1988-06-08

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last May the results of a Rhode Island survey conducted among 1,700 teenagers shocked Canadians and Americans alike when nearly a quarter of the boys and a sixth of the girls said that it was all right for a man to force a woman to have sex if he has spent money on her. It was also revealed in the U.S. study that 50 per cent of those young people believe a woman who walks alone at night is asking to be raped.
These results did not surprise Joan Steer who was aware of another study done in Toronto, which suggests that many adults do not consider "date rape" or sexual harassment in the workplace as real crimes.
Despite all the recent efforts to change attitudes to sexual assault and harassment, lack of information and ignorance remain the most crucial problem among young people. Mr. Speaker, we absolutely must inform teen-age boys and girls in order to change their attitudes towards violence and end rampant sexism for generations to come.

Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) promised more studies on the causes of wife battering and family abuse. There are many studies available. Why not speak out now through the media to teach and to offer hope to women looking for help by giving them the numbers of people to contact? I call on the Government to honour the recommendation of many of the studies and to awaken public awareness to avoid the perpetuation of sexual assault and family violence.


ENTREPRENEURS
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 5, the Rouyn-Noranda Regional Chamber of Commerce held its first Prisma gala to highlight the strength of our enterprising spirit.
Jean-Guy Cotnoir, a well-known personality in the region, won the award in the "builder" category. His name is synonymous with success, determination and fighting spirit. The head of a large, flourishing transport company that he built himself over the last few decades, Jean-Guy Cotnoir has been deeply involved over the years in the social and economic development of our community and in many charitable works.
In the "prospective" category, Rob Metka of Noranda Minerals won the grand prize. Originally from Saskatchewan, this young engineer now heads the construction of one of the largest technological challenges in the world, a sulfuric acid plant to be built in Rouyn-Noranda at an estimated cost of $125 million.
Messrs. Cotnoir and Metka, thank you for your generous contribution to our community and congratulations to the Rouyn-Noranda Regional Chamber of Commerce for this good initiative!


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government recently decided to take a more flexible approach to the monitoring of Canadian Jobs Strategy projects. This decision will undoubtedly add to the abuse that already exists under this system.

The focus of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, the provision of training through private-sector training programs, creates an urgent need for a comprehensive monitoring policy. Private-sector training courses often provide job-specific, non-portable skills. Without effective and comprehensive monitoring, it is unrealistic to expect that employees will receive broad, basic skills training.

June 8, 1988
In his 1987 audit the Auditor General found that 40 per cent of the job development training agreements were incomplete. Yet, despite the lack of documentation ensuring eligibility, and the lack of specific training plans, these projects were approved and funded. Regular on-site inspections are absolutely essential to ensure that the training taking place is the training that is approved when the projects are funded.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy is supposed to be a training strategy for Canadians. Without an effective and comprehensive monitoring policy, it is merely a wage subsidy program for the private sector.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, unscrupulous individuals using the misnomer of immigration consultants are tarring the immigrant communities of Canada. These traders of human flesh who prey on the unfortunate cause irreparable human sufferings to individuals and families who succumb to their promises.
One individual who brings this issue into sharp focus is Joe Rafael, who plies his trade on the Portuguese community. This individual had his name added to the security handbook by the Immigration Minister under the previous Government. Last year the RCMP laid charges and his case is still pending. However, he continues to ply his trade in human beings.
This individual continues to give others the perception that he is untouchable, and the Liberal controlled other place is encouraging the rest of them since it is refusing to pass Bills C-55 and C-84. Therefore, while the country waits for our laws, the Minister should use Section 95(M) of the Immigration Act to rid Canada of these vermin.


AEROSPACE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that Mr. Lucien Bouchard, who is running in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, has decided to look after the Montreal region instead. I was delighted to hear Mr. Bouchard say that he would use all his political clout to get the space agency and that we could count on his friend.
However, Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, we are known by the company we keep. The fact that Mr. Bouchard is a friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) bothers me, because
the Prime Minister has deceived senior citizens with false promises, has deceived our families, the sick and Canadians in general, and now Mr. Bouchard, who is running in Lac-Saint-Jean, thinks the people of Montreal are going to believe that!
Mr. Speaker, I think we should tell Mr. Bouchard to mind his own business and deal with the problems in Lac-Saint-Jean before making any promises he won't be able to keep.


KAHNAWAKE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the problem with cigarette sales in Kahnawake goes back a number of years. Negotiations started several months ago between the Government of Quebec and Mohawk representatives, but Quebec is still waiting for a proposal from the Mohawks.
The approach taken by the Quebec Minister, Mr. Savoie, when the road blocks were set up, and his role in subsequent negotiations was most welcome. Thanks to the Minister, there were no unfortunate incidents and there was no violence in Kahnawake.
However, the problem with the Mohawks has yet to be settled, and we cannot tolerate unlawful sales on their territory. Today, the governments of Canada and Quebec are to negotiate with them to reach an agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that these negotiations are difficult and complex, but they are necessary.


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, now that the International Labour Organization has ruled that Bill 19, passed by the British Columbia Government, is overtly restrictive and unacceptable in a free and democratic society, it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to meet with Premier Vander Zalm to have the Bill withdrawn as soon as possible.
The Bill severely tips the balance in contract negotiations towards employers and robs trade unions of the right to collective bargaining without government interference. It virtually eliminates any opportunity of developing an atmosphere of positive and healthy relations between labour and management in the Province of British Columbia.
June 8, 1988

Since the federal Government interacts with the ILO on behalf of the provinces, it is now appropriate and necessary for it to intervene with the British Columbia Government to ensure that the spirit and substance of the ILO decision are implemented in full. The future of progressive labour-management relations in British Columbia now lies with our Prime Minister and I urge him to act expeditiously.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, national press comment of last week was to the effect that dioxin levels are 10 times worse at the Niagara site. This increase occurred over the past two years alone, according to the latest of many studies. Niagara residents and the millions who use the Niagara/Great Lakes for drinking water are concerned and upset. They are looking to the Government for action, solutions, and money.
Last week the Government announced a massive $100 million plus for the lower St. Lawrence River clean-up. It is well needed and well done. Great for that region. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) said in Montreal that the St. Lawrence River has been the subject of countless studies and it was time to act. I agree. It is exactly the same for the Niagara. There have been countless studies, and unacceptable pollution has been well identified. Action and federal money are needed now.


AIDS DISEASE-FEDERAL FUNDING
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real shame that people have to burn a Minister in effigy before they get action on an issue as serious as AIDS. However, the pleas and entreaties of the Opposition and thousands of people across the country have finally borne fruit. We are expecting the Minister to announce today a $129 million grant over five years, including $48 million for public education, $35 million for research, $20 million for innovative community projects, $10 million for training in health, and $6 million for international activities.
However, I ask why the Minister is afraid to make this announcement in the House. Why is he, as we say in the jargon, low-balling it? Is it because he has no problem talking to Canadians about health concerns like smoking and family violence, but for some reason he cannot even deal with the word AIDS? He should follow the example of the Premier of Ontario who has shown some leadership in talking to our
young people and our communities about this dreaded disease. He did not hide in a small group and make an announcement hoping that no one would hear about it.
Canadians should hear. We need public education if we are going to stop AIDS. I congratulate those groups who finally forced the Minister, hopefully, to wake up when he makes his announcement in about 45 minutes.


AUTO PACT-POSSIBLE SCENARIO
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, here is an interesting scenario. Assume that the Liberals and the NDP secured a slight majority after the next election-heaven forbid-and Prime Minister Turner sent Trade Minister Broadbent to Washington to tear up the trade agreement...
"Mr. President... er . . . ah . . . ooh . .. er ... my bosses, Prime Minister Turner and Shirley Carr, told me to tear up this trade agreement..." RIP, RIP, RIP "Good-day Mr. President".
"Wait, hold on" said the President. The President took a copy of the Auto Pact from his desk and tore it into shreds. "Goodbye Mr. Broadbent".
The next day the Liberal-Socialist coalition was thrown out of office.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's support for Chairman John Crow and the Bank of Canada's high interest rate policy in the name of curbing inflation is strangely reminiscent of the Diefenbaker Government's support of Bank of Canada chairman James Coyne's actions in the early 1960s.
What will the future hold for this Government which is not listening to the many voices calling out for lower interest rates? Interest rates shot up twice in the last two weeks alone.
The Government's policy of pushing our interest rates up causing the value of our dollar to rise is jeopardizing the competitiveness of many of our exports, particularly paper and lumber. In terms of the forest industry alone, the 81-cent dollar will result in a 1988 sales revenue loss of around $900 million.

June 8, 1988
Oral Questions
Given that a number of key leaders in forestry and mining, the Premiers of Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, Canadians renewing mortgages, the New Democratic Party, and many others are calling for lower interest rates, the Government must change its present course of making the people pay, before the country is driven off the precipice into the next depression.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, recently more than 100,000 tonnes of hot, stinking toxic waste from Italy were dumped in Nigeria in containers which were so hot that workers wearing rubber gloves burnt their hands when trying to handle them.
Nigeria is the very country which sponsored a resolution against such action. That resolution was adopted by the Organization of African Unity. Nigeria is the present recipient of these pollutants from the United States and Europe.
Canada must lead the way in bringing a halt to this practice of the poorer countries of Africa being prepared to receive the pollutants of other nations on the basis of a cash return. The returns in terms of health are going to be horrendous.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
1985 GANDER AIR CRASH-FBI INVESTIGATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly, in this House, asked the Government for a new investigation into the Gander air disaster of December 12, 1985, that killed 256 people. The Government has repeatedly responded that we should wait for the final report of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board has been deprived of crucial information on which to base a reliable report.
For instance, through Access to Information in the United States it has been determined that the FBI was sufficiently convinced of the possibility of an on-board explosion that it launched a world-wide investigation.
Is the Government aware that the FBI conducted this worldwide investigation and questioned pilots and ground crews everywhere this ill-fated aircraft landed? Is the Government further aware that 239 of the 289 pages of evidence ensuing
from this investigation were withheld, considered too dangerous to the national security of the United States to be released?
How can the Government accept any report from the Canadian Aviation Safety Board that does not include an examination of this FBI report?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague opposite just returned from Washington with some information. We would be more than delighted to meet with him and take any information he has which will assist us in the CASB investigation.


REQUEST THAT ROYAL COMMISSION BE APPOINTED
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board would be working on a final report when it lacks so much vital information.
The pilot activated an engine fire extinguisher before impact. That evidence is not in the report. The pilot activated the master fire warning light before impact. That evidence is not available to the Board.
The FBI, according to its own documentation, was denied access to the crash site. A Major General in the U.S. Army tried to order a bulldozing of the entire crash site the day following the crash, before any investigation could take place.
My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. How can the Government contemplate accepting a report that excludes the opinions of the four aviation experts on the Board, that excludes the autopsy reports, that excludes the eye witness accounts, and that excludes any explanation why a CID inspector was on that aircraft, armed, because "he was transporting evidence to be used in a criminal trial in the United States"?
Will the Government appoint a Royal Commission with special powers to examine all of the evidence that is available?


Blaine Allen Thacker: With great respect to my colleague opposite, he knows that the final report has not been made. An interim report is out and all parties are making representations on that.


Mr. Boudria:: Not all parties.


