1985-09-27

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday Montreal was the scene of the official launching of the coalition of women to fight against the Government's decision to deindex family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, forty women's groups and organizations related to families with children got together-the Federation des femmes du Quebec, the AFEAS, the Federation des associations de families monoparent ales, the Association regional des centres de femmes du Quebec, the Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Committee on the Status of Women, the CNTU, to name a few.
Mr. Speaker, I could recite the names of 41 organizations which formed a common front to get a petition campaign going throughout Quebec and urge the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to withdraw immediately Bill C-70 aimed at deindexing family allowances.
On the same day, Mr. Speaker, 250 mothers met in a hall in Montreal east and questioned the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister know that we use our family allowances to buy food and pay oil heating bills?
Mr. Speaker, the questions those mothers directed to the Prime Minister of Canada are-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has set up a task force to review the unemployment insurance
system. Amazingly, the Chairman of this group will be paid $750 a day plus $125 per day in travelling expenses. This is absolutely mind-boggling. Here we have a commission headed by an individual whose daily income is more than what the average claimant receives in a month.
I know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is in agreement with me on the insanity of it all. She said on March 21, 1983, when commenting on the Macdonald Commission:
People see the special quirks and privileges, the appointment of commissioners at $800 per day.
The Minister went on to say:
To much of the Canadian public, Parliament has become an extravagant irrelevance. It is a circus show acting out its own fantasy in a make-believe world where neither money nor morality seem very real any more.
The Minister was right then and she is right now.


MUSEUMS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, this week Premier Peter Lougheed officially opened the $30 million Tyrrell Museum which is nestled in the hills of the canyon of the Red Deer just west of the growing City of Drumheller in the beautiful Province of Alberta. The buildings are located not far from the confluence of the Red Deer River and the Kneehill Creek where, in 1884, one of Canada's outstanding geologists, Dr. Joseph B. Tyrrell, found the almost perfect head of a gigantic carnivore. This skull will soon be in the museum which bears his name, thanks to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) and the former Minister of Communications, the Hon. Marcel Masse.
As I entered the museum I saw in front of me a giant globe of the planet Earth indicating that beyond we would find the colour, variety and the successful adaptation of life to a great diversity of environments. All around me were bones from the graveyards of the ages. Proceeding through a dark passage we stood looking into a vast chasm when suddenly the lights came on and I stood in awesome, silent, speechless amazement. It was as if we had just been propelled into the Drumheller Valley as it was three million years ago-a tremendous gigantic work showing skeletons of every type of dinosaur that ever existed, standing in their natural habitat.
Words cannot describe the portrayal of the earth's crust, the beginnings of life from three million years ago up to the appearance of man in the valley. It is the greatest palaeontology museum in the world. I urge every Canadian to join the

September 27, 1985
hundreds from other lands to visit the Tyrrell Museum. Drum-heller Mayor Bill Doucette welcomes the world to the Valley of the Dinosaurs.


MEMBERS' INTERVENTIONS-CANADIANS' EXPECTATIONS
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, since the end of the summer recess, Canadians have been watching their Parliamentarians and how they are using the House of Commons, the noblest institution in this country.
Mr. Speaker, those same Canadians believe it is high time some Parliamentarians stopped using their seat in the House merely to talk about scandals and frivolous subjects. Their comments are a waste of time, and Canadians in general think their Parliamentarians should be making a more serious effort to seek a positive solution to the economic problems facing this country, not by discrediting our banking institutions but by renewing confidence in them. Furthermore, promoting investment in Canada will create jobs for our fellow Canadians, and that is what this Government is trying to do.


WAR CRIMINALS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, one of the many aspects of the Nazi system that revolted and disgusted Canadians was its system of justice. The concept of Nazi justice is in itself a contradiction in terms because there was no justice in Nazi Germany. Individuals were jailed and often executed without the slightest regard for the principles of natural justice.
One of the other regimes which has shown contempt on a massive scale for the concept of justice as we know it is the Soviet Union. The gulags, the mental hospitals, the KGB, and the long history of Soviet human rights abuses should provide us with enough examples of Soviet justice to make us distrust that system absolutely. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Deschenes Commission of Inquiry on war criminals is now considering travelling to the Soviet Union to hear evidence as part of its investigation.
[DOT] (mo)
Every Member of this House wants to see us track down those responsible for committing atrocities during the war. We all feel that these individuals must be brought to justice. But if we are to uphold the standards of our system of justice then, justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done. The use of Soviet evidence by the Deschenes Commission must
be rejected if we are to uphold our own standards. There is some powerful symbolism here. If we use Soviet evidence, are we not perilously close to adopting the same tactics as those we are seeking to prosecute?
I call on the Government to prohibit the Commission from travelling to the Soviet Union to gather evidence.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that the large banks expect the Canadian taxpayer to pay millions of dollars to bail them out for their investments in the Canadian Commercial Bank. How have these same banks treated Canadians? The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is one example of how the gigantic corporations have treated ordinary Canadians shabbily. Have they dealt with farmers facing foreclosure with compassion? No. Have they treated mortgage holders fairly? No.
While the Bank of Canada rate continues to go down, the Commerce has increased mortgage rates. The Commerce has a similarly negative record in its labour relations. Workers at the Commerce, many of them lowly paid women, have not had a regular wage increase since 1981. The bank wants complete freedom to reduce the hours of work whenever it wishes. It also insists upon compulsory overtime.
The Commerce also wants contract language that will prevent workers from taking cases of discrimination to the Human Rights Commission and that will exempt Commerce workers from the provisions of the Canadian Labour Code dealing with technological change. The same bank made over $400 million in profits last year.
It is incumbent upon the Government to force banks to show compassion and concern for farmers, home owners, and their own employees, before blindly pouring money into these wealthy corporations.


SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, the economic news this morning was most pleasing. I took pride in our Government on finding that the bank rate in Canada has dropped to its lowest level in seven years, and is now at 9 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alex Kindy: The good economic news did not stop there. I found more pleasure in reading that President Reagan has hailed our Government's offer of free trade. As a Government
September 27, 1985

Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS
which cares, and I insist on the word cares, we have realized that pursuit of a bilateral free trade agreement will return prosperity to Canada.
It should be realized that the most important aspect of our relationship with the United States is that roughly two-thirds of our trade is with that country. The management of U.S.-Canada relations can determine the success or failure of most of our economic policies. Therefore, Canada's best interests can only be achieved by forging closer trade links between Canada and the United States. We have returned to the first option and moved away from that Liberal option that was a failure, the third option.
If we are successful in our pursuit of stronger trade links, our industry will be less vulnerable to the protectionist actions taken by other industrialized nations. We will once again return prosperity-


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


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-REACTION OF OPPOSITION PARTIES
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I have great difficulty in understanding the negative reaction of the opposition Parties to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) announcement yesterday that our Government is pursuing a new enhanced trade agreement with the United States. Would the Opposition have Canadians stand by and lose their jobs to hundreds of protectionist Bills currently before the U.S. Congress, threatening our lumber, agriculture, steel, and fisheries industries, just to name a few? Would the Opposition have the Government discard a hundred billion dollar trade agreement? That is what will happen if we do not enter trade negotiations with the United States.
Canada is the only industrialized nation without guaranteed access to a market of 100 million people or more. The Macdonald Royal Commission, a commission set up by a previous Liberal Government and headed by a previous Liberal Finance Minister, has strongly recommended that Canada give high priority to the negotiation of freer trade arrangements with the United States to secure market access.
In an effort to score political points the Liberal Opposition is ignoring the reality that our economic future and jobs for Canadians depend on these trade negotiations. It appears that its Members do not care about Canadian jobs. They cannot deal with anything which may be positive for Canada, but Canadians know that major steps must be taken to ensure a prosperous future. I congratulate the Prime Minister on this historic initiative.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Speaker:: May I advise the Members of the presence in our gallery of the Hon. F. C. Austin Pelton, Minister of Environment for the Province of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether any members of his senior staff were advised by Jerry Lampert, National Director of the Progressive Conservative Party, about an RCMP investigation into alleged electoral mispractices involving the former Minister of Communications. The Prime Minister, as reported at page 7050 of Hansard, told me:
In all instances I have been informed by senior staff that they were not so advised under any circumstances.
Last night millions of Canadians watched Mr. Lampert confirm that he had indeed told senior members of the Prime Minister's Office. I ask the right hon. gentleman who is lying, the National Director of the Progressive Conservative Party or senior members of the Prime Minister's Office?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: It may be,
Mr. Speaker, that neither is. It may be that, as happens from time to time, one does have a problem of human error in recollection. My right hon. friend would not be astonished by that. It happens from time to time in life that our memories are not as infallible as we would like.
I was informed in the manner in which I advised my right hon. friend. I have no knowledge of why Mr. Lampert made that statement. I am advised that the statement is inaccurate. I have asked the President of the Party to conduct an urgent review and report to me.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONDUCT OWN INQUIRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of a misunderstanding or slight contradiction. Either the Prime Minister's senior advisers are lying or the National Director of the Conservative Party is lying. Speaking of investigations, why does the Prime Minister, as Leader of his own party and Prime Minister of Canada, not

September 27, 1985
Oral Questions
ask all the persons concerned in his office to find out who is and who is not telling the truth?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, upon receipt of the allegation in question, I immediately gave instructions to the President of the Party, the Hon. Member for Pembina, to get in touch immediately with his colleagues in the Party executive to direct the necessary queries to Mr. Lampert, who is responsible to the Party's National Executive. This does not exclude my own responsibility, of course. I have questioned all senior staff in my office. I have received the assurances I gave the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. The questions will be put to Mr. Lampert, and it is possible, for the reason I mentioned earlier, that there was a misunderstanding. It may well be that Mr. Lampert did advise a senior official, but not a member of my staff.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE PERSONAL INQUIRIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have had a week where information appears not to be getting to the Prime Minister. Of course, we accept his word as he gives it here in the House of Commons, but information is not getting to him on very important matters of fact and allegations which have forced the resignations of two senior Ministers. He says that he has asked the Member for Pembina, who happens to be the President of his Party, to conduct an investigation. That is not an independent investigation.
The Prime Minister is also Leader of his Party. He should call in his National Director, his senior advisers, and his staff, and get to the matter himself. An investigation by a Member of Parliament who happens to be the President of his Party is not going to shed any light on this matter.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I responded very fully to my right hon. friend. I am responsible before the House and before the people of Canada for the conduct of the Government and the affairs of my Party. I am at a loss to understand why the statement was made by Mr. Lampert. It appears to be in conflict with the views and recollections of all members of senior staff. It may very well be that Mr. Lampert indeed informed a senior person of the fact that an alleged infraction may have been committed by the Minister of Communications, but that person was not a member of my staff.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-IMPACT STUDY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has
continually said that jobs are the key issue with regard to negotiating a deal with the Americans on trade. Yesterday the Premier of Ontario reported that the Minister for International Trade told him that over 850,000 jobs would be dislocated as a result of a new free trade deal with the Americans. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, it has to be a cause of very deep concern.
Will the Prime Minister confirm the report given by the Minister of International Trade that over 850,000 jobs would be affected and dislocated? Will he publish, on behalf of the Government, the impact study that the Government has, showing which regions and industries are affected? Most important, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has any plans whatsoever to put forward to deal with the many thousands of workers whose jobs will be severely affected by a new trade deal?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no one from the Government has used the figure which was quoted by the Hon. Member. It may well be that it was drawn by the Premier of Ontario from a figure in a paper prepared by an academic, one of several papers that the Government has ordered prepared so that there will be a full understanding of the implications of the debate.


John Napier Turner: Will you table those papers, Joe?


Charles Joseph Clark: That public paper had to do with job change. Change, as the Hon. Member knows, can mean improved jobs and better jobs. In any event, that was the estimate of one academic based upon an absolute change in all tariff situations.
The one job situation that we do know about is that today Canadians in the fishing industry, forest industry, and other industries across the country have their jobs threatened by protectionist measures arising in the United States. We must have a better answer to that situation than was provided by the policies inherited from the former Government. This Government believes that there is an opportunity for Canadians, not only to protect jobs now, but to build substantial employment security in the future. That is what we are here to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the Minister for a paid political announcement, I asked him for some facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT STUDIES BE TABLED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if in fact the Government has papers that detail the job loss and job dislocation, will it share them with the Canadian public rather than keeping them hidden as it has so far? Will the Minister agree to table the various studies the Government has done demonstrating what the impact of a free trade deal will be and what kind of job loss there will be? Will the
September 27, 1985

Minister also tell the House whether he will be following the recommendations of the parliamentary committee and making clear to the Americans that issues like the Auto Pact and agriculture are not to be negotiated because, in those cases, we know that there will be serious job losses?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the paper from which the Hon. Member's non-existent figure was drawn is already in the public domain. However, he can certainly be assured that, just as the Government has already undertaken a massive consultation with provinces, labour, business and other interested groups across the country; just as the Prime Minister has indicated that the question will again be on the agenda at the First Ministers' conference in November; just as we have provided the opportunity for full public debate during a joint parliamentary committee in which the Hon. Member was a participant; just as we have guaranteed that there will be a debate in the House if the opposition Parties allow that debate to occur-


Lloyd Axworthy: Just table the papers.


