1985-09-26

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher):
That, in relation to Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
550 women and a few men from across Canada. These delegates were very concerned about the impact this Bill will have on family allowances. It is just the beginning of an erosion of programs and services for families which must be stopped. We cannot have our universal family allowance eroded.
Mr. Speaker:: It being 11.06 a.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 84, have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the motion to limit debate on Bill C-70 which will deindex family allowances by 3 per cent is a cheap attempt by the Government to suppress debate and keep the following facts from the public. A 3 per cent deindexation of family allowances is an unfair attack on children, families and women and particularly on single-parent mothers. Family allowance deindexing will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990. Cut-backs to children will amount to $600 million by 1990 which can be added to the increased sales taxes, excise taxes and income taxes already imposed on families by this Budget. This places an extraordinary burden on middle and low-income families.
While cutting the family allowance to save for the deficit and increasing taxes on families as well, the Government at the same time somehow finds $8 billion to give to the oil companies, $1 billion to bail out the banks and has increased tax loopholes for the rich. We believe that this is immoral, inequitable and unfair.
In closing, I say again on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we call on the Government, in the name of fairness, to reverse its position on Bill C-70. We call on the Government to index family allowances fully and to show that it cares for Canada's children, women and families.
Just this morning I came from a very large gathering of labour delegates to an Affirmative Action conference sponsored by the Canadian Labour Congress. It was attended by


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE VALIDATION ACT
Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-73, an Act to validate certain ordinances of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this morning I ask Hon. Members to turn their attention to a matter concerning residents of Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I am introducing new legislation, the Condominium Ordinance Validation Act, which will remove a conflict between territorial and federal laws that has held back the construction of new condominium housing in the North.
It is a pleasure to note that all Parties in the House, through a unanimous resolution of the Standing Committee on Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, have already given their support to this Bill which validates territorial ordinances. I might say, parenthetically, that I received a telephone call from the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on the weekend who has a concern, which may be peripheral to the Bill, that he would like to raise in committee. Aside from that, we have had excellent co-operation, which speaks well for all those people involved, particularly the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) who spearheaded the effort to resolve the matter.
The federal legislation with which the existing territorial condominium ordinances are in conflict is the Land Titles Act of 1894. It is long forgotten in most of Canada. It applied to northern and western territories which Canada acquired after Confederation. As the western provinces came into being, they passed their own legislation dealing with land ownership and real estate. However, the old law, amended from time to time, that is to say, the law of 1894, remained in force for Canada's northern territories. Unfortunately, the technicalities of the old law no longer fit today's circumstances. In fact, they hold back the introduction of new kinds of home building and home ownership.
Today, Yellowknife and other northern communities face severe housing problems. Mr. Speaker, you may have seen press reports on the special committee which the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly set up on housing indicating that the committee found the situation in the Northwest Territories to be no less than a crisis. A few months ago the Mayor of Yellowknife, His Worship Mayor Don Sian, explained to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development what the housing situation means in everyday life to northern people. Of the larger centres in the North, the City of Yellowknife has almost one-quarter the population of the Northwest Territories. Many more people are moving there to work at mining and exploration, at new head offices, in the Government, in the new regional hospital and so on. However, when it comes to finding a place to rent, they can almost forget it. The vacancy rate in Yellowknife is zero. I have heard that a single apartment will often have a waiting list of over 100 people.
As for buying a house, Mayor Sian estimated a housing shortfall in the immediate future of at least 250 units. He explained that available housing falls into two ranges, both of which are expensive compared with the South because of transportation costs for materials and other difficulties of building in the North, particularly as a consequence of the climate. A trailer on a privately owned lot will set one back $75,000 to $95,000, and a new single family housing unit of modest size will cost $160,000.
The Mayor added:
Yellowknife is a fairly young community and for a young family to get together the down payment to move into a single family home of.. . $160,000 is quite simply beyond their means.
Obviously condominiums do not provide all the answers. However, they will probably help fill the gap between the trailer and the single family house and provide private housing
September 26, 1985

at a relatively reasonable cost. Condominiums would seem to make especially good sense in places like Yellowknife, where the rocky Canadian shield makes it difficult to run in services such as water and sewage. When multiple units can share services, it cuts down the costs.
The legislators who wrote the Land Titles Act dealt only with conditions which they saw in their own time, in the 1890s-an owner had a piece of land with a building on it, and that was how land titles worked. The Act made no provisions for title to condominiums. In 1969 in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, and in 1968 in Yukon, ordinances were passed respecting condominiums. A later opinion by the federal Department of Justice found that the ordinances could not be fully effective because of the deficiency in the Land Titles Act respecting title registration. This put the legal registration of titles to condominiums in doubt. The result was and is that no condominiums have been built in the Northwest Territories. Some buildings built with that intention ended up as regular rental units. Developers who would otherwise build condominiums today, and their financial backers, are reluctant because of the uncertainty surrounding the security of condominium titles.
The territorial and federal Governments have been concerned with this problem for several years. The previous federal Government twice tried to pass Bills addressing the issue, but they fell by the wayside. That delay in addressing the matter has made it all the more urgent. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic highlighted the matter by putting forward a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-214, affecting the Northwest Territories only. I am pleased, after discussions with him, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), who is also the Hon. Member for Yukon, and the Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk), to build on his initiative. Therefore, I offer a Government Bill which will resolve the matter for both the Northwest Territories and Yukon.
On May 28 of this year the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development offered its unanimous support for such legislation in these words:
In accordance with its Order of Reference of Friday, December 21, 1984, in relation to the subject matter of Bill C-214, an Act to validate the Northwest Territories Condominium Ordinance, your committee has held one meeting and has heard the testimony of Gary MacDougall, Registrar of Land Titles, Don Sian, Mayor of the City of Yellowknife and Dave Nickerson, M.P. and has agreed to recommend the following:
That the House of Commons support the early enactment of legislation which would have the effect of deeming valid for all purposes the territorial ordinances dealing with condominiums and of making valid everything that has been done to date under the territorial ordinances.
The legislation I propose to you will do exactly what the standing committee recommended. And besides the support of the standing committee, this action has the support of the City of Yellowknife, of the N.W.T. Association of Municipalities, of the Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce, and of MLA's and the Territorial Governments themselves. This is one of those rare Bills that everyone supports. It will not cost the federal Government a penny. It has no effect on native land claims or
Condominium Ordinance Validation Act Crown lands; it only deals with property already privately owned, making it possible to put up condominiums rather than single-owner buildings.
It is a Bill that will bring more affordable houses to many families. It will protect the interest of condominium owners and it will help the northern economy. It will not solve all the housing problems overnight, but it should be a big help.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I recommend consideration of the Bill to all Hon. Members.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my seat today and give support to this legislation which should help to resolve the urgent needs for affordable housing in many northern communities.
I want to indicate to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) that this Bill being presented in the House of Commons today is a reflection of a process of devolution that began years ago. I am glad to see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is following through with that same process of devolution to give to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon more and more power given more priority to local input that to central agencies, such as the federal Government.
My personal thanks goes to Members, on behalf of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), who unfortunately is unable to be here and whose notes I am using. I acknowledge the work he has done on the Standing Committee of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well the work which the standing committee did to facilitate the passage of this legislation we see here today.
I have some general comments on the thrust of the Bill. While this Bill deals with what might be considered a relatively small issue on the national agenda, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the significance of what we are actually doing. The Bill before us should give us cause to reflect on the nature between the Territorial Governments and the federal Government. The Governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are still, even today, subject to much federal dominance, and I think the process that began in the last several years and is speeding up will go a long way toward giving them more and more powers.
This Bill itself resolves a conflict in jurisdiction. It will allow the Territorial Governments to proceed with legislation legally which they enacted over 15 years ago. We are dealing here with an outdated federal Act conflicting with modern reality.
Parliament is being called upon to deal with condominiums in the Territories because Parliament has an overriding jurisdiction over the Territories. Territorial ordinances are subject to overriding federal legislation. I hope the Minister can bring forward legislation that will allow the Territorial Governments to establish their own Acts for Land Titles and enable those same Territorial Governments to repeal the Land Titles Act themselves.

September 26, 1985
Condominium Ordinance Validation Act
Devolution seems to be a very arduous task. Many interests have to be taken into account. I presume that lack of consensus probably inhibited the implementation of old Bill C-52, which supposedly was going to deal with this problem of housing in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
However, I urge the Government to proceed expeditiously where there is agreement among northerners to transfer more and more responsibilities to the Territorial Governments.
In addition, I want to pay tribute not only to members of that committee but to a number of other individuals who, I believe, were instrumental in assisting in obtaining quick passage of this Bill. Some Members, among whom I am sure is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), would agree with me that even in as small a Bill as this, because of the way in which the complexities of government machinery work here in Ottawa, we lost this season's building time. It is unfortunate that this Bill could not have been passed, for instance, in May, allowing the Territorial Governments to go ahead with construction this season. That is no fault of the Minister, Mr. Speaker. It is the fault, basically, of the machinery of Government in getting Bills onto the floor of the House of Commons.
The Minister has outlined the specifics of the Bill. Let me point out that the Mayor of the City of Yellowknife appeared before the committee and testified, for example, that his city has a zero per cent vacancy rate. A trailer on a privately owned lot costs from $75,000 to $95,000. A newer single family unit costs between $140,000 to $160,000. Very few Canadians understand the cost of doing business in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Things that we take for granted in the southern part of Canada are not taken for granted by the residents of the two territorial areas. Believe me, one can understand why special tax considerations have to be given to people living in the Territories. Without special tax concessions, it is beyond me how they could make ends meet.
Housing is clearly out of reach for most of the people in the territorial areas. Condominiums could fill a very important but intermediate gap in the housing market. I want to pay some tribute to the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) who was instrumental in bringing this problem before the committee.
Without taking up the time of the House, the Bill, its intent and its direction have the full support of the Liberal Party. I welcome the fact that we are finally able to deal with this legislation in such an expeditious manner.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am pleased to indicate that we are prepared to deal with this Bill in a expeditious manner.
As has been pointed out, Bill C-73 is designed to enable condominiums to be built, sold and owned in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Basically it is a technical Bill, but it is a technicality we should not be dealing with in this House. The Northwest Territories and the Yukon should have full power to deal with this matter in their own Legislatures.
Amending the Land Titles Act will authorize the condominium Acts in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
While we are glad to give our consent to the speedy passage of this Bill, we also want to emphasize that housing is in crisis across Canada and particularly in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and in Indian communities across Canada, the areas for which the Minister has responsibility.
It is interesting that this past spring a Northwest Territories housing study pointed out that lack of housing was so severe throughout the North that up to 18 people are having to share three bedroom homes in some Inuit communities. Many of the Government's 4,000 rental units did not meet health and safety standards. People in more affluent communities, such as Yellowknife, are forced to camp out in shacks, tents or in the backs of tractor trailers during the long winters owing to the lack of rental units. The few two bedroom apartments that occasionally become available cost up to $1,100 a month.
It is especially important to note that the committee has warned that the desperate housing problem is most likely related to the dramatic increase in spousal assaults, family breakdowns and the dropping out of high school students throughout the North. In other words, when we look at the question of housing we are not simply dealing with an isolated physical situation. We are dealing with a dimension of the total situation facing people in the north. The crisis in housing stimulates crises in other areas of social life there as well. The possibility of condominiums may open the way for some people. Others, however, may need rental accommodation, and a 1983-1984 survey in Yellowknife by the Government of the Northwest Territories Bureau of Statistics indicated that of 1208 rental units 703 were leased by the Government of the Northwest Territories and 505 were leased privately. There is a vacancy rate of zero. The average rent in December of 1984 for a one-bedroom apartment was $613 and for a two-bedroom apartment was $773. This represented a 10 per cent increase from December of 1983.
The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), the housing critic for the New Democratic Party, pointed out that there is one concern that he has with this Bill as it stands, and that is, that it may endanger the 505 private rental units in Yellowknife. As alderman in Toronto when he worked with the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) when that Minister was the Mayor of Toronto, he and the Minister became very concerned that a number of rental units were converted to condominiums, which forced people out of rental units and so they had nowhere to go.
Between 1969 and 1985, 1799 rental units were converted to condominiums in the City of Toronto. The present Minister, as Mayor of Toronto, led the City Council in establishing a policy which blocked conversion as long as vacancy was less than 2 per cent. The Hon. Member for Spadina suggests that the Condominium Acts of the Northwest Territories and Yukon should be amended so as to prohibit the conversion of rental units to condominium so long as there is a rental shortage.
September 26, 1985

Referral of this to committee will, of course, give the opportunity for the committee to discuss this with the Governments of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories.
I would like to make just a few comments about the situation on native housing across Canada. This is a longstanding problem, one that the Minister inherited from previous Governments and which has been increasing over a number of years. The backlog of new houses required has been estimated at a conservative figure of between 10,000 and 11,000. That has been the same for a number of years. Some other estimates state that that backlog is as high as 17,000.
The last federal census had some interesting figures on native housing across Canada. It pointed out that nearly one-quarter of Indian dwellings have more than one person per room and that the percentage of Indian dwellings which had more than one person per room was just over nine times that of all other dwellings in Canada. Nearly one-half of Indian dwellings in the Northwest Territories had more than one person per room. It pointed out that nearly one-fifth of all Indian dwellings need major repairs, almost three times that of all other dwellings in Canada. Among Indian dwellings, the Northwest Territories had the highest percentage, 28 per cent, in need of major repairs. The census also pointed out that one-third of Indian homes lacked a central heating system. The percentage of Indian dwellings which lacked a central heating system was almost four times that of all other dwellings in Canada. Just over one-half of Indian dwellings in Yukon had no central heating. Close to one-half of Indian dwellings in Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories did not have central heating. Nearly one-fifth of Indian dwellings lacked a bathroom and the percentage of Indian dwellings which had no bathroom was just over 15 times that of all other dwellings in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, these figures from the latest census indicate that Indian housing is a national disgrace and I urge the Minister to make strong representation to his Cabinet to ensure that attention is focused on this issue this coming year. We cannot allow this kind of disgraceful situation to continue in a country that prides itself, as Canada does, as being a modern and a progressive nation.
We have had continued representation from Indian communities about the lack of proper infrastructure. The Indian community of Tyendinaga in southern Ontario has for years been waging a battle to try to get decent water and sewage in a new subdivision area that they have because they fear that the present arrangements are very likely to lead to a serious health risk. It is interesting that when the present Minister was the Minister responsible for health and welfare in 1979 in the Clark Government he appointed Chief Justice Berger to look at the whole question of Indian health at the time. One of the recommendations of Chief Justice Berger pointed to this central situation of Indian housing and said that that was absolutely crucial in terms of Indian health and that when people are crowded together there is no possibility of their having a decent life or a decent community life.
Condominium Ordinance Validation Act
This again goes back to the findings of the Northwest Territories housing situation, that when you have bad housing you have an increase in family violence, an increase in a great many social problems. Yet this summer we saw a cut-back of $455,000 to Operations Beaver, a co-operative project of Canadian churches for the past number of years which has a very good track record of working with Indian communities, working with Indian young people and young people from other parts of Canada and indeed other parts of the world in constructing housing on Indian reserves and also some off-reserve housing. Yet this group was cut back by $455,000.
Also this summer the Ekos study was released, which had been commissioned by the Department of Indian Affairs, and it confirmed the sort of statistics that I read from the latest census. It said that 47 per cent of all Indian housing is substandard. It indicated that our past mistakes are coming home to roost and I regret that the present Minister is having to pick up the pieces from mistakes that have been made by past Governments. I want to emphasize that he has that responsibility to pick up those pieces and to make sure that something is done. The Ekos study pointed out that 15 per cent of the houses built as late as 1983, two years ago, are substandard simply because the financing for those houses was substandard. Indian people have repeatedly raised problems with the whole question of funding, and the funding delays often mean that it is impossible for them to get their programs in place, to get their material in place in time to meet the short construction season. This summer the Minister promised some $600,000 to the Dene people for housing. The Dene are now being told that this $600,000 is being given for more general purposes. I urge the Minister to make that $600,000 available specifically for housing so that the Dene people in the Northwest Territories can meet their housing needs.
I wanted to lay all of these concerns before the House of Commons because I think it is very important that we be aware of this disgraceful and tragic situation. I know the Minister is aware of the situation. I hope that he will fight with all his strengh to get a decent program from the Cabinet so that one year from now, we will be able to report substantial progress in this situation.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if I might have the consent of the House to put a question to the Hon. Member who just spoke? I recognize that it is not normal procedure, but there are two matters of fact which were raised on which 1 simply wanted to ask a question and seek the Hon. Member's views.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Minister to put a question to the Hon. Member?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I would associate myself with many of the remarks made by the Hon. Member with respect

September 26, 1985
Condominium Ordinance Validation Act
to the standard of housing in Canada and with respect to the report which he discussed at length, a report with which I am intimately familiar. I am looking forward to making some changes in it this year which I will be presenting to the Cabinet and the standing committee of the House.
There were two matters that the Hon. Member raised. I think it is important to understand the way we are approaching housing which is that Indian communities are now able to determine on their own how money ought to be spent. The Hon. Member's first point dealt with Operation Beaver and his second one with money flowing to the Dene.
I will put a question to the Hon. Member and ask him to offer his views. Does the Hon. Member appreciate that housing selections are done through the community or the band itself? In the past, the federal Government gave money to organizations, which then took the money to Indian communities. I want to know whether or not the Hon. Member feels that the process by which housing operates according to the choice of the community is, in his view, an appropriate way of doing things.


James Douglas Manly: Yes, Mr. Speaker, certainly the communities themselves should make the basic determination of the way in which they will do things. However, the fact is that some $455,000 was cut from the housing allocation to Operation Beaver. I would be interested to know where the money cut from Operation Beaver went.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, having understood that point of view, I would ask the Hon. Member if he is aware that the only reason the allocation did not go to Operation Beaver was that it went elsewhere. There was no general cut made. The money did not go to Operation Beaver because, at that point, Operation Beaver did not have sufficient requests from Indian communities.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that particular problem but I appreciate the Minister's assurance that no absolute cut was made. In fact, I hope that there has been an addition to the budget.
The Minister also raised the question of funding to the Dene. My understanding is that the Minister made a direct commitment of $600,000 to the Dene for housing needs, but instead that money is now being made available under the recently announced Human Resource Development Strategy Program rather than specifically for housing.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a further question? Is the Hon. Member aware that housing for the Dene in the Northwest Territories is primarily a responsibility of the Government of the Northwest Territories and that in housing matters we deal through that particular Government? Second, would it not be in line with his own views that when giving money to communities, it is much better for them to have the choice as to how the money is spent rather than having the federal Government directing them?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, again the Minister might be quite right in saying that housing is the specific responsibility of the Government of the Northwest Territories. However, I am under the impression, and the Minister can deny this if he wants, that the Minister made a specific commitment of $600,000 to the Dene people for housing, money which is not forthcoming at the present time. Rather, $600,000 has been made available for other purposes.
The Minister knows that Indian communities across Canada have a large agenda of needs and that the needs are many, varied and serious. Housing is one of those needs, but it is only one of those needs. Promising $600,000 specifically for housing and then making it available for a more general economic development program means that the specific housing needs in the Dene communities, needs which the Minister acknowledges are very serious, will not necessarily be met. Again I urge the Minister to make at least $600,000 available specifically for Dene housing.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, this is my last question. I appreciate the patience of Members of the House. Would the Hon. Member not agree that the most appropriate way for the federal Government to deal with housing in the North is in conjunction with the Territorial Government? Second, is he not aware that our particular role in these matters is one of providing funding for Indian communities but allowing them to choose where they would like to put the money?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the points the Minister makes are quite valid. In the Northwest Territories it is appropriate for housing programs to be designed through the Government of the Northwest Territories. The point is that when the Minister was speaking to the Dene Assembly, he made a commitment of $600,000. The Minister shakes his head and denies that he made that commitment.


David Edward Crombie: Not for housing, for housing-related matters.


James Douglas Manly: The point is that quite apart from the best way in which funds should be allocated, when a specific commitment is made, I believe that that specific commitment should be followed through.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasant duty for me to speak to Bill C-73 today, a Bill which the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development requested us to put forward. As most Hon. Members may be aware, one of the first things that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) did was to travel north to meet with and listen to northerners. I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to the Minister.
The Minister is a person who listens. He is someone who gets right into the fray and wants to see firsthand the experiences of the people for whom he is responsible. He wants to see how they are living and the conditions under which they live. He wants to see what he can do to change those conditions.
September 26, 1985

The Minister is a people person, one who cares and has seen firsthand the problems that native people are experiencing.
I will continue in this brief tribute to the Minister by saying that he is a Minister who is acquiring a knowledge and expertise of our vast North not only in a formal way through books and meetings but by getting out and meeting with the people and learning from firsthand experience. I think it important that the House know about it and that the people of Canada are made aware of this extraordinary Minister who has these extra-curricular activities. I wish to pay tribute to him. He is a person who listens to the northerners. Not only does he listen to them, he acts. It is one thing to listen but another to act. He does both.
My Minister found that all the people of the North are very much aware that they are on the verge of an exciting moment, a moment in which history and destiny will meet. The people with whom he met are, in a very sophisticated and politically mature fashion, trying to deal with a number of needs. Housing was identified as an area which required immediate attention. At the urging of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), the Mayor of Yellowknife told the standing committee what the situation means in human terms. When we talk about legislation in the House, or when we talk about it anywhere, it should be in human terms, in terms of how if affects people. His Worship Mayor Sian estimated that there is a housing shortfall in the immediate future of at least 250 units. If we said that there was a housing shortfall in Metropolitan Toronto of some 250 units, that would not bother us too much. However, when we speak about a housing shortage in the City of Yellowknife, a comparatively small city, then we are talking about a very serious matter.
On May 28, 1985, members of the committee unanimously requested that the House take early action on a Bill to amend the Land Titles Act, the purpose being to allow construction of condominiums in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. What has been introduced is legislation which will do just that. In pushing for change, Hon. Members had in mind at that time that condominiums could provide reasonably priced housing to ease this terrible shortage in the North.
In our own time, condominiums have, of course, become popular. They are popular in southern Canada because of their cost. The tremendous cost of servicing land today has continued to sky-rocket. If we think the cost of servicing land in southern Canada is expensive, then we should go to the North and see what it is like there. By sharing costs and services among all the owners in a multiple unit, builders can provide private ownership, generally speaking, at a lower cost. Condominiums make particularly good sense in northern centres, in places such as Yellowknife.
I am perhaps one of the privileged people in Canada since I have had an opportunity to visit our Far North on a number of occasions. I travelled this summer with a colleague of mine and we spent some time in the North. I have been in Yellowknife on a number of occasions. I have seen firsthand the rocky
Condominium Ordinance Validation Act Canadian Shield where it is much more expensive to provide a building lot with water, sewerage and other services. Condominiums allow builders to cut down the costs by sharing them among a number of buyers. Developers and their financial backers who would otherwise have built condominiums have held back. They have done this because of the technicality which prevents a condominium owner from registering his or her title.
In the Northwest Territories, a few builders who started to put up condominiums ended by using them as rental units because of the problems with titles. I know this has caused some concern. In the Yukon, 200 condominiums were built anyway but, given the legal situation, some uncertainty hangs over the owners' titles.
Last year, the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories set up a special committee on housing, which found no less than a crisis. The special committee put forward 82 specific recommendations with respect to housing which gives Hon. Members an idea of the amount of concern regarding northern housing. As for opposition, we have heard none so far. The proposal will only affect property which is already in private hands. It will have no effects on Crown lands or native land claims.
Besides his other energetic work to bring this matter to parliamentary attention, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, put forward a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-214, to amend the law for the Northwest Territories only. In discussion with the Hon. Member, and others, the Government put its weight behind a similar but broader Bill for both the Northwest Territories and Yukon. It was to speed up passage of that Bill that the standing committee gave its unanimous support for early action. Today, the Bill is in our hands.
Perhaps it is unnecessary to say more except to thank all Members from each side of the House, those Members who have spoken today, as well as those Members who worked in committee, for moving this matter along so quickly.
In the future, the federal Government will play what I think will be a diminishing role in the administration of northern affairs. We are prepared to give the Territories more responsibility. The Minister has committed himself to giving them more responsibility, as has the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney). How quickly, though, depends in part on the wishes of the Territorial Governments themselves.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has spoken often of his desire to see northerners, through their Territorial Governments, take on greater responsibilities for the decisions which affect their daily lives. This stems from a genuine belief that the role of Government can often be most effectively carried out when it is closest to those most affected by its decisions. It recognizes that the federal Government in Ottawa, however well intentioned, cannot be as sensitive to many of the needs and priorities of northerners as are their own Territorial and local Governments. In many areas, the federal Government is anxious to see a devolution, with which the Minister agrees, toward more participation and a greater degree of responsibility at the territorial level.