Blaine Allen Thacker: A final report will then be presented and at that time the Government will make the appropriate choices.
It is also true that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board has a process with an internal separate body to investigate these accidents. We surely want that process to be respected because, after all, it was set up by the previous administration.
June 8, 1988


STATEMENTS MADE BY CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, on December 12, the day of the crash, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Robert Sims, said: "We have no indication of explosions prior to the crash or of hostile action".
On December 12, the day of the crash, White House spokesman, Larry Speakes, said: "No evidence of sabotage or an explosion in flight".
On December 12, the day of the crash, our Minister of Transport said that "we have no indication at all foul play took place".
On December 12, the day of the crash, the U.S. Defence Department said: "There was no evidence of sabotage".
The question that comes to mind in the wake of this instant wave of denials is obvious. How was it possible before there was any investigation at all for the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States to make such emphatic and identical declarations? Was it because the Government of Canada was acting in consort with the Pentagon?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Nonsense.


Mr. Holtmann:: Get serious.


George Baker: Does the Minister not realize that unless he appoints a Royal Commission or judicial inquiry the Government will be seen to be part of a cover-up to the real cause of the crash in Gander?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Opposition, as they often do, are trying to anticipate a result to get some political benefit themselves.
We have a lawful and legitimate process that takes it out of the political realm and puts it into the hands of professional investigators, supervised by a board. I think we should respect that process that Parliament has set up and which has served us very well.


CANADIAN AVIATION SAFETY BOARD-REPORT OF DISSENSION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary just told Parliament that we should respect a professional investigation conducted by an independent board. The former Minister of Transport, the Member for St. John's West, retained one John Sopinka, recently named to the Supreme Court of Canada, to investigate the operation of the independent professional board to which the Parliamentary Secretary just referred.
In a report given to the former Minister of Transport on February 3, 1988, Mr. Sopinka referred to division and conflict within the Board, between the Board Chairman and the Executive Director of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. He said this:
Oral Questions
The result of this dissension is that many members of the Board feel powerless to carry out their mandate. On occasion some of the Board members have been unable to obtain investigation of facts which they consider essential in order to carry out their function.
Given the evidence brought forward to the House by the Member for Gander-Twillingate, and given this damning indictment of the operation of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how he can refuse today to grant a full public commission of inquiry into the tragic event that led to the loss of so many lives in Gander, Newfoundland?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is true there has been a bit of dissension within the CASB, but it is also true, and my friend opposite knows, that the next major initiative of the Government is a Transportation Accident Investigation Board which will complete the whole reorganization of transportation. It will leave the NTA with economic regulatory reform. It will leave the Minister with the minimum safety requirements, and there will be a new Transportation Accident Investigation Board for air, rail, and marine, which will independently investigate any accidents.
It will have the appropriate powers and the appropriate division of responsibility between the board and the professional investigators.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary is an admission that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board was incompetent to carry out a proper investigation, an admission that conflict existed and that the work of the Board was not being done. That is the report of Mr. Sopinka, now named to the Supreme Court of Canada.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Brian Vincent Tobin: In
addition to the reference to the operation of the Board and the conflict within the Board, Mr. Sopinka went on to say in his report to the former Minister of Transport this year, just a few months ago:
Finally the view in the industry is that the competence of the investigators and the quality of their investigations and reports has deteriorated in recent years. Some feel that there is insufficient investigation of human factors and that the board lacks technical expertise ...
Given this report by John Sopinka to the former Minister of Transport in February, and given the information and evidence brought to the House today by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, I again ask the Deputy Prime Minister, a former Minister of Transport, given his own statements in 1979, that whenever there was a question, whenever there were mysterious circumstances, whenever there was a lack of public confidence, he called for a full public inquiry, will he call a full public inquiry into this whole sorry mess and tragic loss of life?

June 8, 1988
Oral Questions


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, our colleague opposite has shown his usual great imagination in framing his question and preamble. The answer lies in the Transportation Accident Investigation Board.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, come on, that's ridiculous.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The interesting point is whether the Opposition will stall that new board and delay and filibuster-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Felix Holtmann: That's what they will do.


Blaine Allen Thacker: -or will the Opposition give us that Bill in one day, because that will solve the problems.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WORDING OF PROPOSED U.S. LEGISLATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It involves his Chief of Staff, Mr. Burney, and the free trade agreement. The proposed wording of the free trade legislation, as jointly drafted by the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, includes a clause pertinent to the interim period during which time a working group of Canadians and Americans is to determine the issue of subsidization. The wording is:
Any U.S. industry may petition USTR-
That is the United States Trade Representative.
-if it competes directly with imports subsidized by the Canadian
Government and is likely to experience a deterioration of its competitive
position before the working group develops more effective rules and disciplines
concerning the use of Government subsidies.


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister is paying attention even if some of his back-benchers are not. The clause goes on to say that very specific action may be taken against Canadian exports in the interim.
Was Mr. Burney sent to Washington this morning to meet with representatives in the U.S. to discuss very specifically this proposed wording in the U.S. legislation, because it appears to single out Canada for special unfavourable action during the interim period, giving U.S. industry additional weapons to use against Canadian exports? Is that the reason Mr. Burney was dispatched?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason. The reason is for an opportunity for Mr. Burney, as agreed, to compare notes with the
American administration with respect to our obligations to bring forward legislation before our respective Legislatures, and an undertaking to consult to ensure that, to the extent humanly possible, we avoid inadvertent incompatibilities with respect to the drafting of that legislation.
With respect to any specific question my hon. friend has based on that document, I would be happy to examine it. But the free trade agreement did establish a working group to develop over the next five years some effective rules for dealing with trade distorting subsidies. In the meantime we have improved our security of access through a binding bi-national dispute settlement mechanism.
I am not sure if that deals directly with the question my hon. friend raised on substance or not, but I would be happy to examine the document and respond with greater precision.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not expect that it would be unreasonable to expect the Prime Minister to have before him the particular clause that I am referring to, or even conceivably the detailed knowledge of that particular clause. Since Mr. Burney is involved and he is the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, and there is a wire story that is just now out alluding to Mr. Burney's trip being related to the question that I just asked, I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will deal with this in general terms.
Has he discussed in his office with Mr. Burney, or with the Minister who is responsible for trade, a possible interpretation of this clause that would give the United States additional powers vis-a-vis Canadian industry that could be used in an unfavourable way against Canadian industry during the next five-year period until the issue of subsidies is settled? That is the story that is out. The wording which I have just quoted is potentially quite alarming. Is the Government concerned about that issue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks whether we discussed this matter and whether Mr. Burney was dispatched in regard to the question raised. The answer is no.
We assume that the legislation that emanates on both sides will be consistent with the free trade agreement. It is further stated that any inconsistencies at variance with the free trade agreement would be unacceptable.
I can point out to my hon. friend that Mr. Burney is down there with a group of officials pursuant to an agreement-not an unusual one-reached at the Washington Summit a few months ago when I was there. It was agreed that at a mutually acceptable time prior to the Toronto Summit both sides would meet to try to compare notes in respect of ongoing trade matters and preparations for the Toronto Summit. That is
June 8, 1988

what my Chief of Staff is doing there with a group of Canadian officials today.


POSSIBLE EFFECT ON CANADIAN EXPORTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister for International Trade were here I would be asking him about this matter, since he is the Minister responsible for negotiations. It has already been conceded that there are some real concerns about what has emerged from Washington in recent weeks, but the Minister has decided to hold off complaining until after the deal is finished, and then take a countervailing action if necessary.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Minister of Finance-


Mr. McDermid:: He didn't say that.


John Edward Broadbent: That is exactly what he said. So pay attention to what he said. Just try it.


Mr. Nystrom:: McDermid, take a valium.


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, since he is obviously interested in the trade deal, has his Department had a look at this proposed clause which has been agreed to, Article 1907, by both the U.S. Senate and the House? Is it the interpretation of the Finance Department that this gives additional weapons to U.S. industry that do not even exist now in terms of existing relations between Canada and the U.S., and if acted upon could single out Canadian exports for special targeting during the next five-year period? Has the Department of Finance expressed any concern about this?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker-


John Edward Broadbent: Thanks!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I understand the question is to the Minister of Finance, but it is exactly the same as the one that was addressed to me.


John Edward Broadbent: No. I asked him if his officials were looking into it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The officials work for the Government of Canada. As the Leader of the Government of Canada, I have already informed the Leader of the NDP that that was not the reason why Mr. Burney was dispatched.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The question was asked. I have provided the answer. I am happy to provide it again, and give my hon. friend those assurances.
Oral Questions


CONTENT OF U.S. IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question on this matter.
Two weeks ago we asked the same question in the House of the Minister for International Trade, considering the fact that the United States legislation implementing the Canada-U.S. trade deal was introducing a brand new system of trade action that would be used to harass Canadian exporters by defining a subsidy, monitoring, and giving the President greater discretion and freedom of action. We thought we had some satisfaction that, finally, the Government was responding by sending Mr. Burney. I now hear the Prime Minister saying that that is not the reason why Mr. Burney is there.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this. Considering that the U.S. legislation that has been accepted by both the Congress and the Senate has stated clearly that there will be a brand new process for monitoring Canadian exports, determining subsidies and taking unilateral action, why does the Prime Minister not instruct Mr. Burney this afternoon while he is in Washington to tell the U.S. officials that that is totally unacceptable, and we will not accept that kind of legislation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, why would the Hon. Member say that I had indicated that that is not the reason why Mr. Burney is there?


Lloyd Axworthy: Because you said so.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I said quite the contrary, that Mr. Burney was there both on trade related matters, as agreed, in answer to a question by the Leader for the NDP, and on matters relating to the Toronto Summit. Clearly, if there are matters that arise the Chief of Staff and trade officials will be dealing specifically and helpfully with them.
My hon. friend will not be surprised if, in terms of the congressional procedures, irritants and difficulties arise in such a complex undertaking. It is our responsibility to ensure that whatever they are they are consistent with the free trade agreement. Failing that, they would not be applicable.
Mr. Burney will of course be dealing with matters of that nature, and I so indicated.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND SECURITY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
We have the clear legislative language that will set up this new system for taking trade action against Canada. We have the U.S. administration saying that the dispute settlement mechanism is unconstitutional, unless the President has the opportunity to interfere in it, thereby politicizing that dispute settlement mechanism.
Concerning those two major points, I ask the Prime Minister this. Will he give a guarantee to the House today that he will

June 8, 1988
Oral Questions
not force through trade legislation on the floor of the House, as the Minister says, within five days, until we have had a clear and unmistakable assurance that there is nothing in the U.S. trade Bill that will contravene that agreement or that will ask the Canadian Parliament to put at risk the sovereignty and security of this country, because the U.S. is taking major advantage without providing any kind of reaction or change by the Government? Why are you asking this Parliament to pass a blank cheque?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: The Government is not doing anything of the sort. The Hon. Member in his preamble made three points. All of them were totally incorrect and misleading. He stands there and says that we are trying to ram through this legislation in five days.


Lloyd Axworthy: Five days of debate, that is ramming through.


John Horton McDermid: In our system of Government, and the Hon. Member has been around here long enough to know, there are various steps that a Bill goes through. The first step is first reading, which we have had. The second step is second reading. Then it goes into committee, and then into report stage. That is not all taking five days.
The Hon. Member knows that and he should not be spreading that garbage around the country.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Yesterday, when my Leader asked the Minister responsible for the Post Office about the closure of the post office in Topley, British Columbia, the Minister responded by saying that the people served by these post offices are getting better service today, and that situation will continue in the future.
I want to ask the Minister today about Bloomfield Station, New Brunswick, where the post office was closed on October 31, 1987. The people of that community now have to travel 12 kilometres to another community to receive postal service. The Atlantic division of Canada Post has supplied to the contractor who delivers the mail to the superboxes a propane torch to be able to open those mailboxes when there is a north-east wind blowing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: I would like to ask the Minister if that is his idea of better service for rural Canada.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, since I did not get any prewarning of that question of course I cannot answer it. But I can answer about Topley, British Columbia, which matter was raised by his Leader yesterday.
The Postmistress sold the store which contained the post office to her daughter. Canada Post tried to get the daughter to accept a retail post office-


John Edward Broadbent: For $1,200 a month less.


