify this in the House of Commons and indeed, at an appropriate time, Canadians will be able to decide whether they agree with this prosperity or would like to change with the Hon. Member.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, as one says here, the Prime Minister did not answer the question. I want to ask him the question again in terms of the most basic democratic requirements about legislation which he himself has described as perhaps the most important bilateral arrangement between our two nations, if not in the history of the globe.
Since he himself and three of his senior Cabinet Ministers opposed this kind of deal in 1983, why will he not do the correct democratic thing and go to the people of Canada? If he gets his majority he will have a mandate. If he does not, we will not get involved in this complicated and undesirable arrangement with the United States.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it may be undesirable in the minds of the Leader of the NDP and the President of the CLC, but it is clearly very desirable in the minds of the Government of Canada and eight provincial Premiers representing political Parties from British Columbia to Newfoundland. It is clearly sustained by all objective data including the most recent report of the Economic Council of Canada which provides for a quarter of a million new jobs over and above those already to be created under the policies of the Government.
I know that my hon. friend clearly disagrees with free trade unless it is in automobiles, and with foreign investment, unless it is in Oshawa. However, we would like that prosperity for the rest of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is back in his usual high intellectual form of argumentation.


REQUEST FOR A GENERAL ELECTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask the Prime Minister why, if he is so confident about
May 30, 1988

his arguments, he doesn't leave it up to Canadians to decide one way or another?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I certainly am confident about our arguments, Mr. Speaker. I am also confident about the responsibility incumbent on our elected representatives to consider a document of this importance and to assess it in terms of our national interest and make the requisite value judgments. I would like to remind the Hon. Member, since he is raising the question, that for instance, as far as Quebec is concerned, since his question was along those lines, the Quebec Premier has endorsed the free trade agreement as being in Quebec's national interest; the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Parizeau, has done so as well; I may remind him ...


John Edward Broadbent: What about producers, farmers, consumers and workers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: ... and only the New Democrats ...


John Edward Broadbent: Why not call an election?


Martin Brian Mulroney: ... are against the agreement, while Alain Dubuc wrote in La Presse: "With the free trade agreement, Quebec has hit the jackpot". Canada and Quebec have hit the jackpot, and the Leader of the New Democrats is against it!


SOCIAL AND HEALTH PROGRAMS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question, as well, to the Prime Minister. He has just heard his Minister for International Trade say in the House that in his reading of the Bill there is nothing that will affect social or health programs. It is refreshing to note that someone in the Prime Minister's office has read the agreement and comes to a different conclusion.
Does the Prime Minister support the statement made by Mr. Jeff Norquay, the special adviser to the Prime Minister's office, who, in speaking at a forum in Kitchener on Friday, indicated that there is no guarantee that social and health programs will not be attacked under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement? In fact he went on to say that there is no absolute protection against such programs under this agreement.
Is the Prime Minister's special adviser speaking for the Prime Minister and the Government in saying very clearly that, contrary to all the assertions aside, in fact our social programs, including health clinics, blood clinics, and others, are included as part of the free trade agreement and will be subject to retaliation by the United States? Is Mr. Norquay right or wrong?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, without the free trade agreement programs can be attacked. It may be by someone in
Oral Questions
France, a person in Germany, a person in Canada, or a person in the United States.
Neither this U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement nor any agreement can guarantee Canadians that a particular social program will not be attacked. However, as long as this Government is in office they will be defended vigorously and will not be attacked successfully under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement because the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement does nothing but promise to create more wealth for Canadians so that we can have more and better social programs. That is what the agreement will do for Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to get much wealth if it is only a quarter of 1 per cent of growth per year as the Minister's own studies indicate.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister for International Trade has admitted that social programs do not in fact gain any further protection under this agreement, let me ask him about another transgression on the integrity of Canadian programs.
Under Section 137 of the Trade Bill, the National Energy Board will now have complete and total subserviance to directives of the Cabinet. Under this Bill the Cabinet will have the power to compel the National Energy Board to issue export licences to U.S. companies, even during times of shortage or when we exhaust our own Canadian resources.
Keeping in mind that very clear abandonment of the rule and responsibility of the National Energy Board, how does the Minister explain the change in government policy which has taken away the independence of the National Energy Board and has, in fact, usurped for Cabinet total control over the regulation and management of energy resources in relation to trade with the United States? How does he explain the total and complete turnover of Canadian policy which has benefited the country for generations?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I honestly do not know what the hon. gentleman is spluttering about. It is the Government of the country that sets energy policy. It was the last administration which entered into the international energy agreement with other countries under which we assumed certain obligations in connection with the supply of energy and sharing of energy in a crisis.
The National Energy Board will still exist after this legislation is passed but certain rules under which it operates will be changed. It is the right of the elected Members of this House-the hon. gentleman may not believe this because he goes by the unelected House-but it is the right of the elected Members of this House and the Government to set the policy for the National Energy Board, just as was done when the National Energy Program was brought in, trampled upon the provinces of Canada, and beaten over their heads by the hon. gentleman and his colleagues.