Charles Joseph Clark: -we intend to ensure that there will-be a full and informed debate in the country so that the negotiating positions that our negotiators ultimately take into any negotiations that might occur with the United States will be based upon wide public consultation.


Lloyd Axworthy: What are you hiding? There goes the cover-up again.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I want to say to him that his integrity, which he defends constantly with vigour, is not the main issue before Parliament at the moment.
Does he not feel that what happened during the period leading up to the decision to take the rotten tuna off the shelves is not simply a question of internal Conservative concern but a concern of the public of Canada? Will he take our suggestion and refer this entire matter to a parliamentary committee in order that the public can be sure that they are protected in the process?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that I responded fully to that question on many occasions. The Hon. Member himself may have asked me the question in reference to my role. 1 think that the greatest assurance of probity and integrity of the Government and our concern for consumers and taxpayers is that when it was brought to my attention I immediately gave instructions to convene a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minis-
Oral Questions
ter of National Health and Welfare and other Ministers. The product was withdrawn immediately. I think that is an indication, and there has been no evidence to the contrary in this regard.
I believe the Minister has accepted his responsibility, to his credit and to the credit of the House.


Ian Deans: That is a very interesting answer to a question that may well have been asked by someone, but it is certainly not the question I asked.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it may well be that the Prime Minister believes that a need-not-to-know policy protects him. However, it does not protect the public of Canada. Is he afraid that in the process of investigating the events leading up to the removal of the tuna from the shelves that those who had knowledge of it will bring forward additional evidence that will undermine the Government's credibility as set forth by the Prime Minister? Is that why he will not agree to a committee?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We have provided full answers to my hon. friend. There seems to be a suggestion in my hon. friend's question that the Prime Minister of Canada ought to be informed of every administrative decision made within the purview of ministerial responsibility. The very notion of ministerial responsibility is that Ministers make those decisions and live with the consequences before the House. That is what it is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what has transpired honourably in these circumstances.


Ian Deans: There is another concept, that information given to senior staff of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, is information for which that particular Minister is responsable.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given that there are tapes from three individuals-two Members of Parliament, one a former Minister, and a member of the Prime Minister's own staff-which have been contradicted publicly by those individuals after discussions with the Prime Minister's Office, does the Prime Minister not feel that the public of Canada has every reason to believe that some further inquiry within the parliamentary system is required? Rather than seeking the truth from within the Conservative Party itself, does he feel that there is a need now for an investigation in order that all of the events leading up to the order are made public?

September 27, 1985
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is clear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine-maybe other more experienced Members of Parliament will remember, but I cannot remember where Prime Ministers and Ministers of the Crown have responded more fully, more thoroughly and more consistently to a series of questions.
Our responsibility to Canada and to the House is to be here and to respond completely to Members of the House, members of the media in other circumstances, for the conduct of our actions. That is the responsibility of Ministers. That is the responsibility of Prime Ministers.
In a notion, alien to the Liberal Party, the Minister of Fisheries concluded that a mistake of judgment may indeed have been made. He submitted his resignation in honourable fashion and it was accepted by me. That is alien to the Liberal Party and the Opposition.


John V. Nunziata: He made the decision to put the tuna on the shelves.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In regard to myself, I have fully accepted my responsibilities on behalf of the people of Canada. I got involved in it immediately to the benefit of the people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


FREE TRADE-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER POSTPONE NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
In the light of the problems he himself and the Government are experiencing at this time, and the fact that many Canadians are wondering about this Government's competence, would it not be wiser, before undertaking negotiations where Canada's future will be at stake, for the Prime Minister to postpone his decision to negotiate with the Americans until this Government's credibility has been restored and the House of Commons has had an opportunity to have a debate on the matter?


Mr. Nielsen:: Stop the world, I want to get off.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty nasty statement coming from an author.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member mentioned the competence of this Government. We have a mandate, and we have a duty to conduct ourselves with dignity. The Prime Minister and his colleagues are doing so. We have a responsibility to try and create jobs, and what we are doing in this area is quite impressive. And part of the strategy is to initiate talks ... Do you want the answer? ... to initiate talks with our U.S. partners, to ensure that our products will have access to the U.S. market.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO ONTARIO PREMIER
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Because there is so much contradiction about this problem of free trade with the United States and the consequences, Canadians are terribly worried about what will happen to their jobs.
This morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs denied that there were some employment figures put forward into the public domain by his own Ministers. Yesterday the Leader of the Province of Ontario-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question, please?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Premier of Ontario said that the Minister-and he said it in a speech-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do this with respect. The Hon. Member knows that a supplementary question should not have a preamble and should just be a question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Who is telling the truth? The Premier of Ontario or the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that in the interests of federal-provincial co-operation, which I know has never been a strong point in the Liberal Party-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: It would be well for the critic of External Affairs for the Liberal Party to ask that question of the Premier of Ontario.
It happens occasionally that leading public figures have words put in their mouths which they did not utter. I think this may well have occurred in this case. I can certainly give the undertaking that that figure, as I said earlier, was not used by a member of this Government.
Let me also make the point with regard to the Hon. Member's suggestion that we are moving too quickly on this, that Hon. Member believed the Government of Canada moved too quickly on establishing Canadian sovereignty in the north. He waited 16 years. We acted immediately.
September 27, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I watched his press conference this morning, and although the Prime Minister may be satisfied with his answers concerning the tuna affair, Canadians are not.
If the Government has nothing to hide, why is it refusing, first of all, to refer the matter to a parliamentary committee, as suggested by our Leader yesterday, and second, to allow Messrs. McCain, Fraser and MacAdam to appear before a parliamentary committee?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this question literally perhaps not dozens but at least quite a number of times, coming from either members of the political group which my hon. friend represents or from other Members of this House.


REASON FOR GOVERNMENT'S REFUSAL TO ESTABLISH COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE SALE OF TAINTED TUNA
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. There still are contradictions between statements by Members and people working for the party and for the Prime Minister that have not been resolved. So, why is the Government insisting on having a committee examine the bank bail-out and the judgment of its officials and Ministers in this matter while refusing to let a committee do the same for the tuna question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to explain to my hon. friend that two people may have recollections about an incident which though not wrong may not always coincide. Let me explain. I remember, if I am not mistaken, that during the campaign for the Liberal Party leadership, there was a difference of opinion between the present Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Trudeau regarding the circumstances of the Opposition Leader's resignation when he was Minister of Finance and that this difference of opinion was reported in the media.
I have never doubted the recollections or memories of my right hon. friend or Mr. Trudeau. In fact, they settled their differences amicably, but if I remember correctly, there was a publicly expressed difference of opinion as to the motives and circumstances of the resignation of the Right Hon . . . when he
Oral Questions
was Minister of Finance. I never doubted his credibility because of that.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering that the Conservative Government strongly favours the removal of most tariff and non-tariff barriers with the United States and other countries of the world, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he or his Government-this preference notwithstanding-intends to extend for five years the imposition of quotas on footwear imports into Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is fully aware of difficulties inherent in negotiations, particularly with such strong competitors as the United States. Our position today is that the Prime Minister has suggested that the President might seek the views of the American Congress on the possibility of discussing our common interests. Should there be exchanges and negotiations, this would be done in the context of regular negotiations such as have been held in the past with respect to GATT negotiations involving several Liberal Ministers. The only change is that we have a new system to make sure that the sectors affected by negotiations will have a direct and on-going input when we draft our negotiating position.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT EXTEND SHOE QUOTAS FOR FIVE YEARS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just made a fine speech but he did not answer my question. Does the Conservative Government intend to extend for another five years the quotas on footwear imports into Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes or no?


Raymond Garneau: I can say it in English if you want.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


An Hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Oui, non.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if there is one Member who has proved that he can speak, understand and


COMMONS DEBATHS
[Stage Direction]
September 27, 1985
Oral Questions
show respect for both languages here in the House, in Quebec and elsewhere, it has to be me!
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Ouellet:: We will get the answer, I hope. What is the answer?
[ Translation]


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question about the footwear industry, the Hon. Member may rest assured that, in its current negotiations with the Americans and in its day-to-day activities, our Government intends to uphold the real interests of Canadians.


André Ouellet: The answer is no.


UNITED STATES COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's launching today of a complicated and lengthy negotiation process with the United States. It will have its ups and downs and will not reach a conclusion until late 1987 or early 1988. In view of that, did the Prime Minister, yesterday in his discussions with President Reagan, ask the President for and receive from him clear assurances that Congressional and countervail trade moves against Canada will be prevented while these negotiations are taking place? Or is he prepared to have us negotiate with that gun to our head?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it gets more preposteorus all the time. Yesterday the Liberals said: "You are moving too fast; what you should have done was done this a year ago". Now the NDP is all over the lot.
In point of fact, I have expressed many times the position of the Government of Canada, both to the President and in all circumstances, with regard to the items the Hon. Member raised. The President does not control Congress. He is capable of vetoing legislation which impacts upon Canada. I think his record in this regard is unassailable. His intentions with regard to free trade and eliminating that kind of obstacle are consistent with what he is searching for, as we are-a fairer and better arrangement. That is what I suppose he will do if any moves are made against Canada.


DUTIES ON CANADIAN PORK AND SALTFISH
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, if his record is so good, why are there countervail duties at this very time against our pork exports and saltfish exports? The
fact is that he could intervene and he has not, and you have not got the assurances that you should have got-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: My question-


Mr. Speaker:: There was a question; the Hon. Member has asked a supplementary question.


Steven W. Langdon: My supplementary question-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has already asked a supplementary question. I have already heard his supplementary question. Would he like an answer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, some of the regrettable countervail instances are initiated by the United States; some are initiated by Congressmen. If there is much too much protectionism, as I indicated yesterday, from their side or from ours, it is suicidal. It just builds and explodes against job creation for everyone.
What I pointed out to the President yesterday in conversation was that we are a much smaller country than the United States of America. We are unique and we have cultural institutions. We have all these matters which makes us different and make us sovereign. These are not under discussion. What is under discussion is a commercial transaction designed to facilitate the creation of jobs, and germane to that process and the reason for it is, of course, the elimination of the kinds of pernicious obstacles to which my friend quite properly refers.


THE MINISTRY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday he insisted that he should not be informed in advance of police investigations against Ministers because, as he said, his advance knowledge could create the possibility of impeding justice. Does the Prime Minister not see the danger of not knowing what is going on? For example, can he work with a Minister in ignorance of the fact that the Minister is being investigated for endangering the state, or even for something less serious which puts the Minister's job on the line and maybe puts him in a desperate situation? How can the Prime Minister refuse to accept information about investigations under way against Ministers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to a specific case. When the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Solicitor General visited with me, I asked that they follow the exact procedures that had applied to my predecessor in similar cases. I was assured that this was the

September 27, 1985

process, whereby in this case I was advised that indeed search warrants would be sought against a Minister, but that the exercise of those search warrants would begin the next morning. It was not germane to me to be aware of the identity, at least in their view and in my view as well, to avoid the slightest suggestion-and I think the Hon. Member will agree that some very tenuous and difficult suggestions are made on the floor of the House-that I might have been aware of any information which might have allowed me even to suggest the inhibition of that inquiry. I sought not to be informed, having received the assurance that, immediately upon the execution of those search warrants, the Clerk of the Council or myself would be advised. That, to me, is a proper relationship between the Prime Minister and the administration of justice as it affects his Ministers.


POLICY INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not stated the past practice accurately, and I would ask him to look into it. Why did he agree yesterday with the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland that 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 of the House? He agreed with that. It is wrong, and today I invite him to retract it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we could discuss this matter on a case by case basis. This was brought to my attention by the Solicitor General, a position previously occupied by my hon. friend, and by the Commissioner of the RCMP. It was a courtesy explanation given to me in advance of the execution of the document. I understand, and I received the assurance before they came to my house, that this was conventional and proper and that this had transpired in the past. The value judgment was made that it would be inappropriate in the circumstances and of no need in the circumstances for me. I was advised that it was not a case of anything other than that which has been reported.
It was not a matter involving the national security. It was a suggestion that there might be a possible charge under the Elections Act. It was also made very clear to me-and, as a lawyer, I did not have to be told-that indeed the search warrant might result in the complete exoneration of the individual involved. As a result, I thought that that arms length relationship with the police forces was proper and that my conduct was proper as well.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT INQUIRY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in answer to an earlier question the Prime Minister quite correctly said that the President does not control Congress. However, the Prime Minister controls the position of the federal Government when
Oral Questions
it comes to free trade. Specifically, is the Auto Pact up for negotiation? Is it sacred? Or is it non-negotiable?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we believe that the auto pact negotiation indicates that it is possible for Canada and the United States to achieve agreement which serves mutual interests. We see no particular point to renegotiate something which has been successfully put in place. However, I make the point to those who would raise false fears about the advantages to Canada of entering into some kind of arrangement with the United States that we have proof in the Auto Pact that those arrangements can be made to the mutual interests of both countries.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows well that the Auto Pact is not a complete, free trade pact. It is a pact with many provisions. Will we guarantee that pact as it is or will we renegotiate it? While the Minister is on his feet, will he guarantee that our farm policies, including subsidies and marketing boards, are sacred, or will they be up for grabs? What is the Government's position?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Hon. Member to read over the debates which occurred in the standing committee and to consult with his colleague who was party to a process which was one of the most extensive in terms of consultation.
Just to return to the Auto Pact, the Hon. Member is absolutely right. So should he be straightforward and direct with the people of Canada and make it clear that what is proposed now is not a pure free trade arrangement. Of course there will be safeguards for Canadian interests. The Prime Minister of Canada made it very clear yesterday that our cultural integrity is not negotiable, that our social programs are not negotiable, and that the wide range of things which make Canada a distinctive and strong country are not at all negotiable.
The Hon. Member asked about agriculture. I am a Member of Parliament from rural Alberta. The farmers of my constituency and I know the importance to the future of our country of a strong agricultural industry. We know that that industry is threatened now. We intend to make it stronger.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, today's gentle rain seems to be dampening the enthusiasm of the Opposition. However, it is certainly most pleasing for our local farmers. Speaking of farmers, I would address my question, in

September 27, 1985
Oral Questions
the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, to the Acting Minister. There is strong concern from the agricultural community in eastern Ontario about livestock dealers who sell cattle to buyers outside this region and are forced to buy a special licence indicating that their cattle are free of brucellosis-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is getting very long. Would the Hon. Member please come to a question?