Mr. Andre:: The daughter refused. On May 31, Canada Post signed to have a retail postal outlet with the Whispering Pines Motel. The service is to start July 1. In the interim the group mailbox service is being provided.
Previously in that post office it received revenues of $8,000 a year but it was costing $22,000 a year.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: That kind of thing perhaps makes sense to the New Democrats, but it does not make sense to anybody with any common sense.


REQUEST THAT RURAL POSTAL SERVICE BE IMPROVED
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister, and it isn't funny.
When the Government has reached the stage where it is paying for full-page adds in the media to defend a postal policy that is a disaster for rural Canada, isn't it time to take the "torch" away from Calgary East and Canada Post and give rural Canada a decent chance of having a good postal service?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I understand from press reports that the CLC has financial problems. It is having to lay off employees, something which Canada Post is not doing. In spite of that, the CLC is taking $2 million of its members' fees and using that money on a campaign opposing Canada Post.
If the Hon. Member is really concerned about equity and fairness, he ought to come to the defence of the employees, the union members of the Post Office, whose moneys are being taken and inappropriately and quite possibly illegally being spent to harass the Post Office with these protests.
I can understand the Hon. Member's frustration because there have been a couple of polls in Manitoba, one in terms of users of franchise operations which shows a 94 per cent approval rating, and another poll of rural outlets which were converted to retail postal outlets where the approval rating is
June 8, 1988

86 per cent. With that kind of an approval rating, I can understand why the Member is so frustrated at what is happening.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare or his representative. We certainly welcome the Minister's $40 million initiative to fight family violence, including $22 million for new spaces for short-term emergency housing for abused women and children.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: There already are a number of agencies across the country providing crisis housing, many of which are having difficulty meeting their ongoing operating expenditures.
What provisions have been made under this new program to ensure adequate operating moneys for these new shelter spaces, and if these funds would be dependent upon provincial cost sharing, what assurances does the Minister have that the provinces will pay their fair share to ensure the success of the program?


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the Hon. Member for Capilano mentioned the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
It's good news for all Canadians. The federal Government has decided to take the lead on this issue, and the Hon. Member's question was about how the costs will be shared. As far as construction of new shelter spaces is concerned, the federal Government, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, will be able to pay the full cost.
Maintenance costs, however, come under the Canada Assistance Plan, and the federal Government will pay its share, which is 50 per cent of the cost.
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SOVIET AND CANADIAN MEMBERS OF THE POLAR BRIDGE EXPEDITION
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the nine Soviet and four Canadian members of the Polar Bridge Expedition who completed their 90-day trek from the shores of the Soviet Arctic to Ellesmere Island National Park in Canada on June 1 via the North Pole.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday we heard that the Government will not provide the money for second-stage housing for battered women and their children.
The Minister responsible for the status of women admitted yesterday that some women must escape to short-term shelters again and again after being forced to return to an abusive home by the lack of any alternatives. How can the Prime Minister justify this lack of funding for a long-term alternative to a life of pain, humiliation and fear, especially when his Government has cut 25,000 social housing units this year?


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, today the Hon. Member opposite is criticizing the quite considerable efforts made by this Government. If the previous Government had done the same, Mr. Speaker, we would not have the situation we have now. At the present time, we have 1,100 units in Canada to alleviate this problem. Yesterday, the Government announced it was adding 500 new housing units to the existing "bank" and that the new units would be financed with funds currently available to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, so that construction can proceed as soon as possible.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to point out that although these new units are very welcome, this is short-term housing. The problem is with second stage housing, and there are only 12 units per province.


OPPORTUNITY FOR ABUSIVE LIVING PARTNER TO LEAVE CONJUGAL HOME
Lucie Pépin: My supplementary is this: I wonder why the Government doesn't introduce a policy that would oblige husbands or spouses who abuse their wives to seek shelter outside the couple's home and undergo compulsory

June 8, 1988
Oral Questions
therapy. Why not oblige husbands to leave home instead of putting the onus on battered wives?


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, in the budget announced yesterday, certain funds will be allocated to the Department of Justice, to the Solicitor General's Department, in an attempt to respond to certain other needs.
I would like to mention a few statistics, Mr. Speaker. The average number of days for shelter stays in this country is fourteen days. All things considered, we can say that with the number of housing units available at the present time, 57,000 individuals can be assisted annually. With the housing bank, we expect 25,000 additional spaces will be available and perhaps better services for all concerned.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the absence of the Minister of State for Finance since the Minister has a direct responsibility and a legislative one for the benefit and welfare of consumers.
It is reported that the Minister of State for Finance is ready to embrace the NDP proposal in the bank service charges report-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: -for a financial services ombudsman who will be accessible to all consumers through a toll free number from coast to coast.
The Minister for Consumer Affairs has responsibility for consumers and he talks to the Minister of State for Finance. Is the Minister also prepared to support, in his discussions with the Minister of State for Finance, the NDP's further proposal that a financial services ombudsman ought to be independent and autonomous, someone who would combine the functions of referee and advocate? Is he prepared to support that proposal?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall ever seeing this Government embracing the NDP. I don't know what the Member was thinking about, and I do not think my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, did. Let's keep our distance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: I think the Hon. Member is referring to the report in The Toronto Star today about an interdepartmental committee review. That interdepartmental committee review covered a number of things. It covered disclosure of fees in respect of opening accounts, the issue of pre-notification and a number of options like that, not what the Hon. Member has just referred to.
I commented on this in the House on Monday. We are in the course of looking at this committee report. We have indicated we welcome the report, but when we are ready to make announcements as to precisely what elements of the report we will be accepting, we will be advising the House.


FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Minister of Finance does not want to claim paternity for this recommendation of the NDP. He has embraced our minimum tax recommendation, and he has been known to embrace certain NDPers personally.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain!


John R. Rodriguez: Politically speaking.
It is also recorded that bureaucrats in the Minister of Finance's office are objecting to many of the good ideas, proposals and recommendations of the Finance Committee. I might point out to the Minister of Finance that those are supported by Members from all sides of the House. Will the Minister support the concept of a free vote on the Private Member's Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for York- Scarborough which incorporates the recommendations of the Finance Committee's report? I can assure him that we on this side of the House will support that kind of an initiative.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night is my nomination meeting and I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member would not talk about me personally embracing any New Democrats.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think the important thing about this committee report is that the report has been done in a non-partisan way and there are some good elements in the report which we want to study carefully before we accept or reject them. I know the Hon. Member is anxious that we move on this, but it has been only two days since the report was tabled, and I think that if he exercises his normal patience and forbearance we will be able to have a response to this report and we will advise him through the House in the ordinary course when that happens.
June 8, 1988


PUBLIC WORKS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and concerns the allegations of Mr. Glen Kealey of the M1COT office tower project in Hull. Yesterday in the House the Minister said that Mr. Kealey had been speaking to the RCMP and that the matter was under investigation.
I spoke to both the RCMP and Mr. Kealey who will be giving a statement to the RCMP only next week which may then result in an investigation. Can the Minister explain the contradiction between his answer and the facts? Who is investigating? It is not the RCMP. Is it an internal investigation of Public Works, or is it simply the investigation by Mr. Jarvis of the Conservative Party referred to in today's newspapers?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member can see, the Minister of Public Works is not in the House. He is in Montreal on government business.
I would like to repeat what the Minister said yesterday and what is my understanding today which is that, whether Mr. Kealey has spoken to the RCMP or not, the RCMP in fact is investigating the situation, and as a result it would be inappropriate to make any further statements in this regard.


MICOT PROJECT-PROMOTER KEALEY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in his reply yesterday, the Minister also tried to discredit Mr. Kealey's testimony, saying he had been terminated as promoter of the MICOT project. Why did the Minister forget to tell the House yesterday that Mr. Kealey was a member in good standing of the Conservative Party, a member of the Conservative Party's executive in the riding of Hull-Aylmer, a member of the 500 Club, a party organizer and owner of one-third of the shares in the MICOT project...


Jean-Claude Malépart: A friend of Brian!


Don Boudria: ... a project worth $157 million. Was it just an oversight?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of Public Works, myself, nor anyone on this side of the House is trying to cover up anything, as opposed to what the previous administration used to do in these instances. The main reason the Minister did not make any references in that regard yesterday is because he is respecting the review by the RCMP that is taking place at this time. I hope the Hon. Member would do likewise.
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


MAGAZINE'S TESTS OF SAMURAI JEEP-TYPE VEHICLE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Tests by the U.S. Consumer Reports magazine have determined that the Samurai, a four-wheel-drive jeep-type vehicle made by Suzuki, overturns on dry pavement at speeds of less than 40 miles per hour and it has asked the U.S. Government to order it to be taken off the market.
Since this vehicle is being marketed to young people and has already resulted in eight deaths in the United States because of rollover accidents, will the Minister take steps on behalf of Canadian consumers who are unaware of its defects to have the Suzuki taken off the road, and compensate those persons who have bought these clearly defective vehicles?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that study by the American consumers' union, but I hear the representation of the Hon. Member and I will certainly have it investigated by my officials.


REQUEST THAT VEHICLE BE REMOVED FROM USE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we have spoken to the Canadian Automobile Association. It has informed us that it wants all drivers of this type of jeep utility vehicle to be warned that the vehicle is inherently unsafe. Despite this risk, consumers are unknowingly buying these Samurais and despite their being the only vehicles rejected by Consumer Reports ratings in the past 10 years.
Will the Minister intercede on behalf of these consumers and get the Samurai off the road, and at the same time ask why Transport Canada does not have a stability testing standard for these kinds of vehicles?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first answer, I hear the representation of the Hon. Member. I could have had a more complete answer for him today if he had given me some notice that he intended to ask this kind of a detailed question. However, I hear his representation and I will refer it to officials for appropriate action.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec we are going back to the time of Duplessis. As you know, there will a by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean, and while the Tory candidate makes announcements in Montreal,

June 8, 1988
Oral Questions
the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, according to the press release I've got here, is expecting to announce tomorrow that the federal Government will allocate $440 million to Quebec for the various regions over a five-year period. I wish the Minister would explain why the Western provinces, and I have nothing against them personally, received $1.2 billion from the federal Government and the Altantic provinces $1 billion, while Quebec is getting only $440 million?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean in connection with a by-election involving Lucien Bouchard. He forgot to mention that yesterday, Premier Bourassa of Quebec said that Mr. Bouchard would be an important Quebec presence in Ottawa and that obviously, he hoped he would be elected, and I hope so too.
I agree that we have made some very important decisions in favour of regional economic development in Western Canada and the Atlantic provinces, and we will certainly do the same tomorrow, to the great satisfaction of Mr. Bourassa and, who knows, of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


An Hon. Member:: Defeated candidates don't count!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my friend Robert Bourassa may be right when he says that Mr. Bouchard would be a good representative for Quebec in Ottawa, but he overlooked the fact that Mr. Bouchard is running in Lac-Saint-Jean and that he would not be a good representative for Lac-Saint-Jean in Ottawa. What they need is a guy from Lac-Saint-Jean, not a guy from Meech Lake!