September 26, 1985
Condominium Ordinance Validation Act


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in response to the remarks made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) who is one of the Ministers I most admire in the Cabinet-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -if he is still in the Cabinet. According to The Globe and Mail of today, all the Ministers in Cabinet will be gone by certain dates and only the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be left if the Government continues to receive ministerial resignations.
I note it is this Minister who is bringing forward this Bill with respect to condominiums. I know he is the one Yuppie Minister in the House, a young urban professional-maybe not so young anymore. Perhaps we should call him a Muppie. He is from Rosedale where there are a great many condominiums. It is somewhat ironic that he brings forward a Bill to aid in condominium construction in the North.
I understand why the Bill is being brought forward. It has to do with the technicalities of the law in the territories and the difficulties with respect to condominium development. The reason I rise today is not to tackle my friend and get into debate with him, as I like to do, or even to talk about Rosedale. The fact is that I happen to have lived in Yellowknife for a couple of years. It did not stunt my growth-I can see the Minister smiling. At least, it did not stunt my physical growth. My spiritual growth was enhanced by living in Yellowknife for a couple of years and by being a member of the bar of the Northwest Territories. That entitles me, I suppose, to practise law from Yellowknife right up to Eureka.
I would like to say a couple of things so the Minister and his Department can flag them, although I may be a bit out of date and perhaps the Minister will dismiss the suggestion. When I was in Yellowknife, housing was also difficult to obtain. I heard my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), speak about the scarcity of native housing and the fact that the scarcity of non-native housing was quite incredible. There is a lot of Government housing in Yellowknife. When I was there, that was what most of the housing was. There was always the feeling around town that there were a lot of Government houses standing empty at a time when people were trying to get housing. Five and six people were living in a two-bedroom house which they rented at an exhorbitant price and there was a lot of Government housing just sitting around empty. So I ask the Minister to talk to his bureaucrats. The bureaucrats in Yellowknife were very helpful and I am not criticizing them, but it is easy to get into a situation where a Government just leaves houses empty. I would ask the Minister to take a look at the possibility of providing some of that Government housing on a lease basis to non-government people. I know there have to be some houses empty because people rotate in Yellowknife. They usually stay
up there for a couple of years and then return home. But the native people are there permanently.
The other thing I would like to mention in the debate is the nature of cost in the North as compared to the South. It may be that southern Canadians should be subsidizing northern Canadians for two reasons; first, we are all part of the North. We feel like northerners even though 90 per cent of us live along or near the borders of the United States. But we all have this kind of northern feeling that this is Canada and we are a northern country. We are quite proud of the pioneers in the North and we have a great deal of respect for the survival of our native people both Indian and Inuit in the North. So I feel we should be thinking about the cost of living in the north, not just in housing but in energy as well.
People in the North pay 80 cents a litre for gasoline. People in Toronto pay 40 cents a litre. Compare the price of gasoline and housing in Rosedale with the price of gasoline and housing in Yellowknife. It may be that if people in the South pay one tenth of a cent a litre more for gasoline there will be a sort of postage stamp price for gasoline in the North so that people pay the same price. A postage stamp costs the same in Yellowknife as it does in Rosedale or in Vancouver-Kingsway. Perhaps gasoline should be treated like that, and perhaps housing should as well.
We want to see our North developed in good ways. We can look at how the Soviets have developed their North. I am not suggesting we follow along in their way. I do not like the way they deal with culture and so on. However, if we compare the number of people the Soviets have living in their North to the number of people we have living in our North-a much lesser amount-the Soviet way could be instructive. This, of course, fits in as well with the Government's wish, which we support, to proclaim in the loudest possible terms Canadian sovereignty in that area.
We support the Bill, Mr. Speaker. We understand the technical principles of what has to be condominium development. There are other housing problems in the North which the Minister should look at, and perhaps we should look at, and that is, the broad picture of some sort of northern subsidies so that people can live in the North at a cost equal to the cost of living in the South. I said that my remarks would be brief, so I had better sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate?
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Crombie, seconded by Mr. Epp (Provencher), moved that Bill C-73, an Act to validate certain ordinances of the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 26, 1985


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. McLean, for Miss MacDonald, the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands, seconded by Mr. Crombie, moves that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to indicate my pleasure at speaking to this Bill and the important matters relating to immigration for which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has asked me to assume responsibility along with my colleague.
As Hon. Members of the House will be aware, Bill C-55 proposes several amendments to our present Immigration Act. These amendments, Mr. Speaker, are minor in nature. They are designed to increase the flexibility and capacity of the Immigration Appeal Board to deal with a greater number of cases.
Under the current Act, the maximum number of board members is restricted to 18. Bill C-55 would increase this number to a maximum of 50. The Immigration Appeal Board reviews appeals of family class applications which have been refused abroad. It hears appeals against deportation orders by certain people who have come to Canada and have not been admitted or who, having been admitted, have run afoul of the Immigration Act. The Board also makes a redetermination of refugee claims which have been evaluated by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee but subsequently rejected by the Minister. All of these categories of cases are important, but the Board has far more work at present than it can do. Hence, the urgency to pass this legislation.
Bill C-55 will permit the appointment over time of new members to cope with the workload. In addition, the number of vice-chairs will be increased from five to 13, giving the Board even greater flexibility. The Bill would also require that not fewer than half of the vice-chairs be members of a provincial bar for at least five years.
To ensure that board members are used effectively, the Bill would permit the chairman to delegate responsibility on technical matters to one-member panels. In previous committee discussion there were some concerns expressed regarding the matter of one-member panels. I have had an opportunity to talk with the spokespersons for the opposition Parties and we are agreed that it would be in the interest of all that a three-person panel be maintained. We will encourage the adoption of an amendment in committee in this regard.
Immigration Act, 1976
There are two distinct reasons for the Immigration Appeal Board requesting expansion over the last two years. The first is the increasing volume of appeal cases in such matters as family class applications, deportation orders and other rulings by the independent immigration adjudicators. At present the Board has a backlog of some 1,400 of those cases. The load is growing at the rate of over 140 per month. These appeals usually require at least half a day for disposition, and some can take as long as two weeks or more. In addition to that burden, the IAB is also responsible for hearings regarding redetermination of refugee status. The Board has faced an increasing number of cases concerning refugees in the past few years. The rate of increase exceeded the Board's ability to respond and this has created a backlog in refugee matters as well. This backlog increased dramatically as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in the Singh case. Prior to that, the IAB dealt only with refugee redetermination. That is, the Board heard appeals from the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. The Singh case has changed the procedure and requires that the Board hold an oral hearing for every person who wishes a redetermination of his or her claim to refugee status. Thus the IAB now faces a backlog of some 14,000 refugee cases. This extraordinary backlog has also limited the Board's ability to deal with the backlog of other appeals. Clearly it is important that we respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision and do it quickly and not appear in any way to be questioning the validity of that decision. This is the aim of the Government in introducing this legislation.
Before returning to the workload of the Board, I should mention briefly the work of Rabbi Gunther Plaut. As Members of the House will know, for the past year Rabbi Plaut has been studying the Board and the delicate question of refugee determination. His report, which was tabled in the House by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), last June, treats this problem in a sensitive and thorough manner. Later this fall legislation will be introduced stemming from both a review of Rabbi Plaut's report and the views of interested Canadians. This legislation will form the basis of a new refugee determination system, a new commitment to those in need. What I should like to make clear at this point to all Members of the House and the public is that the legislation we are discussing today is in no way connected to this larger legislative reform which will be proposed later in the year. What we seek to do now is to equip the IAB to deal with its immediate and pressing needs. Hence, the proposal to increase the membership of the Board to a maximum of 50 members. Because there have been some concerns expressed that this adjustment might in some way affect the commitment regarding the refugee redetermination review and proposed legislation, I have agreed, in discussion with concerned members and the opposition critics, that it may be important to accept an amendment regarding the length of time new members will serve in order to indicate clearly that this is an emergency reaction to a specific situation.

September 26, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
In addition to the refugee claims' backlog there are also more than 1,000 family sponsorship appeals pending. Families which cannot be reunited because of a legal prohibition must now wait for more than a year to determine whether relief may be possible. I do not need to remind Members of this House that family reunification is a corner-stone of the Immigration Act and Canadians are confused as to why, if this is so, we cannot act on family reunification. I know, from my contact with Members of Parliament that their constituency offices are inundated with questions about the time taken up by these procedures. Therefore, it will be important that we move quickly to have these amendments made in committee and have the Bill completed.
Some of these cases, of course, involve the parents of Canadians for whom long delays cannot be sustained. Bill C-55 goes further than simply reducing the delay for these people. It extends the right of appeal to permanent residents, that is, those whom we refer to as landed immigrants, as well as to Canadian citizens. At present, the right of appeal is available only to sponsors who are Canadian citizens. It is the Government's view that this is not consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore we wish to act and act quickly on this matter. Hence, Bill C-55 will grant the right of appeal to landed immigrants who are permanent residents as well as to Canadian citizens.
The amendments to the Immigration Act contained in this Bill are the result of careful consideration and our desire to meet the requirements not only of Canadians but also of the Supreme Court ruling. I believe these amendments will address the serious backlog and other operational issues now hampering the process. I am happy to seek an accommodation of concerns, as I have already mentioned, regarding the size of the panels, and to answer that concern. I am also prepared to recognize the importance of a stated time period for appointments which will indicate that this is an emergency measure and not a long-term permanent arrangement that would in any way threaten the present discussions about refugee determination.
This House knows that Canada has long extended a hand to those suffering repression or displacement. We have offered countless thousands of people an opportunity to start new lives here. We have also shown compassion and sensitivity regarding the desire of families to be reunited. This Bill will retain our humanitarian traditions in these areas and I ask all Members of the House to give it their support so that we can move speedily on this issue in order to begin to alleviate the present backlog and with it the human hardship and agony that is involved.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members for your attention to this important matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I must bring to the attention of the House that in my reading of the motion I made an error and I am very disappointed that no one in the House brought it to my attention. To make things clear the motion should be:


Walter Franklin McLean: that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
That is how the motion should read. The Bill is referred to a legislative committee rather than to a committee of the whole. I am very disappointed in all Members.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, we on this side were polite and did not want to bring it to your attention, but we are happy that you corrected the record.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Minister and to the House, but I missed the first part of the Minister's speech. I have a question that is important for our position on this Bill. I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to put a question to the Minister. I know questions come later, but I would like to get unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to put a question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I thank you and the Members of the House.
First, the Minister has announced some changes to the original Bill. Would he confirm that the change is that the Immigration Appeal Board remains at a quorum of three members to hear sponsorship appeals?
Second, did the Minister mention in his speech any reduction in the number of board members? The Bill proposes to increase the board members from 18 to 50. Is he staying with the number of 50 or going to a smaller number? Those are my questions.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question of clarification. On the first point, I have heard representations with regard to the three-person panels and I am prepared to accept that. However, three-person panels require more person-power. It would defeat the purpose to insist upon a lower number. You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to have increased panels, then you need the capacity. The Bill specifies a maximum of up to 50 members and, in concert with the chairman of the IAB, these members have to be found, trained, and phased in. There is some flexibility to allow for greater sensitivity in carrying out this work, but I will be open to a definition of the term of office of these new appointees which will indicate that they are not intended to provide long-term solutions.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to speak to Bill C-55, introduced in the House today by the Minister of State for Immigration.
September 26, 1985

Although we have had several meetings with the Minister, I have a few comments and observations regarding this Bill, whose purpose is to amend the Immigration Act.
I hope, in my comments, to clarify the motives of the Liberal Party for objecting to its passage. Bill C-55 would increase the maximum number of members of the Immigration Appeal Board to 50 and the maximum number of vicechairmen to thirteen, and would permit the Immigration Appeal Board to hold hearings.
On April 4 of this year, in its ruling in the Singh case, as the Minister mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Immigration Appeal Board had to hold oral hearings of claimants seeking refugee status. The present procedure does not provide for oral hearings. At the first level, the Advisory Committee on the Status of Refugees, a decision whether or not to grant refugee status is made on the basis of the transcript of an interview conducted by an immigration officer upon the claimant's arrival in this country.
At the second level, that is, the Immigration Appeal Board, the same transcript serves as the documentary basis for the appeal decision.
I would now like to speak more specifically to Bill C-55. One of the reasons I am opposed to the Bill is that legislation that is supposed to be a provisional measure will probably become the cornerstone of the future process for determining refugee status. The Minister is giving us the assurance that it is a temporary measure, but we all know that when the Government says temporary, a measure may be temporary for as long as five or ten years.
As the House is aware, a new Bill to reform the entire procedure is to be tabled shortly. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has started a series of consultations on the subject which are to be concluded shortly, as soon as the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration has heard a series of witnesses. In fact, I know the Minister will be in Montreal next Saturday. We can therefore expect a new Bill very shortly, and I think adopting Bill C-55 at this stage would be prejudicial to future reform. One of my reasons for making this assumption, Mr. Speaker, is based on the selection and mandate of Immigration Appeal Board members.
At a hearing held by the Standing Committee in February of this year, it became clear that to attract competent and committed members to the Immigration Appeal Board, it was advisable to provide for terms of as long as five and even ten years. The reasoning behind this position was that a person could not be asked to give up a career temporarily to work on the Board. The Minister told us today that they are perhaps willing in committee . . . the Government would therefore be willing to change and we would have terms varying from three to five years instead of ten years. Last February, no one challenged this reasoning and I believe the Members of all three parties were in agreement.
Immigration Act, 1976
But to get back to Bill C-55, I would like to point out to my colleagues opposite that the Bill is proposing the exact opposite. It is suggesting an increase in the number of members, which would be a temporary way of dealing with the painful problem of case backlogs at the Immigration Appeal Board.
However, quite frankly, how can we expect to attract competent people if they are told their services will no longer be required in another six months or a year, that is, when the new determination process will be implemented?
Mr. Speaker, despite the reform, I believe the Minister of Employment and Immigration has already decided on the structure and membership of the Immigration Appeal Board, and has done so while ignoring the suggestions made in the Plaut Report and the many critical comments regarding the Board made by the Supreme Court.
The Plaut Report does not really allow much room for the Immigration Appeal Board. To be more specific, I would say there is no mention of the Board in any of the three models proposed by Rabbi Plaut. Appeals are included in the models, but their exact form is not clearly defined.
I think it is rather significant that the Appeal Board was not even considered as a possible alternate solution in the Plaut Report. Incidentally, I might point out that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration released the report exactly ten weeks after she received it, and seven weeks after she announced that it would be made public in a matter of days.
The Board's adversary system has been challenged by many lawyers and organizations which look after refugees. A colleague reminded the parliamentary committee of some cases where the Board insisted that an applicant for refugee status prove that he would be subject to persecution. Well, that is not what the Act provides, it does not require applicants to prove that they would be subject to persecution in their country of origin, but only that they are afraid of being persecuted, and that is altogether different.
Some people believe that the backlog of cases would melt away if Bill C-55 were to be adopted. Unfortunately this suggestion does not take into account the fact that cases now before the High Court-the Federal Court-will go back to appeal where the backlog will swell beyond limits. The main objective of Bill C-55 is therefore unattainable the way things are now. This fact was emphasized during a standing committee hearing last June and I am surprised that the Conservative Government still wants to steer this course to nowhere.
The whole exercise is off on a tangent and badly documented because the initial proceedings do not include a hearing with refugee status applicants, and it is sheer aberration to believe that increasing the number of commissioners will guarantee better equity. When the first stage of a proceeding is marred by injustices, the situation will not be redressed at the second stage of the proceeding, no matter how extraordinary it may be.
7042

September 26, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
Bill C-55 is an attempt to restore some form of equity in a process which we all know cannot possibly accomplish what it is supposed to do in the first place. Consequently, Bill C-55 is useless.
I would also like to point out that during a parliamentary committee hearing in June we learned that, besides reducing the backlog of refugee cases, increasing the number of Immigration Appeal Board members would also expedite the settlement of cases of sponsored immigrants and of deported immigrants.
There is nothing untoward in that, Mr. Speaker, but then nobody should pretend that refugee status applicants will be denied justice if we prevent the passage of Bill C-55.
That was the main argument of the Conservative Government in June when it attempted to get a consensus from all three parties to adopt the Bill. In that respect, allow me to quote the remarks of a lawyer who appeared before the standing committee in June:
As a lawyer I have the clear impression that, from September to December when hundreds of cases will be brought back to the Appeal Board, those people will have to be represented by counsel. The lawyers will have to work with files full of shortcomings with respect to the presentation of the cases themselves. I therefore have the impression that a new backlog will be created at the Appeal Board. There are so many outstanding cases at this stage that we have a feeling in Montreal that the middle-term temporary solution being considered by the Appeal Board could not sufficiently reduce the backlog of refugee cases that justice would be done and that we could look to a reform in due time.
The Liberal Party is opposed to Bill C-55 because it contains the basis for part of a new process to grant refugee status and because this does not take into account the Plaut Report and all the requests which have been made by the organizations dealing with refugees.
If the Progressive Conservative Government is serious and honest when it consults these organizations before any reform of the process for granting refugee status, it should not try to pass a bill which contains the basis for the future process.
This view is largely shared by immigration lawyers and many humanitarian organizations. They include the Table de concertation aupres des refugies, SOS-Refugies, the Civil Liberties Union, the Societe quebecoise de la solidarity international, the Immigration Lawyers Association, the Association des Juristes quebecois, the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, the Standing Conference of Canadian Organizations concerned for refugees, Amnesty International and the Inland Refugee Society of British Columbia.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is not opposing Bill C-55 simply for the sake of it. This is not a partisan issue, but a question of common sense.
It is time to reform the process for granting refugee status and to undertake a comprehensive information compaign on refugees. The very great majority of Canadian men and
women do not differentiate between a refugee and an immigrant.
In the case of the immigrant, the host country has the right to set criteria and to accept only those who meet them. It is quite different for the refugee. Indeed, Canada has international obligations. According to the Geneva Convention, the applicant for refugee status is entitled to get help; this is not a privilege, but a right.
Most of our fellow citizens and many Members of Parliament are not aware of this. Many forget about the difficult political situations which exist throughout the world. When we are familiar with the international situation of apartheid in South Africa, of the military dictatorships and police repressions in many Latin American countries, of the religious intolerance in Iran, of the invasion of Afghanistan and so on, we are more willing to welcome those who are afraid of persecutions in their own country and who seek refuge in Canada.
As Rabbi Plaut emphasizes, compared with the scope of the worldwide refugee problem, the task of recognizing the status of people who apply for refugee status here in Canada is relatively small.
In addition to establishing the difference between immigrants and refugees, the information campaign that we need should emphasize the economic contribution of the new-comers. We have to eliminate the myth that foreigners steal jobs from Canadian men and women.
Many economic studies on immigrants show that it is impossible to establish a cause and effect relationship between the number of foreigners admitted to the country and the economic situation. However, some economists state that by increasing the number of potential consumers in a market, the immigrants make a positive contribution to the economy.
In other words, it is our entire approach to immigration which must be improved as we must become more open-minded while maintaining the generous attitude which has long been the characteristic of Canadian men and women.
This urgently needed change in attitudes should go hand in hand with the reform of the process for granting refugee status. It seems to me that the implementation of this new process gives us an ideal opportunity to initiate a nationwide debate on the refugee issue.
The band-aid solution now proposed by the Conservative Government in Bill C-55 therefore seems to me both useless and harmful. If the bill is passed, I believe that it would unfortunately take a lot of time for the Government to reform the whole process for granting refugee status, contrary to the wishes of a great many organizations working with refugees.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am somewhat concerned that the Government, on such an
September 26, 1985

important matter as immigration, did not give immigration critics, in particular the critic for our Party, very much notice of its intention. Unfortunately our critic was unable to be present because of that fact. I feel it is a disservice to immigrants to be dealing with Bills in this ad hoc manner.
However, because I represent the riding of Vancouver East, which has a very high proportion of immigrants, both landed immigrants and their families and refugees from many countries of the world, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on their behalf. There are a number of reasons for our being concerned about the Bill. We are very concerned, as is the Government, about the backlog of cases. Many immigrants who have been trying to get their families into Canada have been waiting, in some cases, for years. It has been very difficult for them when they are refused a proper hearing. The change in procedure to allow oral hearings-and certainly it is a change in the right direction-has increased this backlog. I understand that there is something like 20,000 cases in total in the backlog; perhaps it is even more than that at this time. Some 13,800 of these cases are refugee cases. I can imagine the concern of these people who are desperate to remain in Canada or to have their relatives come to this country.
We agree completely that the situation is very critical, but our real concern is about the ad hockery of this legislation which deals with only a small aspect of the problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government's announcement that it would allocate all funds for defending victims of discrimination to a single agency was a mistake. I believe that funds earmarked for defending women should have been allocated to the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, and I deplore the fact that
the Government put all its eggs in one basket by directing all funds for defending victims of discrimination to a single agency.
Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely nothing against the Canadian Council of Social Development, but it is not the ideal vehicle for women to organize and take significant action to defend their rights.

If the Government had given the Legal Education and Action Fund the money to defend women, it would have permitted them to set their own priorities. Now with the Canadian Council on Social Development, the money will be given on a case by case basis. The same work will be done twice and we will lose time and money.
My enthusiasm is squarely blasted when I think of the bureaucratic process and the delays women will have to face with the new program of legal contestation established yesterday by the Tories.


NATIVE PEOPLES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (Mr. Crombie) appointed a three member committee to make recommendations for the establishment of a National Polar Institute for Canada. Unfortunately the Inuit are not represented on this committee. Inuit people will not be involved in making basic recommendations for an institute dealing with their home territory.
It is important for southern Canadians to remember that when it comes to dealing with the Arctic, Inuit people have expertise which cannot be duplicated by academic degrees or scientific and organizational know-how.
In any future development in the Arctic, the Inuit are the people most directly affected. Surely the Minister must know that the time has passed when southern based academics and bureaucrats can make basis decisions affecting Inuit people without their involvement. Time for their involvement is at the beginning of the process, not halfway down the line. I urge the Minister to remember his responsibilities and to add at least one Inuit to the committee.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I read in the press that the French Prime Minister was to attend

September 26, 1985
underground nuclear tests of neutron bombs to be conducted on an atoll in the Pacific Ocean.
As a Member of Parliament and as a Canadian, I find it intolerable that any country on this planet should continue to conduct nuclear tests without knowing the possible impact on the earth's crust and without advising other countries.
I therefore urge the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in my Government to enquire about the exact date of the last nuclear tests conducted in the Pacific by the French. There is no doubt in my mind that all Canadians and the various peace movements in Canada are opposed to the conducting of any tests of this kind.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons should be aware of the efforts of some innovative farmers in north central Saskatchewan.
One year ago the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool announced it would be closing the grain elevator in Big River. Farmers in the surrounding area, after protesting the closure in vain, formed a co-operative to explore some possibilities on their own. As their member of Parliament, I worked closely with these farmers and met with them on several occasions.
The farmers were also successfully helped by their MLA, the Hon. Colin Maxwell, and on one occasion we met with Canadian Transport Commissioner Jim McDonough, who provided technical advice. The farmers were able to purchase the Big River elevator from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, sign a lease with CN Rail and enlist the assistance of Pioneer Grain to help them manage the elevator. Special thanks should be directed to a former Member of this House, the Hon. Otto Lang, now of Pioneer Grain. Mr. Lang was instrumental in aiding the farmers' cause.
I would like to pay tribute to all the farmers who made this venture possible, particularly Big River farmer Eugene Swanson. At a time when there are many problems in Canadian agriculture, it is reassuring to hear a farming success story.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, while it was very good news to learn on September 25, 1985, from the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) that the federaL Government has finally committed itself to providing funds to assist with legal expenses for those seeking their rights
to equality in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, my colleagues and I are greatly concerned about the way in which the Government proposes to administer and allocate these funds.
These funds are needed to pay for the cost of challenges in court. They are needed by many groups which have been disadvantaged until now by unequal treatment, namely, the women of Canada, the native people, the handicapped, and members of various multicultural groups. These groups constitute a huge majority of the people of Canada who, until now, have been denied equal rights.
Why does the Government seem to insist on giving all these important funds on a case by case basis through the Canadian Council on Social Development? In asking this, 1 want to affirm my respect for the outstanding work of the Canadian Council on Social Development, which has been entrusted with responsibility for assigning financial support for court challenges.
It is how these funds are assigned that is of critical importance. The principle of the Government being at arms length is also important. But why does the Government not guarantee, as these constituent groups have demanded, that adequate funds be given to the organizations responsible for an over-all approach? They are the groups affected, and they are the ones who are qualified to decide the priorities, timing, and issues that are appropriate. Women understand the issues of women. Canadian natives understand those that concern natives, and the handicapped know what their approach must be. Each of these major groups has its views-


Mr. Speaker:: 
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the year 1985 marks the one-hundredth anniversary of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is unfortunate that this anniversary also marks the rescinding of an historic right for railway employees, namely, the suspension of all CP Railway travel passes for retired employees.
Railway employees have had travel privileges on Canadian railways since 1856. Canadian National continues to honour this right of retirees.
The CPR has given no reason for this mean treatment of those who have given the railway so many years of faithful service. The only explanation offered has been that it is a matter of "principle". It is apparently a CPR principle to cut off this small concession to retired workers at the same time it is celebrating 100 years of successful operation made possible by the work of its employees.
September 26, 1985

It is apparently a CPR principle to stop any rail travel by over 65s at the same time that it is paying salaries to senior executives well in excess of $500,000 annually.
This display of unparallelled meanness and lack of understanding leads me to bestow on the CPR the title of "Corporate Scrooge of the Year" for its failure to keep faith with its former employees.
As part of this award, I wish that all CP executives and board members be forced to watch repeated showings of their own television advertisements which proclaim that an employee "is never just a number with CP". This, of course, is true. The CPR continues to show by its actions-


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


WORLD MARITIME DAY
Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I bring to the attention of this House the celebrations today throughout the world of World Maritime Day.
On behalf of Canada, I would like to offer congratulations on this occasion to the International Maritime Organization based in London, England, and to its esteemed Secretary General, Mr. C.P. Srivastava for a very successful year.
During its 26 years of existence, IMO has been instrumental in improving maritime safety. Canada was a founding member and has played a significant role in the development of IMO. At present, Mr. W. A. O'Neil, president of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, is Chairman of IMO Council.
The theme of World Maritime Day for 1985 is Maritime Search and Rescue. The survival of persons in distress at sea depends ultimately on the speed with which they are located and rescued. The most important provisions on global search and rescue are embodied in the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue adopted by IMO in 1979. The Convention adopts improvements to existing procedures and introduces new requirements in order to facilitate speedy and effective action at both national and international levels.
It is with great honour and personal pleasure that I commend the convention and its objectives to the Canadian maritime community on this occasion. May I, on behalf of this House, convey to the International Maritime Organization, to seafarers in Canada and throughout the world, our greetings and good wishes on their continuing efforts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I take it that is in effect a message of congratulations, which is out of order.
S.O.	22 FISHERIES


CALL FOR CANADIAN OWNERSHIP OF FACTORY FREEZER TRAWLERS
Hon. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the Canadian Government does not permit the ownership of factory freezer trawlers by Canadian companies. The international market, however, recognizes that supply of fresh product is assured from freezer trawlers, as the appropriate technology has proven.
The nations that operate FFTs are benefiting from this market preference at the expense of Canadian companies. The ability of National Sea Products to remain competitive in the world market is therefore limited unless it is granted the requested licence to avail itself of FFT technology.
There are some people in Atlantic Canada who are saying that one freezer trawler will affect the supplies of northern cod. This statement is not in line with the facts since we presently have operating within our 200-mile-zone a total of 74 factory freezer trawlers: eight from Cuba; eight from West Germany; nine from France; one from East Germany; seven from Japan; one from Poland; eight from Portugal, and 32 from the U.S.S.R.
I believe that the time has arrived when we must reassess our priorities as they relate to quotas for foreign and Canadian fishermen within our 200-mile zone. FFTs will enable Canadians to find new job opportunities and open up markets now lost to foreign competition. Seventy-four factory ships for foreigners in Canadian waters and none for Canadians is no longer acceptable. It is time that we got on with the job.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is on a disastrous course:
This Government has embarked upon a course which could propel Canadian scientific inquiry backward and leave the country far behind other countries in scientific achievement.
These are the words of Nobel prize winner Gerhard Herz-berg. And what is the Government doing about this situation which threatens Canada's future?
At a meeting with his provincial counterparts recently the Minister for Science and Technology said: "Canada faces strong international economic challenges". But this sober assessment is betrayed by his cowardly conclusion: "We have recognized the vital importance of science and technology to meeting these challenges".
This is not good enough. Canadians will not accept that the Government completely ignore their future. Time after time, blunder after blunder, the Government has shown that it cannot recognize a problem until it is too late. Mr. Speaker, this stinks.