May 30, 1988
Oral Questions MULTICULTURALISM


LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Multiculturalism. The Minister has just announced an election time increase in funding for multiculturalism. The last Liberal Government did something similar before the last election and increased it to $25 million.
Why did the Conservative Government allow the funding for multiculturalism to drop back toward $22 million after the 1984 election? Did the Government only discover the funding needs of multiculturalism as the next election drew near?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government began making a strong commitment to creating a more equal opportunity society on September 4, 1984. It was this Government that established the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. It was this Government that implemented Employment Equity, Bill C-62, which the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration brought in.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Indeed, it is this Government that is bringing forward the first multiculturalism Act anywhere in the western world. It is backing that up with a firm policy and new directions.


REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council with which each of the caucuses met today has called for a great deal more than just funding for multiculturalism. Above all, it has called for a Commissioner of Multiculturalism.
Given the approach of report stage consideration of Bill C-93 in the House, is the Minister prepared to consider audit amendments to Bill C-93 which are required to facilitate such review of the Government's policy? Will he consider these amendments which were defeated by his colleagues in the legislative committee at a time when they knew opposition Members were not there to speak to these amendments?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the chairman of that legislative committee, the Member from Edmonton, has brought forward the recommendations of that committee. They will soon be at report stage and third reading in the House. Certainly you would not expect me to comment on what took place there.
I would simply say that I will be the active promoter. I see this as my role in the entire multicultural process. I, with the help of other members of the Government, will be helping monitor it in a cross-government commitment.
As I indicated, since September, 1984, we have continued to reinforce the strength of that commitment. In terms of ethnocultural appointments, there has been the recent appointment of a Supreme Court Justice coming from that very ethnocultural community.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The drought situation in western Canada has now reached the critical stage for the livestock producers. Many areas have had no precipitation since last August. There is no grass. Winter carryover of feed supplies are rapidly being used up to maintain the cattle herds.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House and, more important, the livestock producers of western Canada what new forms of assistance they may expect immediately in order to address this very serious situation?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that the Minister of Agriculture is on his way to western Canada today. He and his Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Brandon-Souris, along with the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds will be viewing the situation firsthand, visiting farmers and talking to them.
Tomorrow there will be a meeting of provincial and federal Ministers to talk about programs that can be put together in a co-ordinated fashion to address this very serious issue. We consider it to be a very serious issue and believe there is a provincial as well as federal responsibility.
The Prime Minister has acknowledged the responsibility of the federal Government. The Minister of Agriculture, indeed the Government, has responded in the past to the needs of agriculture and I am confident it will do so again.
I look forward to tomorrow's meetings hopefully producing a very positive and fruitful result.