CREDITS ALLOTTED TO QUEBEC-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is as follows, and I hope the guy from Lac-Saint-Jean will take care of Lac-Saint-Jean ... I would like to know, and the Prime Minister failed to answer my question, it is just that $440 million means less than $100 million annually, while under the old agreement, Quebec was to receive $300 million annually. Is that what you call a strong Minister from Lac-Saint-Jean, someone who is going to make Quebec lose $200 million annually? Those are the kind of zeros we don't need!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Hon. Member, I feel I must point out that Lucien Bouchard, a great Canadian and a great Quebecer, was born in Saint-Coeur-de-Marie in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean. He is a valid representative of that riding here in the House, and very shortly he will be able to speak with great pride about his roots here in the House.
I think the document that will be tabled tomorrow, and the project to be announced by the Minister tomorrow in Quebec City, with the collaboration of the Government of Quebec, are important to Quebec's economic development, especially that of the outlying regions that were seriously neglected by the Liberal Government. Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to say ...

I want to tell the Hon. Member, who showed up unannounced yesterday in my office with a sack of something, harassing my receptionist, Betty Green, this. She told the Hon. Member to stick it in his ear, which is the best advice he has received in a long time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. As the Minister is well aware, his Department spends approximately $1 billion a year on procurement in the west. However, this is approximately one-third of what the west deserves on a proportionate basis.
The western directorate of the Department indicated in Calgary that the Department is eager to add to its procurement list of expenditures. Can the new Minister indicate what steps he is prepared to take to ensure that this imbalance is corrected?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in fairness, the west was ignored by previous Governments for some 20 years and there is a lot of catching up to do.
The policy and goal backed by this Government are to bring fairness and equal opportunity to all regions of Canada. Some progress has been made. The west received a 20 per cent increase in procurement orders from last year to this year. My colleagues and I, particularly the Minister responsible for western diversification, are working on building on that success. We hope to be making some pretty good announcements in the very near future so that we can meet our goal of bringing fairness and equality to all regions of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise that given the time we will have to close off Question Period.
I have had a request from the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester to address the House very briefly on a personal point of privilege.
June 8, 1988


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday of this week I will celebrate my 31st anniversary as a Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: It therefore pleases me that today that I have had the only blot on my reputation as a Member of Parliament removed by The Ottawa Citizen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: This has never been a partisan political issue. It has been a personal battle between myself and The Ottawa Citizen over the offensive words contained in a February 12th, 1985, article in that paper which states that by visiting a bar in Lahr, West Germany, I had posed a risk to my security and thus the nation's security. Those statements and others relating to security caused me to resign my portfolio for, in my opinion, I could not perform my responsibilities as Minister of National Defence with that cloud, through those words, hanging over my head.
In my view, then and today, that story severely damaged my reputation and libelled me. The fact it has taken three years and four months and many thousands of dollars on my part, and over $1 million on the part of The Ottawa Citizen by its own admission, to remove those offensive words indicates the awesome power of the media when they determine they are not going to admit to an obvious libel. The fact they would spend over $1 million to stay out of court on the main issue of the libel makes it absolutely obvious that they knew that by going to court they would have been found guilty of that libel.
However, what it has told me, and tells all Members of this House, is that the media, playing fast and loose with the reputations of Members of Parliament, can with their great wealth and awesome power prevent justice from being done. It is often said that justice delayed is justice denied. In my case that is certainly the fact.
If it had not been for my friends I could not have seen this matter through to this satisfactory conclusion. Without friends I would not have cleared my name. The Ottawa Citizen was prepared to use legal tactics to prolong the case by a further two years. That is the reason for the settlement. However, with the removal of the security implications, there is and was no story to write. I must thank Gerald Doucet for his assistance in putting forward an arrangement that allowed individual Canadians to contribute to my defence fund. The Government of Canada made no contribution to that fund.
Point of Order-Mr. Wilson
The Ottawa Citizen makes a point of stating there was no payment made by them to me in the settlement. I never sought financial gain from this libel action. I sought only to have my name cleared, and this has finally happened.
I must thank the Members of all Parties in this House, for they have been both kind and supportive of my efforts to clear my name. I must thank my family for their commitment throughout this ordeal, and it was an ordeal. I also must thank the many lawyers who gave me assistance in this libel action.
What we as Members of Parliament must now face is a concern for the ordinary Canadian who is libelled by the media. If I, with my friends, could not secure my day in court, what chance is there for the ordinary Canadian, if libelled, to secure his or her day in court? There cannot be two levels of justice in this nation, one for the rich and one for the not so rich. However, that in my view is what this libel action has been all about. It is not libel chill but the chilling impact of the awesome power of the media to do what they wish and, because of their wealth, prevent justice from being done.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ronald Mitton, the lawyer who handled my case in Nova Scotia from the beginning to the end. I am very relieved and pleased today to be standing in this House and being able to say to you, Sir, that I have cleared my name.
Thank you very much.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to express to all Hon. Members my appreciation for their courtesy in hearing the statement. I am sure that all of us can understand that on occasions like this there is perhaps justification for some flexibility in the usual application of the rules.


POINT OF ORDER
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) indicated that a certain taxpayer who is having some difficulties also had some difficulties with my office as his Member of Parliament. I want to make it clear in the House today that I am not his Member of Parliament, and he neither lives nor works in my riding. This person did contact my office. I believe that last Friday was the first time we heard from him, but I am not his Member of Parliament nor does he work in my riding.

June 8, 1988
Tabling of Documents



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 response to eight petitions numbered as follows: 332-4321, 332-4322, 332-4324, 332-4605, 332-4638, 332-4639, 332-4646 and 332-4679.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.}


Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-75, an Act to implement an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia on offshore petroleum resource management and revenue sharing and to make related and consequential amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.}



FILM PRODUCTS IMPORTATION ACT


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-134, an Act respecting the importation into Canada of film and related products.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Geoff Wilson: for leave to introduce Bill C-293, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (essential services).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in this day and age Canadian grain producers, indeed Canadians generally, have a right to expect that facilities within the control of the Government of Canada will operate smoothly, efficiently, and without interruption. Indeed, it is not only an expectation but a necessity.
This Bill would prohibit strikes and lock-outs in Crown corporations, transportation and communication undertakings within the legislative jurisdiction of Parliament, and by designated employees and essential services under the Public Services Staff Relations Act. Binding conciliation would be substituted as the remedy in the event of labour disputes.
I urge Hon. Members to support this initiative.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-294, an Act respecting the importation into Canada of film and related products.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Bill I am introducing today with respect to film products is in fact the draft Bill produced by the Department of Communications before the trade deal. My Bill would, as would have the Government's Bill, limit foreign companies to importing films which they had either financed or to which they held world rights. This would allow Canadian film distributors to add a modest 12 per cent to their small share of our own market.
The Minister promised this licensing arrangement in her original February, 1987 announcement. The Government
June 8, 1988

abandoned this policy at the trade deal bargaining table due to pressure from the United States film lobby.
This action shows the kind of humiliation Canadians are being subjected to as a result of this trade deal. The Government should be embarrassed that it has humiliated Canadians in this way. I urge Members of the House to support this Bill, the Government's original Bill, which is now my Private Members' Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 on behalf of a large number of constituents who are concerned that the present Government does not have a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States.
They believe that the trade deal negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty since it removes the power of the Canadian Government to control effectively foreign ownership of our economy, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, or to equalize the opportunities between the regions of Canada.
Therefore, they are calling upon 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.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions signed by the residents of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, who are extremely concerned that pursuant to Bill C-23 with regard to the northern tax benefit, which was passed on December 19, 1986, the Town of Yellowknife and the residents of Yellowknife have been discriminated against because their housing benefit is to be valued at what is stated fair market value. However, since there is a vacancy rate of zero per cent, and has been for over a decade in Yellowknife, it is very difficult to establish a fair market value.
Therefore, whereas no viable developed rental market exists in Yellowknife and no fair market value can be calculated, these petitioners call upon Parliament to treat Yellowknife the same as the remainder of the Northwest Territories for purposes of the tax treatment of housing benefits in prescribed areas.
Petitions


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present, according to Standing Order 106, a petition from a number of residents of Spadina and nearby ridings. The petitioners make two requests, one of which the Minister has promised to act upon but has not yet set a date. There has been no action on the other request.
The first request is that unmarried sons and daughters of all ages will be considered as members of the family class of immigrants and that married children and brothers and sisters in the assisted relative class would get 15 points instead of 10 points when assessed for immigration. That is the request upon which the Minister has promised to act but has not yet set a date.
The other request is with regard to the promise of the Minister of Justice two years ago to remove the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or more in order that both groups would have equal right to sponsor parents of every age.
Whereas these important promises have not yet been fulfilled, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon this House of Commons to ensure that the Government fulfills its promises now.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from a number of residents of Spadina and other ridings nearby who point out that the Conservative Government, without a mandate from the Canadian people, is proposing a free trade agreement with the United States which would undermine our sovereignty, hinder the economic development of Canada, and hinder the freedom of Canadian Governments to take economic measures, and has failed to obtain secure access to the American market. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of some Pentecostal assemblies. This petition contains more than 50 signatures, mostly by Canadians from the Turner Valley area.
Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception and at all stages of development, with the exception of the extremely rare situation when an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother.
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

June 8, 1988
Motions for Papers


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that question No. 331 will be answered today.


Ms. McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood): Has the Government prepared or commissioned any studies related to the
decommissioning of the proposed nuclear submarines and, if so, has the
Government identified any nuclear-disposal sites or estimated the costs
associated with this decommissioning?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Preliminary assessments of costs and risks associated with decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal have been initiated. Costs of decommissioning have been evolved to Class D standards (departmental planning approval stage) as required for this phase of the project by Treasury Board. Discussions have been initiated with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited on the subject which indicate that viable technical solutions are available. It is a well-known fact that Canada is in the forefront of waste disposal technology.
Differences in the French and British reactors and fuels make detailed studies of decommissionning counterproductive prior to selection of a country of origin. To put the subject into perspective, the first of the nuclear powered submarines for the Canadian Navy is scheduled for completion in 1986. Assuming a 25 year life expectancy, that first submarine would be decommissioned about 2021. The time frame is such that, once the country of origin has been selected there will be adequate time for the most detailed and complete studies to examine the various methods employed today and those in the development phase with a view to selecting the safest solution.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motions for the
Production of Papers, Nos. P-9 and P-10 in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). He evidently received notice and we had indications that he would be here. If there is no agent willing to act for him, we will let the matter drop and ask that Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the arguments given some days ago with respect to Bill C-130. In my view, they were excellent arguments.
I wish to advise Hon. Members that the Chair has reviewed all of the points of order relating to Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America. These points of order were raised by several Hon. Members on May 18, May 19, May 30, and again on June 1.
There has been a total of five and one half hours of procedural discussion on the various points raised and I hope that the House will bear with me, as this ruling is somewhat lengthy.
The arguments relate to five general themes: first, the acceptability of the Ways and Means motion relating to the Bill; second, the requirement for asking the House for leave to introduce a Bill based on the Ways and Means motion already adopted when a Royal Recommendation is attached to the Bill; third, the omnibus nature of the Bill; fourth, the fact that the title of the Bill does not list all the statutes to be amended by the Bill; and fifth, the issue that Bill C-130, the free trade Bill, seeks to amend certain Bills which have yet to be passed by the House or receive Royal Assent.
The Chair has decided to deal with the points of order from a thematic point of view for the sake of clarity. First, I will deal with the acceptability of the Ways and Means motion preceding the enabling legislation for the free trade agreement. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) made their interventions regarding this interesting procedural point on May 18 and May 19, 1988.

June 8, 1988



I should remind all Hon. Members and the public that is watching that Ways and Means is the procedure by which the House of Commons uses its time-honoured constitutional role in providing the Government of the day with the authority to raise revenue to meet national expenditures and to allow it to influence the economy.