September 26, 1985
It is time that the Government do something about Canada's future and chart a course for Canada's science community. Unless more resources are allocated to this important sector, it will take a miracle for this country ever again to have a Nobel prize winner.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, according to Canada Post official statements published recently in the newspapers, not only must the corporation reduce its deficit, but it has to show a profit as well.
Though I agree with that statement, I want to warn the corporation that it should not be done at the expense of the Canadian people for it might unnecessarily create a new category of second class citizens.
Unfortunate though it may be, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that an ever growing number of my constituents keep complaining and asking for improved postal services.
We all agree on the need for new rationalization standards, but we have to keep in mind that the ridings are not all the same, that most of them are located in rural or semi-urban areas. Perhaps it would be better to make those standards reflect the reality of such ridings so that highly urbanized ridings will not get better services at the expense of other ridings.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge the Minister responsible for Canada Post to pay particular attention to the situation and keep a close watch on the development of the Crown corporation with a view to making appropriate changes and restoring a fair balance.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the concern expressed yesterday by my Leader about the possibility of Canadian uranium being used for nuclear weapons should cause all of us to pay more attention not just to that but to nuclear issues in general. I would like to bring three of them to the attention of the Government.
There is a conference in London this week having to do with the disposal of pollutants at sea and I would like to encourage the Government not to support the American position that the two-year moratorium on the disposal of radioactive wastes in
the ocean should be discontinued. I would encourage the Government to support the extension of the moratorium.
I would also encourage the Government to take a serious look at whether or not the sale of tritium could be included in the agreements which now exist with respect to prohibiting the use of Canadian uranium for the development of nuclear weapons.
Finally, I would like to encourage the Government to remember the promise of the Conservatives in 1979 that they would set up an inquiry into the whole nuclear fuel cycle in this country, from uranium mining to radioactive waste disposal, and cause that inquiry to begin so that Canadians can have a say, for a change, in the nuclear future that was imposed on them by the Liberals and seems to be business as usual by the Conservatives. We would like to see an opportunity for Canadians to have a say.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member raised that issue because I do not want him to have any misunderstanding about the setting forward of this particular motion. It is my intention to continue discussions. I am sorry that I was not present last Monday. We had agreed that the matter would go forward last Tuesday. I do not want the Hon. House Leader to have any misunderstanding with respect to the order of business. I will get together with the House Leaders at a mutually agreeable time to discuss these matters. I am sure that we can make progress.']
Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two to put to the Prime Minister who will be appearing here at three o'clock, I am sure, to read his statement. Is he coming in?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I expect so.


John Napier Turner: I would prefer to put the questions directly to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Egmont.



Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
When a Minister contradicts the Prime Minister, he is fired. When a member of caucus contradicts the Prime Minister, he is asked to withdraw those comments or resign. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, is this new jackboot mentality the way the Prime Minister is going to deal with every member of his caucus who may have a legitimate difference of opinion with the Prime Minister or with the Deputy Prime Minister?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the jackboot mentality in government ceased last September.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 26, 1985


INQUIRY OF THE GOVERNMENT
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also to the Deputy Prime Minister. 1 would like to know what kind of atmosphere exists on the Government side. Is it fear, and I want to emphasize the word fear? The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte, having repeated a statement five times, asked: "Am I contradicting the Prime Minister?" What kind of bunker mentality exists in your Government?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I as most Canadians deplore the atmosphere of any cesspool but I can assure you that that atmosphere exists on the other side of the House and not this side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week South Africa once again invaded Angola to protect its continued occupation of Namibia. There was a new threat to displace 42,000 blacks from their homes, and there were further arrests of UDF leaders, one of whom, Mr. Mbotya, died mysteriously in police custody. Finally, President Nyerere has urged the Prime Minister to impose stronger sanctions against South Africa.
What will Canada's response be to Mr. Nyerere's specific recommendations to ban interline ticketing to South Africa by Canadian airlines and to impose an embargo on South African agricultural products?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the Government of Canada not only had very useful conversations with President Nyerere yesterday but I was able in New York to have meetings during the deliberations of the United Nations General Assembly with other Foreign Ministers of other Commonwealth countries and, indeed, with Foreign Ministers of the summit countries, at all of which, not only did the question of South Africa come up, but at all of which Canada indicated the leadership we have shown and the leadership we intend to show.
With regard to specific proposals that President Nyerere might have made we invited him here to have the benefit of his advice. We are going to be considering very seriously the recommendations that he made to us.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ARMS EMBARGO
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same Minister. Does the Prime Minister of the Government of Canada intend to review the legislation, regulations and implementation mechanisms governing the embargo on arms sales to South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member, who, like me, is a "Francophone", on the ease with which he expressed himself today.
Second, 1 repeat that we are examining all avenues that are open to Canada. I believe that yesterday the House was informed that the Prime Minister has appointed Mr. Bernard Wood, a Canadian who commands respect on both sides of the House, as his special emissary for direct consultations with Africa countries and other members of the Commonwealth, in order to seek ways in which not only Canada but all other countries that are against apartheid can take joint action.


PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF GULF ASSETS-TAX RULING
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. All week we have been discussing how the Ministers in the Department of Finance have blown $1 billion by bungling the bank bail-out. Now we have learned that a ruling was issued with respect to the acquisition of Gulf assets in Canada, a ruling which will add perhaps another $1 billion to the deficit. Can the Minister tell us if that ruling was reviewed by officials of her Department, if the cost implications of that ruling were fully understood, and if she will undertake to table that ruling here in the House of Commons?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might respond to the Hon. Member. I realize that because of his experience in these matters he is well aware that the confidentiality provision, Section 241, of the Income Tax Act, specifically makes it impossible to give details of this. Unless the directors of the corporation involved want to divulge the information, the Government certainly cannot. I can assure the Hon. Member that whatever was done with respect to tax rulings was entirely within the provisions of the Income Tax Act and was proper.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE HEARING
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with that response. Looking at the

September 26, 1985
Oral Questions
provisions of the Income Tax Act with respect to the transaction, it seems to us that explanations are required. The Canadian public cannot be expected to accept this kind of story about hiding behind Section 241 of the Income Tax Act when $1 billion of the taxpayers' money is involved. Will the Minister be prepared to come before the committee with his officials to table that ruling and to explain the transaction to the Canadian public?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can say to my learned friend that, according to the information I have, the reaction to this particular ruling has been favourable and there will be an eventual recapture. As the Hon. Member knows, there is nothing more that I can add either here or before committee that would be held to be proper under the traditions of income tax jurisprudence.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY OF ENERGY OF ARGENTINA
Mr. Speaker:: Before continuing, may I bring to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of Senor Conrado Storani, Secretary of Energy and Chairman of the Radical Party Convention of Argentina.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who is also responsible for Investment Canada. Hon. Members may know that today the Minister has approved the foreign takeover of Classic Book Stores despite the Government's announced policy that such businesses would only be permitted to be acquired through a Canadian-controlled joint venture. Why has the Government seen fit to abandon the policy of the former Minister of Communications just one day after he resigned?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member would realize if he had read the press release that we sent to his office, the decision regarding Classic was made in part by the former Minister of Communications. He was in complete agreement with the communication that was issued at noon today, and the hard fact is that, as a result of the merger between Classic and W. H. Smith, there has been an agreement that up to 49 per cent of the company will be offered to Canadians. This means that, for the first time, the interest of W. H. Smith in Canada
will become partly owned by Canadians-another win for the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APPROVAL OF TAKEOVER
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact it is another loss for the integrity of the Government which cannot even stick to its own guidelines on foreign policy. Why was this sale approved with so much celerity, to use the Prime Minister's favourite word, at a time when the Government has before it a rival offer from Canadians to take over this company for $5.6 million more than the purchase price offered by W. H. Smith?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it would be so refreshing if the Hon. Member would do his homework.


An Hon. Member:: He did. He read the paper.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the sum total of his research is spending 25 cents to buy The Globe and Mail.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In answer to the question, there is no alternative offer. There is the hope of an offer. The hard fact is that Classic, as is generally known, is facing severe financial circumstances. On September 30 its bankers may not be willing to extend credit. Various creditors of Classic are very anxious that they not be left in default. We felt in the interests of the Canadian book publishing industry that we had to take a step to make sure that these two enterprises carried on in a viable fashion.


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister has said that the decision to bail out the Canadian Commerical Bank last March was based on the best information available at the time. Did that information include the opinions of the external auditors and the minutes of the CCB's audit committee?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the information on which we based our judgment was based on regulatory reports which had been discussed by the auditors, as the Hon. Member well knows, and with the banking industry, officials of my Department, and officals of the Bank of Canada. All of those facts have been made clear. The decision was made after we asked ourselves some very tough questions. We came to what we felt was a decision that
September 26, 1985

was in the best interests of the depositors, the borrowers, western Canada, and the banking system.


RANGE OF INFORMATION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question was very specific and the Minister has not answered it. I would appreciate it if she would give a direct answer. Were those two specific items available to those making the decisions?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it has been made very clear, I think, by the Inspector General, both in committee and in other statements he has made, that he is in touch with the auditors of banks on a continuing basis in his evaluations. To that extent the auditors' statements were taken into account. There were a number of items taken into account. I have made that very clear. I have not avoided the question at all.


THE MINISTRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Canadian Press reported this morning, and I quote:
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's office knew a few months ago that former Communications Minister Marcel Masse was being investigated by the RCMP.
Apparently Jerry Lampert, National Director of the Conservative Party, has admitted that he informed senior people in the Prime Minister's Office of the investigation so that, to use his words, "they were aware".
The Prime Minister will also know that Bill Fox, his Director of Communications, stated to members of the media that the Prime Minister only learned in general terms on Tuesday night of an investigation, and only learned the name of his Minister on Wednesday morning.
When did senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office first learn of the investigation involving the former Minister of Communications? Who was the senior official in his office who received the information? When did the Prime Minister himself first learn of the information?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, speaking for myself, I was advised on Tuesday evening through the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of the RCMP of the fact that a Minister would be under investigation and that search warrants would issue in regard thereto. When I was advised by the Solicitor General there was a meeting, which I was assured was pursuant to conventional criteria in such circumstances. The Commissioner of the RCMP and the Solicitor General officially advised me. I was advised of the identity of the Minister involved at about 11.30 a.m. the next day. I had no prior knowledge, prior to that
Oral Questions
moment in my office, when I was advised of the identity of the Minister.


ROLE OF PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICIALS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I accept that. I wish to put another question to the Prime Minister.
This is the second instance of a senior official in the Prime Minister's office concealing from the Prime Minister, or keeping the facts from him, respecting two Ministers who have had to successively resign because of those facts. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he has to accept responsibility for the omissions of members of his staff. Like every other Minister he, as First Minister, must take ministerial responsibility for omissions of his staff which affect the public administration of the country. What will the Prime Minister do about that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence that any senior member of my staff was involved in any improper way or had any knowledge improperly acquired or otherwise-


Mr. Deans:: Nobody said that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to give the right hon. gentleman that conclusion. I am aware of the allegation, or the statement alleged to have been made by Mr. Lampert. I can tell my right hon. friend that I am aware of no one on my senior staff who had been so advised by Mr. Lampert. I can assure my right hon. friend, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party as well, that notwithstanding the fact that as Leaders of political parties they will be aware of the manner in which inquires are made and transmitted back and forth between political Parties in the event of suggestions of impropriety being filed with the office of Elections Canada-I can give my right hon. friend the assurance that, notwithstanding that, I received no advice from anyone at all prior to being so advised by the Clerk of the Council.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER REVIEW WORK OF OFFICIALS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot escape responsibility from these matters by merely saying that he did not know. We accept his statements in this House. However, he has been shielded by members of his staff from serious facts and allegations which have resulted in two resignations. I am suggesting to the Prime Minister that his ministerial responsibility as First Minister is at stake here. He should have known precisely because he is Prime Minister. It will not do in this House to say that he does not know-his senior staff members knew and they should have told him.
Will the Prime Minister conduct a thorough review of the senior, non-elected officials in his office to assure this House, and thereby the country, that facts affecting the public

September 26, 1985
Oral Questions
administration of Canada will not be concealed from the Prime Minister when he should be made aware of those facts?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the little time that was available to me I wish to assure my right hon. friend, and all Members of the House, that to the extent humanly possible I have already made inquiries of those people who were available. In all instances I have been informed by senior staff that they were not so advised under any circumstances.
I take seriously the view of my right hon. friend. However, I wish to assure him of two things. I had no prior knowledge of any kind; nor am I aware of anyone on my senior staff who might have had such knowledge. It is really to the contrary. Inasmuch as we operate, and I hope we continue to operate, with the presumption of innocence in this country, I hope that presumption applies to the House of Commons as well.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is ignorance, not innocence.


FISHERIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on a related matter for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister and all Members of the House know, we have been preoccupied for many days now getting to the truth behind a series of contradictory statements which have used up the time of this House when other more important matters could have been dealt with.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: Get down to business!


John Edward Broadbent: Conservative Members are laughing and telling me to get down to business. I have a proposal now which will allow us to get down to business. I wish to see how the Government will respond to it.
Considering that in the last week alone three important and fair-minded Canadians, as far as we know-I refer to the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Pat MacAdam and, perhaps, in terms of its symbolism most important of all, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte-have completely contradicted themselves in regard to statements they have made with respect to the position taken by the Prime Minsiter, leaving us in the position of having to decide what is true, and leaving the House in a turmoil, and since the Prime Minister has indicated he wants to get to the truth of this whole messy affair, will he agree to have this subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections? In this way, these people, including the Prime Minister, could give their views and we would be allowed to get on with the other important business of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know how much the events of the last few days have dismayed my hon. friend. All the attendant publicity has offended him. If there were contradictions, I think my hon. friend would agree that there have been no contradictions flowing from my mouth.


Mr. Nunziata:: You are Snow White!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 have been asked specific questions and I have responded in a specific and honest manner, knowing full well the traditions and responsibilities of every Member of this House, which apply no less-indeed more-to the Prime Minister. I have indicated that if any Hon. Member of this House, from whatever Party, including the Leader of the New Democratic Party, has anything at variance with what I have just said, let him put his seat on the line, and I will mine.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said the last few days should have concerned me. I can tell him that it is not my integrity which has been called into question-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Oh, yes, it has. You haven't been right once.


John Edward Broadbent: -in the last few days. I say that to him. Nor have I, Mr. Speaker, to this point questioned the integrity of the Prime Minister, including the last question.


Charles Joseph Clark: What was that last phrase? Where is your courage?


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE EXAMINATION
John Edward Broadbent: So the Prime Minister will understand it, my question is this. Given the fact that an Hon. Member of the House on his side has said one thing which contradicts the Prime Minister and another Cabinet Minister in the past has said something which contradicts the Prime Minister, as well as someone on his staff-not judging on the truth of the issue, and I say that genuinely-if the Prime Minister wants to get to the truth, why will he not refer this matter to a committee so that we can get to the bottom of it and go on with other business in the House? That is what it is about.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on all of these matters, on each and every single one of these matters, I have provided Hon. Members with complete and full and honest answers. That someone may inadvertently or otherwise have a recollection at variance with a dimension of another Member, I do not quarrel with that. I simply say that in regard to the important and fundamental issues which have been raised by Hon. Members of this House at any time involving the truthfulness of my position, I have stated it categorically, I repeat it today, and we all know the conse-
September 26, 1985

quences of anybody who can produce any evidence at variance therewith.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER DISMISS OFFICIALS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that there are two other people, one a former Minister of the Crown and another a Conservative backbencher, who have said things completely different from the Prime Minister. What he is now saying is what they have said in the past is false, and we have to choose between the two.


Charles Joseph Clark: Where's your courage, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: Simply to the Prime Minister, if we are not going to have some way of getting this issue out of the House,
I want to get back to the ministerial responsibility issue. Independent of honesty, I want to ask-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please come directly to a question?


John Edward Broadbent: I ask the Prime Minister this. Considering that we now know that there have been at least two senior officials in his office-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite one more time a direct question, please. No more preamble.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the Prime Minister take steps to remove from his staff important functionaries who ought to have brought certain matters to his attention and who did not do so? Will he exercise his responsibility as Prime Minister and fire them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend I think would acknowledge, and those Hon. Members who have served in Government would acknowledge, the responsibilities inherent in ministerial resignation. It is not an easy thing. It is not something to which anyone at any time looks forward.
There were two incidents which occurred. For different reasons, the Ministers and I shared the view that resignations would be appropriate. That was an honourable, I think, and appropriate course. I realize the consequences of those resignations. I do not think any Prime Minister enjoys a resignation from his Ministry for whatever reason even though, for example, yesterday there was not even the hint of a charge. Indeed, the search warrants may of themselves completely exonerate- and hopefully they will-the Minister. But if my standards are such on behalf of Hon. Members that I believe that in those circumstances ministerial resignations were appropriate and needed, you can be absolutely certain that with regard to staff people who would not have fulfilled their responsibilities, I would dismiss them with absolute alacrity.
Oral Questions
There is no evidence at all to prove that any staff member did anything wrong, illegal or improper.


John Edward Broadbent: They didn't do their job.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 think my hon. friend, if he views it in that perspective, will agree that I, as Prime Minister, and as leader of this Government, have acted properly at all times.


John Edward Broadbent: They didn't to their job.


RCMP INVESTIGATION
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Prime Minister. 1 apologize that I have not been able to give him notice. It relates to the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder if the Prime Minister would agree that in most circumstances it would be totally improper for the Prime Minister to know the details of an investigation before charges are laid by the RCMP against any Hon. Member in this House.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I had no knowledge of this question. 1 had no knowledge of the question at all. I can tell my hon. friend this-I agree with the thrust of that question even to the extent that in the position of being in the presence of the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Solicitor General of Canada, in my residence,
I told both of them-and I convened the Clerk of the Privy Council-when advised of the fact that the search warrants would issue: "1 assume that you will proceed and when you have completed your work, you will advise me of the identity of the Minister against whom you propose to execute these search warrants. I don't want to know because even that knowledge might be construed as impeding or creating the possibility of impeding justice. I do not want to know, unless it is immediately within my purvue of responsibility, of charges being laid, which may be dismissed, against members of the Opposition or Members of this House.
I believe that that is an appropriate and honourable arm's length conduct in the administration of justice in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY MEMBER FOR CARLETON-CHARLOTTE
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister scoffed at suggestions made by my colleague, the Hon. Member from Cape Breton, that the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte had been making representations regarding Starkist tuna since last September. In fact, he said: "We were only elected last September". How can the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte's memory was faulty with respect to raising this matter in his own Party's caucus when his memory with respect to making representations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was dead on?

September 26, 1985
Oral Questions
In hold in my hands a copy of the letter the Hon. Member wrote to the Minister last September 1984, 13 months ago, regarding the Starkist question and difficulties.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I see nothing at all inconsistent with that. I did not scoff at anyone, not my hon. friend, nor the Hon. Member to whom he referred. I think my hon. friend asked me a question and that was whether I had any prior knowledge, or if this matter had been raised in my caucus in my presence, and I said "at no time".


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is an interesting qualifier "in my presence".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: If he wasn't there, how the hell would he know?


DEPUTY MINISTER'S CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
Brian Vincent Tobin: The
Prime Minister has stated in the House that Mr. MacAdam of his office investigated this matter and was assured by Fisheries officials that there was no problem last July. Is the Prime Minister aware that in a confidential memo from the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, dated January 14, 1985, the Deputy Minister says the following: "Rejection of Starkist product has been because of rancidity, decomposition, style of pack, short weight, wrong colour, wrong texture, processed defects"; in short, unfit form human consumption. What would the Prime Minister say would represent no problem or a problem to Mr. MacAdam and to the Prime Minister with respect to this matter last summer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that I said that Mr. MacAdam investigated this matter and arrived at a value judgment. I said no such thing. I said that in the first week of July Mr. MacAdam picked up some scuttlebut in regard to a television program, which he conveyed to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. He was advised by a member of the staff of the Minister of Fisheries at that time that there was no problem.
[DOT] (M50)


Brian Vincent Tobin: MacAdam denies it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He does not deny that he conveyed that information at all. The information circulated in Ottawa, he conveyed it, and he was advised there was no problem.
Inasmuch as Mr. MacAdam's name has been mentioned by others in this House, here is a perfect illustration. I know my hon. friends would not want me to act arbitrarily and unfairly. Here is a staff member who hears of something, advises the Department in question of what he has heard, and is advised there is no difficulty. He initiates the matter. He has more
than fulfilled his responsibility. That indicates competence of a Prime Minister's staff. He is doing the right thing.
The consequence of it, ultimately, is again, while difficult but proper, that there is a divergence of view. The Minister of Fisheries accepts responsibility. That is proper British parliamentary practice, and respect for the House of Commons and the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Would he care to speculate on how-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Order!


Raymond John Skelly: Pardon me, would he please indicate to this House how $103,000 worth of rancid and decomposing tuna wound up in the Department of National Defence, circulated to 32 Armed Forces bases in Canada?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Hon. Members would not expect a Minister of Defence to have his or her Finger on the pulse of every single product that was distributed to 83,000 troops throughout this country and our Forces based in Europe. But I can assure the Hon. Member that the standards adopted in the procurement of foodstuffs for the Department are of the highest, indeed a good deal higher than the quality of the questions coming from Hon. Members opposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ISSUANCE OF CONTRACT
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister confirm for us that a member of the Prime Minister's Office did not co-ordinate this particular contract between his Department and the Department of Supply and Services to ensure that members of the Armed Forces were not used as guinea-pigs-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: -for rancid and decomposing tuna?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Get out of here!


Mr. Andre:: Make that charge.
September 26, 1985


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member, in keeping with the usual quality of the standards of conduct in this House, which seems to have been forgotten by himself and his colleagues, to adhere to those standards-


An Hon. Member:: That coming from you, Erik?


Erik Nielsen: -to adhere to those standards and make a charge to that effect, which is precisely what I did when I had that kind of subject to raise in this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and concerns the approximately 200,000 federal retirees, or superannuates as they are commonly called, including members of the Armed Forces, the RCMP, and widowers and dependent children in some cases, who are receiving federal Government pension income. Will the Minister please explain to the House what the current state of negotiations is concerning the indexation of these pensions for those who rightfully paid for them?


Mr. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say first of all that I very much share the concerns raised by my hon. colleague and by many other hon. colleagues in this House about this situation. We are attempting at the moment to put the pension funds on a sound financial management basis. There are actuarial studies under way, we are awaiting their completion, and I can only say, to reassure those who may have concerns, that we are proceeding in a fair and equitable manner and that the commitments of this Party and this Government will be respected in any final agreement reached between the parties concerned, including the superannuates and the active employees.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, this Government is being stymied-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


George Baker: -unable to address the important problems facing this nation because it is caught in a maze of its own errors which cannot be chalked up to a plain and simple lack of experience. My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I was waiting for him to sit down.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are waiting for you to sit down.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: We are waiting for you to shut up.


George Baker: Does the Prime Minister realize that Canadians are totally dissatisfied with his actions in the tuna affair? Regardless of who bungled it, does not my hon. friend agree-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


George Baker: -that he as Leader owes Canadians an apology?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: They are the ones who owe the apology.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -I think it would be agreed that Canadians are properly demanding in their standards of their political leaders, but fair. They are demanding but fair. They fully expect in the event of any controversy to have their Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, or Leader of any Party, be subject to interrogation, and then listen with care to the responses. They fully expect that at all times their elected leaders will respond with honesty and integrity. I have done that in every question put to me.
I think the fairness of Canadians is based on what we have always been taught, that we are presumed, all of us in all circumstances, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to be innocent. We are presumed, all of us, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to be telling the truth out of respect for one another and out of respect for our country. That I have done in every situation, in every circumstance.
My hon. friend asks me the reaction of the Canadian people. I do not know what the reaction is, but I suspect that Canadians are sitting at home in cities, towns and hamlets across this country, and saying the Prime Minister has been seriously interrogated. He has responded fully and completely to every question, and the doctrine of fairness is now being violated by those who are indulging in character assassination. That is what is going on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER RESIGN
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister whom nobody can believe in.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


George Baker: I ask the Prime Minister for a general apology.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


George Baker: If he does not want to apologize, then why don't you resign?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Why don't you resign?


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: How stupid.

September 26, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think any fair-minded person in this House, in the Opposition, or in the press, would agree that the suggestion of my hon. friend is most unworthy and improper. There have been many of those which have been made unfairly in the course of the last few days, but-


John V. Nunziata: You are so perfect, you have a halo around your head.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -we are here to be examined and cross-examined, and on all of these items the questions put have been responded to fully. I have given my hon. friend complete and honest answers, i have no apologies to make to anyone, least of all him, in the area of integrity and honesty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oshawa, one question.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Minister knows, Canada has an agreement with the United States which states that under no circumstances "shall Canadian uranium be used for any military purpose". Will the Minister explain to the House how it has come to be that depleted uranium from Canada is being used in the United States as an encasement surrounding nuclear warheads? Will he also tell the House what corrective steps are being taken by the Government of Canada to enforce this agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised a general question yesterday. He knows that our treaty provisions with the United States are similar to those which we have with Sweden and other countries. They are based upon the principle of fungibility. Over the last 20 years there has been no evidence of any breach of the language or obligations of that treaty.
I do not know of the particular case which the Hon. Member is alleging. I will look into it. If he has other instances of alleged breaches of treaty, rather than dangling them out a day at a time in the House of Commons I would ask him to bring them directly to my attention or that of the Prime Minister, and we will find out the facts and get back to him and Parliament in order that we will all know the degree to which a treaty brought in by the Right Hon. Lester Pearson in 1965 continues to be respected.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, September 25, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) what business he intends to call for the remainder of this week and all of next week. I would ask him, in answering the question, to be as complete and detailed as possible in order to deal fairly with all Members of the House who want to be able to plan their activities and be ready to take part in debate. It is not consistent with the traditions of the House, nor fair to Hon. Members, to have the business changed, not only from day to day, but from hour to hour and minute to minute. We expect better of the Government House Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How short these memories are, Mr. Speaker. I have spent a lot of time in Opposition, Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You will be back.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -and compared to what went on in years past, this is paradise for the Opposition.
If there is someone whom I see more frequently than even my wife, it is the Hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gray) when I consult with him. I take that back, Mr. Speaker, my wife will kill me when she hears that.
I have been giving statements of House business as much as two weeks in advance. I have, indeed, consulted with the Opposition House Leaders, not for the purpose of making any changes, but rather to ensure that the appropriate spokespersons are present and to ensure that it meets the convenience of Hon. Members on the Opposition side as well as that of our own Members. I do not have to take a lecture from the Opposition House Leader in that regard.
With respect to the business of the House, we are now dealing with Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act. I hope that we will progress to second reading of that Bill. It is my intention to call, as the next item of business, Bill C-42 which relates to the dissolution of Canagrex. I think Monday would be an appropriate day to have the last day of debate on Bill C-70, the Bill with respect to child allowances. That Bill will go to a legislative committee to permit examination by Members.
I have indicated the legislation for next week and I also intend to proceed with Bill C-74, the Act with respect to electoral redistribution and amendment to the Constitution. I
September 26, 1985
want to deal as well with the Bills relating to the Toronto Harbour Commission, to the Canada Shipping Act, and to amendments to the Criminal Code concerning pari mutuels.
As always, in order to accommodate the Opposition and all Members of the House, I will arrange the business in the presence of a spokesperson from the Opposition who can make whatever contribution is deemed appropriate.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) might be able to tell us whether he has scheduled, for the next few days, any further discussions with regard to the reference to committee of the matter of the Canada Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member raised that issue because I do not want him to have any misunderstanding about the setting forward of this particular motion. It is my intention to continue discussions. I am sorry that I was not present last Monday. We had agreed that the matter would go forward last Tuesday. I do not want the Hon. House Leader to have any misunderstanding with respect to the order of business. I will get together with the House Leaders at a mutually agreeable time to discuss these matters. I am sure that we can make progress.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Striking Committee.