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell the livestock dealers of eastern Ontario of the status of the need to continue to purchase these special licences?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member. I, as President of the Privy Council of Canada, signed an Order in Council on September 19, declaring Ontario brucellosis free. This will be registered in The Canada Gazette on October 2, 1985. Only the complete and undivided support of the cattle industry has made this achievement possible. Cattle can now move freely between all provinces. All affected livestock industry people were notified by telephone on September 20 following internal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Minister might like to use Statements by Ministers to complete his remarks.


FISHERIES
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. The Prime Minister has continually said that the issue of rancid fish was never raised in caucus in his presence. I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the issue has ever been raised in caucus by any member of his caucus in his presence and, indeed, if it has ever been raised outside caucus by any Member of Parliament, by the company in question or by Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick, in the Deputy Prime Minister's presence?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the intention of the Hon. Member and those like him who continue along this vein to question every member of our caucus on the matter. It seems rather ridiculous to me.
I can tell the Hon. Member that, contrary to what he says, it is not true that I have denied that the matter was ever raised in caucus because, while I am not normally expansive about what goes on within the four walls of caucus, in this case since the Prime Minister has made an exception of it, I can tell him without any doubt whatsoever-and I have attended all but one or two of our caucus meetings since last September-that
the matter was never raised in caucus, never raised with me, and to my knowledge was never raised with any of the other people mentioned by the Hon. Member and all other Hon. Members who asked these questions.
As I said in the House, my first knowledge of this matter came on Wednesday in caucus, as the Prime Minister has also said. I do not know how many times these details must be gone over in order to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 539 of Beauchesne's which should suggest to the Hon. Member, and all like him, that this kind of question is totally out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would invite the Hon. Member to put a supplementary question with regard to Government policy.


PURCHASE BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, to quote Churchill, I think the Hon. Member protests too much.


Charles Joseph Clark: It wasn't Chirchill. Is Nunziata writing your speeches?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Is it true that after the Department of National Defence purchased the first 100,000 cans of rancid tuna, the product was checked and the Department was advised not to use it but the rancid fish was distributed to military bases and was turned back by the cooks who were very concerned about the well-being of military personnel?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question, I heard a statement made by the Hon. Member, a statement which was responded to fully and completely yesterday and again last night during the "Late Show". I laud the procedures that are in place within the Department of National Defence to assure a policy of of the highest possible standards of foodstuffs to be consumed by members of the Canadian Forces in this country, in Europe and elsewhere. Those standards are very high. They may not have been as high in the years when I served in the Forces but they are certainly high now, a great deal higher than the standards of quality-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


DISASTERS
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment, if he is present in the House. In view of the concern in Atlantic Canada regarding the approach of Hurricane Gloria, I wonder if the Minister could tell the House what steps his Department has taken to alert those in Atlantic Canada and eastern
September 27, 1985

Quebec of its approach status and the protection that will be necessary to meet this approaching calamity.


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch regularly throughout the morning, including as recently as half an hour ago, with Environment Canada's top meteorologists. Apparently the storm is heading toward Atlantic Canada. It is expected to reach the western part of New Brunswick near Fredericton by nine o'clock this evening Atlantic time. It will be moving toward Newfoundland and the Strait of Belle Isle by six o'clock in the morning. It is expected that winds will be in the vicinity of 75 miles per hour.
Very briefly, we are monitoring the situation. We are providing information to all relevant people, including warnings
to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. Next we will be getting Blue Jays' scores.


THE MINISTRY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We now have the former Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Char-lotte, and Mr. Lampert of the P.C. Party on tapes. These tapes do exist. There is no 18-minute gap in them as far as I know. Why will the Prime Minister not permit this matter to go to a committee where those individuals can be questioned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. That question has been asked and answered two or three times today. Does the Hon. Member have a question on a different subject?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell the House why he is attempting to cover up this whole smelly matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have responded fully to all questions including those put by all members of the Hon. Member's Party. I referred as well, for example, to the question of a conflict of recollection. I took the liberty of referring to what I seem to remember of a divergence of views between the Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister Trudeau in regard to the circumstances surrounding the Leader's resignation as Minister of Finance. As I remember, that matter was raised last year. It turned out that the recollections were not on all fours, as I remember. Mr. Trudeau issued a statement and there was a subsequent reconciliation of views. I was not in any way implying that anyone was telling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With respect, I must say to the Prime Minister that since the question has already been asked and answered, I think we should leave it at that. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Davenport for one question.
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


ACID RAIN-APPEAL LAUNCHED BY U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AGAINST COURT RULING
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment and deals with the regrettable fact that the representations on acid rain made in Washington by the Minister and the Government over the summer were so weak that we failed to prevent an appeal by the United States administration Environment Agency, something which represents a very serious setback for Canada. What action does the Minister intend to take in order to get the U.S. Government to move with us on the issue of acid rain abatement as ordered by its courts?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Hon. Member I think he is being wildly naive if he thinks that the Government of Canada can interfere with a court decision in the United States. We are two sovereign countries. While we cannot be indifferent to judicial decisions which have an effect on us, we cannot interfere. We can make the strongest possible representations, diplomatically, bureaucratically, and politically. We are doing so. However, that is a far cry from getting on a charger, marching across the border and telling the U.S. courts what to do.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on Thursday, September 26, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rose in my place this morning to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with respect to the formation of a committee of Parliament to look into the question of the three individuals who are on tape with respect to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member come to his question of privilege, please?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, you ruled that that question had been asked. I have heard the same question asked time and time again. I think Ministers, or the Prime Minister, should be given the opportunity to answer my questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I take the Hon. Member's remarks as a representation. I think the Hon. Member-

September 27, 1985
Petitions


John R. Rodriguez: It is not. It is a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: No, it is not.


John R. Rodriguez: I have a right to ask a question in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member resume his seat, please?


Mr. Crosbie:: You have a gap between your ears and it's more than 18 inches long.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by Members of the Communications Workers, Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union, members of the Thompson Teachers' Association, the Manitoba Government Employees Association, steelworkers, nurses and other Manitobans in which they say that pension benefits are essential for the maintenance of family income and the compensation of workers for their lifelong contribution to society. They ask that the Government ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 800 residents of St. John's East and St. John's West asking that the Government of Canada take a stronger and more vigorous position in the UN against oppression in South Africa arising out of that country's racial apartheid policies.
[ Translation]


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a 4,336-name petition from residents of my region. The petitioners humbly ask that Parliament reinstate capital punishment for crimes against Canadian children.
And your petitioners will ever pray for this cause.



STANDING COMMITTEES


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there are three orders which I think you will find have been discussed among House Leaders. If they were presented to the House for acceptance now, 1 am sure they would be received and passed unanimously.
The first item deals with the Third Report of the Striking Committee tabled in the House on September 17, 1985. I should like to move concurrence at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I move that, pursuant to its order of references dated April 17, 1985, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to travel to Mont St. Gabriel on October 2, 3 and 4, 1985, for the purpose of drafting its final report; and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Special Committee on Acid Rain be empowered to travel to Minneapolis, Minnesota, on September 29 and 30, 1985; and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation)

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
September 27, 1985
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 414 will be answered today.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Is Tourism Canada in favour of abolishing Section 67 of the Canada Elections Act and, if so, will the Minister introduce an amendment to this legislation before the next election and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Is it the opinion of the Government that this section damages the hotel and restaurant sector and was a study made on this subject and, if not, does the Government intend to commission a study and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: 1. A
Canada-wide series of consultations have been conducted with individuals interested in promoting tourism in Canada, that will culminate in a strategy for tourism. The suggestion of repealing Section 67 was raised at these meetings. Depending upon the disucssions among representatives of business, academe and government, the Government will consider any proposals that will reduce irritants that effect tourists in Canada, including the repeal of Section 67.
2. No study has been done or is being considered at this time. Once the Government has assessed the implications of the recommendations made during its consultations on tourism, it will propose necessary measures to increase tourism in Canada.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, some six months ago I put approximately 40 questions on the Order Paper concerning the Richard Hatfield marijuana case. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary on September 18 when I might expect some answers to those questions. He indicated he would take the matter up with the new Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) and that the questions would be responded to as quickly as possible. Has the Parliamentary Secretary spoken to the new Solicitor General? Can he indicate to the House when we might have some answers to my questions?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that a week ago my hon. friend brought to my attention the 40 questions to which he refers. I believe it is the longest series of questions on the Order Paper. The matter has been brought to the attention of the Solicitor General who, in taking over his new duties and getting up speed, has not been able to get around to answering those questions yet. However, we are hopeful they will be answered very soon.
Immigration Act, 1976


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that with respect to the questions the former Solicitor General and his staff would have proceeded to answer those questions. Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify to this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the Hon. Member's concern with respect to the questions. That is fair. However, the Hon. Member is entitled to ask a question, with regard to a timetable, which the Parliamentary Secretary has answered. That is usually all that is done. 1 think the Hon. Member might want to follow the tradition in this case.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, perhaps a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: No. There is normally not a supplementary question allowed on such a question, which is the point I am trying to make. The Hon. Member may pursue this matter further outside the House with the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. His representations with respect to his questions have been made before the House, which is the Hon. Member's right.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, 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 from Thursday, September 26, consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand in my place for a second day to deal with the subject matter of immigration. I believe 1 have approximately ten minutes of my allotted time left. In that time I would like to be succinct and clear in terms of urging members of the Liberal Party and members of the New Democratic Party to support Bill C-55. I do this, first, in order that the Bill can move quickly to committee; second, in order that amendments can be brought forward to make it a better Bill; and, third, to see that it is returned to the House of Commons as quickly as possible in order that we can get on with changing the system.