The definition of the term "Ways and Means" can be found on page 99 of the Second Edition of the Precis of Procedure. It reads:
"Ways and Means" refers to the process by which the government obtains the resources necessary to meet its expenses, usually by changing the levels of taxation by imposing new taxes, continuing expiring taxes or extending the incidence of taxes.
Further, to quote Speaker Jerome on page 785 of the House of Commons Journals of May 19, 1978:
... a Ways and Means motion as the basis of a tax bill is the procedural device used to protect the financial initiative of the Crown.

Beauchesne's 5th Edition, paragraph 1 of Citation 516 refers to a Ways and Means motion as:
a necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax or an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already payers.

In Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, at page 821 is found a summary of items that are covered by a charge upon the people as follows:
... (1) the imposition of taxation, including the increase in rate, or extension in incidence, of existing taxation, (2) the repeal or reduction of existing alleviations of taxation such as exemptions or drawbacks, (3) the delegation of taxing power within the United Kingdom ...
In addition, Standing Order 84(1), (2), (10) and (11) provides the House with some direction, in that a Minister may table a Ways and Means motion at any time when such a motion is adopted without debate or amendment. Then a Bill based upon the motion's provisions may be introduced.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap argued that the Ways and Means motion relating to Bill C-130 was unnecessary. Careful scrutiny of the Minister's tabled motion, which is appended to the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, May 18, 1988, reveals the use of such words as "impose", "authorize the imposition", and "revise the provision respecting the imposition".
In the Speaker's view, these words can only be construed as coming under the general definition of a Ways and Means motion that I enunciated earlier.
The Hon. Member also quoted from Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, page 825, saying that motions, including provisions for the alleviation of taxation, are not subject to the rules of financial procedure. This is an interesting point. However, the reference is qualified by a particular practice used in the British Parliament with respect to their financial
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
procedures. A separate Ways and Means motion is often not necessary in the British House, as the general Ways and Means motion attached to their finance Bill is usually sufficient.
The British House has a procedure quite distinct from ours. Their Ways and Means motions are debatable and amendable, ours are not. It is difficult to compare the British practice to ours in terms of process.
Because our procedure does not provide for debate or amendment with respect to the substance of the Ways and Means motion, it is the Minister who decides whether it is sufficiently detailed and clear for Members to understand. But Members have the option of voting against it.
As the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has correctly indicated, examples can be found of Ways and Means motions that were both very brief and very detailed. The Chair said earlier that a reading of this motion does reveal the intention of the Minister to introduce a measure to impose or revise the imposition of certain charges upon the people resulting from the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America. Consequently, upon reviewing the Standing Orders and the Canadian precedents and practice, I am still of the opinion I expressed last May 18 when I stated, in part, at page 15588 of Hansard: "the Ways and Means motion of course is not dependent on the Chair accepting it." Under the orders, clearly, the Minister has the right to act.

The minister, in the tabling of his motion and in moving it for adoption, has followed the required procedure and has respected our practice.
There was another point raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap concerning the limits a Ways and Means motion imposes upon the Members at the committee stage. Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, at page 771, with further comments on pages 838 and 839, gives the general rule concerning amendments to Bills which are based upon Ways and Means motions, and it states:
... bills may, of course, be amended, either by a reduction of the amount of
incidence of a charge or by an increase in the stringency of the conditions or
qualifications to which it is subjected.
This guideline is expanded upon further in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citations 522 to 534 inclusive. Nevertheless, this rule would appear to be no more restrictive than that used for other types of Bills in that all amendments to any Bill must be relevant and within the scope of the said Bill.

Furthermore, whether a bill is based upon a Ways and Means motion or not, it would clearly be out of order to raise a charge beyond the ceiling authorized by the Crown as set out

June 8, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
in the Bill. I refer Hon. Members to citation 523 of Beau-chesne's 5th edition.

I must, therefore, declare that the Ways and Means motion relating to Bill C-130 was tabled at the appropriate time and its adoption stands as the necessary prerequisite to the introduction of the said Bill. I wish again to thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap for raising this particular matter and for providing the opportunity to clarify the Ways and Means process.
I will now deal with the second major issue, the necessity of asking the House for leave to introduce Bill C-130 before it was first read on May 24, 1988.

On that day, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) raised a point of order to question the procedural acceptability of proceeding to the first reading motion of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, before first asking the House for leave to introduce the Bill.
The Hon. Member argued that, even though Bill C-130 was based on a Ways and Means motion adopted by the House on May 19, the Government needed to ask for leave to introduce the Bill because of the Royal Recommendation accompanying it. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap concurred with the arguments raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier and pointed out that the precedents indicate that the motion for leave to introduce should be put to the House before the motion for first reading.

At that time the Chair allowed the objections of both Hon. Members and, because of the doubt I had concerning the procedure to be followed, I allowed the motion for leave to introduce the Bill to be put prior to putting the motion for first reading. I also undertook to consider the matter at length and to come back to the House with a reasoned comment on it with the intention of clarifying the complex and little understood matter. I think it would be appropriate at this time to give a detailed explanation of the procedure for the introduction of government Bills.
Generally, a Bill is introduced after a minimum of 48 hours notice. The introduction stage consists of putting to the House the question: "Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister shall have leave, or permission, to introduce the Bill?" No debate or amendment is permitted at this stage, but a recorded division on the motion may be demanded. Permission to introduce the Bill having been given, the question for first reading and printing is then proposed, again without debate or amendment, and a recorded division may also be demanded on this motion.
The same procedure for introduction and first reading applies to what is referred to as a money Bill. This is a Bill which involves a direct expenditure of a certain sum of public
money. Such a measure may not be introduced unless and until it is accompanied by the recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General as required by Standing Order 86(2), which reads as follows:
The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such Bill.
The Royal Recommendation has the authority of the Governor General given to her Government to spend money. As described earlier, the preliminary step in the introduction of Bills proposing an increased or extended charge upon the taxpayer, but not proposing to spend money, is the adoption of a Ways and Means motion which then becomes, as stated in Standing Order 84(11), an order to bring in a Bill or Bills based on the provisions of any such motion. No debate or amendment is permitted on the motion to concur in a Ways and Means motion, but a recorded division may be demanded. Upon concurrence with the motion, a second motion for the first reading of the related Bill may then be put to the House without leave to introduce being asked of the House.
Our practice is quite clear. There is no need to ask the permission of the House to introduce such a Bill once the Ways and Means motion has been adopted.
In summary, there is one set of rules relating to ordinary Bills, with or without Royal Recommendations, which require a motion for leave and a motion for first reading. There is a second set of rules relating to Ways and Means Bills which do not contain spending provisions. Such Bills require concurrence in the Ways and Means motion followed immediately by the motion for first reading of the Bill based thereon.
The matter becomes a little more complicated when a Bill, based on a Ways and Means motion, also contains provisions relating to certain expenditures requiring the Royal Recommendation, which is the case of Bill C-130. Such a Bill requires, on the one hand, the adoption of a Ways and Means motion in order for the House to proceed to the next step. On the other hand, because it is accompanied by a Royal Recommendation, the minimum 48 hours' notice must be given in the usual manner and leave must be granted by the House before proceeding to the first reading. Such a case triggers a double procedure, which was the source of my hesitation with respect to Bill C-130, when the House was in fact asked twice to proceed with the introduction of the Bill, once through the acceptance of a Ways and Means motion on May 19 and a second time on May 24 through the regular motion requesting leave to introduce the Bill.

The Chair has examined the precedents and the practice since the Standing Orders relating to Ways and Means were changed in 1968, and has determined that the procedure which was eventually followed on May 24, at the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, was indeed the correct one.
June 8, 1988



Faced with a similar difficulty on January 18, 1984, Speaker Francis had the following to say, which is found on page 526 of the Commons Debates:
..if a Bill based on a Ways and Means motion with spending clauses requires a recommendation by His Excellency, such Bills, as has been done in the past, should be placed on the Notice Paper with the Recommendation and later transferred to the Order Paper under Routine Proceedings when it can be introduced in the House and given first reading under our usual practice.

I must repeat that the procedure followed on May 19 and on May 24, that is the vote on the Ways and Means motion, followed by a separate second vote on the introduction of the Bill, followed by a third vote on first reading, was in accordance with Speaker Francis' ruling and the usual practice of the House.
The Chair would like to remind the House that the complexity and even the necessity of the procedure relating to Ways and Means has often been questioned in the past, for example, by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization in its first report presented to the House on December 19, 1985, respecting the Canadian budgetary process. Among other things the committee recommended that Ways and Means motions be abolished, and that tax changes announced at a time outside the budgetary process should be given first reading when they are announced. In its wisdom and in light of the committee's recommendations, the House may well wish to consider further the issues of Ways and Means, in particular in the case of a taxation Bill accompanied by a Royal Recommendation for certain expenditures, the necessity to go through two different procedures for introduction in the House.
These occurrences are infrequent but, unless and until the House decides to clarify this, the Chair will continue, out of an abundance of caution, to follow both procedures and seek twice the permission of the House before proceeding to the first reading stage on such Bills, as was done with Bill C-130 on May 24, even though logically leave to introduce such a Bill appears to be a redundant question.

Again, I must thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Suswap for allowing the Chair to give this explanation which, I sincerely hope, has been helpful in better understanding the procedure related to bills based upon Ways and Means motions.

Next, I should like to deal with the arguments that relate to the omnibus nature of Bill C-130.
The Hon. Members for Windsor West, Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and Kamloops-Shuswap argued on
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
May 30 that Bill C-130, because it seeks to amend 27 statutes, has gone, in the words of Speaker Lamoureux, "beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint".
The Hon. Member for Windsor West suggested that the ruling of Speaker Sauve in 1982 relating to the energy security Bill should not be used as guidance because it was "so brief as to be peremptory". He also referred to the outcome of the 1982 crisis over the energy security Bill whereby the Government proposed a motion dividing the Bill into several pieces of legislation and the House concurred with that proposal. He suggested that the Chair use that decision of the House to establish a precedent of splitting a Bill by a ruling of the Speaker.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap argued a parallel between the decision to split a resolution during the flag debate, made by then Speaker Macnaughton on June 15, 1964, and the splitting of this Bill. He referred to Citation 415(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which clearly empowers the Speaker to divide a motion which contains "two or more distinct propositions".
In attempting to resolve the issues relating to this Bill and omnibus Bills generally, I believe it might be useful to attempt first to define such a Bill. There appears to be no specific definition in the procedural authorities. The most exact definition the Chair could find and agree with is that given by the Hon. Member for Windsor West, which is found at page 15880 of Hansard for May 30, 1988, where he said the following:
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 Chair is grateful to the Hon. Member for Windsor West for those words. They have indeed assisted me greatly in arriving at a decision. I believe that his definition will stand the test of time and be useful to the House and future chair occupants for years to come.
[ Translation]
It might also be useful for the House to address the differences between the Energy Security Bill of 1982 and Bill C-130, now before the House.

In 1982, Bill C-94, an Act to implement the National Energy Program, was a Bill to enact, through several statutes, the policy of the then administration respecting national energy. The scope of that policy was set according to criteria and the parameters as determined by the Cabinet of the day. It met with considerable opposition because parts of the Bill or the policy were objectionable to many Members. The result of the ensuing crisis was the eventual splitting of the Bill by agreement of the House. I wish to underline that it was not by order of the Speaker.