TABLING OF REPORT OF HON. JAMES KELLEHER TO PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 47(2) I have the honour to lay upon the table copies, in both official languages, of a document entitled Report by the Hon. James Kelleher, P.C., M.P. to the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada.
Statements by Ministers TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House and the country that I have today spoken to the President of the United States to express Canada's interests in pursuing a new trade agreement between our two countries.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We hope that this action will lead to negotiations for a new trade agreement between the United States and Canada. I have asked the President to explore with Congress their interest in pursuing these negotiations. Both sides recognize that the issues are complex. Both sides are determined to see the process moved as expeditiously as possible. The President and I will be meeting in the spring of 1986 to review progress and the prospects for a new agreement.

Hon. Members will recall that at Quebec City six months ago, President Reagan and I made a declaration on trade in goods and services. We pledged to explore all possible ways to reduce and eliminate existing barriers in our bilateral trade. We instructed the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and the President's Trade Representative to report on how trade could be enhanced between our two countries. Today I will table the Minister's report to me on this vitally important subject. Of course, we will make it public, Mr. Speaker.

Throughout our history trade has been critical to Canada's livelihood. Now, almost one-third of what we produce is exported. Few countries in the world are so dependent upon trade. Trade simply means jobs. Yet, our share of world trade has been declining. This trend ultimately threatens the jobs of many Canadians and the living standards of the nation as a whole. We must confront this threat. We must, as a nation, reverse this trend. To do so we need a better, a fairer, and more predictable trade relationship with the United States. At stake are more than two million jobs which depend directly on Canadian access to the U.S. market.
Five decades ago the world was in the midst of the great depression. Restrictive trade policies made things worse. Canada and the U.S. were the first to respond to the strong protectionist pressures of the time. They began the process of tearing down these obstacles to growth. Canada and the United States indeed concluded a bilateral trade agreement in 1935. More countries joined them in 1938. The principles underlying the Canadian-American bilateral agreement formed the foundation of the post-war multilateral trading system.



September 26, 1985
Statements by Ministers
For half a century Canada has pursued consistently a policy of trade liberalization. Today, more than ever, our prosperity and that of our partners depend on an expanding world trade and a growing world economy. In all the forums where Canada is present, we are working to remove the impediments to trade, aid, investment and development on a global basis.
[ Translation]
In particular we are playing a leading role in promoting and preparing for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations in the GATT. We are consulting the less developed countries on issues of common concern; and we emphatically support their participation in the negotiations.
No responsible person anywhere today advocates protectionism as a national economic strategy. Yet, sector by sector, region by region, country by country, Canada included, there persists the impulse to protectionism, whenever the going gets tough. Protectionist measures are always advocated as exceptional cases. But the barriers grow more numerous, more ingenious and more insidious all the time. Sometimes these measures are aimed directly at Canadian products or services; often they are aimed at others, but catch us in the process. The motive may be laudable. The effect may be incremental. But in any overall reckoning, protectionist mesures are always self-defeating. This impulse to protectionism is defensive and negative-yet entirely understandable in human terms. This is what we are up against, Mr. Speaker.

Economics, geography, common sense and the national interest dictate that we try to secure and expand our trade with our closest and largest trading partner. To do so is fully consistent with our commitment to freer trade on a multilateral basis. Of course, any new agreement between Canada and the United States would have to meet the test of our overriding obligations under the GATT.
Five decades ago, national Governments turned inward to shield their peoples from economic distress. Ultimately, protectionism proved suicidal. It brought on the great depression with all its attendant misery.
The Government will be pursuing clear goals in our talks with the United States. We are two sovereign democracies in every way, sharing the same continent. It seems to me that reaching out with our maturity and strengths to seek out ways of enhancing mutual beneficial trade goals is an honourable course of action.
The need to secure our access to the U.S. market was the dominant theme of representations made in all parts of the country to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) during his extensive consultations last spring and summer. The same message was heard by the Senate-House of Commons committee which reported in late August. Hon. Members will have taken note of the conclusions of the Macdonald Commission, together with its impressive analysis and documentation. Canadians will also be aware of the strong representations on
trade which have been made by their provincial Premiers over the last several months. I have taken care, and shall continue to take special care, as I did this afternoon by speaking personally with all provincial Premiers in advance, to consult with my fellow First Ministers on an ongoing basis as the process unfolds. To that end, I have placed this major issue on the agenda at the meeting of First Ministers in November. The Government will also arrange, if possible, a full debate in the House on the subject at a time agreeable to Hon. Members.
We must all be aware that international negotiations are complex and extremely challenging. Success is not a sure thing, but the results of success are well worth the enormous effort and good faith required for these negotiations. Moreover, we have already agreed to establish a special mechanism with the provinces, to ensure their continuing involvement throughout the process. To support Canada's negotiating effort, the Minister of International Trade is creating a new consultative arrangement with business, labour and other groups.
I emphasize that we are beginning a process of purely commercial negotiations with the United States of America, the results of which would provide sufficient time for all Canadians to plan ahead to take advantage of new opportunities which come with enhanced access. We seek to negotiate the broadest possible package of mutually beneficial reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers between our two countries. I accept the words of prudence coming to us from some quarters, indeed from some quarters of the House, on this subject. I accept those words and I respect them. We understand the natural concerns of various sectors and regions that their interests as well be recognized both in the negotiations and in any agreement. Of course, this shall be the case.
However, there is general consensus that we must seek to secure and improve our trade with the United States. To shrink from this challenge and opportunity would be an act of timidity unworthy of Canada. It would be contrary to our national interest. Our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity, our special linguistic character- these are the essence of Canada. They are not at issue in these negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: They will be stronger at all times in a Canada made more confident and prosperous from a secure and dynamic trading relationship with our biggest customer, our close friend, and with all the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at 1.35 this afternoon, 25 minutes before Parliament assembled on a matter affecting the future of all Canadians. I consider that to be insufficient notice, and I do not consider it to be living up to the standards which he
September 26, 1985

promised for the House of civility in the treatment across the floor.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with permission, may I apologize to my right hon. friend. I believed that it was delivered within the appropriate time frame. I convey sincere apologies to my right hon. friend; I thought it had been delivered on time.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course I accept the Prime Minister's apology. However, it is becoming a habit in ministerial statements to limit the Opposition's time to the minimum and to discourage free and good debate in the House.
I have not had the opportunity of reading or inspecting the report of the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) to the Prime Minister and of course can make no comment on it. It must have some substance in it, because what the Prime Minister just said is very thin gruel indeed. If the country is to gain entry into the Prime Minister's mind on the collective direction of the Government on this issue from this particular speech, 1 venture to say that the country will not succeed. There is no blueprint in that speech. He does not set the parameters as to where he would like the negotiations to go. Frankly I say to him, not having read the fundamental document which he tabled, that the speech itself was not worthy of the importance of the subject to Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The issue of free trade is the most critical issue facing the Canadian economy. Our relationship with the United States has implications for all regions and all economic sectors of Canada. Negotiations will be vital for every business, for every working man and woman in the country.

Mr. Speaker, the question has been considered very closely. I know it was dealt with in a C.D. Howe Research Institute report and, quite recently, the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on Canada's International Relations has made a full examination of the issue. I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) and the Hon. for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), on their outstanding contribution to the proceedings and especially to the conclusions of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, the position of our Party is quite simply summed up in one of the committee's conclusions. I quote from page 38 of the parliamentary report:
The Committee recommends that there be immediate bilateral trade discussions with the United States.
The discussions should centre initially on resolving current trade irritants, especially the prevention of the imposition of additional non-tariff barriers to trade between the two countries. Issues such as the definition of the net effect of subsidies provided by both sides and the identification of the appropriate jurisdictional authority for implementing changes in non-tariff barriers should be
Statements by Ministers
dealt with explicitly. These discussions should be used to explore the potential for additional trade liberalization between the two countries and for securing and strengthening access to each other's markets. Issues such as trade in services, government procurement, and reducing remaining tariff barriers should be dealt with explicitly.
Now, the following passage is very important:
The Committee views these discussions as the natural extension of a process begun by Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan at Quebec City. The Committee believes that it is premature for Canada to initiate formal bilateral negotiations but that it is necessary to initiate broad discussions with the United States to determine their receptivity to liberalizing bilateral trade. After a ministerial report to Parliament on the outcome of these discussions and on whether certain conditions have been met, the government should decide whether the prospects are sufficiently promising to continue on to detailed negotiations.
That, Mr. Speaker, is our position.
The Government, on the other hand, has moved a stage further than that and, we believe, prematurely. I cite what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. He said, "We hope that this action will lead to negotiations for a new trade agreement between the United States and Canada". He is asking the President to advise the Congress, which is the initial step into the initiation of such negotiations. This goes beyond what the parliamentary committee recommended and for good reasons.
We are concerned that before entering formal negotiations with the United States we, in Parliament, and the country as a whole should know the full parameters of the Canadian position. We want to know what the exemptions will be, what adjustments will be required and what assistance will be given to our working force. We will want to know how the country and how the United States will respond to non-tariff barriers. We would like a blueprint of the general tactic and the general scheme of the negotiations. We have not had that.
We consider that the Government is launching upon this exercise with the United States with inadequate prior discussion in Parliament and without revealing its negotiating position or the parameters of that position in any detail. Obviously there has to be give and take in the negotiations, but we would have preferred a more specific proposition presented to this Parliament.
I can understand and echo what the Prime Minister said; that this is a very crucial negotiation for this country. We have a huge market in the United States. It has 220 million people as against the Canadian population of 25 million. Seventy per cent of our exports go to the United States, representing some $80 billion in 1984.
What we are saying, Sir, is that we must have an honest and open debate on the parameters and on the cost of benefits of any arrangements with the United States. We must know what it is that the Government is trying to accomplish. We cannot go into this discussion without having a better idea of where the Government stands.
I noticed that the Prime Minister mentioned a parliamentary debate. I have it in his text, and he has repeated it here

September 26, 1985
Statements by Ministers
this afternoon. On page 4 of his text we find that the Government would also arrange, if possible, a debate in this House on the subject of trade at a time agreeable to Hon. Members. Not "if possible", there must be a debate on this issue and it must be early and it must be full. We want a far better knowledge of the position which the Government intends to take and the full scope of the negotiations.
The Macdonald Commission, headed by Donald Macdonald, a former colleague of ours, of mine, and a good friend, suggested that we take what was termed "a leap of faith on free trade". But this is too big a jump. We must go into these negotiations with our eyes open. The Government is not telling us the whole story. In fact, we are not even sure which Minister is in charge.
Initially, at the time of the Quebec Summit, the Prime Minister reserved in his own office and to his own purview the subject of bilateral negotiations and bilateral relations with the United States. He delegated to the Minister for International Trade the preparation of a document of reference, which I have not had the opportunity of seeing. Two days ago he put some distance between himself and those negotiations with the President. He nominated his Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Right Hon. Member from High River, a former Prime Minister-


Charles Joseph Clark: Yellowhead.


John Napier Turner: Yellow River-Yellowhead.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What about Vancouver Quadra?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I can say to the hon. gentleman that that constituency is on the wrong side of the mountain, but it is a very beautiful one.
What has happened here is that the Prime Minister is starting to put some distance between himself and the negotiations. He has delegated it to a senior Minister, that is true, but he is putting a little distance between himself and those negotiations and getting himself a fall-back position. This would seem to indicate to me that he is not quite as gung-ho as he was when he met the President on St. Patrick's Day in Quebec City.
What we are concerned about is the split between the United States administration and the United States Congress. The Prime Minister has recited the growing protectionist sentiment around the world.
The United States Congress is in a particularly protectionist mood. Bills are being introduced to set forth import quotas against a whole variety of Canadian products, lumber and steel. The administration is even using the health code to impede the transfer of some of our products across the border, like pork. The President is preaching free trade, that is sure. But even as he speaks of free trade, he includes in his most recent declaration mention of a war chest, strike forces to
ensure-Are you raising your finger, Mr. Speaker, to tell me that I have one more minute?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


John Napier Turner: Then I will ask for unanimous consent of the House. This is a fundamental issue and it is the first opportunity we have had to respond to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not disagree with the Right Hon. Member. I am perfectly willing to have that question put, but I do normally indicate to Members as their time is expiring.
Does the Right Hon. Member have the consent of the House to continue beyond his normal time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I want to thank Members from all sides of the House, Mr. Speaker. This is a fundamental issue affecting this country and we want to state our position as clearly as we can at this stage on the basis of the documentation we have.
The President speaks of free trade. He includes in that speech mention of strike forces and war chests to ensure that U.S. industry and business are protected and defended from outside competition. In other words, he is protecting himself and keeping his elbows very close to his ribs. The speech has a schizophrenic view, a protectionist underpinning to a vocabulary and to a rhetoric of free trade.
There are also increasing numbers of countervailing requests filed with the United States International Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce. This country is facing not only legislative barriers but we are also facing judicial barriers that the litigious process of the United States allows so freely.
I ask the Government, and I hope we will get an answer when we get an opportunity to debate this: how does the Government propose to deal with the conflicting approaches of the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. Government and the seeming inconsistency in the President's own statement?
Another important question in our mind: does the President of the United States have the power to deliver? It is quite clear that if the Prime Minister finally finds a direction, pursues it with some vigour, pursues it with some determination, he has the majority in the House of Commons to carry it. The President has no such power. The Prime Minister knows full well that there is a separation of powers under the U.S. constitution. With every month that passes, the President of the United States has less influence with that Congress, whether it be on tax reform, on the budgetary deficit and, I venture to say and suggest to the Prime Minister, on the question of free trade as well. With every month that passes he becomes more of a lame duck. The Prime Minister and his Government have already lost a valuable first year of their mandate and a valuable first year of the President's own
September 26, 1985

mandate in failing to bring this matter before the House and before the discussion process.

I think the Prime Minister is right to admit that the position of provincial governments will have a vital impact on the discussions or negotiations. How will purchasing policies, established in this country by the provinces, affect negotiations? How does the Government intend to respond to the needs of the provinces in trade negotiations?
What is the Prime Minister going to say to his provincial First Minister colleagues? Are the provinces going to believe in free trade? Is he going to move first to persuade the First Ministers of the provinces to eliminate some of the barriers between the free movement of people and goods across provincial borders? Is he going to suggest to them: "Buy Ontario, buy Alberta, achetez Quebec". Is that the tenor and mood of what he is trying to suggest in our relationship with the United States?
He says that he is going to put this on the agenda at the next meeting of First Ministers with himself in the month of November.
What questions are you going to put, I say through you, Mr. Speaker, on the agenda? Are you going to be discussing provincial procurement policies? Are you going to be discussing provincial subsidies? Are you going to be suggesting and discussing provincial incentives? These are very important questions, I believe, because we would like to know how the Government intends to meet the needs of provincial Governments in the trade talks.
I think, Sir, too, it is time to end the myth that free trade means unrestricted and unfettered trade in absolutely all areas. That would be tantamount to joining some sort of economic union with the United States and I do not believe that that position is supported by a majority of Canadians.
Canadians are concerned, Sir, in these negotiations launched today by the Prime Minister and his Government about our political independence. We are concerned about our cultural integrity. We are concerned about the independence of the economic decision-making process. I do not know whether it was deliberate but on page 5 of the Prime Minister's statement he neglected to recite that in his presentation to the House, and I read that paragraph. In the text are the following words: "We are not negotiating a customs union, a common market or any other economic arrangement which would affect our own independence or our relations with the rest of the world". I take that to be his position but he did not bring it forth in his presentation to the House. We would certainly be very, very loath to be part of any such customs union arrangement.
It is time to end the myth that free trade means unrestricted and unfettered trade in absolutely all areas. Liberals have always supported freer trade.
Statements by Ministers

The Liberals and the Liberal Party have always supported the liberalisation of trade relations, that is, a reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers, but, as I have said many times before, never at the expense of our sovereignty, our cultural identity or our freedom of decision in economic matters. Any discussions on the subject must allow for the particular needs of our Canadian economy and society.

We will want to learn at the same time as the Government moves into these negotiations what its view is of some related questions. What will free trade or free trade arrangements or a freer trade arrangement mean in terms of the reconciliation of our stabilization policies? Our taxation policies? Our regional economic development policies? What will it mean in terms of the independence of the manoeuvres which the Canadian people have in living and governing themselves in their own way?
Mr. Speaker, there is a danger of being railroaded into a hasty decision which might later prove to be damaging to the Canadian interests. I must say that we on this side of the House or this quarter of the House, do not have much confidence in the Government's negotiating abilities. I watched the performance of the Prime Minister at the Quebec summit. The President wanted the abolition of the Foreign Investment Review Act. Yes, Sir, Mr. President, he got it. He wanted the elimination of the National Energy Program, yes, Sir, he got it.


Mr. Chretien:: What did he get in return?


John Napier Turner: He wanted support for star wars, yes, he got it until the Prime Minister started taking a few polls and recognized what the Canadian people were really thinking. He wanted the north warning system-in other words, the Prime Minister threw everything right on the table at those negotiations and the President walked off with the whole show. Time and again we have seen this Government cave in to the slightest pressure. How can we expect that suddenly Government Members will discover they have a backbone to stand up to the enormous pressure which will be brought by the United States to get an agreement more favourable to them than to us? How can we believe that they will stand up to that pressure when we saw the Prime Minister's response during the summer when the Polar Sea went through our Canadian waters and we get a very late-that was an excellent statement, but-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Too little too late.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Too little too late and probably-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We were never challened before.


John Napier Turner: Probably opening us up to a challenge in the World Court but-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They came and insulted you not us.

September 26, 1985
Statements by Ministers


John Napier Turner: When that boat was entering Canadian waters there was no protest by the Prime Minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not a word.


John Napier Turner: Or by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They sat mute. That boat moved forward. The President did not yield. The President did not recognize those waters as being Canadian. The President did not ask the Prime Minister's Government's position. The President did not even require that American public boat to fly a Canadian courtesy flag going through Canadian waters. If it is that kind of negotiating skill and that kind of backbone we in this corner of the Elouse really do not have much confidence in the negotiating team.
Perhaps even more disturbing to some of us are the revelations of a dirty tricks campaign to counteract any opposition. It was outlined in a leaked document, a communications paper on the issue. There is an assumption in this governmental document that Canadian people should be kept ignorant of the issue. Let me read what the document says on page 7, and I am quoting the document:
The strategy should rely less on educating the general public than on getting across the message that the trade initiative is a good idea. In other words, a selling job.
Don't educate the public, don't sponsor a free debate, don't try to bring Canadians into your confidence. Try to sneak it by, do a selling job; in other words, image again before substance.
More specifically the document seeks in a sneaky underhanded way to discredit anyone whether it is Mr. McDermott of the Canadian Labour Congress or whether it is individual Members of Parliament, anyone who may not agree wholeheartedly with the initiative. I give another quote from this leaked document:
With respect to individual members of the Liberal Party, a survey of key Members and constituencies will identify circumstances where non-support of the Government's initiative would be either difficult or hypocritical. As examples, the riding of the Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. John Turner, is in the Province of British Columbia-a province whose forest resource sector must ensure and enhance trade in the United States-
-and so on. Then my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is singled out and, then my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) is singled out. Surveys are to be taken in our ridings to find out what public opinion says on these issues, such as they are manipulated by the Government, trying to put pressure on individual Members of Parliament and we are going to have that issue hopefully analysed by the committee-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: But we have backbone. We are not afraid.


John Napier Turner: That is a real technique. I can tell both right hon. gentlemen that they should know that I have always been in favour of freer trade. I understand the problems of British Columbia, of lumber getting into the American market, and how important it is to the province. I
understand the difficulty that we have had on the coast with respect to our fishing rights. But I will tell the right hon. gentleman, as a Member for British Columbia, we are also interested not only in better penetration of the American market but in pursuing our advantages into the Pacific Rim, into the Far East, into the other parts of the world-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Welcome aboard.


Charles Joseph Clark: Starting to come around.


John Napier Turner: That is it, just so long as you understand that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There is a risk there, the independence of Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who speaks for the Liberal Party?


John Napier Turner: To play games like this with public opinion on an issue so critical to the future of our country, a secret plan to try to discredit open and informed debate, a secret plan to try to put pressure on any Members of Parliament who individually may ask relevant questions or may even take a contrary position, as usual the Government puts public relations first, and pretty sleazy public relations at that-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Right on.


John Napier Turner: -before substantive economic matters and before intelligent public debate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Right on.


John Napier Turner: It betrays the weakness and paranoia and the looking over one's shoulder of a scandal ridden Government with a bunker mentality. That is what it portrays, Mr. Speaker.
We are asking whether we have any confidence in this team. Just as disturbing is the revelation last weekend. The United States invited four major powers, a group of five they like to call themselves, the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and Japan to a meeting called quite clandestinely. As a result of that meeting, there was an agreement among those five economic powers to work out ways to devalue the U.S. dollar. Was our Government informed? Was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) informed in advance? Was the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) informed? 1 want to know whether or not the Prime Minister was informed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Napier Turner: At the Shamrock Summit, President Reagan said, "Brian, give me a call any time you have a problem". That has changed and is now, "Don't call me, we'll call you, Brian". He did not give us any warning at all.
September 26, 1985

There is no country more vulnerable to exchange movement in the American dollar than Canada. Billions of dollars cross our border every day. We have a mutual trade of $150 billion. Yet we were not informed of this. We are now entering a free trade negotiation with the United States while our potential partner did not have the decency or foresight to inform its future partner of an exchange rate movement, something which is frankly more important than the tariff levels to which I will turn in a moment. If that is the type of special relationship the Prime Minister now has with the President of the United States, it is certainly not the kind of special relationship that bears up in a matter of substance.
Tariff barriers have been reduced gradually and progressively throughout the negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. By 1987, 80 per cent of our trade with the United States will be free of tariffs and 15 per cent of our trade will be subject to tariffs of 5 per cent or less. That means that 95 per cent of all Canadian goods moving across the American border is already subject to a maximum tariff of 5 per cent or is not subject to a tariff at all. Movements in the exchange rate are now more important than or equally as important as the remaining tariffs. It is the non-tariff barriers about which we must worry.
The key area for discussion and negotiation continues to be non-tariff barriers like subsidies, regulations and procurement policies. The non-tariff barriers in the United States are protected under a new guise. It is a political, economic and legal one. It can be harassment of all three kinds with the way the United States economy operates. We have to know the impact of these negotiations regarding non-tariff barriers on the various regions and sectors of Canada.
In order to eliminate those non-tariff barriers, procurement policies of the provinces and of the states and exports subsidies, only a new style of treaty will work. What will work is not an agreement but a treaty binding the federal and state Governments of the United States and the federal and provincial Governments of Canada. We should not allow pressure from the United States Government to force us to include certain items as non-tariff barriers in the discussions.
Washington has a new vocabulary. The people there like to call negotiations on trade negotiations for a level playing field. A level playing field is local vocabulary for a preoccupation with hidden and overt subsidies that foreign governments provide for exports. Americans and the Congress in particular equate subsidies to so-called unfair competition. There are a whole range of subsidies now subject to countervailing duties. Among those subsidies are subsidies that go right to the heart of the regional economic development policy of this country.
We want a full declaration from the Government indicating how it intends to treat the following items in its negotiations with the United States: social programs, health care, unemployment insurance, which has already been considered a subsidy by some in the United States, family allowances and pensions. What are we going to do about the independence and integrity of our cultural industries? What about the independence, strength and ownership of our financial industries?
Statements by Ministers
What about agricultural support? What about the Canadian Wheat Board? What about all the marketing boards? What about the initial payment under the Wheat Board, something which has been considered by the United States to be a hidden subsidy? What about the auto pact?
We take the view that the auto pact ought not to be included in these negotiations. We take the view that a special arrangement ought to be made for agriculture and that our cultural and financial industries should remain intact.
What about equalization payments? Those could be considered hidden subsidies open to countervail unless they are specifically included in an agreement. What about export incentives for industries in the provinces that have sales directed at the American market? There is a whole range of policies and programs which, in the words of the Parliamentary Committee, are of fundamental importance to the maintenance of a distinctive Canadian identity or to keeping solemn commitments made to significant elements of Canadian society.
The issues to which I have referred should be spelled out very clearly at the outset. The Macdonald Commission has calculated the benefits of free trade but to date the Government has not provided us with an assessment of the costs by sector, by region, by industry and by worker. What will Canadian businesses and invididuals be asked to give up?
What about the footwear industry and the clothing industry? We all know that we are not going to get something for nothing through these negotiations. Is Canada going to lose entire industries as a result of the shift in economic activity? If so, which ones and where? What sort of adjustments to the system does the Government propose?
Has the Government explored all the alternatives to enhancing our economic performance? Some argue that the GATT process has already liberalized trade and that due to the complexity of our trading relationship with the United States, that process is the most effective way to increase our trade levels with the United States and other countries. Should we not, as the committee recommends, be concentrating first on settling existing irritants to trade with the United States, opening up informal discussions and setting up the parameters of these discussions with the United States? Should we not be listing the elements affected? Interprovincial trade needs to be examined and impediments removed.
What would be the impact of these negotiations on our other trading partners? Have we explored how Japan, the Third World and the European Economic Community will react? What will be the impact on Canadian jobs, regions, transitional programs and the full-employment strategy of the Government?
We have always encouraged the Government of Canada to seek ways to enhance our trade, not only with the United States but with all countries, through an effective trade strategy. We have encouraged the Government to improve our access to foreign markets. However, a debate such as this must be an open and public one and, in our view, it must precede any formal negotiations with the United States.