September 27, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
It is clear that of 25 million Canadians most could not care less about this particular piece of legislation. The majority of Canadians are not involved in situations involving sponsorship of potential immigrants. However, for those who are involved, and those numbers are substantial, this is a critical and important piece of legislation.
I mentioned yesterday that the standing committee has had over 40 hearings on this subject since the month of January. Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous agreement in the committee that immigration levels must be increased in this country. We must turn the previous trend around. I think there is unanimous agreement in the committee that the scientific evidence is clear cut. Increased immigration leads to increased jobs. Increased immigration does not cost Canadian jobs.
Throughout our history one of the strengths of this country has been the reality that we have invited people from other nations to join with us to build our economic strength, to build our communities, to build our social system. We have been on an unfortunate backward trend in the last few years, that of a reduction in immigration, and I think it is time that we reversed that trend. When this nation does what it has been doing over the last four or five years, we begin to say no to some people who could really benefit this country. On a common sense basis people understand that and when they get an answer which is a no then they appeal the answer. That is what we have created. Members of Parliament have allowed that to happen. That is why we have such an enormous backlog of cases that deserve an appeal hearing.
The basic thrust, the reason for being, of this particular piece of legislation which has been brought forward is to increase the resources for the Immigration Appeal Board so those people stuck in the system can have a hearing. Our courts have said it must be an oral hearing, so the time demands on the Board have increased and there needs to be increased manpower. We were not able to get unanimous agreement in the month of June to move this piece of legislation through, and it is 90 days later and we are now debating it in second reading in the House. What that has cost is 90 days of extra waiting time for those thousands of thousands of people and their relatives and their friends who are jammed up in that system. If we debate in this Chamber for another 30 days or 60 days or 90 days then we are dooming those thousands and thousands of people to a longer wait.
We must have an immigration system that is quick, that is fair, that is sensitive, that operates in the nation's best interests and the interests of people who would like to immigrate to this country. We must have an appeal system characterized by those dimensions as well, quick, fair and sensitive. This Bill C-55 is in that tradition. As I listened to Members opposite I was really disappointed to hear that members of the Liberal Party, as signalled by their critic yesterday, intend to continue to fight the Bill. I hope that that decision was reached because of a misunderstanding rather than the reality of the situation.
Can I suggest to the Liberal caucus that our concern is identical to their concern and to the concern of the New Democratic Party about refugees?
We have a problem in the present system in terms of the determination of refugee status. We have a backlog in that system; we have a backlog in the over-all appeal system that is a logical consequence of the first backlog. The system is unfair simply on the dimension of speed. We have people who are in limbo for five years and longer in the present system. I think what the Members opposite are trying to do is to delay this Bill in the belief that it will bring pressure upon the Government to do something about the refugee system. If one reads the speeches, if one listens, that seems to be the mentality. I wish that members of all Parties, and many of them, had been present last night when we talked to Amnesty International about the Plaut Report. Unfortunately there was not, for good reason, a member of the Liberal Party present. But when that transcript is read carefully I think we will begin to discover that the reason we have gone wrong historically in this country in dealing with the refugee situation-and we deal with it better than most if not all other nations in the world, but we are still not dealing with it well enough-is that we have been treating the refugee decision-making process as an immigration decision-making process, and it is not. It is a question of human rights. It is a human rights protection process. The committee is going to have Rabbi Plaut before it next Tuesday night and we will then explore that in even more depth with him, but what has to be done in this country is that we must make that separation in a clear-cut manner. The Board, or the process that we put in place to deal with refugees, will have immigration consequences. If the determination is that a person is or is not a refugee, that person will still have the rights of immigration law and other categories. But we must not confuse the two things in this debate about the Immigration Appeal Board. If we are going philosophically to move in the right direction in terms of refugees, and to say clearly that that is a human rights decision to be made by tribunals that are skilled and sensitive to those aspects, then we are going to reduce the number of appeals that come to the Immigration Appeal Board. We are going to reduce some of that backlog the minute we get a decent system in place that is based on the philosophy that it should be based upon.
Having done that, we still must have some kind of immigration appeal process and at the moment that is lodged in the Immigration Appeal Board, and the cases that are before it, the thousands and thousands of cases that are jammed up and waiting in line, are not all refugee cases. An enormous portion of those cases are landed immigrants or citizens of Canada who want to sponsor a relative, bring him or her to his country, and they feel they have been treated unjustly and they want to appeal. The longer the Opposition delays this Bill the more clearly they are sentencing all of those family members to a continued period of uncertainty and inquietude and psychological stress and turmoil.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say more strongly that the time to act is now. Today is the very best day to let this Bill
September 27, 1985

pass out of this House of Commons and into committee. Mr. Speaker, you have a sensitive committee, you have a hard working committee. It will revise the bad parts of this Bill and bring it back quickly. Let us get that part of the world cleared up so the committee members and the Government can concentrate on clearing up the refugee situation, because that is the next major piece of initiative that has to be dealt with. The Government is committed to it, your committee is committed to it and I hope all Members of this House of Commons are committed to that process as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much many of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and in particular his statement, and I think I have it almost word for word, that the reason we have gone wrong procedurally in our well meant attempt to handle the flow of refugees who apply from in Canada is that we have been treating refugee decision-making as an immigration process. As he says, it is not; it is a human rights process.
I was interrupted by a couple of Hon. Members on business relating to this debate and I was not clear enough on exactly what he said after that. It appears that the effect of this Bill, as explained by the Minister yesterday, may be to bring more of the refugee decision-making into the Immigration Appeal Board work. In other words, it would compound the problem the Hon. Member has just defined. When he says that we must make that separation a clear-cut matter, how does he deal with what the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) said yesterday and with what the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said in her June 19 statement, that the increase in board staff will-this is the only reason she gave-enable us to tackle the refugee backlog? In other words, it seems that the Cabinet thinks of the IAB as the way to deal with this increase in refugee problems whereas the Hon. Member who spoke seems to say that that is the wrong course.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. The concept of ministerial responsibility requires Ministers to administer the law as it sits. Today, at this moment, there is a refugee determination process and an appeal process through the IAB. Until the law is changed that process will continue.
I think it is clear that the Government will not be able to act on the Plaut Report before some time in November and maybe even December. It is clear that the committee is working hard to provide advice to the Government by the end of October so we can influence that decision. Members of the Government caucus and the Opposition may or may not agree with the decisions which are made. However, it is impossible at this point to know how long it will take to get this through because we do not know what it will say. In the meantime, life goes on. In the meantime, refugees are jammed up in the IAB process. They are entitled to that process under Canadian law and we are denying them access because we do not have enough staff to deal with it. In the interim, for the next three, four, five or
Immigration Act, 1976
six months, we cannot deal with all the cases but we can deal with a lot more if we move this Bill quickly through the House. We can then remove the uncertainty and psychological stress these people are suffering. However, at this point in time we must deal with the law as it exists and I think that is what the Minister is doing, administering the law as it exists.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made a passing reference to four, five or six months. Does he wish to state whether it is his opinion that that would be enough time for the legislation to be completed? He spoke about the Government acting in November, which would be in two months. 1 do not know whether he means to initiate legislation or to bring it to completion. It makes a difference as to how we approach this problem. Are we dealing with something which could become a long-range band-aid to cover the refugee problem, or would it be a more short-range matter, particularly regarding the problem of sponsorship, particularly Canadian residents sponsoring their relatives? Is he suggesting that in six months we would have new legislation in place to handle the refugee problem?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows I am not a member of the Cabinet, but August was an important month in immigration matters because we had a clear-cut signal that the Government recognized the importance of this subject matter. We now have a Minister of State devoted to this matter on a priority basis. That Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration have clearly signalled that changes to the refugee process are a priority for the Government.
I believe that if the committee makes a unanimous set of reasonable recommendations by the end of October, that will facilitate the process. The Government, if it has the support of all three Parties, can move more quickly. If we do not have that support, then it takes time. Once we finish with it, the Senate has to deal with it. If the Liberals are opposed in the Senate, they can string it out forever. If not, then it can move forward quickly. These things are beyond the Government's control. However, I think it is crystal clear that the Minister, members of the committee and members of the caucus want us to move quickly and correctly to get the new legislation in place. But speed requires co-operation from both opposition Parties.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a small comment regarding refugees. The Hon. Member, who is chairman of the committee concerned, mentioned that the problem of refugees is an important one. I wonder whether we are going to move in the direction of defining exactly what a political refugee is. Up until now we have been dealing with all sorts of refugees from different countries, some of whom are not political refugees. I think there should be an exception made for political refugees and I hope the committee he chairs will act fast on that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I thank the Hon. Member for the question. The Plaut Report and the committee are dealing with Cana-

September 27, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
da's obligations under international law regarding the protection of and asylum for conventional refugees. These are people who, if they returned to their country, have a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of political activity, race or religion. Those are three definite factors. Yes, your committee is struggling with a process which will enable them to determine in a sensitive way whether refugee claimants have that kind of a fear and whether it is well-founded. However, I think the situation requires some sensitivity in the decision-making process because the situation in a given country can change overnight. One day there is a coup and the next day a different Government is in place. One day a particular person had no legitimate and well-founded fear of persecution, but the next day, after the Government has changed, he does. That is why I know in advance that the committee will not be able to provide the kind of definition which will last us for all time. What we will be able to do, I hope, is to provide a system which is sensitive and up to date. Canada has a well-deserved reputation for providing protection and asylum to the persecuted. We want to maintain that reputation and improve it, and I am convinced that Members on the Government side are dedicated to doing just that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am indeed pleased to be able to participate in this debate on Bill C-55. However, I must take issue with the initial remarks of my friend from Calgary West. At the beginning of his remarks today he said that the vast majority of Canadians could not care less about this Bill. I believe that the federal policy on immigration is very important with regard to human and social impacts. Most Canadians have an interest in immigration. In my constituency of York West, and in a large number of other constituencies, immigration is one of the most important problems next to unemployment. I would like to set the record straight and say that as far as our Party is concerned immigration is a very important aspect of federal public policy to most Canadians.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily disagree with all of the contents of this particular Bill. Clause 6 would be amended to accord permanent residents the right of appeal which is presently only available to Canadian citizens who sponsor applications for landing. The Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) says that members of the Opposition are opposing the Bill simply for the sake of opposition. That is not the case. We have some legitimate concerns with this Bill, although we also agree with certain clauses of it. The Member for Calgary West also says that we must not continue to waste time. We are not wasting time, Mr. Speaker. This Bill was only introduced in this Chamber yesterday and we have only had some hours of discussion on it. If the Government is concerned about wasting time, why did it not introduce this Bill a year ago? Members are laughing-that is their prerogative.
What will this Bill do for the plight of 20,000 to 23,000 refugees who are awaiting an answer on their future? I do not believe that this Bill does very much for them. With regard to the clause that will increase the number of commissioners on the Appeal Board from 18 to 50, an off-the-cuff reaction would be that it would speed up the appeal process. However, that is not the only approach that can be taken to speed up the procedure. That approach addresses the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause. Another approach that could be taken is to question, as did the Plaut Report, whether many of these individuals ought to be coming before the Appeal Board, whether they do not have the right to remain in this country rather than pleading their case before a board. That is a way of attacking the cause of the problem rather than the symptoms. With respect to increasing the number of commissioners, what will we do with the additional commissioners once we eliminate the backlog? This would establish a temporary structure rather than looking at the long-term issue. I would like to illustrate this thinking by a real life example.
There is a couple in my riding from Argentina who arrived in this country several years ago with refugee status. They fled Argentina because they were teachers there during the military regime. As you know, one of the first communities that was persecuted by that regime was the community of educational institutions. Their home was ransacked and burned and their child was kidnapped. They fled to this country and have been here for a number of years. They made sacrifices to learn English and now both speak it very well. They both hold down responsible jobs and are involved in the community at large as well as in the Latin American community. Their six year old daughter speaks nothing but English, having been involved in our educational system from the ground floor. These individuals have recently been asked to return to Argentina on the basis that there is now a civilian Government there.
Is that a fair request, Mr. Speaker? I think not. I am sure that if Members of the House met this couple they would come to the same conclusion based on two premises. The first is that if these people returned to Argentina the fear of persecution which they felt three years ago would still be there, albeit on a different level. They would fear also that the Government may revert to the previous military dictatorship. The second premise is that they have made a genuine effort to adapt to this country by learning the language and life style and establishing roots here. They are asking themselves whether it is fair to be asked to return to Argentina after making such an effort to become Canadian citizens.
I think this example highlights the problem with this Bill. This legislation assumes that the solution to the refugee problem is to increase the number of commissioners to hear appeals. The case that I just outlined, and I am sure hundreds, thousands of others, ought not to have to come before the Appeal Board at all. These people will be living in danger if they return to their place of origin. They have made sacrifices and contributions to this country and their problems should be looked at from a compassionate philosophical point of view.
September 27, 1985

I am concerned that the Government is not prepared to do that. In his speech yesterday the Member for Calgary West indicated that the Government has the progressive will to deal with immigration on a compassionate basis. I fear that that is not the truth because I have not seen any evidence of that compassion with respect to immigration. The Member said that he and the committee are in favour of raising immigration levels. However, within weeks of being sworn in last September, with no study or public consultation with professionals serving the immigrant community, the Government reduced the number of entrants to this country from 100,000 to 80,000. How can the Member now say that the Government is in favour of increasing the level after having reduced it? That does not show to me a progressive will with regard to immigration.
Let us also look at the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration, which has a majority of Conservative Members. One of the first things that committee did was to embark upon a path that would suggest that people entering this country should, in large part, be entrepreneurs. It should be made perfectly clear that it was a Liberal Government that established a system of applications for entrepreneurial immigrants. Not only do we welcome those who want to come to this country, we want to make specific provisions for those immigrants who could come here to invest and establish a shop or factory and provide positive economic spinoffs. However, unlike the Government today, our Party has never been prepared to make entrepreneurial ability the basic immigration requirement. I suggest that the committee which is made up of a majority of Conservative Members, is on dangerous ground if it wishes to pursue an immigration policy based purely on entrepreneurial ability, and I hope that the Minister does not decide to follow that course. Such a policy would deny one of the realities in this country that poor immigrants who came to this country with very little became wealthy. The Member from Alberta continues to laugh. Again, that is his prerogative.
It is also a fact that regardless of the economic status that the Government is seeking, many individuals came to Canada with only their trade and desire for betterment, but they have worked and helped to build this country. Many immigrants took jobs that many other Canadians did not want. They too contributed to this country. Our Party will not support a policy for increased immigration if it only applies to the rich.
It is very dangerous for the committee, led mainly by Conservatives, to embark on such a discussion. While we agree that we need entrepreneurs and investors to come to this country and open factories and stores to provide jobs for Canadians, we do not agree that the corner-stone of our immigration policy should be based on whether or not a potential immigrant is whealthy. This country was not built only by wealthy immigrants and it will not continue to grow only with wealthy immigrants. I question the Government's "progressive will" because I have not seen the evidence to put my fears to rest.
Immigration Act, 1976
Another matter not addressed in this Bill concerns the family assistance stream in our immigration policy. This area merits careful consideration because family reunification has been stressed as a priority for immigration in this country. I hope the committee will consider amendments to the Bill that will make the family assistance level stronger.
As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, many of my case files in York West deal with immigration. Many of those cases concern the fact that Canadians living here are frustrated at their inability to sponsor successfully relatives abroad who wish to come to Canada. Therefore, more latitude must be provided in that stream.
It is true that economics must be taken into consideration with immigration and that we must be careful not to augment unemployment in certain sectors of our economy. However, I agree with the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) that there is no study indicating that increased levels of immigration coincide with an increased rate of unemployment.
The provisions under the family assistance level in immigration is cause for frustration by Canadians who want to sponsor relatives. However, unlike refugee applications, entrepreneurial applications and applications by those who do not have relatives here, the family assistance application would be most reassuring to those who have concerns about immigrants negatively affecting our country. A broader family assistance immigration policy would alleviate much of the concern of those who believe that increased immigration will cause other Canadians to suffer. An immigrant who is sponsored by an individual living in Canada can be protected if he or she falls on hard times.
There is a definite strength in the family unit in this country and therefore I believe that an immigrant who has relatives living in this country can be given that family support when he or she faces hard times. This is an area of immigration policy that should be given more attention by the House because it will soften those critics who believe that immigration should be based on economics.
I hope the Hon. Member, who is Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, will take my concerns seriously because in my first year as a Member of Parliament, the family assistance level in immigration has been one of my priorities in the riding of York West. I know from my discussions about this problem with other Members that it is an issue in their constituencies as well. Therefore, the House should take notice that it must seriously review that family assistance policy in immigration.
Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I agree with certain parts of the Bill. I am riding today because I feel passionately about immigration and matters affecting my constituents and prospective Canadians who want to determine their future. This Bill will not solve the bottleneck referred to by another Hon. Member in reference to those 23,000 individuals who are waiting to hear about their future. Those who are waiting in groups of 10 or 15 in hotels in Toronto and Montreal want answers. I believe that the Plaut Report provided the right answers and approach to the problem. We should be address-
7106