June 8, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United Sates of America, as was pointed out by the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) is based on an international treaty between Canada and the United States already made public, and comprises enabling legislation required to make the agreement binding in law. The purpose of the Bill is to enact and implement the agreement. That is the single unifying thread that links all the apparent disparate provisions contained in the Bill and becomes its only object.
Interestingly, Bill C-130 creates no new statutes. The Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, however broad in scope it may be, clearly becomes the four corners of Bill C-130, and as such defines the content and scope of the Bill. There are no doubt many principles in the free trade agreement and some that Hon. Members may differ with, but in the opinion of the Chair the main principle of Bill C-130 is to give force of law to a treaty signed by two sovereign nations.
I believe the House would agree that it is not the role of the Speaker to play broker between two national governments and to decide how best such an agreement might be put to the House. Where would a Speaker begin to divide such a Bill? Which parts of the agreement are independent of the others? At which point does the agreement dissolve if split into too many pieces?
Your Speaker was not at the negotiation table. I would suggest to the House that the Government, which bears the responsibility for the outcome of these negotiations, must equally retain the full responsibility for the manner in which the agreement is presented to the House.
I have stressed these particular questions because I want Hon. Members to know that as your Speaker I spent many hours considering very carefully whether some of the arguments pressed upon me could practically be done.
Canada is unique in its use of omnibus Bills. Although the United Kingdom does adopt such Bills, its legislative practices are significantly different from ours, not least of all because of a much stricter control of time for debate on Bills. In Australia the practice appears to go the other way, that is, its procedures permit the grouping of related Bills for debating and voting purposes. For these reasons the Canadian House of Commons cannot readily rely on precedent elsewhere on these matters. I know that I was urged to look elsewhere. I again want to assure Hon. Members that that indeed was done.
The date when omnibus Bills were first introduced is not certain, but the practice seems to go back as far as 1888 when a private Bill was introduced to confirm two different railway agreements. The first time that a question was raised concerning the reasons why the Government chose to amend three Acts in one Bill was on April 2, 1953.

Omnibus bills are introduced by the Government for a variety of reasons. One of the most obvious is to expedite the passage of legislation. Another, is to group all the statutory amendments required for the implementation of a policy under the same bill as was the case in 1982 on Bill C-94, the Energy Security Bill.

In contrast to the reasons given by the Government for using omnibus legislation, the Opposition has argued against the acceptability of certain omnibus Bills. Among the objections cited were the lack of relevancy between the various parts of the Bill, the debate at second reading not addressing a single principle, and the lack of opportunity at second reading to vote in favour of some parts and against other parts of the Bill.

Canadian practice regarding omnibus bills has grown significantly over the last forty years. Rulings by Speakers on the admissibility of motions and on points of order have clarified some of the problems associated with omnibus bills.
Members have often referred, as did the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, to their ancient privilege to vote on each separate proposition contained in a complicated question. The following passage from page 389 of May's Twentieth Edition is used to support this argument:
The ancient rule that when a complicated question is proposed to the House, the House may order such question to be divided, has been variously interpreted at different periods ... In 1888, however, the Speaker ruled that two propositions which were then before the House in one motion could be taken separately if any Member objected to their being taken together.
Although this ruling does not appear to have been based on any previous decision, it has since remained unchallenged. A complicated question, however, can only be divided if each part is capable of standing on its own.
In Canadian practice, this concept is supported by a cornerstone ruling of Speaker Macnaughton on June 15, 1964, in which he concluded that the Canadian Speaker also has the authority to divide complicated motions. After examining precedents in Britain and Canada, he stated on pages 430 and 431 of the Journals:
To summarize our procedure, it can be said that no clear precedent concerning the dividing of a question can be found in our annals... In other words, this would appear to be an unprovided case and ordinarily, under such circumstances, reference is made to current procedure in the British House.
... Accordingly, it is my view that procedure which applies in this case is the current procedure used in the British House, one which perhaps has not been used too frequently but which nevertheless must be recognized, and if it is to be observed on this occasion it would appear that the question of the dividing of a complicated motion rests with the Chair.
... I 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.
June 8, 1988

Speakers following Allan Macnaughton have made it clear that the Chair's authority to divide complicated questions only applies to substantive motions and does not apply to motions which relate to the progress of Bills. As Speaker Jerome explained on May 11, 1977, on page 5522 of Hansard:
-there can be no doubt that a motion containing two or more substantive provisions is quite distinct from a procedural motion or a motion which is generally described as having only the effect of dealing with the progress of a Bill. The practice in respect of substantive motions has never been extended to those motions which relate to the progress of a Bill. 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, or 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.
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.
This conclusion had already been stated by Speaker Lamoureux on January 23, 1969, on page 617 of the Journals and was also echoed by Speaker Sauve on June 20, 1983, on pages 26537-8 of Hansard.
In conclusion, the Canadian practice regarding the authority of the Chair to divide questions has been reserved solely for substantive motions which contain more than one proposition, where Members object to their being taken together, and the Chair has determined it is possible to divide the motion into more than one distinct proposition.
While some Members may feel that Speaker Sauve's ruling in 1982 was too brief, one quote from that ruling seems to summarize the Chair's traditional position:
For my part, in the present circumstances, there seems little point in offering yet another opinion on a question so well addressed by my distinguished predecessors. The matter is there for all to see. 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, not the Speaker, must make those rules.
The Chair therefore must rule that while Bill C-130 is an omnibus Bill, it has the single purpose of enacting an international agreement amending several statutes. As such, it conforms to our practice and should be allowed to proceed. Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus Bills, the Chair's role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue.
A further point raised by the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap was the insufficiency of detail in the long title of the Bill because it does not list all of the statutes being amended therein. Hon. Members might wish to consult Dreidger's The Composition of Legislation Legislative Forms and Precedents for information on this point. This work may not have the same weight as Beauchesne or Erskine May, but it is a respected authority in legislative drafting. On pages 153 and 154 there is an explanation of Canadian practice as it relates to long titles, which clearly demonstrates that every Act being amended need not
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
be mentioned in the title and that the Canadian practice has evolved differently from British practice by the use of generic language. If Hon. Members feel, however, that such a course is necessary, I suggest that they should proceed by way of amendment and not by a decision of the Speaker to reject the Bill. The Chair wonders if including all of the statutes in the title of the Bill would thus make it any more acceptable to those who oppose it.
Finally, the Chair will address the last point which was raised on Wednesday, June 1, 1988, by the Hon. Member for Windsor West. The Hon. Member stated that Bill C-130 now before the House, in certain of its clauses, proposed changes to two other Bills, Bill C-60, the Copyright Act, and Bill C-110, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, neither of which, to date, has received Royal Assent, one of which Bill C-110, is at report stage. In response, the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), referring to two decisions by Speaker Lamoureux, indicated that Bill C-130 was properly before the House and that the second reading motion could be put.

To begin, I should report to the House upon the status of the two Bills mentioned earlier.
Bill C-60, the Copyright Act, has been adopted by both the Senate and the House and is awaiting Royal Assent.
Bill C-110, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, is on the Order Paper at report stage.

On April 20, 1970, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled on a situation somewhat related to the present one involving a Bill which appeared to be dependent upon two other Bills then before the House. Speaker Lamoureux expressed sympathy for the Members' views in part, but at page 6048 of Hansard his comment reads as follows:
-the debate is an interesting one and the argument is not without merit. If it has fault, it is that it might be premature-
Speaker Lamoureux then suggested that the House proceed with consideration of the Bills in question until the third reading stage, at which time procedural arguments should be brought forward if the circumstances warranted further consideration.
Less than one year later, Speaker Lamoureux was again faced with an identical situation which he resolved by stating, in part, on February 24, 1971, at page 3712 of Hansard:
There is... nothing procedurally wrong in having before the House, at the same time, concurrent or related Bills which might be in contradiction with one another either because of the terms of the proposed legislation itself or in relation to proposed amendments.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled that the second reading motion of the Bill could proceed as the House was not giving final approval to the Bill.
On February 5, 1973, Mr. Deputy Speaker McCleave, in deciding upon a similar conflict concerning the third reading

June 8, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of the unemployment insurance Bill and an appropriation Bill, reviewed the history of events with regard to Bills amending Bills in the same session. Mr. Deputy Speaker McCleave made an interesting observation which 1 believe is applicable to our situation when he said, in part, on page 974 of Hansard:
-(In 1958) bills to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Customs Tariff were being considered, and, while no decision was made by the Chair, it would be fair to suggest... that it was felt at that time that it was not a question of order but rather a matter of how best to achieve logical progression of companion or interdependent bills through the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker McCleave ruled that the debate should proceed on the third reading motion on the unemployment insurance Bill.
Having now reviewed with Honourable Members the available precedents, I must declare that the practice of one bill amending another bill still before the House or not yet given Royal Assent is an acceptable one.

However, if at third reading, circumstances exist whereby the Bill is amending another Bill still before the House, then I would be disposed to abide by Speaker Lamoureux's decision and hear further argument at that time.
There were other issues raised during the procedural debate on Bill C-130 that I will define as side issues but worthy of comment. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) expressed concern about the administrative provisions in the Bill which are not covered in the Ways and Means motion.
Standing Order 84(11) states that "The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a Bill or Bills based on the provisions of any such motion." Several Speakers have made it clear that the critical words are "based on" and that it does not mean "identical to". On those occasions, the Speakers have cautioned the House that "the terms of the Ways and Means motion are a carefully prepared expression of the financial initiative of the Crown and frequent departures from them can only invite deterioration of that most important power". See Journals of December 18, 1974, p. 224.

The Honourable Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) referred to the opportunity to vote on the separate provisions of the Bill. I must tell him that he is anticipating both the committee and the report stage of the Bill and I am grateful to him for reminding both the House and the Minister of the Speaker's role at the Report Stage. The Honourable Member also suggested that a larger Legislative Committee ought to be appointed in relation to this Bill. That may indeed be desirable, but this is a matter clearly within the scope of the powers of the Striking Committee on which the Honourable Member sits.

Finally, some Hon. Members raised the issue of the constitutionality of Bill C-130. On this point, I can only refer Hon. Members to Citation 240 of Beauchesne's Fifth edition, which reads:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor
decide a question of law though the same may be raised on a point of order.
In conclusion, I wish to summarize my decision on the five major themes of procedure raised over the past several days in relation to Bill C-130:
1)	the Ways and Means motion attached to the Bill is acceptable and in conformity with Canadian practice;
2)	the vote on introduction of the Bill was proper but the Elections, Privileges and Procedure Committee might wish to review the whole matter of Ways and Means;
3)	Bill C-130 is indeed an omnibus Bill-it meets the definition as stated by the Hon. Member for Windsor West in that it has a single purpose, while amending various statutes but without further guidance of the House and based on the practice to this day, it should be allowed to proceed without interference from the Chair;
4)	the title of the Bill can be amended to be explicit or to reflect the statutes contained therein at the committee stage;
5)	the matter of Bill C-130 amending Bills now before the House should be raised at third reading if the same situation still exists.
I do wish to thank all Hon. Members who contributed to the procedural discussion. No doubt, the Chair will be taxed further as this Bill makes its way through the House, but I am deeply indebted to all Members for the manner and the tone of the procedural discussion thus far. I hope Hon. Members will accept that the Chair and others have striven mightily to ensure that all of the important points that were raised have been met and dealt with in this ruling. I regret that it has taken time, but the arguments presented were taken very seriously.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for all Hon. Members when I say thank you to the Chair. It is not something we normally say, it is normally implied, but in this case we must be explicit and say that we appreciate the reasoned and thoughtful judgment which you have just delivered.
I appreciate also, as do all of us, that you have been well served by our advisers at the Table, Mr. Speaker. I think it is fair to say that the entire legislative process in this House has been well served by the contributions of my colleagues opposite and those of my Party on this important matter. It is only as we examine issues such as this that we improve the process.
I would also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your comments with respect to the tone of the debate. I compliment
June 8, 1988