September 26, 1985
Statements by Ministers


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: So far, we have had nothing but secrecy. This Party will continue to demand a full debate in this House before negotiations are entered into. We want the parameters of Canada's position laid out. Vague phrases from the Prime Minister like, "We are going to get a better deal," just are not good enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think we might establish now that I assume that the House would show the same courtesy to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) as it did to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) if he sought it.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the agreement to your suggestion that has come from both sides of the House but I will try to stick closer to what I understand the rules to be which is that I will make a statement of about the same length as the one made on the other side of the House.
Let me begin by saying, not entirely facetiously, that I found this nationalist-oriented speech coming from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to be very strange coming as it did from a man who not very many months ago attacked the National Energy Program. Having made that point, I would like to say that, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) knows full well and as the Leader of the Opposition addressed in the substance of his comments, what we are talking about here is the very future of our nation. There can be nothing more important in the life of this Parliament than the subject matter the Prime Minister has introduced today.
I would say to the Prime Minister that when I read the brief document, I was alarmed, and I am speaking frankly. Knowing something about Canadian history, I know that it was the first Leader of the Conservative Party, the first Prime Minister of Canada, who gave this nation a national policy. With the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, I did not agree with all the details of that policy. However, with what I did agree as a Canadian was a sense of nationhood and a sense of commitment which went against the prevailing continentalism which existed south of the border and in parts of this land which said that we had to do certain things to build this nation on our own. He developed what he called a national policy which provided the foundation for this nation.
About three decades ago, another Conservative Leader, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, made one of the finest speeches I have ever read. As a matter of fact, it was a speech he gave in Saskatchewan where he spoke as a passionate Canadian nationalist and warned of the dangers of continentalism. It was not because he was anti-American. I hope in this debate we can avoid those caricature-type arguments. He made a passionate speech warning against the need to preserve certain
Canadian institutions, including economic ones, and traditional patterns of behaviour which we had built up here so that we would remain independent as a nation.
I wish to say to the Prime Minister that if he looks carefully at some of the key clauses he has included in his statement that what we have at this stage in the approach the Prime Minister is taking with the United States is a premature step of profoundly historical significance which will result, if it is carried out to its conclusion, not only in the ignoring of the warning of John Diefenbaker but the abandonment of the vision of John A. Macdonald.
Because I say that with seriousness I wish to express my concerns now. First, I wish to say that my Party across the nation, and Members from all sides of the House, would agree with the following assumptions as Canadians that we should be holding to at this point. We should begin by saying that anything we do in the economic domain of significance would involve our great neighbour to the south, the United States. We know that $150 billion of trade is involved between our two nations. We know that any sensible economic development in this country, expansion of jobs, and growth is inextricably linked to relationships with the United States. That is a given. Beyond that, it will involve the expansion of economic relationships and growth for both nations in terms of economic growth.
I also take it as a given that when we approach our American friends and neighbours we will do so without allusions. I hope we will negotiate not out of spirit of animosity but out of a spirit of tough-minded friendship, if I can put it that way, in the full knowledge that we have to look after our interests as politicians, which is what we are elected to do, just as American politicians have to look after their interests. When we negotiate we want something fair for both sides. There are a number of examples of this. I happen to come from an automotive community. I can cite that in picking up an argument which the Prime Minister has made that what he is proposing is to be consistent not only with the good of Canadians but with the good of the Third World. He made reference to the fact that what we do should be consistent with GATT. One of the interesting features of the automotive agreement is that not only did it expand trade on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border, and provide more jobs on both sides of the border, but from a Canadian point of view it was multilateral and applied to other nations, third and fourth nations. In that sense, it had a global perspective.
I say to the Prime Minister: Beware of our American friends, those tough bargainers, because when the Americans signed that agreement it was bilateral, which was not accidental. The Americans knew full well that the automotive industry on this continent is owned and controlled in the United States. They were prepared to enter into an agreement with us. It was mutually beneficial but they were thinking beyond that. They thought they made real gains, which is why they signed it. We thought we could make gains, which is why we signed it. I repeat, it was multilateral for us but bilateral for them.
September 26, 1985

There were important safeguards in it which recognized the economic reality that we are one-tenth as powerful as the United States, not because we are timed, backward looking or reserved, but simply because it is the most dominant economic power in the world, originally stronger in resources over-all, they would argue, and stronger in population. We have done well as a nation, very well indeed, with a smaller population. However, we should have no illusions about the strength of the Americans.
Any relationship we enter into with the United States ought to be one of seeing an expanded pie, if you like, for both, in the economic domain and elsewhere. As I said not long ago, what we must ensure, not because they are mean, vindictive or malicious, but simply because they are tough, competitive and pretty successful, is that when the elephant and the beaver sit down to eat this pie together that the elephant, inadvertently or not, does not unfold its trunk, pick up the pie and go home with it.
The key point we have to keep in mind is that we are dealing with a powerful neighbour. I say to the Prime Minister that 1 am concerned about the naivety, although I am not sure that is the right word, but the hastiness with which the Government is now committing itself to negotiations. The Prime Minister's words are important in this. He said that the Government has committed itself to negotiations. The Prime Minister had a conversation today with the President of the United States. He said that official negotiations are now getting under way.
If one considers the options, and I do not want to abuse the House in terms of time, they are really two-fold. We could do what the Government has now recommended, which is to enter into negotiations and follow the path which the Prime Minister has laid out. It cannot be any clearer than the words in his statement when he said that we seek to negotiate the broadest possible package of mutually-beneficial reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers between our two countries. Economically, that is pretty specific with respect to what he has in mind. I will come to the implications for our institutions and the relationships to that type of economic goal in a moment.
We could have done what the Prime Minister has announced with, I take for granted, the support of his caucus, which is to embark on that path right away. Or we could have taken another approach. We could have said that there are specific and real problems of Canadians, as there are of Americans, but beginning on our side we could say that there are certain obstacles. Not long ago I was in Atlantic Canada at a time when a decision came down in the United States which, in part, responded to arguments which said that the unemployment insurance plan in Canada constituted a subsidy for the Canadian fishery and, therefore, argumentation was made that that type of program, by implication, should not exist in Canada if we are to really have a free trade arrangement. Countervailing steps are being taken.
We have problems in the fishery on the East Coast. Our fishermen thought they had access to a U.S. market which is now taking countervailing action. We should negotiate and talk about that problem.
Statements by Ministers
The lumber export business in Canada is running into countervailing action, not just on the West Coast but everywhere across the country. This is because our producers are efficient, particularly in British Columbia, although not exclusively. A good job has been done in this particular sector and it is now facing countervailing action.
Our hog producers in Quebec-

In la belle province of Quebec and even in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, pork producers also have problems. [English]
It seems to me we could have started with the specific problems, sat down and said: "Let us try to resolve these problems." We could have looked at specific American problems which could well be the flip side of the ones which I have just mentioned. I say on behalf of my colleagues, and on behalf of all Canadians for whom trade matters are not an abstraction but very much involve jobs, we ought to have begun with these very real concrete problems.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that we start with that kind of approach. I think we should consider some of the other details in the package the Prime Minister has presented. Instead of now saying we are going full ahead for negotiations, which I think is a serious mistake, I think we should have a conference with the First Ministers of this land. By all means, let us have the First Ministers' Conference about which the Prime Minister has talked. Let us have all the premiers for a very serious meeting. Whether or not it is before the television cameras, I do not care one whit. What I do care about is the substance which comes out of it. Before we start negotiations, let us have the premiers sit down with the Prime Minister of Canada and go through all of the items the Prime Minister has indicated-in general phrases at the end but not spelled out-which are non-negotiable. He is absolutely right that our tradition of two great cultures must be maintained.

As Canadians we must continue to maintain a French and English culture here in Canada, through the legislation adopted by this Parliament and provincial Parliaments.

But we have to spell out all these general phrases. The Prime Minister has made reference, I do not know if he did today, but has in the past, that when the premiers met earlier this year they said-and I remember the essence of the communique-"Let's have a general commitment to free trade". Then we look at all the exceptions wanted by each of the premiers. Suddenly, in going through the list from British Columbia in the west to Newfoundland in the east, every premier in Canada had two, three, four and five exceptions for his region. I can understand that. That is their responsibility. I

September 26, 1985
Statements by Ministers
also want to say to the Prime Minister that if we are going to have economic relationships change with the most powerful economic nation in the world which happens to reside to the south of us, by God, before we enter into that relationship, we have to spell out in great detail here in Canada first what is and what is not negotiable. That is what needs to be done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We know the lists; medicare, marketing boards for our farmers, the Wheat Board for our farmers, unemployment insurance, regional development incentive programs, transportation programs. All of these are needed for our nation and are non-negotiable items. As far as my Party is concerned, and I will be specific and not just raise them rhetorically, they are non-negotiable items. They should be preserved. We fought for these things over the years in Canada and we are going to keep them. I would like to suggest that the Prime Minister say, "Let's meet with the premiers. Let's sit down and discuss the future of our nation", because that is really what is at stake. Trade may be about dollars and cents but ultimately it is about what nationhood means, namely, cultural sovereignty. The shape of daily lives in every community across our land will be profoundly affected by the outcome of what the Prime Minister has set underway here.
I say to the Prime Minister that he should give some second thought to what he has set underway here today. Instead of beginning that negotiating process now, he should have the premiers meet and, first of all, try to get a concensus about what ought to be done. He should certainly look at what ought to be non-negotiable so that our sense of nationhood will be preserved, and not only our sense of nationhood, but a sense of decency from coast to coast about our nationhood. He should try to get an agreement on that and he should then-not perhaps-but certainly come back to Parliament with a concrete proposal. I say to the Prime Minister, put the proposal that you plan to take to your negotiations before this Parliament and give all the elected people in the national Parliament of Canada the right to debate and discuss it before it goes.
We have the deepest concerns about what has happened today in the announcement made by the Prime Minister. I will be quite blunt, which will not surprise the Prime Minister coming from an Opposition Leader at this time. I think I have been candid about this because I have said it publicly. When we had a change of Government last fall I said it was good for the nation to have a change. As the Prime Minister and others will understand, I would have rather our Party had that change but that is a little premature, perhaps. I thought it was good for the nation and it was good in part because the Party to my right had become, amongst other things, quite lethargic and sloppy and we needed an improvement in administration. We needed a new toughness and approach to negotiations. However, we are seeing, Mr. Speaker, not an improvement, not a toughening, but an incredible sloppiness. It was not the Liberals, it was your Government, Mr. Prime Minister, who made the SI billion bungle with the banks.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And you supported the National Energy Program.


John Edward Broadbent: And that is the case. It is the present Government, Mr. Speaker, which has been so slipshod on the whole question of the tuna fish story. The tuna fish story was bad, Mr. Speaker, because of what it said about a Minister willing to take certain chances with what people ate. Beyond that it has revealed a kind of incompetence in the offices of Ministers, including the office of the Prime Minister and I, for one, do not want these guys negotiating for me at this point with the United States of America.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we in this Party have a confidence about the prospects of this nation. We see certain problems in certain sectors but, by God, Canadians of my generation should know that we can do it here in this country. We have a sense of our capacity, whether in British Columbia, the Atlantic Provinces, central Canada or in the prairie region, and one way in which we do not want to get out of our problems at this point of maturity, if you like, is to sort of pass them off with some kind of facile and glib form of continentalism. We are confident we can do it. Before we enter into those kinds of negotiations, I say to the Prime Minister, you propose, you ought to get out and see what kind of consensus there is in the provinces amongst Canadians, what institutions we want to preserve, and then when we have that consensus, debate it, resolve it in Parliament and then, and only then, should we go to our friends who live to the south of us and say, "Let's sit down and negotiate".


PETITIONS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of a number of farmers in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who are asking the Government of Canada to conduct a national referendum among all pork producers in Canada, in order to vote on the creation of a quota system.


Mr. Speaker:: Could I seek the consent of the House to revert for the moment, please, to presenting reports from Standing and Special Committees?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

September 26, 1985



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES POLICY AND PROGRAMS


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Third Report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages Policy and Programs.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. John Wise (for the Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-77, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, (pari-mutuel betting).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that question No. 399 will be answered today.


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Did the Government establish a luggage-carrier service at various airports and, if so (a) what will be the rental cost of such service (b) what amount will be refunded when the luggage-carrier is returned?
2.	Will the service be offered at international arrival points and, if so, what measures will be taken for the exchange of foreign currency?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: 1. The
Government is in the process of establishing pay baggage cart systems in the domestic and transborder areas of the major airports. The rental consists of a $ 1 deposit for the cart with a $0.50 refund upon its return to a dispenser.
2. At present there are no plans to introduce pay baggage carts in the international arrival areas. However, should pay baggage carts be implemented for this passenger sector,
Immigration Act, 1976
arrangements will be made for foreign exchange services to be provided within the international arrival areas.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), may I inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, consideration of Government Orders will be extended by 55 minutes today. Therefore, Private Members' hour will begin at 5.55 p.m.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we fully support the recent changes in immigration policy resulting from a court decision requiring oral hearings for refugees and immigrants. This was long overdue and it is a just and sensible decision. However, as I indicated this morning, as a result there has been a considerable increase in the number of appeals and a backlog has developed which means long delays for both refugees and sponsors of immigrants who requested and were refused admission to Canada. Unfortunately, our critic on immigration, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), was not able to be here today but I would like to quote from a press release of his dated April 23. He said:
"Eight years is long enough for a refugee to wait in limbo," said Dan Heap, M.P., NDP critic on Immigration. Mr. Heap demanded that the Minister of Employment & Immigration take action right away to end the waiting for 20,000 refugee claimants in Canada.
"The Supreme Court said on April 4, 1985 that they are all entitled to a hearing," said Mr. Heap, who represents many refugees and immigrants in his riding, Spadina.
Mr. Heap said that the figure of 20,000 includes people who could have been landed already, and do not need to be added to the backlog.
"For example," said Mr. Heap, a mother whose husband was killed and children persecuted for their politics back home ought to be landed on humanitarian grounds. Others with strong family ties in Canada ought to be admitted on humanitarian grounds, he suggested, as well as those who come from war zones. Besides, Mr. Heap pointed out, there are genuine refugee claimants who

September 26, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
give clear evidence that they have already been persecuted, but are being held back by red tape.
"Why do the officials take so many months just to type up the transcript of the claimant's statement under oath for the Refugee Status Advisory Committee to read?" Mr. Heap asked. "And if they really want to reduce the backlog and save time, why do they put people unnecessarily into the refugee stream?"
We have concerns in this regard, Mr. Speaker. We are particularly concerned about the piecemal approach being used in this Bill. This is rather strange because last June the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said:
A piecemeal approach could have very negative results for refugees who really need our help.
However, we have here a piecemeal Bill. Increasing the size of the Immigration Appeal Board from 18 members to 50 will not necessarily deal with the backlog of cases more effectively. It is important that appointees to this Board be carefully selected for their expertise, experience and sensitivity to the situation of immigrants, particularly refugees. Too often in the past appointees to the Board have been former immigration officials who, despite being well-intentioned, I am sure, have been really indoctrinated in bureaucratic procedures. It has usually been their job in the past to decide why these applicants are not eligible to stay in Canada. They often had to refuse applicants so they are hardly likely to be particularly sensitive on the other side and act as advocates on behalf of the applicants during an appeal. The process allows for bureaucratic input in the early stages, and having former officials of the Department on the IAB hardly gives a different perspective, one which is more objective and sympathetic toward the appellant. That is why we ask the Minister to be careful in appointing former bureaucrats to the Board. It is most important that appointees to the Board be from varying backgrounds, people who can be objective but who also have a particular sensitivity toward the immigrant and his or her family.
We have concerns that the expanded Board will apparently deal with refugee claims and appeals as well as other immigration cases which are often quite different in nature. Churches, community groups and lawyers have expressed concern that the IAB in the past has had very little experience and a very poor track record in recognizing genuine refugees. We are concerned about that in the present as well, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, we feel there should be a separate Board dealing specifically with refugee cases. This was recommended in the Plaut report on refugee redetermination published last June. This is most important. There are many circumstances which contribute to creating political refugees and these have been defined by the UN. However, I must say that in some cases I have been involved in as a Member of Parliament there have been times when the Board and this country appear to be much more rigid in their interpretation than is the UN. We know that most of these people cannot return to their homes and it is important that they have a genuine and sympathetic hearing.
I would like to read from some notes of my colleague referring to comments by church and community groups, as
well as immigration lawyers, who have a great deal of experience in this area. They have for years demanded an oral hearing. Now that the Supreme Court in the Singh case, assisted by the Canadian Council of Churches, has declared that refugees have the right to be heard directly by those who decide their fate, there is strong insistence that the hearing process not be watered down. They fear this move would enhance the power of a bureaucracy which has been hostile to refugee immigrants in Canada, and would result in many genuine refugees being deported to a dangerous situation in their home countries. There is a better way. The Standing Conference of Canadian Organizations Concerned for Refugees, which is composed of about 70 groups and which predicted eight years ago that our refugee claim process was unjust and would fail, has been vindicated by the Supreme Court. It has proposed an alternative way to address the backlog. They point out that the Minister and several successive Ministers could have made better use of the Minister's power under the legislation to create special measures or special programs for designated groups. For example, Iranians who arrived last year were not told by immigration officers that Canada has a special program for Iranians. Basically Canada does not send Iranians back to Iran. These people were manoeuvred into claiming refugee status which requires a case-by-case examination on a narrow legal basis and which takes much more time and of course costs more than the special program. It is estimated by a well-informed source that if all the refugee claimants who should have been directed to the special programs, plus the Guyanese who ought to have one, were taken out of the refugee stream, the backlog would be reduced to a quarter of its present size. Therefore that group, at a recent consultation in Toronto, asked that the Minister declare a special humanitarian program for all those caught in this bureaucratic jungle as of April 4, 1984.
It is worth noting that Rabbi Plaut, in his report on refugee redetermination in Canada, considers that this humanitarian and compassionate system of special programs has been too little used and should be used now. We ask the Minister to consider this as a better alternative for preventing the backlog which he often faces and which this Bill is directed to in a rather expedient way.
We were pleased this morning to hear the Minister clarify one of our very strong concerns with this Bill in that he has decided to amend the Bill to re-establish a panel of three persons who will hear appeals by sponsors to bring in their relatives as permanent residents. The original proposal contained in this Bill was to have a quorum of one person. In our view that would not be an objective appeal procedure. One person can only speak for himself or herself and that results in a very subjective evaluation. Three people give a balance and provide more expertise which can be shared in a final decision.
We also support Clause 6 which provides a simpler appeal process, provided that there is a three-person board to hear the appeal. It is a good thing that permanent residents will now have the same right as Canadian citizens to appeal the rejec-
September 26, 1985

tion of a sponsorship application of a relative. Many of us who deal with many immigration cases in our ridings find it very heartbreaking when a person who is a landed immigrant, but not yet a citizen, is unable to use the appeal procedure which is available to his next door neighbour who has just completed citizenship. We agree with the changes in this regard. There must be a fair and impartial hearing process and we, therefore, feel very strongly that there must be three people.
The NDP is very concerned that piecemeal steps are being taken through Bill C-55 and that this ignores the general recommendations of the Plaut proposal which we support. I would like to again quote our immigration critic who said in June:
Rabbi Plaut has given a just, quick and inexpensive proposal for 13,800 people in Canada.
The Member for Spadina called on the Minister of Employment and Immigration to use Rabbi Plaut's proposal. The Supreme Court said that none of the 13,800 people claiming refugee status in Canada should be deported without first having a chance to meet face-to-face, in an oral hearing, with those who decide their fate. However, he pointed out that there are many, in fact the majority, who deserve to be allowed to stay even without a hearing. Many of these come from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, El Salvador, or Sri Lanka, to which Canada does not force people to return. These could all be issued Minister's permits to stay, except those already under deportation order. They could be allowed to go briefly to the United States to be readmitted to Canada. In Vancouver we call this the "Seattle shuffle". Many of these people have come from countries torn by war or racial violence and have families .here to help them settle. It would be in Canada's humanitarian tradition to let them stay and the Minister has the power to do so.
We warmly welcome Rabbi Plaut's report and we feel that it has many-


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to count the number of Members present, to see whether we have a quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I see we do not have a quorum in the House. Ring the bells!
Resuming debate.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have such a large audience for my grand finale. I hope they are all going to listen very intently. As I was saying when I was somewhat distracted by the bells, there is a great need for an over-all review and a revamping of our immigration policy and procedures in Canada. Many of us who have dealt with immigration cases have very special concerns which arrive from them and indicate a need for policy change. I would like to mention several examples which illustrate problems that I hope the Minister will explore and which should have been considered
Immigration Act, 1976
in a broader immigration Bill. Some of these involve attitudi-nal changes as well.
The Minister stated this morning that he wants to encourage family immigration. We all favour this goal, but we wish that the Government really meant it. While the Minister extols family immigration, there is no question that the policy of the Government has gone in the opposite direction. Family reunification is being curtailed by the Government in favour of a "buy your way into Canada" policy. Entrepreneurs are given priority over ordinary workers and families. An elite moneyed class is being favoured by the Conservative Government. I suppose the Government hopes these people will vote Conservative once they get here. It is necessary to have at least $5,000 of capital, and in many cases much more, in order to come to Canada. There is no guarantee at all that the entrepreneurs who come will create additional jobs.
We do not oppose business people coming to Canada if it will add to jobs, but we think that the priority in this regard is unfair. Many families have been waiting for years to bring remaining relatives to Canada. Many of these relatives are alone. I know of many young women who have been left in countries where it is really forbidden for women to be separated from their extended families. These young women cannot come into Canada because they are over the age of 21. We feel that there is considerable evidence and a long history of immigrants and sponsors being very responsible in caring for family members and ensuring that they are able to get housing and financial assistance and not become dependent on the Government. We should examine our priorities again in favour of family reunification.
Another issue is that of exploitation of immigrants by immigration lawyers and consultants. This has been raised frequently by my friend and colleague, the Member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). This area should be explored. Sponsors and prospective immigrants to Canada should be given information freely. They should be told their rights and given help with procedures. I think we should even have interpretation services available when needed. In particular, I think they should be told how to appeal. They should not have to go to a lawyer and pay a huge sum of money to have these fairly routine procedures carried out for them. They should be aware of how to use their Members of Parliament in circumstances where they are having difficulty and need extra help. Costly legal fees are often not necessary and sometimes the somewhat unethical practices of lawyers are exploiting people unnecessarily.
A third issue is that of domestics. We still discriminate against domestics, most of whom are women. When they come to Canada on work visas they have very few protections and very little chance of becoming landed immigrants. Today one of my colleagues gave me a letter which describes a very sad and unfair situation which discriminates against a domestic and her mentally retarded daughter. This woman had been in Canada for five years and had always worked at the same place as a domestic. She had a mentally retarded daughter whom she wanted to have join her. Her employers were willing

September 26, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
to accommodate them. She had a regular job. The Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded supported her request for a ministerial permit, but she was twice denied permission for her daughter to join her in Canada. I think that is discriminatory in several respects.
I am surprised that the new Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) was the latest one to refuse her daughter entry. I think his reasons, in the letter which I saw, were extremely weak. We should be changing our policies and procedures to provide much greater opportunity and protection for domestic workers who come to Canada.
There also seems to be a deliberate policy to discourage immigration from certain parts of the world. We have received repeated complaints and examples of this, particularly from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. Today I was told about a Halifax doctor who brought his parents to Canada from Islamabad. His last remaining relative, his daughter, has been refused permission to come to this country, despite the fact that there is a written policy indicating that the last remaining relative should have special consideration to join the family. This family has also waited five months for its appeal to be considered.
We need to look at our immigration policy in respect of cases involving health problems which have been treated and are judged in a very inhumane way by Immigration officials. I can think of several where there was no danger to the health of other persons, where there was a chronic situation and where the family was willing to assume all financial responsibilities. One case involved two Vietnamese men. They were the last remaining sons; the whole family had settled in Canada. They were left in a refugee camp in Thailand. They had a history of mental illness, but health officials at the refugee camp said that it was due to the stress of camp life and of not being reunited with their family. These medical authorities felt that they should be reunited with their families and that their health problem was not serious. They were refused permission to join their family, and that is still the case.
I am particularly concerned about the problems facing women who want to immigrate to Canada and those who have already come here with their husbands. I ask the Minister to give special attention to these areas because he is also the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Women are still treated as spouses; they are not treated as individuals with rights of their own. When they come to Canada with their families and their husbands, they are treated as spouses. The husband is the individual who applies, gets the points and is recognized by the Department of Immigration. This results in a very insecure situation for women. They are really here as dependents and are second-class citizens. Often such women remain in very damaging marital situations once they have come here because they have no real rights, no financial security, no alternatives, and they fear deportation.
Another example is men who have arranged for women to come to Canada on the promise of marriage. We know of
many examples where they bring over women and the immigration papers indicate that it is with the prospect of marriage or that they are fiancees. They get them here and then they do not marry them. They are exploited, they have no protection of security. 1 recall the slave trade-and that is really what it is-in poor women from Third World countries through agencies both in Canada and Australia, in particular. Marriages have been arranged of poor women who are desperate to survive to unknown older men. There is a history of exploitation and a loss of rights.
We require a complete review of federal and provincial policies to provide a better integrated program for refugees and immigrants. There are times when people who have been here for some time, and their families, are destitute through no fault of their own. Who could have predicted the tremendous unemployment to which we have been subjected? This has affected some people who came to Canada years ago. Occasionally such people need social assistance. The instances are rare. Our population of immigrant families has a proud history of looking after their own. They do not apply for outside help unless there is absolutely no other way of surviving. We need to look at that matter and at providing more co-ordination on the part of the federal Government and provincial Governments in the area of social assistance.
I am particularly concerned about inland refugees from Latin American countries. In Vancouver, they have been lining up at food banks because they are not given the same kind of consideration when attempting to receive refugee status as the Poles, for example. There are long delays. Many women with children cannot feed their children-they have no money, they are ineligible for social assistance, and they are destitute. Some arrangements should be made to provide them with social assistance during the waiting period.
In conclusion, I am sure there are many other concerns which have not been mentioned today. The point we are trying to make is that we should not be dealing with only a small part of the immigration scene through one Bill in an ad hoc way or in a piecemeal way. We should be introducing a more comprehensive immigration Bill to look at many items which have been substantiated. If the Minister looks at her own case-load of appeals made to her on humanitarian grounds, she will see similar cases indicating that a change in policy and often a change in attitude, on the part of Immigration officials are needed. We urge the Minister to amend the Bill to deal with our specific concerns and to work, along with all of us, toward a more just, equitable and positive immigration policy in general.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, on this memorable and historic day, after hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announce that discussions will be held with the United States on the liberalization of trade relations.
September 26, 1985

Mr. Speaker, the procedure for claiming refugee status, which was implemented when the Act became effective in 1978, provides for two review levels. The first is the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, which sits in Ottawa and is responsible for evaluating the transcript of the interview under oath and informing the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) of its conclusions. The Minister then determines whether or not the claim is valid. If the claim is denied, the claimant may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board. The decisions of the Board are subject to judicial review under Section 28 of the Federal Court Act.
Claimants who go through the whole process may be in Canada for more than three years. That is why an increasing number of people are coming to Canada for the sole purpose of claiming refugee status and thus perhaps having a chance of staying in this country permanently.
The sheer numbers have led to unacceptable delay in handing down decisions in the case of bona fide refugees. We are even unable to put claimants whose claims are not bona fide out of the country, even if their claims were obviously not valid from the start.
Pending a decision on their claims, these people have no status in Canada. We find them in our largest urban centres, where they barely manage to survive. They are not eligible for federal assistance, and access to provincial welfare programs is limited in their case.
Unfortunately, there are many such people without status in Canada, and there is also a lack of staff to conduct investigations. This means we have a class of people who want to become Canadians, who are living in a state of anxiety, who cannot buy a house, who cannot plan for the future, cannot get married, cannot raise a family because they do not know what tomorrow will bring since they are not sure they will be allowed to stay in this country.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, something should be done for all those people.
In April 1984 Rabbi Gunther Plaut was commissioned to hold consultations and make recommendations on a new refugee status recognition system, and that will eventually lead to amendments to the Act. His report was released last June and, later on in this session, Parliament will be asked to consider legislative provisions based on that report.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has already launched public consultations which will pave the way for the formulation of a new application review system. Once it has received Cabinet approval, it will be necessary to amend the Immigration Act. Those consultations are a prerequisite because we must find some kind of balance between administrative expedients and outright protection for bona fide refugees who will be helped by the many Canadian organizations which take them under their wings.
Immigration Act, 1976
For the time being, however, we need a strategy designed to reduce the current backlog of applications so as to alleviate the difficulties experienced by refugees and make sure the undue delays do not create a de facto immigrant category. That is why new resources are needed at every stage of the existing system, and the Act must be amended to make the Immigration Appeal Board rules more flexible. That is the only way the Immigration Appeal Board will be able to tackle the ever growing number of cases it must deal with once they have gone through the system's preliminary stages.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 does not deal only with refugee status recognition, but with appeals as well. Certain figures might interest you. We think that this year the Appeal Board will be called upon to render 1,200 decisions on sponsorship applications. It is also expected to render 600 more decisions in other types of cases such as deportations, motions, applications for release in cases of deportation orders, and so on. With respect to refugee status recognition, we are talking about at least 2,870 decisions. In other words, to a large extent this increase applies as well to the Board's appeal caseload, not only to the number of refugees.
Unless we act soon the refugee status application problem will create personal hardships. Since it is impossible in the near future to adopt wide-ranging amendments to come to grips with the basic problem, it becomes necessary to implement transitional measures indicating that Parliament is fully aware of humanitarian requirements, that it intends to take steps to carry out fully the Supreme Court decision to which the Minister has already referred, and that it is committed to establish a long term amendment program designed to cope with current difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we make fundamental changes in the refugee status recognition system. That is not the purpose of the Bill before us today. Actually it is our response to the most pressing human needs, in other words our way to deal with the growing backlog of all IAB cases, not only those which have to do with refugee status recognition applications. That is inherent in Canada's humanitarian traditions. I therefore urge all Hon. Members on either side of the House to support Bill C-55.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mantha):: Are there any questions or comments? If there are no questions, we will resume debate. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I enter this debate because it is one that requires much thoughtful analysis of the Bill before us and which I must say, having analyzed its clauses, is one that leaves me wondering about what the intent of the Government is with respect to changing the Immigration Act.