September 27, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
ing the question of whether these individuals should present their case before the Appeal Board, as suggested in the Bill, or whether the Government should have the compassion, integrity and vision to consider these people as human beings who are prepared to sacrifice and become involved in the mainstream of Canadian life. I rise in my place to make that point. I also rise in my place to suggest to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration that we in this Party will not and will never waste the time of the House on this Bill. We will certainly be taking him up on the offer to move amendments in order to strengthen the viability of this Bill.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened carefully to the remarks of the Hon. Member oppsite, and would agree with most of them. This is not a panacea to solve the problem. It will simply make the world a little better for a few more people. They deserve our help, and that is the reason for speed.
Let me make another comment. The degree to which parliamentarians turn the subject of immigration to partisan political advantage, I think, confuses the Canadian public and makes a sane, sensible and humane immigration policy a little more difficult to achieve. One of the ways we do that, sometimes deliberately and sometimes inadvertently, is to take a point of view, take it out of context and put it into some other kind of point of view. The standing committee's second report dealt with levels. We could not get three Party agreement to it, partly because we misunderstood each other. The thrust of that report was the issue of using immigration policy, in part, to create jobs.
I do not think there is any disagreement in this House that someone who lives in Canada who cannot find a job experiences trouble. Those of us who have been aound for six years have seen-certainly someone from Calgary has seen-a situation where a shortage of employees turned into a surplus in a short period of time. Calgary went from a 3 per cent or 4 per cent unemployment rate to a rate 2 per cent higher than the national average for a year and a half. When you go into people's homes and find no food in the fridge and see discouragement on their faces, it is a tragedy.
When we bring refugees or immigrants of one kind or another to this country, they come with a sense of hope and optimism because this is the new life and a new opportunity. If our economy cannot support jobs for those people, then the disappointment is enormous.
There are 9,000 South Vietnamese refugees in the City of Calgary, many of whom are still having difficulty finding employment because the economy of Calgary crashed. Others have found employment.
It was the feeling of the committee that a small portion of increased immigration levels should be devoted deliberately to the kinds of immigrants who could create jobs for the refugees, for the assisted relatives and for those already here. If we want a kind of racial backlash-


John R. Rodriguez: What is your question?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -then let us continue with a shortage of jobs because then people look around and say, "He took my job. We do not want any more immigration". If we had a surplus of jobs and a shortage of employees, then the national will to increase immigration levels would be clear and consistent.
Standing in this House today in the year 1985, it is not clear and it is not consistent, partly because the economy is not in good shape. I think it behooves members of all Parties to say levels should be increased, partly for the sake of job creation. People need jobs. Immigrants need jobs. It is not a bad piece of public policy to reach out to other countries and bring those jobs and people to Canada. I hope we can get together on that.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, once again I draw the attention of the House to the Hon. Member's leading-off statements. He said that he hopes that Members do not turn and twist remarks around, but that is what he just did. He was trying to insinuate that this Member and this Party is somehow against creating jobs for Canadians or for immigrants. That is not the case. I am not prepared to labour that point.
He drew the example of a large number of refugees in his city who cannot find work. I have met with refugees in the City of Toronto who cannot find work either. Part of the problem is that everybody knows they are refugees. Various piece of documentation indicate they are refugees. Their social insurance numbers indicate they are refugees. As long as that unknown status is allowed to continue and fester, they will not have those jobs to which the Member alludes.
There are a number of jobs in our communities being created and made available to Canadians from various parts of the country. These individuals who have this refugee cloud over their heads have a secondary and tertiary problem simply because their status has not been resolved. In many cases, these individuals would be able to do the jobs that Canadian employers require, but they are held back simply because of their status.
The Hon. Member also mentioned about the problem of bringing in immigrants and increasing levels of immigration. We do that in many sectors of our economy. Take a look at the tool and dye makers, Mr. Speaker. We still go to Great Britain to get tool and dyemakers. I am not suggesting that a tool and dyemaker in Great Britain or a tool and dyemaker in Australia is a rich entrepreneur. That is an example I was drawing to the Hon. Member's attention. That committee of his was definitely looking at increasing levels of immigration based on the wealth of those individuals.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: No. Read the report.


Sergio Marchi: It is there for everybody to see. In the third report the tune was changed. The Minister never accepted the second report. Rightfully so because the second report was most regressive. The second report denied the existence of the Canadian reality up to today and would have denied it tomorrow as well. When I make those comments, I do not make them to misinterpret the Hon. Member's suggestion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You do.
September 27, 1985


Sergio Marchi: It is very clear in the report not only for these Members but for Canadians across the country to see. I challenge the Hon. Member to bring forward that second report and get approval in this House, regardless of the absolute majority and regardless of closure tactics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


John R. Rodriguez: He has had his 10 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, that report recommended a population increase of 1 per cent. With current birth rates and death rates, it would at least double immigration quotas from the present level of 50,000 to at least 150,000. The committee suggested 3,000 or 4,000 of that increase ot 80,000 be deliberately designed to create jobs. That is what the report said. It said nothing more and nothing different.


Sergio Marchi: That is not true.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Members who attended those hearings know that. Members who wrote that report know that. Any statement to the contrary is a misinterpretation of the sense of that committee and what it was intending to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if that were the case and the memory of the reality of that report, I would like to ask the Hon. Member why his Party and that Party offered minority reports on the very nature of the entrepreneurial scheme regarding which this Government had intentions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I intend to give the floor to the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on debate at two o'clock. With the consent of the House, may we call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Chair was ready to recognize the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act as it relates to the Immigration Appeal Board. Although it is a small Bill in some ways, it has been rehashed and unfortunately it has not proceeded as fast as any
Immigration Act, 1976
of us, myself included, would have liked. I will deal with the reasons for this, and I have some suggestions about how 1 think we could do better.
First I should like to begin by laying very positive groundwork by accepting the principal statement made this morning by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). 1 have acquired great respect for his work as Chairman of the committee this year. I believe that he, along with others, will be able to work out some kind of negotiation on this matter. 1 know he has tried very hard. I do not have the "blues", but I wrote down as quickly as I could what he said this morning at the beginning of his remarks. He said that the reason that the Government, Parliament and the country of Canada have gone wrong with refugee work, despite our good intentions, is that we have been treating refugee determination as an immigration question and, as he said, it is not. It is a human rights question, and we must make that separation clear. Rabbi Plaut brought this to our attention in his report earlier this year, but I strongly agree with the way the Hon. Member for Calgary West stated it. On that basis, I believe we can get the Bill passed through all stages soon.
However, in his later remarks, the Hon. Member made some statements which were unintentionally misleading. He said that there had been 40 hearings since June on this subject, and that we were unanimous on increasing immigration levels and on immigration not being a threat to jobs. That is true, but it is not relevant to this debate. Almost all those 40 hearings had nothing to do with the refugee question. The biggest portion of them concerned the entrepreneurial program. We had very few meetings to deal with refugees and only one meeting, in the last week of Parliament, to deal with the Bill. That is very unfortunate.
Also the Hon. Member said that he regretted the 90 days of delay from the end of June to the end of September. Perhaps he has forgotten an earlier delay, that in November, 1984, the Minister asked for and received from the two opposition Parties unanimous support for increasing the Appeal Board to 30 or 35 members but did not act on it. From November to June there was a delay of much more than 90 days.
The Hon. Member who spoke yesterday on behalf of the Liberal Party neglected to mention that the previous Government, under his Minister of Employment and Immigration, obtained unanimous consent from the opposition Parties in February, 1984, but did not put it through. Neither Government was willing to use the unanimous agreement, either in February, 1984 or in November, 1984. I do not know the reason for this, but it is not becoming to either of the two Parties to sound injured now about delay.
When the Bill was brought in, it was almost at the last minute. There was practically no time to negotiate any amendments. It contained some surprises that were not in the original request to which we had agreed. We were able to do a little negotiating with the very strong help of the Chairman, but not enough to make it viable.
The particular problems were that the amendments of the Minister would have potentially hurt the case of every Canadi-

September 27, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
an who was appealing on behalf of a relative he or she wished to sponsor. They had been turned down by the staff-and I will return to the staff because I believe it is the root of our problem-and appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board. Rather than a three-person panel to hear appeals, the Minister wanted to cut it down to one. Every lawyer with experience in this regard has indicated to me that that would be unjust. The Minister stated in her June 19 press release that it was to deal with the refugee backlog and would enable the Immigration Appeal Board to hold "a greater number of oral hearings for refugee claimants by increasing the size of the Board". Also she indicated that a requirement by the Supreme Court to have oral hearings has "made it necessary to expand the Immigration Appeal Board in order to cope with the extra work-load". In June, that was the only reason she gave for this legislation. It was therefore impossible to interpret it in any other way than the way she interpreted it, which was that this was a program to deal with the backlog of 13,000 or 14,000 refugee hearings and that this would mean she would confirm the principle that refugee determination is an immigration matter. That is the very principle that the Chairman of the committee and Rabbi Plaut's Report denies. This legislation would have tripled the size of the Board and reduced the quorum to one. Refugee hearings would have been run through the system like sausages through a sausage machine. That is the way the Plaut Report, the Chairman of the committee, Members of the House and members of the public who have worked with refugees unanimously agree is the wrong way to go.
We have found on experience that the Immigration Department, dominated by the concept of enforcement, is not the appropriate body to deal with people claiming refugee status. It is not only that the Department is hostile to refugees. The former Executive Director of the Department, as reported in the press, repeatedly called refugees queue jumpers and talked about how many of them are bank robbers, terrorists or even Irishmen. I am not quite sure what he had against Irishmen. He continually slandered refugee applicants and misrepresented the statistics. For example, he pointed out that only about 35 per cent of refugee claims were approved by the Minister. He did not point out that after the Refugee Status Advisory Committee had made its recommendations, he and other staff members added their further recommendations behind the scenes so that the Minister's decision was not based simply on the Refugee Status Advisory Committee but also on pressure from staff members.
As I have said, Department of Immigration staff members are enforcement minded and seem to think that they were appointed principally to keep people out of Canada. I agree with the Chairman of the committee who said that we need to have more people come to Canada, but we have to climb over our own staff members to get them here.
Staff members are also hostile to family reunification. In my office, which deals with a great deal of immigration business, there are at least four staff members who spend at least half of
their time dealing with immigration matters. We have noticed more and more delays in the applications for family reunification, particularly those coming from non-European countries. Files get lost. Letters do not get answered. Little nit-picky points are raised that were never raised in the past. It is as though someone were going over and over these applications looking for excuses to keep these people out.
I have a file with me relating to claims from Pakistan. It seems that our representatives in Pakistan must have pledged not to let anyone into Canada if they can possibly prevent them from coming. I have encountered many negative examples of this from Pakistan. For example, there is the case of a Canadian who wishes to bring his parents to Canada as well as his sister who is unmarried and of an age at which in Pakistan it would be considered socially improper to live alone. This matter has been going on for about two years. We cannot get a straight answer to our humanitarian plea. All we get is bureaucratic answers going by the book. I could tell the House of many more cases just like this one.
Department staff members are hostile in their actions toward people who are trying to enter Canada for family reunification reasons. The statistics reflect this. One of the things that has come to light lately is that the number of appeals coming before the Immigration Appeal Board has been rising. In 1981, there were 1,136 such appeals. In 1982, the total was 1,296; in 1983, it was 2,077; and in 1984, it was 2,376. Within those statistics, it can be shown that family class sponsorship appeals have almost doubled in three years from 642 to 1,203. Refugee determination has more than doubled from 297 to 669. Other cases including those of illegal immigrants who are being deported after having made their cases have risen from 197 to 504. That is more than double.
Why has there been this increase in appeals to the Immigration Appeal Board? It is because family reunification is being blocked in two ways. First there was a freeze put on family reunification on May 1, 1982 through the requirement that any assisted relative not be considered unless he or she has a certified job offer. By the Minister's own estimate at the time, that chopped family reunification by about 25 per cent of its previous volume. The other way it is blocked is through the actions of staff members. People cannot get their relatives into Canada, so they come here as illegals or as refugee claimants. Then, along with direct appeals on family reunification, these cases go to the Immigration Appeal Board. That has caused this crisis, more than a doubling of the total number of cases before the Board in three years.
In spite of all that has been said about family reunification, the actual practice of the previous Government as well as of the present Government has been to reduce immigration. In 1981, immigration levels fell short of the Department's planned levels by at least 1,500. In 1982, the level fell short by
9,000	and in 1983, the year in which we felt the full effect of the 1982 freeze, it fell short by 45,000. In 1984, it fell short by almost 2,400. These people were shut out by our bureaucracies, our overseas offices and, to some extent, our Canadian offices as well. The principal problem is the attitude of those
September 27, 1985