my colleagues opposite. We all had a good run at the procedure, and I think we all found some precedents we did not know were there and learned things through the process. 1 think it has been very helpful and I do compliment you, Sir.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition wish to thank you for your most thoughtful and reasoned ruling which has shed light on many previously obscure corners of parliamentary law. However, having listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Deputy Government House Leader about his commitment to the parliamentary process, 1 would ask him if he would act on that commitment by withdrawing the motion he has on the Order Paper to suspend the rules and the parliamentary process based on them in order to facilitate the Government's program which he has not been able to manage properly so far.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 too want to rise with my colleagues to say how much we appreciate not only the thoughtful insights you have provided us today as a result of your comments but also your willingness to hear representations from all sides of the House to such a degree that we would all feel that this particular issue has been well aired at this point. While we certainly accept your judgment, I simply say to my colleague, the Deputy House Leader for the Government, that this is simply the first hitter for the first inning.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair can respond very briefly and again reiterate how much I appreciate the tone and the manner in which argument was given, and I want to say to some especially in this Chamber that the Chair took away those arguments knowing full well the very great importance that was placed upon them. I appreciate the comments that have been made.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa
June 8, 1988
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Bertha Wilson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 8th day of June, 1988, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
S. Orr
for Anthony P. Smyth Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program.
Immigration Act, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 3, consideration of second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday when I had the floor on Bill C-55, I had just completed addressing what our Party feels are very significant objections we still have to the legislation as tabled in the response of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) on Friday morning in the House. At the time, there was concern on this side of the House that the Minister was trying to translate what were very minor modifications and amendments with which the Government agreed in the Senate report into very major amendments. She was trying to suggest that the response to Bill C-55 would make Bill C-55 a very different and radical piece of legislation. We rejected that on Friday. We take the same position today.
In resuming debate on Bill C-55, I want to point out that because the Minister had recently assumed the portfolio, there was an expectation that she would address the major hurdles which had faced her predecessors. The expectations on the part of non-governmental organizations were dealt a very significant blow when they heard the Government's response.
Before dealing with the Bill clause by clause or amendment by amendment, I want to place on the record some of the feelings of those non-governmental organizations. I want to point out the degree of frustration they are suffering because of the response from a Government which is obviously still very much opposed to compromising on some very fundamental objections. These objections go beyond philosophy. In fact, according to the legal experts who appeared before the committee, those objections will lie at the centre of the court challenges which may paralyze the legislation. That would really be a problem for the Government because the country was told not to worry, the Government was going to put a new system in place, only to have it tied up in the courts with a possible decision that it is in violation of the Charter or the Constitution.
The Canadian Council for Refugees said the Bill would essentially jeopardize the lives of refugees. B'nai Brith said, "You could not have come up with a Bill more open to legal challenges than if you had tried. This thing is going to be ensnarled in legal challenges for years to come under everything from the Charter of Rights, the Bill of Rights, Canadian law and international." The Coalition for A Just Refugee and Immigration Policy condemned the five amendments as

June 8, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
"politicization of the refugee process and basically meaningless".
Amnesty International announced that its Canadian refugee section will not sit on the proposed consultative committee on refugees which the Minister has in mind. They do not want to participate in a process that is largely window-dressing because the power will really rest with the Cabinet and Government. A Toronto immigration lawyer says, "The Minister has given us nothing at all. It is just another slick packing job by the Government to mislead us again and make it look like there were concessions. If this Bill ever passes, genuine refugees will definitely be put at risk." In a letter to the Chairman of the Senate committee, the Canadian Council on Refugees said, "The Government confirms our worst fears that they will deport refugees without concern for their fate in the country to which they are sent."
That is but a small sampling of commentary from refugee groups and organizations not months ago, when we were studying it in committee, but over the last several days after the Minister tabled her response on the floor of the House of Commons.
In the time I have I would like to deal with the three areas we objected to in my speech on Friday. The first is the prescreening stage. The second is the safe country concept and the fact that the Government and the Cabinet will decide what is safe and who is going to be safe. The third is that the appeal process is very weak at best. I want to formulate the primary objections which are at the heart of the national debate which has been waged over the last number of months. In addition, the Government turned down a number of Senate amendments and I would like to spend some time on those because, while less important than the three principal objections, they are still of deep concern.
Amendment No. 1 deals with duty counsel. The problem was that if counsel is imposed on the claimant too soon, it could mean people that will lose the right to choose their own counsel. Alternatively, counsel might not be given enough to prepare for the hearing. In effect, the Senate wanted to give the claimant some reasonable time in which to choose legal counsel.
I agree that if there are concerns that an individual would take an inappropriate amount of time to choose counsel, then obviously that would be offensive and abusive. When you consider the lengthy backlog, obviously the process cannot be abused in that way. However, neither should the Government rush to remove the ability of a claimant to select counsel. I think that is fundamental to our system of law and justice. People are presumed innocent rather than guilty and they have the right, not the privilege, to choose counsel in order to defend that right.
We also think it is all the more important to try to offer reasonable time to a claimant to obtain counsel because the trauma a legitimate refugee is facing would be very much enhanced otherwise. There might be language barriers or other
problems. Therefore, we believe that the amendment to provide reasonable time to a claimant to select counsel is reasonable. We regret that the Government chose not to accept the amendment and we plead with it to see the light and accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 2 deals with the possibility that claimants who did not make their claim at the port of entry would not be allowed to make the claim later on in the process. That situation might disenfranchise them of the right to have their claim heard. The Senate amendment suggested that if there were good grounds for not making the refugee claim at the very outset, perhaps because of a language barrier or some kind of trauma, or because the person did not understand the process, the person concerned would be allowed to continue that claim in the process even though it was not made at the very outset.
The Senate's amendment suggests that if there was a legitimate understanding in the opinion of the adjudicator, the person would be allowed a second chance. It is very important to emphasize the words "in the opinion of the adjudicator" because there is still flexibility. Notwithstanding the approval of the Senate's amendment, the adjudicator would still be able to disallow the individual from pursuing his or her claim.
The Government, for whatever reasons, thought that the person should not be allowed to continue in the process if the individual had not, at the very outset, indicated that he or she had a refugee claim to make. I reiterate to the Government that there are instances of legitimate misunderstandings, fears, apprehensions, or language barriers occurring at a point of entry. That should not preclude a legitimate refugee claimant from making that claim very close to the beginning of the process if not at the very beginning.
The Senate amendment allows the adjudicator to refuse that person if, in his or her opinion, he or she is abusing the system. That discretion is still in the hands of the adjudicator.
We believe that the Senate amendment would have been a good compromise. It would allow the refugee claimant to continue in the process because of the legitimate misunderstanding at the beginning. If the person was in fact abusing the system, the adjudicator would have the discretion to disallow him or her from proceeding any further.
We on this side of the House thought that that particular Senate amendment was a very progressive yet very firm compromise which the Government should have agreed to. It has not. We once again urge the Parliamentary Secretary to take that back to the Minister during this debate to determine whether the Government would be in a position to live with what we think is a very safe compromising amendment for both sides of the equation.
Amendment No. 3 has to do with the safe country concept. As I mentioned on Friday and at the outset of my remarks
June 8, 1988

today, the safe country concept is a very questionable principle and foundation upon which the Government is building its entire refugee determination system. The problem is that there was no protection in Bill C-55 to ensure that safe countries would accept the people rather than send them on to other countries. The Government has made a change in this clause and is suggesting that it is enough protection for people to be returned to a so-called safe country and enjoy protection or entry into the refugee determination system there.
However, the words that the Government proposes to use say that the claimant would be allowed to return to that country if removed from Canada or would have the right to have the merits of his or her claim determined in that country. There are two problems with that amendment. The first is that the word "return" is weak in terms of ensuring the person's safety. We urged at committee stage and urge again today that rather than "return", "enter or admission" would be much much better for the safety of the claimant.
The second problem is that, in the alternative, to return to that country they would have the right to have the merits of their claims determined in that country. We believe that instead of "or" the word should be "and". If the Government is going to persist with either one, it should include an "and" if it is at all concerned about the safety of individuals rather than sending them into orbit.
We on this side of the House do not like the word "return" because it does not really say very much. In fact, many Governments in Europe have forcibly removed refugee claimants to a safe third country on the basis of the word "return". That is to say, many countries allow a person to return, but that does not mean the country will allow the person to enter the country legally or will admit the person legally. In many cases individuals who are returned to a particular country can be kept in a transit lounge until being removed.
That is why we believe that our previous amendments were correct. The word "return" is simply not good enough. It will not protect the individual from being orbited from one country to the next. We implore the Government, and in particular the Minister, to insist that the word "return" be changed to either "enter" or "admit".
At the end of my remarks on this particular aspect I will be moving an amendment to the Government's proposal to try to modify very significantly the word "return" and to suggest that the clause should be a tandem one, that it should provide for admission and entry into the refugee system in order that we do not send a person back to a country, the refugee system of which he or she does not have access to.
We would have hoped that the Government would have moved much more strongly in this area in terms of ensuring the person's return to a safe country. We on this side do not agree with the concept or principle of safe countries. However, if the Government wishes to include the safe country concept, we ask the Government, at the very least, to have a foolproof
Immigration Act, 1976
method for using the concept. The word "return" is, in our opinion, simply not good enough. We are seeking an amendment to that clause in order to ensure that a person will not be sent back and forth between countries but will have a safe country to return in which he or she will be able to enter the refugee system and receive a fair hearing.
Amendment No. 5 also deals with the concept of the safe country. The problem with Amendment 5, as reported by the Senate, is that in Bill C-55 the suggestion is made that the transit provision of a claimant in another country is only in reference to a person catching a connecting flight. That is to say, the Government has built into its legislation that we cannot consider a country to be safe if a person is only in transit there, connecting with another flight and coming to Canada. If asked which country you last came from, the country in which you changed flights would not be considered a safe country because you were simply in transit there.
The Senate objected to the fact that it only made reference to transportation via an air flight. The Senate wanted to amend that clause to indicate that any country in which you changed vehicles would not be considered a safe country. Whether you were changing planes, boats, trains, or any other form of transportation in a country, it would not be considered a safe country to which that person could be returned.
The Senate wanted to expand that clause not only to include connecting flights, but connections with other modes of transportation. Otherwise, there would be discrimination based on how one got to Canada. A person catching a connecting flight in West Germany could not be considered for return to that country. It should be taken into consideration that the refugee may be in a certain country temporarily to connect to other forms of transportation from that point to Canada, directly or indirectly.
We suggest that this amendment was in keeping with the original intention of the Government. Let us be very clear that if a person is only in transit and simply changing transit in a particular country, that country should not be considered as a safe country for return because that person would have no status there.
That is why we believe amendment No. 5 from the Senate was worth while. We hope the Government will change its mind and make it very clear that the question of transit and connections for transportation are not restricted to airplanes but take into account other transportation modes.
Amendment No. 7 also concerns the safe country concept and who determines that safe country list. The Senate, like Members on this side of the House, are concerned that the Cabinet is responsible for devising the safe country list. That is a flawed decision because we believe when a Cabinet is involved in the day to day domestic affairs of the country, when it must deal with such issues as free trade, day care, abortion and a multitude of other questions, it is impractical