HERD STABILIZATION PROGRAM PROPOSAL
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the serious drought situation that has already been described, is the Government of Canada prepared to put in place a herd stabilization program to end the uncertainty as to whether there will be assistance? Is it willing to provide funding as it has in the past to move feed into the drought areas, or to move the cattle, and put in place a herd stabilization program?
May 30, 1988

In view of the falling cattle prices and the fact that some herd owners are actually dispersing their herds, are the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government prepared to make an announcement this week to end this uncertainty in the agricultural field?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member acknowledges the fact that the Government has responded to these kinds of situations in the past. That stands in good stead for the fact that we will be responding on this occasion as well.
The points raised by the Hon. Member are indeed those which will be discussed with provincial counterparts. I am sure that a satisfactory solution will be found as a result of those discussions. Again, I believe the Hon. Member will be pleased with the fact that once again the federal Government has shown leadership in this area and will have responded to this very serious crisis.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Deputy Prime Minister did not answer my question.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister if the Government would announce this week a herd stabilization program to end the uncertainty. We know of the dispute that arose last week between the Prime Minister and his officials. Western farmers want to know whether an announcement on this will be postponed until next month or even beyond the economic summit? Surely this matter is urgent enough that a decision and an announcement should be made this week to end the uncertainty in the drought areas?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can take it from the Hon. Member's question and comments that he is not criticizing the Prime Minister for standing up for farmers, particularly farmers who have been saddled with depressing prices as a result of a trade war going on between the EEC and the United States. I think the cattlemen clearly pointed out that the Prime Minister had a right to condemn the EEC. I hope that he agrees with the position of the Prime Minister in that regard. I see him nodding in the affirmative.


Maurice Brydon Foster: That is right. Are you going to announce a program this week?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With respect, I did answer the question. I told the Hon. Member that these were the points that were going to be discussed with the provincial Ministers. As I indicated, this will be a joint program. There is a shared responsibility. Surely the provinces have a responsibility. We recognize our responsibility and we think we can address this issue more effectively together than individually. That is the purpose of the meeting.
_____________________________________15901
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


STATUS OF WOMEN IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. This weekend past, the Prime Minister claimed that his Government has done more for women than any previous federal Government. Yet today more than 60 per cent of female immigrants to Canada enter under the family class of immigration, which makes them ineligible for public assistance when they are in need, a situation that violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since that guarantees to all residents of Canada equal rights to education, employment, and freedom of speech.
When will the Government recognize its responsibilities and assure to these immigrant women the same rights and privileges as other Canadian men and women have?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that as a Member of this Government and as a woman, I am very proud of what we have done and I support what our Prime Minister said yesterday.
We have indeed taken care of the economic, social and cultural situation of women. We have made great progress in immigration. Not everything has been done, because there was a lot to do. We are working on the corrections that still have to be made and I must pay him tribute for everything that has been done.


ACCESS TO LANGUAGE PROGRAMS BY WOMEN IMMIGRANTS- MINISTER'S POSITION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Immigrant women who do not wish to work outside the home upon their arrival do not have access to the language program for immigrant women. This contributes to the isolation of these women and prevents them from obtaining employment in the future.
Can the Government tell us when it will give free access to the language program for all immigrant women, whatever their status?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I must remind you that many women already benefit from integration and language learning programs. We also have several pilot programs in place. And as I said earlier, we definitely intend to leave plenty of room for creativity and to find what must be done as our society evolves.

May 30, 1988

Oral Questions



RECOGNITION OF MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. It concerns the Government's proposals for a multiculturalism Act.
As the Minister knows, many important provisions that should have been embodied in such an Act have been sorely ignored by the Government. One of these elements is the office of Commissioner for Multiculturalism.
Given that the creation of a Multiculturalism Commissioner was unanimously proposed by all three political Parties, and was unanimously endorsed by every witness and organization before a standing committee, will the Government now see fit to introduce and support establishment of an office for an official Multculturalism Commissioner as an enforcement mechanism, and allow that to achieve for multiculturalism what the Official Languages Commissioner achieved successfully for our policy of official bilingualism?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the Member was rising to compliment this Government for bringing forward $62 million of new funding over the next five years for multiculturalism. I thought he was going to applaud the directions we were taking in racerelations and cross-cultural understanding, in community support and participation, in heritage, cultures and languages-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More!