September 26, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
I will explain briefly what I mean. The Government has had one year's time to prepare a set of amendments of what is, in my view and I am sure in yours, Mr. Speaker, one of the most important social policy pieces of legislation that we have, namely, how to regulate the arrival of people who decide to settle in Canada. People from all parts of the world look on Canada as a very desirable country. People who can travel and wish to emigrate here like to obtain the highly desired landed immigrant visa and the number of people who knock on our door is immense. That number is augmented by the fact that there are people who, for political reasons, have decided to come to Canada as visitors and then seek landed immigrant status here.
There are other situations that cannot be defined in the first and second category that I just mentioned. There are people who come here by various illegal means but who, pushed by desperate economic conditions in their homeland, made a decision and chose Canada as a land for themselves and their families. The numbers in this latter category have swelled.
We all looked with anticipation and anxiety at the arrival of Bill C-55 hoping to find in it some answers that would resolve a big problem, give us a sense of direction telling the world that we are coming to grips not only with the immense backlogs of applicants but also the problems in the existing legislation which have emerged because those problems were not foreseen because of changing times.
As we look at the law, we find that one has to arrive at a rather disappointing conclusion even if one approaches it with an open mind. Community groups and volunteer groups have made representations over the past year with regard to improving the law. In addition to that we have had a report by Rabbi Gunther Plaut of Toronto. It attempted to design a new approach for the Government, a new mechanism, to resolve the movement of refugees. Therefore input has been considerable. At the other end of the spectrum, at the moment of producing the Bill, we do not find substance or inspiration accompanying these submissions made to the Government by both the immigrant community groups and the Plaut report. Therefore, what we have here before us, I regret to conclude, is an effort that can only be described as a stopgap measure. It attempts to accelerate the existing mechanism of processing people who want to become landed immigrants. Therefore we find in Sections 1, 2 and 3 the enlargement of the Appeal Board to 15 and the number of vice-chairmen going from five to 13 and other measures that are intended to facilitate the functioning of that specific Immigration Appeal Board.
To make the Bill a little bit more attractive, I suppose, there is also a measure of granting the right of appeal to landed immigrants, to permanent residents, a right that exists so far only for Canadian citizens. But the substance that is required at this stage is missing because the manner and the fairness and the quality of the decision-making process that applies so far as experienced by those who are in charge of processing people who are waiting for a landed immigrant status will not
be changed. In other words, the quality of the process will not be affected by this Bill and that is the regrettable part.
We, of course, in the Liberal Party will press in committee beyond this stage of debate here in the House. We will press for amendments. We hope that the Minister will approach the whole subject in committee with an open mind and accept a number of proposals that are definitely intended to improve the quality of the Bill. However, there is only so much that can be done within the framework of this piece of legislation which unfortunately is narrow and does not incorporate the good stuff, the good advice, the well thought out ideas that, as I said, have been produced by individuals and by groups in the year past.
Any discussion on the Immigration Act must say something about certain situations, namely the fact that at the present time there are delays that go into a considerable number of years in the processing of orders in council. The landing process, in other words, for people who are waiting for their order in council is extremely long and it causes a number of hardships on the economic well-being of the families affected. The practice of issuing a social insurance number starting with the number nine to those who are approved but have not been finally landed is causing hardships for those who seek employment. They find it extremely difficult to convince employers to hire them.
In addition to delays there is the question of insensitivity on the part of officials in certain situations. There is, for instance, the case of a single mother with children who has been waiting for permission to come to Canada. She is a refugee in a camp in Austria, having fled Czechoslovakia but our officials feel she should not be assisted in coming over to join her sister who has been a Canadian citizen for many years because of a court order that has been issued in her country of origin, namely Czechoslovakia.
Here is a person who is most eager and ready to move to Canada and lives under very stressful conditions and yet there does not seem to be that sensitivity on the part of our officials that ought to accompany the processing of such an application.
There is in the present legislation, and probably it was an oversight in past legislation, a situation that affects adolescents between the ages of 13 and 18 who cannot be adopted and for whom there is no provision in the law for anyone to adopt them while they are visiting here in Canada, even when there is a family willing to adopt them. There is in other words a gap of age between that of 13 and 18 which negatively affects young people. That is a case that was widely publicized a few weeks ago in Alberta. It is only suitable that in International Youth Year we would look at this Bill in the hope of finding some of the answers that could only be the result of the experience of the last few years having seen what the shortcomings are of the existing piece of legislation.
The present piece of legislation that is before us today deals mostly with Immigration Appeal Board methods but it is called the Immigration Act. I submit to you that it lacks compassion in not bringing forward some of the changes that I am sure the Department is capable of advancing and suggest-
September 26, 1985

ing to the Minister so that this Bill would be enhanced and enriched and improved in its quality. I would hope that once we are beyond this stage in committee the Minister will want to take the initiative himself and come to committee or, through the offices of the Parliamentary Secretary, bring to committee a number of amendments that flow from the experience in recent years and go beyond the approach that is outlined in this Bill.
We find it, as a Bill, a disappointing piece. It is true that there is, as I said, an enlargement of the Board which of course has to take place in order to process more readily and it is true that it has a measure that will give landed immigrants and residents the right to appeal. We will support those measures. We would like very much to move the debate beyond that and urge the Government to give the whole matter the broader approach and the broader outlook that this Bill is badly missing. When I gave the examples on delays and insensitivities or the example of the young people between the ages of 13 and 18 who fall between two stools and cannot be dealt with under the present legislation, I did that with the limited knowledge that I have of the subject only to illustrate a certain situation with some examples because it does not happen very often that there is legislative time to bring forwad a Bill to amend the Immigration Act. When it happens I submit it would be desirable from the point of view of everyone who feels that immigration is such an important and delicate aspect of Canada's growth and expansion that it should be as comprehensive as possible.
Faced with that dilemma of Bill C-55 we would like to seek some indication by the Government that this is not the end of it, that this is just a preliminary Bill that the Government is examining perhaps in greater depth as it should, the report by Rabbi Plaut, that it is examining the submissions made by citizens' groups and that it is engaging in that kind of constructive, productive, consultative work that eventually leads to legislation flowing from this kind of consultation. Then we will be able to see the promises translated into legislative action. Unfortunately, this Bill does not do that. It is a mechanical Bill which focuses on removing a bottleneck which definitely exists and it somehow removes the pressure to introduce reform to a system which evidently needs to be reformed. This is what troubles us on this side of the House because as we all know, every initiative in life has its own cycle and once it has served its purpose, it must be replaced by another.
It is now time for reform. We have been given the advice of those who are the practitioners in the field in a number of ways but that has not been translated into action through this Bill. That is why we are urging the Minister and the Government to make up for what this Bill does not contain. Our criticism is addressed at the absence of amendments of a practical nature affecting certain age groups and certain situations. On the basis of its statistics and the lessons learned in preceding years, I am sure the Department could produce such legislation.
Immigration Act, 1976
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that legislation is improved by looking at how an existing law as we know it has performed and served us over the years. Since we are all frail human beings, we cannot produce perfect laws but we can improve the existing laws because we have tested them. That is the essence of the approach I am trying to outline this afternoon.
At the end of this debate, the Minister may want to enlighten us as to his stand on the following question: is this the end of this initiative or is this Bill one that will be followed by a more comprehensive Bill based upon a reformed set of criteria? If that is the case, we should know about it. We should know about it now because it will guide us when we go to committee where we will definitely by proposing amendments based on the observations that we have made in the course of this debate.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I was a little disturbed by the degree of knowledge which seems to be percolating in the two opposition Parties. The Standing Committee which I have the honour to chair has held over 40 hearings on immigration matters since January and has already brought forward three substantial reports. We began an examination of the Plaut Report on Tuesday. The committee will meet again today at six o'clock to hear witnesses from the Bar Association, Sikh societies, umbrella groups and Rabbi Plaut himself. We will hear all of those witnesses between now and October 9.
The Hon. Member asked a question of the Minister in the Minister's absence. The committee is functioning very closely with the Minister and Members of all three Parties. I think there were consultations with the Minister yesterday and we heard representations from all three Parties. The very clear-cut timetable for the Standing Committee is to try to conclude its hearings by the middle of October and submit representations by the end of October so that some of the major changes relating to the Plaut Report will hopefully be in place by Christmas.
I have a question for the Hon. Member who just spoke. He is a senior member of his caucus and acknowledges that there is a bottleneck in the system. He did not say so, but I suspect he knows, as do most Members of the House, that that bottleneck is extremely hard on people who are caught in it. They find themselves in very difficult circumstances. The Hon. Member is also aware that the Government brought this Bill before the House in June and tried mightily to get it passed by the end of June so that those additional resources could be put in place and the bottleneck could open up. We are dealing with human lives here.
Is the Member signalling this Chamber that the senior members of the Liberal Party of Canada who serve in this Chamber intend to keep the bottleneck intact just because the Bill does not deal with everything in the universe of immigration? Are they really going to dig in their heels and filibuster to the point where we cannot begin to clear up the bottleneck?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is conjuring up notions that he seems to perceive can be drawn from my intervention. He makes a lot of

September 26, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
the fact that the Bill was introduced in June 1985. This Bill, short as it is, and with the work that had been done before September 1984, could have been tabled in the House in November or at the latest December 1984. There was no need to wait until June 1985 to produce this kind of legislation. It is a three-page mechanical Bill. Knowledge of this matter was already available before the September election. If there was a real concern with bottlenecks-


Mr. Gurbin:: That's exactly right, and for five years before.


Charles L. Caccia: If there was a concern with a bottleneck on the part of the so-called Progressive Conservative party, it could have introduced this legislation in late 1984.
Certainly we are not here to engage in delaying tactics. We have explained our position in principle. We feel that the fundamentals are missing from this Bill. We see that this Bill does have some mechanical value because it will facilitate an existing process. However, I must repeat, in all fairness to the Hon. Member, that this approach will not improve the fairness with which we handle the immigration process at the present time. We are not incorporating the substantial criteria advanced by the Plaut Report some time ago.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I find the paranoia of the Hon. Member for Calgary West on this particular question to be unseemly and certainly unjustified. I am new to this House but I certainly know the tactics which have been used by previous Governments. Legislation is brought in immediately prior to a summer recess and then the Government of the day indicates that it would have passed the legislation if it had co-operation from Opposition Parties. I know the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is familiar with that provision because he sat in opposition for a number of years and exactly the same charges were levied at him. I wish that since people voted for change on September 4 that we would not have to hear the same tired type of political rhetoric coming from the Government. The Hon. Member for Calgary West perhaps might more appropriately have commented on the fact that when the Hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was in Government, as the Minister responsible in this particular area, concerning himself with matters of multiculturalism, there was not pressure which yielded action within the Liberal Government to ensure there was no backlog of refugee cases, and to ensure that there was no backlog before the Immigration Appeal Board, and that the matters which had become so evident since the 1976 changes in the Act were, in fact, acted upon. I find it a bit hypocritical for the Liberal Party critic to criticize the Government now when, in fact, the Liberals had the opportunity to make these changes, and yet they left a plateful of unfinished business to the Conservatives.
I find it equally intolerable that the new Governemnt after one year should say: "We just arrived. We have not had time." The Government has had a year to show that it is prepared to make some decisive changes. Rather than do that we are presented with a makeshift Bill which is inadequate, which I
will comment on shortly. It is a Bill with no guarantee that there will be a real determination to stop this totally inhumane backlog which requires people to wait for years upon years before they know whether their status in Canada can be determined or not.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture- (a) Canada-United States trade talks (b) Stabilization and insurance programs; the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Canadian Armed Forces-(a) Acquisition of canned tuna (b) Issuance of contract.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-55. Our Party's critic on immigration, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), regrets not being here today. The reason he is not here today is because, to put it mildly, we are a bit confused by the Government's management of House business. We have had to predict what will come next on a minute-by-minute basis. It is somewhat like predicting who will be in the Cabinet tomorrow, which one has to go on a minute-by-minute basis.
In my response a moment ago during the period for questions and comments, I said these changes to relieve the backlog of appeals on immigration could and should have been made a long time ago. I find the whole process by which refugee appeals were being considered merely on the transcripts and the quality of the judgments being made by the officers appointed to hear that particular question under the Minister's jurisdiction, and also by the Immigration Appeal Board, left a great deal to be desired. I say that because I think a great
September 26, 1985

many Canadians felt that we as Canadians are fortunate in the world and that we should be a model with respect to reaching out and welcoming into our country persons who are refugees. From time to time we have done this, for example, in the case of Asians from Uganda and in the case of the Vietnamese. In those cases our record was not perfect, but it was not bad either. In other instances, however, with respect to refugees from Chile and refugees from Central America our record has been far less than perfect. There are some 13,500 refugees who are backed up in the system right now and whose appeals, as the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) said a minute ago, are taking up to three years to be heard. In many cases they are held up not because of waiting for appeals to the Immigration Appeal Board but because of the prior process which is entirely within the Minister's discretion.
We in our Party are concerned about this Bill for two reasons. We are concerned because we feel it is prejudging recommendations made by the Plaut Commission Report, recommendations which, as the Hon. Member who spoke a few moments ago indicated, are now under active consideration by the committee of the House which looks into matters of immigration. In fact, there will be a report coming down shortly with respect to where we should go with the Plaut Report.
We feel that the proposal to take refugee appeals away from the Immigration Appeal Board makes a great deal of sense. Under those circumstances, the stopgap procedures proposed in the Bill before us just do not make an awful lot of sense. Why beef up the Immigration Appeal Board in order to deal with refugee appeals if, in fact, it is to be judged within another month or two that the policy will be to take those refugee appeals away from the Immigration Appeal Board entirely and establish an entirely separate tribunal, as proposed in the Plaut Report? For that matter, why beef up either tribunal if, in fact, the Government comes to the view, as I think it should have already, that the problem is not just at the end of the pipeline but with the number of cases which are being put into the pipeline?
Governmental policy under the previous Government, and I believe this Government as well, is that this Government will not turn people away and make them go back to their native countries if they come from such strife-torn countries as Afghanistan, certain countries in Central America or certain countries behind the Iron Curtain in the Soviet bloc, particularly the satellite Soviet countries. Under those circumstances, the failure of the new Ministry to take enough time to focus on this particular question, to decide that special measures are needed, is something which should have been done by the old Ministry. However, the new Ministry is new and not bound by the precedents of the past. It does not have to take as a given every word of advice it receives from the civil servants. In fact, it has an opportunity to bring a fresh approach to the situation. As I said a moment ago, that is what I believe Canadians voted for in the election of September 4.
My Party has been accused of being in coalition with the new Government of Ontario, the Liberal Government. That is
Immigration Act, 1976
not true. However, we have entered into an accord on a number of areas of policy which has, if nothing else, given an agenda for action to the new Government in Ontario. I am glad that after 40-odd years of Conservative Government, which deserved to be defeated, that the agenda for action which was laid down by the New Democrats is, in fact, being followed and that over the course of the last two or three months under Mr. Peterson's Government there is evidence of crisp decision making. A decision has been taken to seize the reins of power and to do something with them.
The federal Government has been elected with an enormous majority in terms of the House of Commons. It seems to be rapidly frittering away its grip on power even more quickly than the Diefenbaker Government did after its monumental victory of 1958.
As one commentator said, yesterday was Black Wednesday for this Government. We all know that when those types of affairs occur, when the competence of the Government is clearly not there, when the Government is engaged in firefighting and in dealing with the crisis of the day, that longer-term problems cannot be attended to. As early as the second year of this Government, it no longer appears to have the ability to stand back from the problems in order to come up with solutions and to show the courage, determination and political will to actually implement them.
The previous speaker suggested that if this Bill was needed as a stopgap that it could have been brought in as early as January or February in conjunction with the statement that as soon as the Plaut Report was released the Government would ask for advice of the committee which deals with matters of immigration and would then bring in its program immediately thereafter. Instead, the publication of the Plaut Report was delayed. We now have a stopgap decision taken at this time and no indication that the Government will have any capacity to take a fresh look during the three or four-year life of this Parliament, if Parliament even lasts that long.
I would like to come back to the specific measures in the Bill, apart from the measure which allows landed immigrants in Canada to have the same status as Canadian citizens in serving as sponsors, which our Party welcomes. The major feature of this Bill is to provide for an expansion of the Immigration Appeal Board. Its current maximum number is 18. The Chairperson of the Board told the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in the spring that the board would be expanded by seven members by September 1. I guess that provision will have to wait since the Government did not get the Bill through in June. It will be expanded by another eight members by the end of the year, almost a doubling in size from 18 to 35. Subsequently, a further 15 members will be added to bring the membership up to 50, if that numerical increase is warranted. She suggested this is a short-term program and that the new members would be brought on for two-year terms. She suggested very strongly that people were effectively being asked to keep their hand in at teaching, the law or whatever profession or trade they had because they were only being taken on for two years and after
7074

September 26, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
two years it was easier to return to one's former line of work than if one took on a five-year term. This is a training program for inexperienced members of the appeal board who are to be there for a short term, and who are being informed that they will be there for a short term. Yet these people will be charged with the responsibility of just about tripling the rate at which the Immigration Appeal Board considers the appeals which are before it.
Any organization which expands that fast has problems in terms of its learning curve. It takes time before the new members learn how to handle the cases. The estimates, therefore, of the amount of time that cases are going to take to be heard are likely to be very optimistic. In addition to that, as the Minister and many spokespeople have acknowledged, the number of persons, legal counsel, immigration advisers and that kind of person, who are really qualified and able to represent appellants in this particular area, is very limited and, therefore, there will be tremendous strains on them from a tripling or quadrupling of the cases before the Immigration Appeal Board. Yet the Government's answer to the crisis is not in looking at ways to reduce the people waiting in the pipeline, as our Party has proposed. We propose ways to reduce by three quarters the number of people who might be appealing rejection of refugee status. However, instead of acting in that direction, Mr. Speaker, the Government decides to try to step up the work of the Immigration Appeal Board.
This Appeal Board is very costly, Mr. Speaker. I suppose the salary for the members is in the order of $35,000 to $50,000 a year. Perhaps it will be more if the Government hopes to acquire people with legal training and able to make a lawyer's income to come in and serve for a couple of years. That means that with 30 extra members, support staff, hearing space, hearing officers and all of the other trappings of the office, we are talking about a very major investment in terms of the cost of handling cases. Many of those cases, it seems to me, ought not to be there.
The former Government refused to give oral hearings to people applying for refugee status. In my opinion, the former Government also failed to look realistically, perhaps, at ways in which the law might be altered in order to try and differentiate between people who have a genuine claim, a realistic claim, to be considered for refugee status and, on the other hand, persons who are simply trying to abuse the process. I think we all know that while substantial numbers of people who have applied for refugee status are certainly bona fide, or consider there is a bona fide case to consider them in that way, others are not. People come and clog up the process. They come from countries from which there is absolutely no reason one could conceivably imagine that a person would seek to wish to become a refugee. The only reason the person might not wish to return to their native land would be because they had committed some criminal offence which would be equally criminal if committed on Canadian soil.
The former Government did not tackle, and the present Government has yet to tackle this particular problem. Yet it has come out with this particular Bill. I would like to say as well, Mr. Speaker, that there are other areas which I think are deserving of urgent consideration. One of these areas is the authority of the Immigration Appeal Board. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the Appeal Board pronounces, and the law says that once it pronounces, the Minister should then act on the basis of that judgment, but there is nothing to enforce action by the Minister. In fact, there is a modest fine, but goodness knows how one could ever bring the Minister into court for a six-month sentence or a $1,000 fine for failing to live up to an order of the Immigration Appeal Board. There is no other enforcement mechanism.
I have had a case in my office for about three years, Mr. Speaker. It is the case of a man who is a productive citizen. He runs a restaurant in Ottawa. He has been seeking to bring his parents and, I believe, one or two young brothers and sisters into Canada from Pakistan over the course of a period of some two and a half years. They were refused entry into Canada. The immigration officer in Pakistan decided that he or she felt these people were not genuine, that they were going to leave the kids in Canada and go back to Pakistan.
The matter came up before the Immigration Appeal Board in January of this year. It was ruled upon in April, and in April the Immigration Appeal Board ordered that the appeal be allowed. In other words, it ruled that the immigration officer was wrong and that in fact the refusal to approve the application for landing was not in accordance with the law. This particular case illustrates the kind of problems which people in my Party who are helping immigrants and sponsors have been having. The family reunification program is blocked because there is not an adequate number of immigration officers in countries where people are looking for reunification, Pakistan being a notorious example, the Islamabad office being an office where there are particular problems.
One might almost say that there is discrimination built into administration because immigration offices are to be found in every major European country but in other countries, in Asia and in Africa, applicants must travel sometimes thousands of miles to find a Canadian office where they can put in their application.
In this particular case I wrote to the Minister in April and told him the Appeal Board had ruled and would he please see that this family was unified and would he expedite this matter. The Minister wrote back and acknowledged my letter and said he would let me know as soon as he had an answer. That was in April, Mr. Speaker, and I have been waiting for a response ever since. We have been in contact a dozen times with the Minister's office since then. It maintains that it has contacted the embassy in Islamabad on numerous occasions, but nothing has happened. Most recently, the people in this particular case were called to Islamabad and they expected to receive the medical forms to finish the procedure so that they could get on a plane and come to Canada. They went there and were told that new documents were needed about the kids' schooling
September 26, 1985

despite the fact that all the documentation which could conceivably be required had been handed in. They were not given the medical forms. Finally, I got on the telephone myself last week and said, "Will you please act. I am going to raise this matter in a week if I don't hear from you". I was told a telex would be sent to Islamabad. Many telexes have gone to Islamabad and it is like a black hole in terms of any action being taken. Unless the assistant in the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has responded since we came into the Chamber at two o'clock today, there has been no answer.
The individual called me the other day and told me he missed his family and said he wanted to go and talk to The Citizen. I told him to wait for a few days, that I had talked to the Ministry. This is the first immigration case I have been involved in with the Ministry in a year. I am slow to anger on these things, Mr. Speaker, but this is a case where, it seems to me, the Ministry itself mocks the authority of the Immigration Appeal Board. The Government then turns around with Bill C-55 and tells us, "By the way, the Immigration Appeal Board is not adequately staffed and, therefore, would you please allow us to increase the membership in the Board from 18 to 50 members?" We could increase the membership to 500 members, Mr. Speaker, but if the Ministry is not going to take the rulings of the Appeal board seriously, then we have real problems.
If the Appeal Board continues in its tradition of ignoring prima facie evidence on such matters as refugee claims, which was one of the factors which led to Rabbi Gunther Plaut to argue for a different tribunal in refugee cases, a tribunal which would be adequately informed, you could have 5,000 people on the Immigration Appeal Board and that would not be enough.
I see that the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is taking a very serious interest in some of the comments I am making. I appreciate his interest. I hope that Hon. Members on the Government side take this seriously. We are opposing this particular Bill, but it is clear that second reading will pass and the Government will have the authority to increase the numbers. The Hon. Member for Calgary West knows that our concern is that we do not know what kind of appeal tribunal we are going to have. We are going to have 35 new people on the Board who will have some expectation about their job. Jobs are hard to find these days and they would hope that they could keep that job. But they may be all Tories. They may well be the constituency assistants or the people who made up Marcel Masse's election expenses return. Who knows, Mr. Speaker. It could be any quality of person at all who could be appointed to that particular Board. Criteria are not laid down in this particular case and I think perhaps they should be. In fact, and I have not checked this with my colleagues, I would like to make a very serious suggestion to the Government. This is perhaps an individual's suggestion rather than a joint one. Hon. Members may be familiar with the tradition of magistrature in the United Kingdom. Magistrates there include a substantial number of citizens who do not have legal training; they are simply concerned with admin-
Immigration Act, 1976
istering the law. They are prepared, often on a voluntary basis, to serve in conjunction with a trained and full-time magistrate. We have some magistrates without legal training in Canada but they generally tend to work full-time. If there are backlog problems, and without pre-empting the decision surrounding the Plaut report, and perhaps as a precedent, we could amend this Bill so that two of the three members of these panels, rather than being appointed for two years, should be citizens with some competence and reputation in the community and who are prepared to give up time to sit in on a number of appeals. Some training courses could be given, but in many cases, whether they are refugee or sponsorship cases, we are not talking about a need for substantial training. We should not be making these decisions on the basis of legal technicalities or niceties. These decisions demand compassion, understanding and empathy. That is something that millions of Canadians have to offer. That might be a more productive way to work on the backlog, in addition to taking measures to reduce the potential backlog. I suggest that would allow us to tackle the backlog while leaving our options open with respect to early action on the Plaut report.
Both myself and my Party look forward to early action on that report, but for reasons I have given we have to say that we object to this particular measure. We think it is an inadequate beginning toward responding to a very serious problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear the Hon. Member say that his Party is not supporting this legislation. I thought I heard his colleague from Vancouver East say about an hour or so ago in the House that they supported it. I am really quite surprised to hear that they are not. She commended the Government for the provisions of this Bill and felt it would provide a solution to some of the problems.