June 8, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
that the Cabinet would be able to satisfactorily decide what is a safe country and what is not.
We do not believe that the Cabinet will be able to make spur of the moment decisions about safe countries when various parts of the world face destabilizing events which create new unsafe places almost weekly. A Cabinet would not be able to turn around quickly and make those decisions that would obviously account for the sensitivities that are drawn into the equation of an entire refugee process.
We believe that the individual merits of refugee claims would be very much secondary to the political and diplomatic pressures that would be brought to bear on a federal Cabinet in deciding what countries should be on that safe country list. Nothing illustrates that better than the case of Mr. Santokh Singh who received a clean bill of health from both CSIS and the RCMP, and whose refugee claim was unanimously accepted by a three member refugee advisory committee. Yet the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was able to intervene and overturn that decision based upon representations he had from the Indian Government and whatever other factors he brought into the equation. This is a test case of how the Cabinet would react in creating a safe country list.
The federal Cabinet obviously must protect our relations with our friends and allies. It would be asked to compromise itself with those countries by leaving a friendly country off the safe country list. I believe there is virtually no chance of those countries being left off a safe country list, and amendment No. 7 suggests that the refugee experts on the refugee board be allowed to create that list in an independent an impartial way, without being a target of political and diplomatic pressure. While we object to a safe country concept, if the Government is intent on having such a list we believe that it would be better to allow the refugee determination body to make the decision about safe countries and who will be safe in those countries. We regret that the Government refused to accept that amendment.
While it refuses such a suggestion on the one hand, it claims in public that it has changed the Bill to make that safe country concept workable so that a refugee returning there will be safe and will have a fair hearing. We are disturbed that the Government never attempted to define what it would regard as safe. For example, the United States of America is a friend and ally of Canada. No one disputes that fact. However, while being our friend and ally, it has a Central American policy that is at odds with ours because they will exclude and deport Central American refugees indiscriminately. Therefore, would the United States be on or off the safe country list? Would a Central American refugee who is coming from the United States be returned there, yes or no? Regretfully, we are not getting answers to those precise questions.
Another example is Great Britain. It is also a very close and honourable ally, as it should be. However, it is the immigration and refugee policy of Great Britain to deport indiscriminately
individuals who we would not deport. A Tamil would be deported from Great Britain instantly. If we were to receive a refugee claimant who came from Great Britain, would that person be deported back to Britain? Yes or no?
For instance, if we were to receive a claimant who came from Great Britain, would that person be deported to Great Britain, yes or no? If a Tamil was deported to Great Britain, and if a Central American refugee was deported to the United States, could we as a country be satisfied to say we deported or sent those people to a "safe" country? We have sent them to gray countries. We have sent them to friendly countries. We have sent them to countries which are our allies. But are they honestly safe countries for those particular classes of refugees? If they are not, which in these two cases they are not, are we not really washing our hands as a country and placing in jeopardy these individuals who will become the ball in the pinball machine and slotted between different countries? That is the type of argument we have tried to make to this Government and to its Ministers in order to try to decipher what exactly is meant by "safe" and "unsafe" counties.
That is why we are worried and why the Senate is worried, why government Members sitting in the Senate are worried about amendment No. 7. They feel it would be better if a refugee panel of impartial experts was able to draft such a list rather than a Cabinet that is obviously politically interested and motivated in many of the decisions it undertakes on behalf of this country.
I reiterate that we have a great deal of concern about the Cabinet discharging that responsibility. We ask once again that the Government and the Minister rethink and re-evaluate the practicality and politics of having the Cabinet define what is a safe country.
If the Government is legitimately concerned with the refugee process, and with the individual merits of a particular case, it too would agree that the federal Cabinet as a forum is the wrong body with which to try to uphold the individual merits of refugee claimants. We believe quite strongly that those interests as a priority would be last on a long list of other priorities of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sitting at the table with his closest Ministers and most important advisers. Therefore, we concur in the Senate amendment. We hope in the debate that will ensue within the next number of days that the Government will change its mind and allow amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 10 deals with the issue of appeal. Essentially, the problem with the current appeal is that it will go to the Federal Court, which has been acknowledged to be the wrong body, a body which is not particularly knowledgeable about the intricacies of the refugee law and phenomenon, by many legal experts before our standing and legislative committees, and that the current appeal will simply be on points of law. In
June 8, 1988

other words, the appeal would not be considered if it is on points of fact or on new evidence.
Essentially, the Federal Court will only be able to rule if the previous process, namely, the refugee board, was fair from a procedural viewpoint but not from a substantive one. We on this side of the House have grave concerns with that kind of philosophy because decisions emanating from a refugee board will really be decisions that can legitimately dictate between life and death, between torture and no torture, between harassment and no harassment, between persecution and no persecution. We are not talking simply about a very trivial decision. We are talking about a decision with respect to the question of the life or death of an individual.
We are suggesting that if that is in fact what will be flowing from this decision-making process, we need an appeal structure which will be able to correct any human problems or fallacies which occur during that human process. We should err on the side of safety and caution rather than being sorry when it is too late. The amendment proposed by the Senate would have the force and authority to change the appeal system from law to points of fact and to allow new evidence to be brought at the stage of appeal.
When this Bill was before the legislative committee and at second and third reading, we offered a number of different formats in terms of whether there should be a written decision, whether there should be a one-member panel from the refugee board, or whether a group of two or three panelists would hear these appeals. We were flexible with respect to the actual structure of the appeal mechanism, but we wanted to guarantee a safeguard that the appeal mechanism, whatever its structure, would be based on points of fact and would permit new evidence in order to be as sure as possible that the individual would not be endangered by a very weak appeal system. That is what the Senate amendment tries to do, and the Government has rejected it. We were disheartened by the refusal of the Government to try to put in place the safest appeal mechanism as is humanly possible.
It should also be pointed out that currently only 2 per cent of all the cases flowing from refugee decisions which go before the Federal Court are successful. We believe there is a lesson there. When we basically have an appeal mechanism which disregards 98 per cent of the cases based on points of law, there is something wrong. I think we are not too late to try to change that trend, that kind of thinking. Our refugee determination system will only be as good, as solid and as foolproof as its appeal mechanism. Right now, with the proposals contained in Bill C-55, that appeal mechanism is very weak and many people are suggesting that it is the intention that there be less claimants allowed to go through the system. I do not want to believe that that is the case, but that is the perception. We in this country need to deal with those very real perceptions in the next several days as Parliament debates this very sensitive issue.
Immigration Act, 1976
We ask the Government to reconsider its thinking on the appeal mechanism. I am not proposing this type of appeal on behalf of my Party simply to lengthen the process. No one in this Chamber wants to needlessly prolong or delay the procedure of refugee determination. What we are suggesting is not to lengthen the procedure, but to suggest that human mistakes will be made along the way, that these mistakes can have very serious consequences, and that we need an appeal mechanism which will act as a safety net in order to catch perhaps a few of those mistakes. I think it is better to have that kind of appeal mechanism than trying to live with a troubled conscience because our appeal system was so weak, we sent X number of people back to their original homelands only to face a fate none of us would like to face in our lifetimes. That is the rationale of the Senate's amendment. It is the rationale of our support for it. We hope that it will become the rationale of the Government and of the Minister of Immigration as well.
The eleventh amendment concerns the safe country concept. Essentially, the problem is that the Government is making the federal Cabinet the architect and the arbitrator of what is safe. With respect to this amendment, once again, the Senate in a different part of the Bill tried to remove from the Governor in Council the power to prescribe the safe country list. The Government did not necessarily refuse this amendment. What it did is it amended the Senate amendment. It did not necessarily agree with the principle that the Senate was putting forward. The Government response merely added the clause and the words to suggest that we are going to keep this at the federal Cabinet level but that now a country's record with respect to human rights will be taken into account.
We believe that is a very meaningless amendment. It states that these various records will be looked at, but it really does not guarantee that the political and diplomatic pressures will be removed because in the end the decision will be the Cabinet's. After everything is considered those political and diplomatic pressures in our estimation will still be so great that they will become the foremost priority, and certainly individual merits will be secondary.
That is why we disagree with the response of the Minister and the Government to the eleventh amendment. However, we realize that in the response of the Government it wishes to add a particular proviso suggesting that it will account for the human rights record of any particular country. I will also be making a further amendment to the Government's proposal at the end of my remarks today to suggest that if the Government really wants to have the Cabinet make those decisions, and if it will write in the legislation that it will account for human rights records, then the Cabinet must also consider an advisory list of safe countries as defined by the refugee board.
If the Government and the Minister want to maintain the decision-making process with respect to a safe country in Cabinet, then this amendment would not only force the Government or the Cabinet to consider the human rights

June 8, 1988
The Royal Assent
record of any particular country but they would also take into account a safe country list as prescribed by refugee experts who are impartial and independent of those political and diplomatic pressures that flow into the Government of the day. We believe that this type of amendment will improve what is a bad situation.
Given the opportunity, as I said earlier, we would not permit the safe country concept in the Bill. However, if a safe country concept was really wanted then we would allow refugee experts of the board to make a determination in that respect. If the Government continues to insist that the Cabinet must take these decisions, then what we are trying to do at the eleventh hour is to provide greater safeguards around such a decision to try to give the individual merits of the claim the best chance possible. I will be moving such an amendment even though we disagree very fundamentally and strongly with the whole question of the safe country concept.
The final amendment is with respect to the Immigration Appeal Board. There is a clause in the Bill which suggests that all the members of the present Immigration Appeal Board would essentially lose their employment and would not be able to serve on the new refugee board. That has caused a very serious problem, a problem that has been dealt with by our courts. Lawyers have brought the case to court, suggesting that that particular clause offers a bias in our current system because it is like a cloud over the head of Immigration Appeal Board members who by this clause would not be automatically appointed to the new board. Therefore, those lawyers arguing on behalf of their clients suggest that this offers an unfair bias, and that Immigration Appeal Board personnel may be encouraged to try to side or rule on the side of the Government because of the fact that their tenure is in question.
What we are suggesting is that the Government has the right to appoint individuals who have refugee related expertise on this new refugee board, but we do not want the Immigration Appeal Board to continue in the manner that it has been going because it has been paralyzed from ruling constructively on many cases because of that ruling by the courts recently. The Senate suggested that that particular clause be removed in order to avoid the paralysis of the current Immigration Appeal Board which still has to continue to work until the new system is brought into place. In light of the court ruling in terms of a particular bias, it is incumbent upon the Government to remove that particular clause or to change it. That will remove the cloud that exists over the heads of members of the Immigration Appeal Board.
That is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. We believe that the Government ought to go further in trying to understand the problems that are at the heart of this debate. It should try to come to grips with the situation that the safe country concept, the prescreening stage, the appeal mechanism, the question concerning duty counsel, the question concerning the Immigration Appeal Board and the single chance to make a claim are very large issues that are still
unresolved. We believe there is a possible compromise that can be attained by the Government.
We are asking at this stage, on those fronts, for the Government to re-evaluate those positions, not to have a Minister of Immigration parade minor changes as major changes, and to refrain from suggesting that this is a different bill of goods, a different piece of legislation from that of her predecessors. It is not.
The quotations I referred to earlier in the House are testimony to the fact that almost on a unanimous basis the constituency in our country is still at odds with these very fundamental and significant principles. The legal community is still at odds with these same principles. It will challenge these principles on these grounds in the courts.
I am not suggesting that these should be used as a threat or as blackmail. I suggest that the Government of Canada and this Parliament has as its foremost obligation the drafting of legislation that is in keeping with our Constitution and Charter. If we draft legislation that does not respect the Constitution, every legal expert says that we will have a legal minefield. I believe that the onus is on the Government and Parliament to produce legislation that does not give rise to such perceptions and statements before this law is proclaimed to be the law of the country.
Therefore, this piece of legislation ought to be reworded so as to remove the possibility of legal challenges. If we as a Parliament are to be challenged on this legislation and if the court agrees with the appellant, then it will essentially strike down the very system the Government is proposing as a remedy to the current law.
I hear someone wants to enter the Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly take my place and resume my final comments at a later time.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation\
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy
June 8, 1988

Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 15.
Bill C-102, an Act to amend the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act-Chapter No. 16.
Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of Western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts-Chapter No. 17.