working in our overseas offices. I met members of the overseas staff this summer and you have to meet them to believe their attitude on immigration, Mr. Speaker. It is really something else.
We have been cutting back on immigration, not because of a decision made by Parliament but because of staff practices. Therefore, we are hearing more appeals through other channels, whether legitimate or not. The attitude of members of the enforcement section of the Immigration Department is such that they try to keep people out of Canada. This has caused an increase in illegal immigration and in appeals before the Immigration Appeal Board.
Granted, we do need a short-term solution. Even if we could follow the advice of Rabbi Plaut and the Chairman of the Immigration Board by separating refugees entirely from the immigraton process until a claim has been determined, we would still have to deal with the backlog that exists. However, people who have worked hard as volunteers to help immigrants and other refugees, people who are well known to the Minister and recognized by her, are afraid that this temporary, interim measure will become permanent just like income tax.
All last year members of the public tried to meet with the Minister on this matter and could not. The Plaut Report was delayed for six months. It was supposed to be put out in December. The Minister promised it month by month but it did not come out until the middle of June. There was no time for the committee to look at it or deal with it seriously before the summer recess. Members of the public who tried to meet with the Minister and who invited her to their meetings were frozen out. They are now uneasy.
Representatives of those groups are meeting tomorrow in Montreal. They have invited the Minister to attend the meeting and she has assured them that she will. I think it will be a very important and fruitful meeting provided the Minister does not go to it with a take-it-or-leave-it, confrontational attitude, the attitude in which the Bill was presented to us in June. In fact, many representatives of these non-governmental organizations urged that this Bill not be introduced this week but that we wait a few days until the Minister had met with those people who have expertise on this matter to hear their views and have some give and take. Then we would be able to work on this Bill. However, for whatever reason, the Cabinet decision was to charge ahead with the Bill, public be damned.
There has been a reference to conversations held between the Minister, the critic of the Liberal Party and the critic of New Democratic Party. There was a meeting of some one and a half to two hours at which the Liberal critic and I urged the Minister to respect what the public was saying in this matter. We were totally unsuccessful. He simply wanted to move ahead. Of course, he has the votes and, if he moves ahead, then that is the way it will be. However, that will not win the co-operation of the public, which the Minister from time to time says is essential in order to get the job done properly.
Immigration Act, 1976
What I wish to do is to propose three processes by which we might try to resolve the matter, in spite of the awkward way the present Cabinet and the previous Cabinet have handled it up to this point. First, there is the meeting to be held in Montreal tomorrow. Second, there are amendments to which the Minister has made unclear references. Third, there is the report of our committee to which the Chairman has referred.
With respect to the first point, I hope the Minister will attend the meeting tomorrow with the expectation of a genuine exchange of views. She has a great deal going for her. Many people respect her mightily for the fact that last January she corrected a longstanding inhumanity in the regulations so that the spouse of a Canadian who should be landed, according to law, can now be landed without having to return home for a year and, in effect, break up a family. We welcomed the Minister's action in January.
Then there is the committee's report with respect to detentions, which has not yet worked. The staff is still playing silly games at the Montreal Detention Centre. However, we hope that with the Minister's help, the report on the immigration detention centres will have the positive effect which many people in the non-governmental organizations have worked for.
The second point is with the matter of the willingness of the Minister of Employment and Immigration to consider some amendments. I hope that when we discuss these matters tomorrow the distrust will become less and we can move ahead with a sense of co-operation.
With respect to the amendments, the Minister has said, "we will encourage the adoption of an amendment in committee in this regard", that is say, to maintain a panel of three rather than a panel of one. I wish that he had said that the Government will propose such an amendment. We all know it cannot pass until the Government supports it. When he says that we will encourage it, I am not quite sure what he means. However, I would like it to be made quite clear that there will be a quorum of three for all classes.
The Minister has also referred to a two-year term. He said, "It may be important to accept an amendment regarding the length of time Members will serve in order to indicate that this is clearly an emergency reaction to a specific situation". When the Minister says it may be, that is true, it may be and it may not. However, there is no assurance in that regard. I am glad he is thinking about it. I would like to see an assurance in committee, that is, a motion put forward by the Government.
We should also return to the originally proposed size, that is, limit the members to between 30 and 35 altogether for the sake of dealing with the present backlog, especially the backlog of sponsorship cases. If we go to 50 members, then it will be assumed that the Immigration Appeal Board is the instrument for dealing with refugee hearings. That is what Rabbi Plaut's Report opposes, as does the Chairman of the committee and both opposition critics.
I hope the Minister will take this simple action to make it clear that she is not going to let anyone smuggle in a refugee

September 27, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
determination process under the name of the Immigration Appeal Board.
With respect to the committee bringing its report to the Minister by the end of October as we had hoped, I hope that the Minister will bring a report to Parliament before she tables legislation and before she burns her bridges behind her. She is a proud woman who does not like to change her mind. I hope she will bring a report to Parliament in which she will propose legislation to do this and this and this. In this way time can be put aside for discussion in Parliament and by the public. A result will be reached faster in this way rather than by her using her ministerial power to say definitely: "This is how it will be." If she were to say that, the rest of us would have to figure out how to mobilize to make the corrections that we see are needed to be made. If she will approach the issue with a spirit of give and take, I believe, as the Chairman of the committee indicated this morning, that we will be able to move readily on this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Kindy).


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). He was quite positive with respect to some of his recommendations. I would like to ask him to elaborate on how he would solve the refugee problem. Has he any specific ideas which could be incorporated in future legislation in order that we do not have to face this problem again in a couple of years?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I will not go into that issue at length now. The Hon. Member's question is one which is certainly in the minds of many thousands of interested people across the country. I think Rabbi Plaut's Report should be seriously considered. I am not saying that we should necessarily agree with every page of it. However, he does make two worth-while points. The first is that we should have a refugee determination board separate from the Immigration Appeal Board. This is a point about which the Chairman says we should make a clear-cut distinction. It should be made clear that a person who comes here as a refugee, or is asking to be considered as a refugee, has to have the human rights question examined first before we put him through the mill with respect to accepting him as a potential immigrant or a potential deportee. This is a point which was asked to be implemented in principle about eight years ago by a number of interested people. However, it was ignored at the time. Our experience now shows that it would have saved millions of dollars and a great deal of hardship if it had been followed. I hope we will follow it now.
Second, there are many among this 13,000 or 14,000 for whom oral hearings have been called by the Supreme Court if they want them. These cases could be handled outside the refugee process. People who come from certain countries could be advised that under our policy we do not forcibly return people to those countries because of the conditions there. They sometimes do not meet the precise definition of refugee, but we will not force them to return home. In other words, we will
allow them to stay here in Canada unless they find another country which works out better for them. Many people who are in the refugee stream now should not be there. I say that, not because they do not have a good claim, but because their problem could be more readily dealt with by other programs. Why this has never been followed by our enforcement staff is something we may never find out now that the Executive Director of the commission has moved on to other matters. I hope we will at least see some change of attitude now.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of words concerning Bill C-55. Just to put the question in focus-


Paul Wyatt Dick: How many immigrants did you have in your riding last year?


George Baker: The hon. gentleman opposite asks how many immigrants I had in my riding last year. I can honestly tell him that I have received a couple of requests with which 1 am dealing.
Since there is a need to say a few words to set this particular debate in its true light, it is for that purpose that I rise today. Number one, Mr. Speaker, speaking personally, I cannot see anything that is wrong in this Bill. I think that is probably the first time I have ever said that. Having said that, I must say that I cannot see any great advantage either.
We have a situation in Canada today, I think Hon. Members will agree, where there are about 1500 cases of family sponsorship applications in the works, give or take 100, and
15.000	cases of refugees appearing before the Board, give or take 5,000. Fifteen thousand cases would probably cover
20.000	people before the Board. By increasing the size of the Board from 18 to 50 and carrying out various changes, perhaps an extra 100 cases per year could be processed. It will not do any harm to make that increase, but when one looks at the magnitude of the problem one asks the question: when is the Government going to address the real problem? That is the question.
When did the problem arise? It did not arise last year or the year before or the year before that. This particular problem of blocking the system arose in the past less than a year ago, and the reason for it is this.


Paul Wyatt Dick: A few words, George.


George Baker: Yes, a few words. Why do we have this clogging? When one looks at the appeals under the family sponsorship appeal program, that is not a cumbersome appeal, that can be dealt with very quickly. But a refugee status appeal is very complicated. What has happened? It is nobody's fault. A judge said that these people have the right to an oral hearing. There is nothing wrong with that. The Hon. Member from Calgary asked the question, "How can you solve the refugee problem"? As the Hon. Member knows, the previous system was that when the refugee put in his claim he was interviewed
September 27, 1985

by a representative of the advisory committee. It was a written representation. At no time after that was that person able to appear in person.
So the decision of the judge was perfectly understandable in that particular case. That has clogged the system. What happened then? The system is clogged in any country which is a signatory to a United Nations Charter which agrees to accept refugees because, as the Hon. Member pointed out a few moments ago, the applications for refugee status are before the same board as are the applications for family sponsorship appeals.
So we are left with this incredible problem that happened only recently, since this Government came to power. What we are saying is that this Government has to try to solve that problem immediately. I am not a member of the committee that visited the detention centres.


Mr. Jourdenais:: That is why you don't know what you are talking about.


George Baker: If the hon. gentleman listens he is going to learn something. The detention centres were never intended to house the people that are there. They were meant for detention centres. The system was clogged, and therefore that created additional problems. If Members of Parliament would look at the system they would find it to be rather interesting. When landed refugees arrive in, say, Toronto or in Vancouver or some other province, if they do not stay at a detention centre and if an organization will not take them in then they are not entitled, in most provinces, to social assistance. But in other provinces they are, in Quebec they are and in Newfoundland they are. If they get off a plane in Newfoundland and ask for refugee status they are taken care of immediately by the social asssistance department. They qualify to be housed, to eat and to have clothing. But in other provinces they do not qualify for that similar assistance.
The fact of the matter is that this whole thing should be looked at in some detail by the Government, and I am surprised that the Government has not addressed the problem. I think the problem has arisen in this Chamber with the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party saying on this particular Bill, "Now just hold on a minute". There is nothing in it that does any harm but it is not solving the problem and there are so many problems that need to be solved. If the Minister had said, "Look, this is not really going to solve any problems but we are going to process an extra 100 a year" there would not be, I think, the division today. But the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said in Vancouver, as we will all recall, Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said that one of our responses to the problems of those seeking refugee status in Canada is Bill C-55. When that happened all of the groups across this country that were concerned about this question were in a virtual uproar and the opposition Parties in the House were then saying, "If this is the response of the Government we are not going to accept it because it is not a good enough response."
Immigration Act, 1976
Mr. Speaker, having set the record straight and having informed Members of what is really before this Chamber today and why the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party have taken the position they have, 1 will take my seat and await any questions that the hon. gentlemen might wish to ask.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, I said I was not going to take part in the debate, but since yesterday, I have been listening to Hon. Members talk about immigration, and I think they need a course on the subject, especially the previous speaker. I was taking some notes while he was speaking, and 1 would like to ask him a question. The Bill before the House today would increase the number from 18 to 50. Mathematically speaking, he said it would mean only 100 more cases, but 1 think that, considering the humanitarian aspect, 100 people are worth more than his own attitude to the subject.
Earlier, the Hon. Member said he had seen a few claims by people who had requested immigrant status in his riding. In my riding we have 275 claims pending. Thirty-three per cent of the population consists of new Canadians. There are people who have been in this country for five or six years and who are still waiting to receive employment permits and refugee or immigrant status. This is certainly not the fault of the present Conservative Government, but the Government to which the Hon. Member belonged when it was in power, and which did nothing. Today, we simply want to increase the number so that we can at least admit from 100 to 125 more people and activate the system, pending a complete reform of the legislation on immigration and refugees. Just now, the Hon. Member mixed up refugees and immigrants when he was talking about detention.
When a refugee arrives at a Quebec port of entry and asks for political asylum he is put in a detention camp. It is a prison, my friend, when you consider that the man is locked up in a 7-by-7- or 10-by-12-foot room where he cannot even see daylight. It is particularly bad for someone from another country who was badly treated, both physically and mentally, and gets that kind of reception in Canada. This has always been the Liberal Party approach: Come in, my friend, and we will throw you in jail! That is called detention, Sir.
I think that the Bill should be adopted. I sit on the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration where we debated the issue of refugees and immigrants on at least forty different occasions and, believe me, it is about time we took some action. It is better to take half a step than to stand still as they have done for the past 15 years.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I must admit the hon. gentleman is a member of the committee and perhaps he believes he knows more about the subject than I do. However, let me point

September 27, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
out where he is a little bit off track. The system became clogged because, although the Immigration Appeal Board deals with those cases he mentioned of family sponsorship, it also deals with people seeking refugee status. That is a complicated procedure compared to the first group, and the IAB should not be dealing with the refugee question. We are saying this because this problem has become so serious that there should be another mechanism in place to deal with it. The Minister promised a legislative reform package, which I understand she is going to introduce this fall, and that is a good thing. However, to say, as the Minister did, that this is a response to the problem and then admit it will take care of about 100 people a month, is not really good enough. Each month in Canada today there are 600 new cases involving claims for refugee status. The Government says we will pass this Bill and deal with 100 more. If we have 600 new cases a month, what will happen if a change is not made? I think it is clear what will happen.
The Hon. Member and I do not disagree as between ourselves, not at all. I think we both have a disagreement with what the Government is doing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate? Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Miss MacDonald, seconded by Mr. Crombie, moved that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, 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.