Mr. Rodriguez:: You were not listening carefully. You were sleeping.


Benno Friesen: I was here.


John R. Rodriguez: You were sleeping. I heard you snoring.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) was not even here. He must be omniscient; he knows what his colleague said.
One of the easiest accusations to make nowadays is that of discrimination. It is a word which drops from the lips as soon as there is any kind of disagreement on a given point. The Hon. Member used it in connection with the backlog. He said forthrightly that if there were only enough immigration officers to clear the backlog, including the quasi judicial process, that would take care of the problem. He said the fact that there are not enough is a kind of discrimination against the people who want to come to Canada. If we hired enough officers to clear up the backlog, would that then take care of the flow of people coming into Canada and end that kind of

September 26, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
accusation of discrimination? I suggest that it would not. He said he just dealt with his first case. If he has any assessment at all of the flow of people who desire to come into Canada for every good reason, would hiring enough staff ever solve the problem and remove the accusation he levels at immigration officers, as well as at the Government for not providing enough staff?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, first may I say that my colleague from Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) made it clear that while we support the measure in the Bill which permits landed immigrants to sponsor, we have grave reservations about the rest of the Bill. I cannot recall specifically what she said, but I know that when we discussed this Bill in caucus we said "we are going to oppose it because we feel it pre-empts decisions which ought properly to be made in light of the Plaut report and because we think there are other constructive measures", which the Hon. Member appears not to have heard me mention, "by which the backlog can be greatly reduced." Very specifically, the use of the special measures approach would permit the Ministry to very quickly reduce the backlog by removing cases involving people from Afghanistan, Iran, Central America, certain countries in Latin America, Vietnam and Iron Curtain countries. By the time you do that you would have eliminated a major proportion of the backlog.
The Hon. Member says that he does not believe it is possible to cope with all the people who might want to come to Canada by increasing our staff. I am afraid this is a fallacy which any first year student in logic would see, because he then says do nothing about the problem at all.


Benno Friesen: That is not what I said.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I said to the Hon. Member for Calgary West that I was disappointed to hear him use arguments from the old Government, and I am disappointed to hear this Member doing the same thing. In the case I refer to from Islamabad, which is one of 150 immigration matters that my office has dealt with over the last year, either the immigration officers on the ground are not up to the demands being made upon them, or they are acting in a manner which specifically discriminates against people coming from that country. Since almost all the people from Pakistan are what we call visible minorities, that is why one talks about either explicit and deliberate or implicit discrimination taking place. It does not take two and a half years for people wishing to emigrate to Canada from the U.K. or certain countries in western Europe to work their way through the system, as is the case with the one I cited here.


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague ... In listening to his speech, I found a number of contradictions in what he says. There is a basic contradiction when he says that the system is overloaded and there is not enough staff. If we look at the Bill, we see that its purpose is to increase the staff.
In his answer a little earlier to one of the questions, he gave a rather negative assessment of the officers. He said they did not know how to do their work. However, the system they have to work with today was voted on by us or by a Parliament and we are now trying to improve it.
Instead of trying to elucidate every individual case he encountered, I would have preferred him to elaborate on the kind of amnesty he would like to see developed with respect to cases now pending, to settle the problems of specific groups.
1 wonder first of all, what criteria-if it is so arbitrary, what criteria he would apply to establish such groups or general amnesties? What we want to do in this legislation is increase the number of persons available to hear all these cases. And when we start judging the system itself... I think the hearings being conducted by the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration will help, and by the way, next Tuesday, we will be meeting Rabbi Plaut who is to explain part of it. Hearings have commenced on the subject.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Parliamentary Secretary is asking these questions, because it was his Department that was responsible for the fact that we now have about 15,000 refugees waiting to appear before the Immigration Appeal Board, pending decisions by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, which has legal status. After being heard by this committee, and we all know it hands down very few favourable decisions, refugees whose claims have been denied are entitled to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board, where the number of members has just been increased.
So as I said earlier, it is not a matter of amnesty but a matter of implementing special measures that were introduced in the past by Immigration Ministers, when it was the Department's practice or the Government's policy, when in fact decisions of the Immigration Appeal Board were unanimously or almost unanimously in favour of allowing refugees to remain in Canada.
For instance, does the Parliamentary Secretary maintain that we should force refugees from Poland, Hungary and other East European countries to go home? Is that going to be the position of this Government? Once these refugees arrive in Canada, do they really have a chance to go to other countries? Should we not act on what we see as our responsibility and allow these refugees to stay here? Is it the Government's position to accept them? Refugees from Europe or members of the Bahai sect, for instance are we really going to send them back to Iran? The answer is a definite no, because those refugees would not even survive if they were forced to go back to their own country.
So why are we asking these refugees to stay in the backlog with all the other refugees before they can appeal before the Immigration Appeal Board?
September 26, 1985

Briefly, instead of increasing our appeals capacity, we should be thinking of reducing the need for appeals. And that is what I and my party have proposed.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I really do not mind if the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) refutes an argument of mine or even proves me to be wrong. I do not think I have to be afraid of that ever happening, given the way he argues, but if he succeeded I really would not mind too much. However, 1 wish he would quote me accurately. I would like him to tell me when I ever said that if the problem is big, or large, or overloaded, that we should do nothing about it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said precisely that approximately eight minutes ago at the beginning of the period for questions and comments. He asked me if I thought that increasing the number of immigration officers or functionaries would in fact serve to master the flow of people applying for immigration in Canada. He was quite clearly suggesting that he did not believe that to be the case. He was, therefore, arguing that there was no point in doing anything at all to ensure that there are enough immigration officers to deal with the problems of immigration in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and other countries where delays with regard to Canadian immigration authorities were notorious under the former Government and, regrettably, remain notorious under the present Government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will begin my remarks today and, due to the timing of the House, will probably have to conclude on another day. It was my hope that this debate today might have been somewhat less partisan. This subject lends itself to much effort from all sides of the House to co-operate and come to resolution. As the chairman of the Standing Committee I would like to commend the degree to which that attitude has been present in the committee through 40 meetings.
The previous speaker invited the Government to act decisively and expressed concern about the fact that it had not done so. That is a very odd comment. I have been a member of the committee since I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1979. Aside from Main Estimates, that committee had not held a single meeting on the subject of immigration in the previous six years. During our first year we have had 40 meetings and three substantive reports. Bill C-55, which we are debating today, was brought forward within a very few months of our assumption of office. Any delay was due to the fact that there was a case before the courts and it behooved us to wait until that judgment was rendered before acting. We did not want to act in a manner that might have precluded desirable options. However, the case is over and the size of the backlog is known.
If the previous speaker had spent a little more time thinking, he would have recognized the wisdom of the chairman of the board in asserting to the committee that a two-year appoint-
Immigration Act, 1976
ment for a portion of those board members would be appropriate. The chairman laid out two reasons for this and they are still compelling. The chairman has considerable experience and in her judgment she will be able to get better quality board members. If we want fairness and sensitivity in that process we must consider the quality of the people who will commit themselves to participation in the process. The second reason is that the chairman and this piece of legislation bring forward a plan which would allow the backlog to be cleared up in three years. If that happens, we will not need as many members. This piece of legislation asserts that the Minister and the board be given the legal basis to expand the staff to clear the backlog, after which time the staff would be reduced.
On Thursday morning of this week the committee began its inquiry into the Plaut report. We heard evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and representatives of the Sikh Federation of Canada. We will hear from two more sets of witnesses today at six o'clock. The basic message of the testimony heard was that the decision to be made as to whether someone either is not refugee, and is or is not entitled to the protection which this country can provide, is basically not an immigration question. Immigration has somewhat different characteristics.
Every Member in this Chamber knows that there are problems in the current immigration system. It is a shame that all 282 Members cannot sit on the committee and hear the testimony in order to understand the focus of the problem and learn what has to be changed. The committee is spending hours and hours on the task of understanding the immigration system. It is also spending hours and hours trying to understand how things can best be arranged to deal fairly with refugees. I ask the Members opposite to think seriously about that concept. I ask them to look at Thursday morning's transcript and ask themselves whether the issue of refugee determination in this country is essentially an immigration issue or an issue of a different kind. Clearly, there are immigration concerns which flow from the basic decision as to whether people are or are not entitled to the protection of this country because they are truly refugees.
To what extent should it be different? To what extent should it be run by a group of people with different training? Should the Immigration Appeal Board, which is the subject of the Bill before us, in reality be dealing with appeals from a refugee board? If we follow the basic outline of the Plaut report, we could improve upon it and bring forward an even better piece of legislation than he envisaged. Is it not possible to invent a system to deal with the determination of refugee status, involving different people, different training backgrounds and considerations other than those which guide the members who serve on the Immigration Appeal Board?
It seems to me that the impulse to block and delay this piece of legislation stems from a genuine and valid concern for the plight of refugees. However, the solution does not lie in changes to the make-up of the Immigration Appeal Board.

September 26, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
The solution lies in the Plaut report and the examination of that report by the committee. Then the Government would be in a position to bring forward the legislation required to create a better system. Tinkering in any manner whatsoever with the Immigration Appeal Board will not solve the refugee problem.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   INCOME TAX

["I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the hour allocated for the consideration of Private Members' business has now expired."]
John R. Rodriguez: What do you think the Bill does?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Bill will do something that is very human and very desirable. I am sure every Member of the House has heard representations from people who are stuck in the process. They do not wait one month, six months or one year; they wait years to have their situations regularized, to have a sense of confidence that they can purchase a home or take a long-term job. If we leave in existence a system which requires them to wait from two years to four years in a kind of legal limbo, we act in a cruel fashion toward people who are less able to protect themselves than most of us would be. I suggest that it would run against the traditions of Canada. Members of all Parties have met with the Minister. There is a willingness to modify this piece of legislation in committee if it can be improved in any way. In the interest of those people stuck in the system, their spouses and their children, I urge Hon. Members of the Liberal Party and of the NDP to reconsider the speed with which they are prepared to deal with the Bill. We have lost the months of July, August and September. We have kept everyone in the system in limbo for an additional 90 days. If it takes another month, it grows to 120 days, or if it takes another two months, an additional 150 days.
The only solution is to negotiate quickly. Let us move expeditiously, not recklessly. Let us not put a badly flawed piece of legislation in place. The committee has already spent four hours on first reading stage of the Bill. We attempted to pass it in the month of June. We almost succeeded, but not quite. The Minister is making another effort, as will the committee. However, it takes the will of the caucuses. That will exists in the Progressive Conservative caucus. I encourage Hon. Members listening to the debate today to see what they can do to create that will in their own caucuses. The faster we accomplish it, the better off many people will be.
I see that we are approaching the hour provided for Private Members' Business. I look forward to continuing the next time the Bill is before the House. However, I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to the members of the standing committee. They laboured long and hard. I hope Hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to serve on that committee recently will consult with them about the existing situation and about the need to move as quickly as possible on this Bill, on the Plaut report and on a number of other issues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



James Douglas Manly: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a register of national and international organizations involved in peace research and education, and consider allowing residents of Canada who pay income tax to transfer a portion of their tax to one or more of these organizations, such amount to be calculated on the percentage of the national budget allocated to defence, which is currently 10.2 per cent.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to present the concept of the peace tax fund, as it has become known. This is the second time I have had an opportunity to present a motion similar to this one. I understand that the Government will probably oppose it again this time, as did the previous Government. I am sure, given enough time, the Government will change its mind about it and bring in legislation making these kinds of recommendations possible.
Given the serious situation facing the world today, 1 can only express the hope that the Government will change its mind soon. The urgency of the motion must be recognized by Hon. Members on all sides of the House. It urges two actions upon the Government. First, it urges the establishment of a register of national and international organizations involved in peace research and education. Second, it asks the Government to consider allowing Canadians to transfer that portion of their income tax which normally goes to defence to one or more of these organizations. We can call the process of establishing such a register and providing for the transfer of funds the establishment of a peace tax fund.
There are two basic reasons Hon. Members on all sides of the House should support my motion. The first one is a reason of principle and the second is a more pragmatic one. The House should recognize that the payment of taxes for military purposes is a question of conscience for many Canadians or a question to which they cannot agree. The Government should recognize that the establishment of a peace tax fund provides a helpful way in which to channel funds toward peace research and education, two areas which are sadly in need of more financing. In turn, I will comment on each of these reasons. Many Canadians object to the payment of taxes to support military activities because it is incompatible with their consciences. In many cases it is a matter of religious conviction. In other cases it is a matter of individual consciences telling them what is right and what is wrong. It is directly related to the question of conscientious objection to military service.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being 5.55 p.m., the House will now proceed with the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Let me read briefly from a letter written by a woman in my constituency, a letter she wrote to the former Minister of National Revenue. In it she said:
September 26, 1985

My question is this: Will the Government of Canada establish a Peace Tax Fund for those of us who, according to our consciences, cannot pay for war, or preparation for war? Under the Charter of Rights, being guaranteed Freedom of Conscience, I trust that the answer will be "yes". I do not intend to act against my conscience in order to accommodate any law that has been made by people without regard for conscientious objection.
This is quite unlike, having "a different opinion" as you suggested, about how tax money should be spent. There are many ways of spending taxes with which I disagree, but there is only one that is against my conscience, therefore, I must act according to its direction. My conscience clearly dictates that killing is wrong. I do not expect the Canadian Government to order me to pay for war-
Conscientious objection to participation in war or preparation for war has a long Canadian history going back at least to the time of the American Revolution. At that time Mennonites and Quakers, for reasons of conscience, had not participated in the war on either side. This non participation made them suspect to the Americans and, at the same time, made them desirable immigrant prospects for the colonial Government of Upper Canada. At that time, Lord Simcoe promised them exemption from military service and this was given legal recognition by the legislature of Upper Canada in the Militia Act of 1793. The Act provided that in return for exemptions on military service those who were exempted should have to pay an annual fee toward the cost of maintaining the militia.
Members of the Society of Friends or Quakers saw a direct link between support of the militia by paying money and actually serving in the militia. Most of them refused to pay that fee levied upon them even though the penalty included such things as seizure of personal property and prison terms. Both Quakers and Mennonites lobbied to have the fee removed, which finally happened in 1849. We had similar moves in 1873 to encourage immigration of a group of Russian Mennonites when an Order in Council granted:
Entire exemption from any military service ... to the denomination of Christians called Mennonites.
Between 1874 and 1880 over 8,000 Mennonites came from Russia to the Canadian Prairies.
In 1898 and 1899 similar Orders in Council were approved to encourage emigration of Doukhobors and Hutterites. We have this long tradition in Canada of the historic peace churches, the Society of Friends, the Mennonites, the Hutterites and the Doukhobors who have always objected to serving in the war. This has been linked in the past to making payments in lieu of that service.
During the First World War there was a great deal of pressure for universal conscription and there was a real struggle to maintain that principle of conscientious objection, but it was maintained. Similarly, in the Second World War. I want to urge upon all Members the importance of individuals acting on the basis of their own conscience. I know within our own caucus and I hope within other caucuses that this is one area where on a question of conscience individuals have the right to disagree publicly with their caucuses and to vote against their caucuses on questions of conscience. We have heard of war crimes, Mr. Speaker, where people have been condemned because they refuse to act on the basis of their conscience.
Income Tax
I would like to read some comments from the philosopher Thoreau in his famous essay "And the duty of civil disobedi-ance", written over 100 years ago. He wrote:
There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who,... sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of-
Wait for it, Mr. Speaker-
-free trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both-They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them.
Thoreau continues:
Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistable when it clogs by its whole weight-If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution.
Today we see a shift from the emphasis on direct military service to the payment of taxes which support a huge military machine. One writer, Muriel Luca from Foremost, Alberta, said:
For more than 200 years Canada has allowed freedom of conscience in relation to military service. However, today's military service is overwhelmingly in the form of paying for the increasingly expensive new weapons, much to the satisfaction of the munitions makers. My hands are just as bloody from helping finance nuclear missiles as they would be personally running another human being with a sword.
It is that sense which leaves many people to declare that paying taxes that go to military purposes is against their military conscience. More than 250 people across Canada have already taken action and have taken that portion of their taxes which would normally go for military purposes and put it into a peace trust fund. They are organizing and urging the Government of Canada to legalize this procedure so they are able to do it with Government sanction.
They point to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our new Constitution of 1982. I would like to read the first two articles of that Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It reads:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) Freedom of conscience and religion-
Freedom of conscience, Mr. Speaker, is the first freedom to be guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But what does freedom of conscience mean? So far Parliament has left it to the courts to interpret the meaning of what freedom of conscience means as well as what other sections of the Charter are going to mean. The peace trust people would like to see this clarified. The cost of taking a case to the Supreme Court is estimated at something like $255,000, over one-quarter of a million dollars, to have a question clarified.

September 26, 1985
Income Tax
I would like to quote from David Vickers, a former Attorney General of British Columbia, a very distinguished lawyer in B.C. He said:
The interpretation which courts will place on the first freedom, the freedom of conscience, is not really known. I suggest that if it's to mean anything, it must be a guarantee, not just to believe in something, but also to put those beliefs into action.
Freedom of conscience is not just to be able to maintain a private inward belief but to be able to act in accordance with your beliefs. Certainly when it comes to a basic question such as whether or not we are going to support the military, I think that has to be recognized. There is nothing in this motion that goes beyond what are the reasonable and just limits that any society can impose. Without waiting for a court decision I would urge the Government to make provisions so that freedom of conscience can be a reality for people instead of just nice words on a piece of paper.
The peace trust people have organized themselves into a charitable society known as Conscience Canada which is actively working to have the Government make those changes and I urge it to adopt the motion which I am presenting which would accomplish that. I urge this action to provide freedom of conscience at a practical level so that our Constitution is effective, rather than having to wait for the courts.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there are pragmatic reasons why this motion should be adopted. The practical reason for supporting this Bill, even if there were no conscientious objectors, is that we need to provide money for peace research and for education. Already our world is spending far too much money on weapons of destruction. This has two effects. First of all it drains money from other projects. There is still a myth abroad that somehow military expenditures create jobs, but dollar for dollar it has been shown that this is not an efficient way of creating jobs. Military expenditures, dollar for dollar, are one of the most inefficient ways of creating employment. This is one area where there has to be some education of the public. This is one area where we want to see more research so that people and industries that are already engaged in military projects would be able to make the transition to more constructive forms of human endeavour.
Earlier this week the CBC had a program marking the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. Just as an indication of how much arms budgets are spiralling out of control, the CBC reported that today the United States spends more money on military music than it does on its budget for the United Nations. Yet there continue to be some very well orchestrated complaints about the cost of the United Nations.
Canada has a military budget of $9.4 billion, more than four times the amount we allocate to international development which is $2.1 billion. We are spending four times as much money preparing for war as we are in trying to correct the basic human situation that leads to war. This whole scale of things is completely out of control. Regarding the peace tax, people say, let us vote with our money, let us put our money into peace education and research and try to redress that
balance. What is the Government afraid of? Why will it not agree to this kind of proposal?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, world armaments threaten to destroy us all. The balance of terror is becoming badly unbalanced. The United States plans to spend $26 billion on star wars research and we are concerned about Canadian complicity in that. Even though the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has given an official "no" to that star wars research on the part of the Canadian Government, the door seems to be open for individual Canadian firms to participate. It reminds me of the old song "Your lips tell me no, no, but there is yes, yes in your eyes". Along with the "yes, yes", there are the dollar signs in the eyes of some Canadian manufacturers who hope to make a quick buck out of increasing the balance of nuclear terror in our world.
Our leaders raise the question of Canadian complicity in the making of nuclear bombs with the use of Canadian uranium. One year ago the Prime Minister spoke at the St. Francis Xavier University, September 28, 1984, and he said preservation of peace is "the central issue confronting our generation". But what has he done since then? Very little.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Canadians would like to see more positive leadership from the Government on the subject of peace. They would also like to contribute directly themselves. The peace tax fund would enable them to do so. It provides a sensible alternative to the madness of the arms race, an alternative that takes account of conscience. I urge the acceptance of this motion upon all Members of the House.


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to this motion today. I know the Hon. Member who has brought this before the House today is a responsible and conscientious parliamentarian and his remarks in favour of the motion are made with the best of intentions, I am sure.
This motion has obviously been put forward so that this House can show its commitment to the pursuit of world peace and so that Canada can reinforce its position of leadership in the worldwide efforts for security from the dangers posed by the very existence of nuclear weapons.
Although I agree with the ultimate goal of this motion, world peace, there are enough problems with some of the implications that I hope this House will not send it on as a concrete proposal for legislation. I think every Member of this House will agree tht the people of Canada, indeed this Government, are seriously concerned about world peace and that they are anxious to take every opportunity to express this concern as a high priority.
The motion on the floor shares this goal. This motion if enacted as legislation would allow Canadian taxpayers to earmark a certain part of the taxes they pay for special purposes. This tax revenue would be committed toward the activities of a registered international organization involved in peace research and education. The funds that would go to this use would be the equivalent proportion of the tax dollar that
September 26, 1985

would have gone to Canada's defence spending, that is about 9.3 cents of every dollar for the 1984-1985 fiscal year. This is obviously neither responsible nor reasonable.
This year personal income taxes amounted to about S30 billion of the Government's total revenues. To put things in perspective, this motion would make Parliament surrender control of about $3 billion each year, or close to 3 per cent of this year's total expenditures.
My first reaction to this motion was that it implies there is a disagreement between the wishes of Parliament and those of the Canadian people. This contradicts the basic belief we all hold that says Parliament provides a forum where the different views and interests of Canadians can be engaged and debated. It is hoped that the result of this process will be policy and legislation that pursues the national interest in the most effective way possible.
If we accept the principle behind this motion we will have to admit that Parliament is not succeeding in its most basic goal. In the case of defence policy I think that our Government has taken particular care to see that its defence spending priorities reflect the appropriate balance between the need for an effective military capability and, yes, an earnest desire to enhance national and international security.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I think that this policy supports in a very deliberate way the traditional role that Canada has played in international affairs and that we have earned respect for, that is a role highlighting leadership in bringing about the peaceful resolution of conflicts around the world and voicing the importance of moderation and understanding in that relation between all nations.
Even more significantly, I think our Government's defence policy is an expression of the views and priorities of the Canadian public. The public has by and large supported the approach we have taken on questions relating to national defence and international security. Of course, there will always be debate over precisely the best way to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves of a nation, as part of North America and as members of the NATO Alliance. A difference of opinion is always healthy in the sense that it ensures that alternatives will be considered most carefully. This is particularly evident in the activities of the Canadian Institute for Arms Control and Disarmament. The establishment of this organization was a clear expression of the fact that the Government sees as important precisely the same objectives as the Hon. Member has brought forward in his Bill tonight.
The Government's recent decision with respect to the Strategic Defence Initiative was indicative of our appreciation for the democratic process. When concerns were raised over the merits of this proposal through the direct representation of Canadians, the media and the speeches of Members of this House, the Government took care to appeal to public participation in this decision. I believe that the final choice not to participate in SDI directly as a Government was very strongly influenced by a number of widely held reservations about this new strategy on the part of Canadians.
Income Tax
Defence policy is of such a crucial nature that the principles embraced by the Government, more so than in any other area of policy, must be sensitive to the prevailing attitudes among the electorate. At the same time, however, 1 think that this area of Government policy is most effectively dealt with by the parliamentary and Cabinet decision-making process.
I believe the views and opinions of Canadians must be considered in forming Canada's defence policy. This process, however, depends on the institution of Parliament. Parliamentarians have access to resources and information, they have opportunities for debate and discussion and they have a legislative process, all of which ensure that conclusions are reached responsibly and legitimately. Matters as sensitive and complex as defence policy rely very heavily on the testimony of experts and on healthy debate between those with widely differing views.
I am afraid that the motion being debated today would not satisfy the principles of parliamentary democracy that are the traditions of this House. To illustrate this point, I suggest that we imagine what it would be like if we could earmark our tax returns for any purpose that we might personally feel important. I am sure that this would result in a very colourful range of Government-sponsored activities. Although this would be a very clear expression of public preference, it would not be an improvement over our present arrangement. More importantly, this kind of tax provision would introduce total disorder into the duties of the House of Commons. Members of Parliament would cease to exercise their responsibilities and policy would not be the product of a deliberate and thoughtful process.
The final point I would like to make is the simplest of all. I disagree with this motion because I believe the restraints imposed by our huge deficit have made defence spending, not to mention spending on environmental protection, very inadequate. As a nation-state, Canada has to fulfil certain responsibilities, primarily to our own defence and secondly to the safety and security of our allies. In the context of other obligations and commitments, the Government has allocated certain funds for national defence. Still our forces rely on obsolete technology and deteriorating equipment. It is very questionable as to whether or not we could offer any defence whatsoever to our sovereign territory, no matter how much we cherish it. Unfortunately, we inherited this terrible state of defence from the previous administration.
As a member country in good standing in NATO which certainly enjoys benefits commensurate with our contributions, we must be careful to honour our obligations. Support for this motion would certainly bring into question our commitment to the goals of our alliance and indeed to the values of peace and security that we are trying to uphold so well.
Finally, significant reductions in nuclear armaments can only be achieved if they are verifiable. Negotiations have to be conducted from a position of credibility. 1 believe that support for this motion would seriously jeopardize this goal.
It is important for all Canadians to know that to protect the interests of our country, we must speak from a position of