Sergio Marchi: After its four beleaguered and meagre budgets,
I am not interested in a Government that is desperate enough to buy votes. I am interested in the facts and in the workings and actual provisions of the Government's legislation.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you admit new members to your association? You are pretty exclusive in your association.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I again address my question to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. It again concerns the proposed multiculturalism Act. Many groups, including the Ethnocultural Council, believe that the reference to multiculturalism in Bill C-93, as first a basic element and then a fundamental element of Canadian society, is a weak and undistinguished recognition.
Since the Government fondly promotes Canada as a bilingual and multicultural society, and since the Meech Lake Accord already recognizes the English-French linguistic duality as a fundamental characteristic, why is the Government unwilling also and equally to recognize our multicultural reality as a fundamental characteristic of this country? Why the double standard?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Because we have.


Sergio Marchi: You have not. Don't mislead the House. You have not.


John Carnell Crosbie: "We're coming, Mr. Marchi, and we're 3,000 strong".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Member is a member of a Party that in 1971 announced a multicultural policy and did nothing for it practically for 15 years.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We want the real Minister, not you.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: This Government began to intensify our commitment to creating a more equal opportunity society, to ensure there is greater access for all members of this society-


Lloyd Axworthy: Tell us about your refugee Bill.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: -so that we become a better and more productive society as a result of everyone's contribution. We do so by continuing to bring forward an Act, the multiculturalism Act, after considerable consultation. It is now before Parliament. Perhaps if that Member had attended the legislative committee hearings, his thoughts might have been on the table as well. But they are now in the amendment.


Sergio Marchi: You have enough problems with free trade, John. Take it easy.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are moving on Marchi.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question, please.


Some Hon. Members:: If he has one.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. During his meetings in Europe to prepare for the Economic Summit, the
May 30, 1988

Prime Minister discovered if we use the American proposal to the OECD for measuring agricultural subsidies, Canada is in fact in the big leagues with 46 per cent of Canadian farm income coming from subsidies as measured by the producers subsidy equivalent, which is the American measurement, versus 49 per cent for the Europeans.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: That is the OECD measurement.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It is the American measurement as proposed to the OECD, Sir.


Charles Joseph Clark: And accepted by the OECD.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Given the obvious embarrassment for that briefing lapse, does the Prime Minister intend to continue advocating the American approach and philosophy, that is, to eliminate all subsidies from agriculture? If so, how does he expect farmers to survive?


Charles Joseph Clark: They are against the OECD.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for raising what is a very important question on behalf of Canadian farmers. I would draw to his attention a statement by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association further to my interventions on behalf of Canadian farmers in Europe. "The statistics being thrown around by EC officials are typical of the way the Europeans attempt to divert attention from their destructive and unfair export subsidy program", Morley Shepherdson said.
The Liberals, I know, take exception to the decision of this Government to protect and defend the interests of Canadian farmers and the family farm.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They used to say: "Why should we sell their wheat?"


Martin Brian Mulroney: There was a shoot-out going on between the Europeans, initiated by the Europeans, responded to by the Americans. It is causing great damage to Canadian farmers. We resolve to do two things, first, to try to bring about an end to this destructive war and, second, to defend the interests of the Canadian farmer while this war is going on until such time as a cease and desist can be brought about, because the Canadian family farm and the Canadian farmer must survive during this period.