George Baker: On division.


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

Hon. Bob Layton (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-42, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on second reading of Bill C-42 which is designed to repeal the Canagrex Act and hence dissolve this Crown corporation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Kempling:: A great day for Canada.


Robert E.J. Layton: As the House is aware, in November, 1984, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced a number of initiatives aimed at reducing Government expenditures. One
such initiative involved the decision to phase out Canagrex by April, 1985. This has been done. This Bill is intended to repeal the Canagrex Act and hence formally dissolve this Crown corporation.
It is a short Bill containing seven clauses. Its major feature, Clause 4, provides for all rights, property, obligations and liabilities of Canagrex to be the rights, property, obligations and liabilities of Her Majesty. For example, the contingent liability respecting the loan for sales to Cuba incurred by Canagrex is transformed into a liability of Her Majesty. Subclause 4(3) provides the specific authority for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to do all that is required in the winding up of the corporation. Section 100 of the Financial Administration Act provides that a Crown corporation may not be dissolved unless authorized by Parliament. The Canagrex Dissolution Act is meant to be such an authority.
Members will be pleased to know that positions were found or settlements made for all of the 30 staff of Canagrex, either in the public or the private sector. All operational files were turned over to the Department of Agriculture and measures have been taken by that Department, the Department of External Affairs and the Export Development Corporation to facilitate additional agricultural and food exports by the private sector.
As the Minister explained to the Standing Committee on Agriculture on December 18, 1984, it was obvious to all that Canagrex had start-up problems. While it undoubtedly would over time, have increased the volume of exports assisted, it was clear that Canagrex was not going to achieve the targets originally expected, nor was it going to be utilized by industry as planned. The activities provided for in the Canagrex Act were market identification and promotion, export counselling, provision of grants and contributions, state to state trading, loans and guarantees, the ability upon request to enter into joint ventures, and the power to import, export and buy and sell. Market identification missions, intelligence and analyses can and are being undertaken by both Agriculture Canada and External Affairs, as are market promotion activities, seminars and trade fairs. State to state trading, buying and selling and exporting may, if necessary, be undertaken through the Agricultural Products Board legislation. Grants and contributions are provided for under the PEMD food program of External Affairs. Insurance, loans and guarantees are available from the Export Development Corporation. Their services to the industry are in the process of being expanded. Cana-grex's export counselling and co-ordinating role will be undertaken by Agriculture Canada.
On March 1 1, 1985, Mr. Story, the President of Canagrex, appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. In answer to a question as to who should co-ordinate and follow up the work started by Canagrex, he indicated his personal view that it should be Agriculture Canada. On June 20, 1985, the audit committee of the Board of Directors of Canagrex had a board meeting by way of a conference call in which a member of the Auditor General's office participated, and the report to the Minister on the financial statements of Canagrex
September 27, 1985

for the year ending March 31, 1985, was agreed to. These accounts indicated that for the year and Canagrex had a surplus of $1,846,278. Guarantees outstanding under the Cuban line of credit amounted to $8,311,728 as at March 31, 1985. These guarantees are to be assumed by the Department of Agriculture when the corporation is dissolved pursuant to Bill C-42. It should be noted that these guarantees will expire as of December 9, 1985. When proclaimed, Bill C-42 will result in the orderly liquidation of the corporation.
Canada's current financial situation demands action. The question was where within the agricultural portfolio cuts could be made that would be the least painful in both human and program impact. Canagrex fit such criteria. While painful, it is believed that the end result will be a streamlining and rationalization of agricultural and food exporting activities of the federal Government. The decision to wind up Canagrex was taken after a careful weighing of the factors involved and the impact such a decision would have on the agri-food sector. It should be stressed that the facilitating of additional exports of agricultural and food products continues to be a top priority of the Government. I believe that with the full co-operation of all federal Departments and agencies involved in facilitating export marketing, the private sector will be able to expand its exports on a more cost-effective basis.
I believe, as I know my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture does, that Bill C-42 is sound, desirable, and in the interests of Canadian agriculture and I urge Members on all sides of the House to support it.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say on Bill C-42, an Act to dissolve Canagrex. This Bill is designed to wind up this Crown corporation, although it was effectively destroyed last November 8 on "Black Thursday" when the Government cut its financing including $60 million in cuts from agriculture. That was just the beginning of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) taking on the responsibility of presiding over the decline and destruction of the federal Department of Agriculture. It is interesting that while our agricultural industry is facing its most difficult time in the history of the country since the 1930s, we are spending our time dissolving an agency which was established by the Parliament of Canada to promote, develop, and enhance our trading in agricultural commodities around the world with all the flexibility of a Crown corporation. Rather than trying to solve the tremendous problems facing agriculture, we are debating a Bill which will destroy a very fundamental instrument for the development and promotion of agriculture.
During the election campaign the Government talked about enhancing trade, but in the election manifesto which was put out in Prince Albert it was never mentioned that Canagrex would be wound up. There is a whole raft of issues that have been set on the shelf for months with no decisions being made. The Minister of Agriculture put a moratorium on farm bankruptcy foreclosures last fall. All through the winter and spring months we were promised that there would be something in
Canagrex Dissolution Act
the Budget to deal with the terrible farm financial crisis which is faced by approximately 39,000 farmers in the country. There was provision in the Budget to assist farmers to get out of agriculture, but nothing to help young farmers stay in the business. The 39,000 farmers who are in serious financial difficulties today are our youngest, most technologically advanced, and most productive farmers. Those farmers produce half of the food in this country, but nothing was done for them in the Budget or in the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. It is really said that rather than debating a Bill to provide enhanced funding to solve the serious financial difficulties, as was recommended and supported by the Conservative caucus Members, we are debating a Bill to destroy one of the agencies which was established by the Parliament of Canada to enhance our trading relationships in the country.
It is interesting that within a matter of three or four weeks of taking office the new Liberal Government in Ontario announced a $50 million program for assistance for farmers facing serious financial difficulties. The federal Government has been in power for over a year and it has been unable to effect a rescue operation to assist agriculture. When one considers the lack of action by the Government one must wonder whether the Government is determined to have a shakedown. It is saying that its policy is that of the survival of the fittest-if these guys can make it on their own, that is great, but if they cannot, that is acceptable.
In the documents that the Government is using in trading with the United States we see that the Government is considering leaving farm stabilization programs and marketing systems in the negotiations. If those marketing systems are thrown on the bargaining table in Washington, I predict that rather than having 23 per cent of our farmers in serious financial difficulty there will be 33 per cent in that situation, as there are in the United States.
I read with great interest the papers which the Minister of Agriculture put on the table at the meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland, in July. He said that the Government would move toward a free market economy in farm commodities.


Mr. Malone:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: I hear the Hon. Member opposite saying "Hear, hear". Does he believe that the United States system of marketing farm commodities or the European Economic Community system of marketing farm commodities is better than the controlled commodities in this country?
This week in the United States there is a conference taking place between the Senate and the House of Representatives to decide whether assistance for farm support and subsidy programs should be $45 billion. Clearly, Washington and other capitals of Europe such as Paris, London and Bonn are much more wealthy central governments than in Canada. If we are going to throw our marketing system and stabilization programs on the table for the free trade negotiations, I do not

September 27, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
believe that Canadian farmers will come out very well in that arrangement.
Clearly, the Government documents indicate that that is exactly what it is contemplating. I ask the Hon. Member opposite where he thinks agriculture in western Canada would be today if it was not for the crop insurance program and the western grain stabilization programs which have paid out approximately $1 billion in the last 12 months? We should be debating programs to try to solve the serious financial difficulties facing Canadian farmers today rather than this Bill which winds up Canagrex-an organization which could have promoted and increased our exports in a long list of commodities through assistance in financing, market promotion, insurance and in developing and analysing markets. However, we are debating a Bill to destroy Canagrex rather than addressing other serious problems facing Canadian agriculture.
During the committee meetings the Hon. Minister of Agriculture who I understand has a large farming section in his riding, quoted Mr. Story, President of Canagrex. When Mr. Story appeared before the Agriculture Committee last winter, he described a phone call that he received on the night of November 7, 1984, when the Minister phoned and said that the next day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would be destroying Canagrex by removing all of its funding. Mr. Story responded that he was sorry. If one checks the minutes of the committee meeting, the Minister responded that he was also sorry and, of course, this demonstrates the tremendous split in the Tory caucus over the Canagrex Bill. Clearly there was great support from Members like the Minister of Agriculture while others in the Tory caucus from other parts of the country were very much opposed to it.
This Bill to destroy Canagrex will destroy a Crown corporation that was designed to assist in market identification, the penetration of new markets, the expansion of existing markets and the identification of foreign competition. Canagrex had moved effectively in these areas by having trade missions in many countries identifying markets and starting markets analysis in those smaller commodities produced by less organized groups that do not come under the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Dairy Commission. 1 do not believe that the Department of Agriculture or the Department of External Affairs have the capacity to do that job nearly as well.
Canagrex also worked in promotion asisstance for trade missions, fairs and exhibitions and helped in product development and advertising programs. This is one of the most aggressive times in our history, when every country in the world is fighting for agricultural markets. Practically every country in the world has massive programs to obtain these markets. The United States agricultural food program is a massive program to do those things that Canagrex was designed to do. SOPEXA is the program in France to promote market development and the sale of farm commoditites. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the President of France, described it as the nation's green oil because no organization, apart from that in the United States, has conducted the kind of aggressive sales, promotion and development that the EEC has done.
Let us consider the EEC. A few years ago it was purchasing approximately 25 million tonnes of grain. Now it is marketing massive amounts of grain throughout the world. The Federal Republic of Germany has its CMA organization. Isreal has its own agricultural promotion and export institute. Mexico has its national company for popular subsistency. Greece has a market promotion program as well.
We are dealing in a very competitive world. We have active promotion of commodities controlled by the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission. However, Canagrex was designed to assist in those other commodities not covered by those commissions. Canagrex would have provided transportation services, information assistance, insurance advice, regulatory advice, estimates and other services in order to assist smaller groups such as co-ops. Canagrex was designed to provide financial assistance, loan guarantees, loan financing, grants and contributions.
It would have assisted service related activities, the transfer of technology, consulting and management activities as well as joint ventures. This was a Crown corporation designed to assist the smaller commodity groups in marketing their products abroad. I believe that the Government is making a mistake by winding up this Crown corporation because it provided a valuable contribution to the agricultural community in this country. Let us look at some of the items and areas of the world where Canagrex was just starting to develop systems and programs. For instance, dairy cattle going to Latin America, Southeast Asia and North Africa. Many of these countries trade state to state. It is a big advantage to have a corporation like Canagrex. We are talking about dozens of millions of dollars providing financial assistance, technical assistance, insurance and promotion.
Look at the opportunities for selling semen to countries in North Africa, a state to state business, estimated at $14 million. Look at selling our Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle to countries in eastern Europe by joint ventures. The estimate was $40 million over the next 10 years for sales of breeding stock.
If we look at the opportunities for breeding swine in Southeast Asia on a joint venture possibility, some $5 million a year was the estimate. What about feed grains to areas in Africa in a joint venture partnership? What about canola going to Latin America, another joint venture? That was estimated at $50 million in the short therm and up to $150 million over the long term.
We are dealing here with an agency that had the flexibility of a Crown corporation. Our Conservative friends have shown us that they are very supportive of some Crown corporations. Look at Petro-Canada. A takeover of an American corporation, Gulf Oil has just been approved at a cost of $900 million. Canagrex is a very small Crown corporation which was serving agriculture, especially commodities that are not supported by massive marketing agencies. The assistance that Canagrex could give in co-ordinating some of Canada's activities is
September 27, 1985

important. Now we have groups going from Ontario, Alberta and other provinces, marketing commodities and livestock in other parts of the world in competition. Canagrex was to be an agency which could have assisted and helped all Canada's provinces, whether big provinces with nine million people, such as Ontario, or whether a small province, such as Prince Edward Island with only 130,000 people.
We see an action here today, the destruction of a Crown corporation, which could have benefited the country.