September 26, 1985
Income Tax
strength, not weakness. For those naive enough to believe that this is not true, I would suggest that they talk to people from Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Afghanistan, to name just a few. The fate of these countries should serve as a constant reminder to us of the way Soviets can be trusted around a so-called negotiating table. Eternal vigilance will always be the price of freedom.
In closing, I would like to say that I think this House has benefited from the opportunity to debate this motion. I do, however, recommend that Hon. Members consider very seriously the implications of this motion and do not endorse it.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the previous two speakers and found that I cannot support this motion because it starts off with the wrong premise. That premise is that money spent on defence is money spent on war. I do not think that can be rationalized any more than can be saying that spending a dollar on a police force is spending a dollar that will help out robbers, burglars or murderers.
I look at defence spending as an insurance policy on which we hope we will never collect. One does not buy health insurance expecting to become ill but wants the protection in case that happens. Defence spending is nothing more than an insurance policy and the people of Canada should be proud to support the buying of that insurance which protects the real estate that we call Canada.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the debate and to discuss this proposal which, in my judgment, is a real challenge to the imagination. I say it is "a real challenge" because the sponsor of the motion, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), is challenging all of us to ask ourselves whether we are doing all we can and all that should be done to promote a peacekeeping effort all over the world.
He is also challenging us to consider the role of our defence forces and determine whether they do contribute to peacekeeping.
The motion is also very imaginative and its New Democratic Party sponsor has shown a remarkable spirit of innovation by drafting this altogether novel tax proposal.
I will try to prove in my remarks that, unfortunately, such imagination and innovation can be misleading, and that the rather novel tax structure described in the motion is very much like Pandora's box-full of unpleasant surprises for anyone who opens it.
Mr. Speaker, my Government colleagues have spoken or will eventually speak on some of the significant issues raised in this motion with respect to what is being done and what could be done to promote peace and security throughout the world.
For my part I intend to speak to the tax issues raised by the motion. I have nothing against openly supporting any legitimate effort to restore world peace, but I have serious reservations concerning the tax mechanism we should use to that end.
The wording of the motion would indicate that the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands has drawn his own conclusion, namely that maintaining defence forces does not promote peace. He would fund peace research and information organizations by using some of the tax revenues allocated to the defence budget. One must conclude that he considers that peace and defence activities do not go together, like oil and fire, and that anybody who is in favour of one kind of activities must necessarily be against the other kind.
Of course, the Hon. Member is entitled to his opinion. The rest of us are certainly entitled to have ours, different though they might be in this respect. I will show that the mechanism proposed in the motion would, in a way, leave very little choice to the taxpayers who happen to believe that maintaining our armed forces contributes to peacekeeping throughout the world. I say this because the way this tax deduction would work out we would be urging the taxpayer to hand some of his income taxes over to bona fide peace research organizations, and we would also be indicating quite clearly that the money should come from the defence budget.
It seems to me that by adopting the proposal we would be offering this kind of alternative to the taxpayer. I do not think it is a clear proposal in black and white, and that the good guys are all on one side and the bad guys on the other side. In my opinion, nothing in the income tax return should indicate that the taxpayer is either for or against defence spending and peacekeeping effort.
I am wondering why the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands did not draft his motion so as to use the traditional tax mechanism available to all Canadians who want to support public welfare organizations and who want to take advantage of tax incentives to do so. Of course, we all know this mechanism, the deduction for charitable donations. The definition of charitable organization under our tax system is wide ranging. We do not see any problem if peace research organizations were to be recognized as charitable organizations eligible for this deduction. We all know how the deduction works. If a taxpayer is assessed at a marginal rate, say 35 per cent, everytime he gives $1 to a charitable organization the public treasury, federal or provincial, contributes 35 cents, so the taxpayer's donation amounts in fact to 65 cents.
This tax deduction for charitable donations has a long and honourable history. It is almost as old as income tax and it is almost part of it. It is a simple procedure whereby the State acknowledges the fact that any society derives benefits from the work done by charitable organizations. We find it hard to understand why such a simple procedure is not enough to
September 26, 1985

achieve the objective of the sponsor of the motion under consideration today.
Enough of these idealistic musings. Let us get back to earth. Suppose we look at how this particular proposal would work out in practice. First of all, we must realize that this idealistic and very selective process of transferring tax revenues would have to be indicated on the personal income tax return, also known as the T-l form. Since it would be a reduction in tax payable, the amount would have to be indicated at the end of the return.
The taxpayer would have to be asked the following question: Do you wish to have your income tax reduced by 10.2 per cent, or whatever the percentage happened to be in that year, and have this portion transferred to the organizations involved in peace research and education as specified? I am not sure the sponsor of the motion provided any explanatory notes to indicate to the taxpayer what this particular percentage represents, in other words, the percentage of the federal budget directly allocated to defence.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments one could make on this kind of proposal. Indeed, it raises a number of questions in my own mind, and I hope in the minds of the other Members of this House. For instance, what strict assurance does this somewhat fanciful procedure provide that the Government's tax revenues are allocated correctly and efficiently? We believe there is no way to predict the exact percentage of tax revenues to be transferred.
I believe we could expect the peace organizations that would benefit from this procedure to launch an all-out advertising campaign, urging taxpayers to opt for such a method. And after all, the taxpayer would probably be very quick to conclude, as we all would, that it would not cost us a cent to make what could be called a pious choice. Of course, Mr. Speaker, if someone is asked: Are you in favour of peace? He will probably answer right away: Why yes. Obviously. And in the taxpayer's mind, he would be giving the Government's money and not his own.
It is quite conceivable that the transfer of tax revenues could be very significant. After all, almost everyone is in favour of peace, with the exception of a few bellicose individuals and those who benefit directly from war. The taxpayer could well be in favour of this concept, believing it would not cost him a penny. And he would probably not consider other aspects of a plan he would assume had received official recognition since it appears on the income tax return.
However, there are other aspects to be considered. For instance, what assurance do we have that the revenues thus transferred to peace organizations are well spent? Will they achieve the desired results? And if the transfer of $1 million to peace research and education achieves a certain level of results, would $10 million increase those results tenfold? Or is there a law of decreasing returns that applies to this area as well?
Income Tax
Mr. Speaker, these are some of the questions a responsible Government must ask when allocating its budget expenditures.
However, the problem with the proposal before the House this evening is that such questions would not be asked. The Government would have no control over the percentage of tax revenues thus allocated to these expenditures. The scope and effectiveness of advertising campaigns orchestrated by peace organizations would probably have a significant impact on that amount. We would therefore have a percentage somewhere between zero and 10.2 per cent of federal tax revenues that would escape the control of Government and Parliament.
I said a few moments ago that the taxpayer would tend to think this plan would not cost him a penny. He might be wrong. If this proposal were fully implemented, it would mean that some $4 million in tax revenues would be transferred from our personal income tax. Consequently, if the transferred amount is significant, the Government might well be obliged to increase taxes to fill the gap, unless Hon. Members are prepared to let the budget deficit increase over and above what it is now, which is out of the question, in terms of the Budget proposals formulated last May.
Supporters of this idea might maintain that the amount is relatively small, that peace is very important, and that it is worth setting aside the principles of appropriate control of public expenditures for the sake of a very noble cause. The argument is undoubtedly very seductive. But how far should we expand this principle? We would be opening the door very wide.
If we accept the transfer of tax revenues to peace research, would there be other causes we might have to accept as well? How far would we extend this new principle? For instance, Governments spend significant amounts of money on hospital care, health insurance and other kinds of public health plans. Would we accept a system under which the Canadian Medical Association could set up a private health care plan to which taxpayers could transfer a certain percentage of their tax payable?
There are Canadians who do not have children and who take a very sceptical view of the spending of public funds on education or daycare centres and the welfare and maintenance of families in general. Would we allow these Canadians to transfer another percentage of their income tax to an area closer to their interests or concerns? Would we then have as many mini-budgets as we have citizens in Canada?
I could give other examples, Mr. Speaker. The point 1 am trying to make is that the importance of peace research is not the issue here. We are dealing with a much more basic question, namely can Canadians shirk their social responsibilities as citizens? In our system of responsible democratic Government we use Governments to make certain decisions which benefit society as a whole. Oftentimes these are very difficult decisions to make, and now and again they are unpopular. But they are choices we cannot avoid

September 26, 1985
Income Tax
making. I would imagine that defence expenditures fall in the last category.
But making those decisions on behalf of society as a whole is the basic principle of a responsible democratic Government elected as such by the people. Any attempt to avoid making those decisions, or some of them anyway, flies in the face of the principle of responsible Government.
We are not trying to say that citizens should not be interested in knowing how their tax dollars are spent.
We wish more people would show that kind of interest: our democracy would be stronger for it. However we must make a distinction between defence-or the acceptable promotion of defence, or the condemnation of that defence, of certain categories of public expenditures-and the fact that we can decide not to finance a given Government project through certain tax mechanisms that may be simpler.
Given our democratic Government system, the rules must be the same for everybody. We are not talking about a selective Government for certain individuals, by certain individuals, and in the interest of certain individuals.
We are sure that the sponsor of the motion did not draft it with a view to upsetting the well estabished nature of our system of Government. No doubt he is sincerely trying to draw the attention of the House to the vital importance of organizations working at the praiseworthy promotion of world peace in our troubled society. However, the so-called practical procedure which he advocates to reach that goal runs directly counter to important if not basic principles of our taxation system that are based on the responsibility of a government elected by the people. 1 think that it is a vital point which deserves to be stated at this time and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to do so this evening.


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) might be summarized by saying that the Government would establish a registry of national and international organizations involved in peace research and education and basically allow you and me, Mr. Speaker, as taxpayers, to transfer a portion of our tax to one or more of these organizations, such amount to be calculated on the percentage of the national Budget allocated to defence. I know the Hon. Member is a sincere Hon. Member, albeit wrong.
The premise of the motion is that we should get out of NATO and NORAD-both New Democratic Party policies, I believe. Its premise is that we should forgive and forget events such as have happened in eastern Poland in 1939, events with respect to Finland and parts of Poland in 1940, events in Latvia in 1940, in Lithuania in 1940, in Estonia in 1940, in
parts of Romania in 1940, in a part of China in 1944, in part of Czechoslovakia in 1945-


James Douglas Manly: Read the motion.


David Kilgour: -in eastern and northeastern Prussia in 1945, in Japan, the Sakhalin Islands, in 1945. The Hon. Member wants us to forget basically what happened in Mongolia in 1921, in Bulgaria in 1944 and 1945, in Hungary in 1944 and 1945, in Poland in 1944, 1945, in Romania from 1945 to 1947, in Czechoslovakia in 1948, in the German Democratic Republic in 1949, in North Vietnam in 1945 to 1954.


Raymond John Skelly: What about the Peloponnesian wars? Have you anything on that?


David Kilgour: I might note, Mr. Speaker, that the two Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party who are present to support the Hon. Member's motion obviously find it painful that I recite these matters-


Raymond John Skelly: Not painful, ridiculous.


David Kilgour: -but I assure them that I intend to continue recounting them.


James Douglas Manly: Irrelevant.


David Kilgour: They want us to forgive and forget Cuba in 1970-


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the rule of relevancy should apply to Private Members' Hour as well as to other hours in this House. My motion specifically calls for the establishment of a registry of national and international organizations involved in peace research and education and allows for the allocation of a certain portion of income taxe to those organizations. It says nothing about having to forget past instances of history. I wish that the Hon. Member would confine his remarks to the motion at hand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I understand very well the point the Hon. Member is trying to make. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of External Relations (Mr. Kilgour), I believe, is linking his remarks to the other aspect of peace; war.


Raymond John Skelly: A very tenuous link.


David Kilgour: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They want us to forget Afghanistan in 1979, 1980 to 1985 and longer, South Yemen in 1970, Angola in 1975-although I think in fairness, that matter perhaps is still open to dispute-and Ethiopia in 1976. Perhaps the two gentlemen from the New Democratic Party should go and see the movie "The Killing Fields'' one day.


James Douglas Manly: I've seen it. Think about that movie.


David Kilgour: We all think about things, don't we?
September 26, 1985

I might remind Hon. Members also that a Labour Party Member from Britain was here not very long ago and I remember he said, "Democratic Socialists don't have to turn over on their backs and put their feet up when it comes to peace issues", and I think both Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party might take heed to what a Member of the Democratic Socialist Party in Britain said on the subject of that Party's defence policy about which, I can assure you, he was not speaking favourably. I should have said that Party's "non-defence" policy, that Party's "throw up our arms" policy.
As was just pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier), there is a principle in our system of Government that people elect Members of Parliament to represent them in decisions such as the allocation of financial resources intended to serve all members of that society. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear what violation this motion would do to that principle. There is at present no provision in the Income Tax Act which allows individual taxpayers to determine the specific areas in which their taxes should be used. Any change in the allocation of personal taxes such as in the proposal would involve an amendment to the Income Tax Act. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is responsible for both originating and amending tax legislation. My colleagues on both sides of the House will be speaking on the taxation issues when the motions come up on the Budget motion debate.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, Canadians may receive tax exemptions on their contributions to non-profit Canadian peace organizations, as registered in publications such as the Mennonite Central Committee's, "A Directory of Canadian Peace Organizations with International Concerns". There are all kinds of organizations so listed. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are aware of many of them. I submit that the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party must be aware of them as well.
It is the belief of this Government that defence and peace activities are not mutually exclusive, but are, indeed, complementary. If I may put it this way, they are the two wings which allow the bird to fly. We must have defence capability or we will not have security, and therefore we will not have peace. Someone observed long ago that every country will have an army on their soil, either their own defence force or the defence force of someone else. I think that is a very important truth in today's troubled world. We try to keep a balance between maintaining the western alliance while taking every reasonable opportunity to advance the cause of arms control, disarmament, and general global peace and security. In other words, you cannot seek an arms control agreement unless you have some credible defence force.
I would now address the ways in which Canada is promoting peace and security at the present time which negate the need to finance peace research and educational organizations by diverting tax funds from defence expenditures.
Income Tax
Canada's security policy has rested on three complementary foundations for the past 35 years: Deterrence of conflict through the collective security arrangements in NATO and NORAD; pursuit of equitable and verifiable arms control agreements; and commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes, including collective efforts to resolve the underlying social, economic and political causes of international tension.
Our country and this Government recognize the need for collective efforts to deter agression against North America and Europe. We support and contribute to this defence effort. The Alliance will possess only minimum levels of armaments consistent with effective deterrence, while at the same time we will pursue dialogue and equitable balance and verifiable arms control agreements. Our object, of course, is stability and security for all people in the Alliance.
All Members know that our Alliance relies on a deterrent strategy which takes into account the reality of nuclear weapons. Deterrence, including conventional, intermediate range and strategic nuclear weapons must provide sufficient stability to enable us to negotiate international arms control agreements. Each NATO member must contribute to sharing the collective defence burden while benefiting from its protection. Our direct contributions to deterrence and defence lie in providing effective conventional forces. This is not a question of morality, it is a question of how we can best contribute to our own security given our limited resources for defence.
Our Government, I am proud to say, has made clear its intention to meet its obligations to the Allies within the scope of contributing to stability in East-West security matters. We have committed ourselves to sufficient defence spending to make our contribution effective and reduce the vulnerability of our forces in the field. In short, sir, an effective defence ensures peace better than anything else developed up until today.
It should be noted, however, that budgetary expenditures in the defence sector are manifested in a variety of non-military ways that are of direct benefit to all Canadians in the pursuit of peace in general. For example, portions of the defence budget are allocated to the activities of Emergency Planning Canada, while the Canadian Armed Forces perform a wide variety of non-military functions. These include the evacuation of communities affected by severe flooding, search and rescue operations-


Raymond John Skelly: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Hon. Member might consent to answer a question. I know he is in agony trying to run out the clock and we would certainly be prepared to do him a favour by asking him a question if the Chair indulges this rather unorthodox method.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is not for the Chair to indulge, it is for the House to consent in this case. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.

September 26, 1985
Adjournment Debate


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, my speech is 15 pages long and my problem is that I am not going to be able to get through it in the two or three minutes remaining to me. If I do, I will be happy to take a question at the end.
Canada is a sovereign nation and we must devote a certain amount of our resources to the development and maintenance of defence capabilities. At the same time we do not take a back seat to anyone in terms of our efforts toward the promotion of arms control, disarmament, and international peace and security. We pursue these objectives, first, through our contributions to and participation in arms control and disarmament negotiations; second, through our contributions to and participation in the UN's peace-keeping activities. And third, through direct support to and consultation with organizations involved in peace research and education.
In the two minutes left I would like to speak briefly to each of these matters. First, may I present three key objectives in arms control and disarmament negotiations where constructive Canadian efforts to promote international peace and security are under way.
For some time Canada has pressed for the immediate and unconditional resumption of talks between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. We are delighted that the Geneva talks are going ahead. We hope and pray that there will be significant reductions in the nuclear arsenals of both countries. We pursued this objective in the councils of NATO and the UN, and continue to do so during our regular consultations with Soviet representatives. It is in the interests of mutual security that these talks bear fruit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the hour allocated for the consideration of Private Members' business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on September 24, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) if the Government would be prepared to make a commitment that our price stabilization and support programs as well as our supply management programs such as marketing boards would not become bargaining chips in the Canada-U.S. free trade negotiations. Every Member of this House knows that the most stable parts of our agricultural industry today are those involved in the production of poultry, eggs, broilers, turkeys
and milk, as well as those commodities covered by the Canadian Wheat Board. They are perhaps more stable than those commodities which do not have the advantage of a marketing board.
In the Government's documents dealing with free trade there is this paragraph which is especially disturbing to myself and I believe to many Canadian farmers. It is stated the agricultural sector has been exempt from earlier free trade area agreements, including the European free trade agreement. There will undoubtedly be pressures from agricultural interests on both sides of the border to exclude the whole agricultural sector from the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. However, it is by no means clear that this would be in Canada's interests. There may be productivity advantages to be gained by adjustments within agriculture as well as from accelerating the transfer of farmers out of agriculture.
That is the view of the Government, Mr. Speaker. It thinks if we do away with our marketing boards, crop insurance, grain stabilization and all the rest of our agricultural programs there will be greater productivity achieved and the Government will achieve its aim of accelerating the transfer of farmers out of agriculture. That seems to be the Government's attitude towards agriculture. I think all Canadians will be very concerned about this when they look at the situation between Canada and the U.S.
Approximately 22 per cent of Canadian farmers are in serious financial difficulty and are in danger of losing their farms. In the United States that figure is approximately 33 or 34 per cent. I maintain that much of the difference is due to the fact that we have a number of controlled commodities with administered prices. We also have stabilization programs provided by the federal and provincial governments and programs such as the Western Grain Stabilization Program. As well, we have marketing arrangements through the Canadian Wheat Board. Without those, I believe that another 9 or 10 per cent of our farmers would be in serious financial difficulty.
Is the Minister willing to exclude agricultural products as was done in the European Economic Community? They do have an agreement on agriculture, but it is separate. Unfortunately, the Minister was not prepared to make a commitment that these marketing systems and stabilization programs would be kept out of the bargaining with the United States. If they are put on the table, we know that they will be bargained away.
Many farm organizations, including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, have expressed concern. An article in The Toronto Star of August 27 reads in part as follows:
Agriculture shouldn't be part of any free trade package negotiated between Canada and the U.S., an Ontario Federation of Agriculture delegation told a Legislature committee yesterday.
The federation brief argued that the U.S. would want to dismantle many Canadian farm programs such as marketing boards and price stabilization programs.
In return, federation president Harry Pelissero said, Canada would probably get very little.
September 26, 1985

It is interesting to note that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), who is from Ontario, is acting in direct opposition to the Ontario Federation. Likewise, a report by the Alberta Pool indicates that it is concerned that agricultural stabilization programs and marketing systems will become bargaining chips in the high stakes which the Government will be playing in the free trade negotiations with the President which the Prime Minister announced today in the House of Commons.
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will see the danger of bargaining away these things which have been so essential in maintaining some of the most viable parts of our agricultural industry in Canada.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Without going so far as accusing my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Foster) of using a double standard in his representations, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am always a little surprised when I hear him support the stabilization programs which exist in Canada and attack the Government position as defined in Bill C-25, because they agreed, mostly, on the fact that we are calling for their elimination.
This afternoon, I am quite surprised to hear him say something which is in part contrary to what he has been saying for the past few months.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question posed by the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) on September 24 in regard to bilateral trade negotiations with the United States.
Agricultural trade with the United States is of vital importance, not only to the agri-food industry, but to the whole economy. The United States has been Canada's number one market for agricultural exports for the past two years. Last year, of our total agricultural exports of $10.3 billion, the U.S. market accounted for $2.2 billion. If grains and oil seeds are excluded, the role of the U.S. market becomes even more important, as everyone knows.
Last year more than half of our non-grain exports were sold in the U.S. Last year our exports to the United Stats increased by nearly 30 per cent over 1983, mainly because of the difference in the value of our currencies. At the same time, U.S. agricultural exports to Canada increased by 16 per cent, to a total of $3.6 billion. That is nearly 60 per cent of Canada's total agricultural imports.
I think it is worth while to repeat those figures-exports of $2.2 billion, imports of $3.6 billion and a deficit of $1.4 billion per year in our agricultural trade with the United States. With that kind of money involved, both Canada and the United States have an interest in avoiding trade disputes such as the one recently experienced in the hog sector. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has been working with his American counterpart to ensure an ongoing exchange of information on agricultural trade matters. Furthermore, both Ministers are
Adjournment Debate
taking steps to ensure a good flow of information between industry leaders on both sides of the border. We think that is most important.
The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has heard the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) this afternoon regarding Canada-United States trade. Obviously it would be premature at this point to speculate what will happen down the road in respect of agricultural aspects of Canada-U.S. trade discussions. However, the Hon. Member can be assured that in any negotiations with the United States on agricultural matters, we will be consulting fully with the industry. We are only interested in a deal which is in the best interests of Canadian agriculture.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Foster) is aware of the efforts made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to improve Canadian markets. As recently as this afternoon, the Prime Minister announced that Canada wanted to open up and work with the Americans to find a way to improve our markets. This is quite clear, Mr. Speaker. Now that we have just stated that we would like to open the door partly, my hon. friend would like us to shut it immediately and set up trade barriers ... We will have ample time to set up trade barriers. We are about to start negotiating and I think, in fact I am sure, that the future will prove us right.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-ACQUISITION OF CANNED TUNA. (B) ISSUANCE OF CONTRACT
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question this evening concerns one which 1 directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) in the House and it revolves around the tuna scandal.
It appears that some time ago a company packed some decomposing tuna, and some of that particular shipment of tuna was packed prior to the election. The company did not have much success in convincing Fisheries inspectors to pass the tuna, as they found it to be rancid, decomposing and unfit for human comsumption. Apparently the last Government was not too favourable on overriding its inspectors. After the last election a new Government was in power. I remember the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in an off record discussion on the campaign trail happened to say: "Yes, if I am in power, 1 will definitely have my nose in the trough, too, along with my friends". I am wondering whether there is a linkage between that statement and the events of the tuna scandal.
Once the Conservative Party was in power, some very influential people from Atlantic Canada began to telephone Ottawa-the Premier of New Brunswick, the Atlantic Chamber of Commerce and the New Brunswick Fish producers. Of course, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) said in September that he had raised that matter, before he retracted the statement. It was a fairly significant problem.

September 26, 1985
Adjournment Debate
At one point it was mentioned that only 2 per cent to 3 per cent of the production of the company was involved, although it was close to a million cans. When October rolled around and the great pressure had been put on, the then Minister of Fisheries went down to taste it for himself. He eventually said: "Yes, I tasted three cans and two of them weren't too bad". I presume the taste test led some kind of procedure by which a contract was granted to the company to supply the Department of National Defence with $103,000 worth of the product of this company.
In November, this material appears to have been delivered to 32 Canadian Forces bases. Upon opening the cans, the cooks and the people at the bases found that it was rancid, decomposing and unfit for human consumption. Things certainly moved forward from that point, to the Ministry of National Defence removing the product. It went to fisheries inspection labs in Burnaby and Halifax, and the Ottawa Forces Base sent it to the health laboratories here. They found that the product was contaminated. Although it would not kill you, it certainly was not something you would want to eat.
As I understand it, as things unfolded, the product was sent back to the company. The company designated a second order as a replacement order. Before that order could leave the plant, fisheries inspectors designated it as unfit for human consumption.
Were members of the Canadian Armed Forces used as guinea pigs in this situation? In addition, was there an arrangement between the influential voices in Atlantic Canada and the new powers in Ottawa?
Given the testimony we have had and the kinds of information given in this House, conflicting statements, retractions and questions raised previously as well as other very questionable practices that have gone on, including early campaign statements by the Prime Minister, the questions are certainly valid. It would be very useful if the Government would come clean and tell us how this order, $103,000 worth of tuna that turned out to be, as fisheries inspectors have said, rancid and decomposing and unfit for human consumption went to the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Member of Parliament from British Columbia I can certainly appreciate that occasionally we do have a rather colourful turn of phrase or that we are tempted occasionally to overstate a case, but 1 know the Hon. Member from Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) is often a reasonable Member. He likes to hear the facts and the details. I will give him a little bit of that, and as I do I know he will appreciate the situation, the difficulty, understand and be assured regarding his question.
Certainly the Department of National Defence did enter a contract with Ocean Maid Food Limited of St. Laurent, Quebec to supply canned tuna for the Canadian Armed Forces. There can be no doubt about that. The Hon. Member should also recognize that during the current fiscal year, 1985-86, the Department of National Defence is involved with some 40,000 contracts. In what is called national procurement where food items are included there are 25,000 contracts and one million line food items. The total value of national procurement is $1,135 billion. There are over 100,000 types of food items involved.
When the Minister this afternoon mentioned that he could not be expected to be directly involved with every contract undertaken by DND, this was an understatement, not an overstatement, especially in light of the facts 1 have just mentioned.
The Department of National Defence, like any other Government institution, has rigid and demanding quality standards for foodstuffs in order that we can be assured that our Armed Forces are eating the best and the highest quality of food that can be purchased here. It is not an unusual occurrence that food products which do not meet out high standards in the Department of National Defence are returned to be replaced by the supplier, which was the case in this instance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 p.m., pursuant the Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.14 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 27, 1985