CANADIAN POSITION

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since it is important that not only farmers and Canadians know the Government's position with respect to these international negotiations, and since it is also important that the other countries know our position, will the Prime Minister enlighten the House and clarify his position? We had thought he was with the Cairns Group, but during his discussions in Europe he sounded very much to be in the American camp, yet the Europeans see some of his actions as being closer to the
Oral Questions
Japanese and European camps. What is our position? Can he state it clearly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, let me tell my hon. friend that I am not in any way embarrassed, nor do I apologize for defending the interests of the Canadian farmer here or anywhere in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: When a Canadian wheat farmer receives about $2.92 a bushel, the European farmer receives $7.13 a bushel. A Canadian farmer receives about $1.10 for a bushel of barley. The European producer receives $5.42. The Canadian farmer receives about $7 a bushel for soybeans and in Europe it is three times that amount.
We began the process of putting agriculture on the agenda of the international summit. We have met regularly with Canadian farm leaders prior to these international meetings, and we have stated very specifically to the Americans and to the Europeans that their destructive subsidy war must end because Canadian farmers were getting blindsided and killed in the process, and we, Canada, Australia and the Cairns Group, were going to fight this because our farmers have made an enormous contribution to our national well-being and they must be kept whole while this war is being ended.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I understand that tentative arrangements had been made for the federal Government and the provincial Government of British Columbia to sign an agreement today for the establishment of the South Moresby National Park Reserve. Can the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of the reason the signing did not proceed, and when we might expect the finalization of this agreement, so that the $106 million commitment of this Government for a national park and associated regional development activities can move forward?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I am sure, there were very extensive discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia with respect to this issue, which culminated in a Memorandum of Understanding which was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia. It was a very generous offer that was provided by the Government of Canada, some $106 million for the national park and associated regional development activities, perhaps more

May 30, 1988
Oral Questions
generous than for the establishment of any other national park in Canada.
In the last couple of days or so, the Government of British Columbia has had some second thoughts about the issue and has wanted to renegotiate certain aspects of it. We believe the deal stands, that it is generous, and we would hope that the Government of British Columbia would reconsider and follow through with its commitment as it indicated it would do when it signed the Memorandum of Understanding.



MINORITIES


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The Association franco-albertaine has taken a very reasonable position on the recognition of language rights of Francophones in Alberta and would like to see the Government of Alberta implement the vested rights recognized by the Supreme Court not long ago, arising from Section 110 of the Northwest Territories Act.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister would make a commitment in the House today to initiate action that is positive and generous. Will he offer to help the Government of Alberta implement an open and active policy that will allow Alberta's Francophone minority to survive?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member I would like to reiterate simply the fact that the federal Government has been on record, through the Prime Minister and myself, with respect to extending to the Province of Alberta assistance in a tangible manner concerning the question of minority rights in that province.
As the Hon. Member will know, the specific question with respect to minority rights in Alberta is a matter that has still to come before the Supreme Court of Canada. Even in advance of any adjudication of this matter by the Supreme Court of Canada, we have indicated our interest and, indeed, our willingness to give leadership in this area.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I heard on Friday that the Government will introduce legislation this week, without waiting for the Supreme Court to decide. I am sure that the Government is aware of the editorial in the Calgary Herald in which it stated that it is: "fatuous for
the Tories to discuss publicly the prospect of Alberta becoming totally bilingual. No one is asking for that, not even the Francophones". The editorial goes on to support the Bill. It states that Mr. Getty should become very much more open, public, and state openly what he intends to do.
In the spirit of the Meech Lake Accord in which the role of the provinces and the Government is to support minority groups, will the Minister this time, rather than doing the Saskatchewan bit, come ahead and now openly tell Albertans and Canadians that the federal Government will be pro-active, offering the services now, today, and not wait until after the legislation is passed?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. I tried to explain in my first response that, indeed, we have already commenced our discussions with the Province of Alberta.
My colleague, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, has been in communication and has visited officials and Ministers in the Province of Alberta with respect to the best way in which the federal Government can provide assistance to obtain equity and justice for the minorities in the Province of Alberta.
Indeed, we are giving the matter leadership. We intend to work at that, even before there is any judicial pronouncement, or in spite of the fact that there may be a judicial pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question, a single question by the Hon. Member for Skeena.



FISHERIES


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Is the Minister aware that the budget cuts that he is forcing upon the permanent patrol vessel fleet and the seasonal patrol group in British Columbia mean that food, sport, and commercial fishing for salmon along large stretches of the B.C. coast will be closed this year and, as well, many runs will neither be protected from creek robbing nor counted for conservation purposes this year?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we are not cutting our funds and resources devoted to enforcement or necessary scientific research. These are commitments that I have made. I have given them in the whole context of reorganization of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over the past two years. I intend to adhere to those commitments.
May 30, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: We will now continue with the discussions that started this morning with respect to the procedural aspects of the Bill which is on the Order Paper. I will hear further from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).