Arnold John Malone: Let us have some more.


Maurice Brydon Foster: At the same time we hear the Tories cheering on the destruction of this Crown corporation, we do not hear any word of the drought program, which is needed in western Canada for the grain sector. This program has been promised week after week. I believe three weeks ago the Minister said that in a couple of weeks he would be announcing drought assistance to those areas affected in western Canada. The decision to support the Canadian Commercial Bank was made over a weekend, perhaps made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) alone who passed on the word to the Finance Department and then on to the two Ministers of Finance. This decision involved a billion dollars. Yet it has taken weeks and weeks to come up with any assistance for the drought problem in western Canada.
We have been waiting for months for the Government to act on its new dairy policy. The Minister promised faithfully a year ago that he would have a dairy policy in place by August of this year. It was not until about July 14 that he got around to appointing a couple of representatives to analyse the situation and recommend a dairy policy.
I mentioned earlier that there had been no action in the Budget or in the Estimates on the farm debt crisis. Likewise, there has really been no decision on farm debt legislation relating to foreclosures, specifically a preforeclosure arbitration procedure. The Minister announced on July 10 that legislation would be brought in this fall. He said if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) did not bring in legislation concerning the Bankruptcy Act, then he would bring in amendments to the existing Bankruptcy Act.
When my motion on that subject was debated a couple of weeks ago, we got a very equivocal statement by the Parliamentary Secretary, who speaks on behalf of the Government in matters of agriculture.
Is the Government supporting that concept or not, which the Minister clearly enunciated in early July? In any event, he said it was all up to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
There is a need for this type of legislation, which was shown in the Grey-Bruce pilot project report. There was a Bill before the House in June, 1984. That is 15 or 16 months ago. All the Government had to do was to reintroduce that legislation, but nothing has happened in the last 14 or 15 months to indicate exactly where the Government is going.
Canagrex Dissolution Act
Daily we have the banks turning down the screws on farmers who are losing their farms. The Minister indicated that there were 675 farms waiting to be foreclosed by the FCC at the time he placed a moratorium on that. He has not indicated what he plans to do with regard to the foreclosures in the private sector, if anything at all.
It was not just a $60 million cut-back last November 8 that the Agriculture Department underwent, which snuffed out the life of Canagrex. In the Estimates the Government says it is going to cut back another $50 million, but it is not clear where. Is it in research which would be sort of cutting off the future? Is it in transportation assistance for farm commodities? Is it in the stabilization payments, meaning inadequate assistance for the farm drought plague in western Canada? Is it in the dairy support program?
There is another little hooker in the Budget, which most people missed, about which we made inquiries. We have made inquiries about the budget of the Department of Agriculture being deindexed. Not only will there be a $50 million cut-back every year for the next four years or five years, but with the deindexation of its budget there will be a $10 million or $15 million reduction in its purchasing power. Not only in Canagrex being cut by the Government. The entire Department of Agriculture is being de-emphasized at a time when the agricultural community is experiencing a devaluation of farmlands and a continuing low level of farm commodity prices. This situation is being exacerbated by the programs of other countries such as the United States and those in the European Economic Community.
Last year the Government made a commitment in the election campaign to do away with the farm fuel excise tax. It did away with that tax and gave a rebate on the petroleum compensation charge. The two together amounted to some 3 cents per litre on the excise tax and 1.8 cents per litre on the petroleum compensation charge. Lo and behold, when the petroleum compensation charge was done away with on June 1, the price of gasoline did not drop. It may have even risen because of deregulation. However, the exemption of 1.8 cents per litre or 7 cents per gallon disappeared for farmers. If we look at the Budget, we see that the Minister imposed a fuel tax on all Canadians but provided no exemption for primary producers in the forestry, mining, fishing or farming community.
On September 3, we saw the introduction of what has come to be known in western Canada as a harvest tax of 2 cents per litre or 9 cents per gallon. That was imposed in less than a year, by a day, from the time the Government was elected. It was another promise forgone. During the period from June 1 to September 3, if we total the excise tax and the petroleum compensation exemption, we see a total increase of 16 cents per gallon for farmers. At the same time the Minister of Finance imposed that excise tax, he also imposed a 1-cent tax on ail farm input commodities, which will involve another $11 million for 1986.

September 27, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
When the Government finally decided to relent and not to deindex old age pensions, it imposed another 1-cent per litre or 4.5 cents per gallon, effective on January 1, 1987, on fuels for farmers and other primary producers. The Minister of Finance has steadfastly denied that he will give an exemption to farmers. At the same time that 1-cent per litre or 4.5 cents per gallon comes into effect, the exemption of 3 cents per litre provided by the Minister last September will come off. Therefore, from the period of June 1 to a year from December 31, we will see a dramatic increase which will be far greater than that of last year. It certainly breaks another commitment of the election campaign.
We should not be winding up Canagrex. The Minister said to the President of Canagrex he was sorry that the Government was taking this action when he informed him of it last week. Various federations of agriculture and the National Farmers Union have supported Canagrex, as well as small commodity groups which are not large enough or strong enough to compete in the area of international sales. They are the ones who will be hurt by the winding up of Canagrex. They will be unable to compete with the marketing agencies of various countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France and those in the EEC. The dissolution of Canagrex is a backward step. I hope the Government will reconsider its action, especially at a time when agriculture faces one of its most difficult times in history.
Just a few weeks ago, in the last week of August, the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture, a responsible group, passed a resolution at a meeting in Chesley. Some 200 to 300 farmers supported this resolution which called for a total moratorium on farm foreclosures. Surely this is the kind of problem we in the House of Commons should be addressing. In view of the farm debt crisis, we should be providing financial assistance, not just calling for a moratorium. We should be debating legislation such as that proposed by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in its report last March.
The Minister called upon people to make representations on how the Farm Credit Corporation can be improved. Last February and March, some of the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture served on the Finance Committee of the House of Commons which heard from dozens of groups including the provinces and the federal Departments concerned. They received written submissions and heard representations recommending a program for the 39,000 or 40,000 farmers facing serious financial difficulty. The majority of members on that committee were from the Government side and they said that this was the greatest priority. Approximately 12,000 or 14,000 of those farmers facing financial difficulty should be assisted. Some of them do not require assistance, even though they are in serious financial difficulty, because they have other sources of income and so on; perhaps some are at a point where they cannot be helped. The committee identified perhaps 12,000 to 14,000 that could be helped by a program. The committee was composed of representatives from all sides of the House and recommended a program with
funds of some $96 million to $98 million per year for the next several years to see that this group of young, productive, technologically advanced farmers could remain on the land through low-interest rate loans of approximately 8 per cent. Surely that is the kind of legislation that we should be debating in the House today. We should be trying to find a solution that will solve the problems of today as well as maintain for tomorrow that group of farmers who will lead the agricultural industry in the years ahead and will provide the food that this country and other countries need.
I cannot agree with the decision of the Government to wind up Canagrex as a Crown corporation. I think we should be enhancing our trading relationships and helping the small commodity groups to enhance their operations. We should be giving them the tools that the large commodity operations like dairy and wheat already have, tools which are needed because of today's world situation.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this can be called my Hon. Eugene Whelan memorial speech. The previous Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor was, of course, the architect of Canagrex. It is important to remember that his long and hard fight as Minister of Agriculture to establish this agency was something which was strongly backed by farm organizations across the country and just as strongly opposed by some of the major multinational companies that operate in the grain trade and in other parts of our agricultural commodity exchange system.
Perhaps it is not by chance that the memorial of this new Government to my predecessor is not only his dismissal from a post which he might have well filled but also a demonstration that this Government listens to large-scale corporate sector interests rather than to farm organizations, virtually every one of which has indicated its strong and continuing support for this organization.
Perhaps, with their boundless confidence in my predecessor, these farm organizations took his actions on faith. I have to confess that I have not always been convinced that their faith in my predecessor was entirely well placed. However, with respect to Canagrex, an institution which became a part of our international trade system, my predecessor, Mr. Whelan, deserves great credit. I simply wish that Members of the House of Commons would give him that credit for this initiative. The farmers of Canada certainly wish that this institution would continue. They strongly oppose what the Government is doing.
To talk realistically about Canagrex, we have first to recognize the immense crisis that exists in the farming community in our country. I would estimate that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of Hon. Members of this House represent constituencies which are mainly urban. Their interest in food policy is mainly from a consumer's perspective. In making their interest that of a consumer, they are being shortsighted. I express my appreciation at being able to represent a constituency which includes a significant share of farmers who produce the food we eat. It
September 27, 1985

has certainly given me some appreciation of the tremendous challenges they face and the tremendous contribution they make to this country. The farmers make their contribution under the most difficult circumstances possible. Frankly, these difficult circumstances have been made more difficult by this Government since September of last year.
I would like to deal with a few pieces of background data if I could, Mr. Speaker. Let me deal first with the debt crisis that faces Canada's farmers. According to Farm Credit Corporation statistics, 18 per cent of Ontario farmers face severe cash flow difficulties. In addition to that, the net worth of farms in Ontario declined by over 14 per cent between 1981 and 1984. 1 would ask Hon. Members if this is not the most devastating indication of the growth of this severe crisis in the farm community. The result of this crisis is that the average Ontario farm, as of 1985, is carrying over $25,000 worth of short-term debts as compared to just $3,000 in 1981. The consequence is a decrease of significant proportion in investment in the farm community in new equipment, livestock and land.
This reality is not simply a statistical one. I have before me letters I have sent to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on behalf of farmers in my constituency who have faced foreclosure over the past winter. As the debt crisis has tightened, they have eventually had to give in to the pressures that they face.
This crisis has reached such proportions that it affects not only isolated cases. Rather, official bodies have come to recognize just how serious this crisis is. The Minister of Agriculture himself set up a task force to study the farm credit situation. When the task force reported back in May, it endorsed precisely the point which we in the NDP have been emphasizing and that is that it is essential to set up a farm debt relief board which could review and renegotiate debts faced by farmers. After all, Mr. Speaker, we do this for foreign countries like Argentina, Chile or Peru. Surely to God we should be prepared to make that same kind of basic commitment to the farmers of Canada. If there were a situation characterized simply by high debts and if there were some sort of relief emerging in the form of improved prices, then the crisis might be something which farmers could face with optimism. However, the reality is that the price situation is just as critical as the debt situation this year.
In my own county, Essex County, two of the major commodities are soybeans and corn. The current cash price for soybeans is $6.30 per bushel, while the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates that it costs a farmer $7.49 to produce that same bushel. We are talking about a difference between price and basic costs of production of $1.19 per bushel. One does not have to be an economist to realize that means the loss of one's shirt. The same thing is true with respect to corn. The cash price for corn stands at $2.60 per bushel while production costs are estimated at $3.60 per bushel. That compares to prices in the last two years of $4 per
Canagrex Dissolution Act
bushel. Thus, it reflects a massive decrease. While there has been some increase in production, which has been at a loss of $1 per bushel, it does not do any good. We have a situation in which debts are high-crippling. We have a situation in which prices are low and falling and the consequence affects farm communities, not just in Ontario, but across the country. We have not had a Farm Aid concert which would have dramatically focused attention on farm prices in this country. It is up to Members of Parliament to try to focus that attention for a Government which farmers in the country do not think is listening.
On September 5, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture after a series of discussions I had with farmers from across my constituency this summer indicating to him, and I quote:
-my meetings with farmers and farm groups in Essex County have convinced me that the economic problems in the farm community in Southwestern Ontario continue to be extreme. Many farmers are facing extremely heavy debt loads, prices for products this year remain low, and the accumulation of past debt service burdens is making the financial position of many farms more and more desperate. The strongly expressed view of farmers in the County is that the Government budget released in May does not provide the required relief which they anticipated; indeed, most farmers have described that budget to me as a betrayal.
In my view, and the view of many of the farmers that I represent, two broad initiatives are very urgently required at this point. First, it is crucial to explore new initiatives to improve prices for Canadian farmers, so that parity objectives can be achieved. As you know, this subject was referred by the House of Commons to the Agricultural Committee last spring, but no further action has yet been taken to pursue the issue. I believe very strongly that you must provide some leadership on these pricing problems, and yourself urge the Agriculture Committee to undertake immediate hearings across the country to investigate various mechanisms for increasing price levels for farm products in this country. It might even make sense to have a special House of Commons task force on this issue, as has been done with a number of other policy questions.
The second broad issue which I feel is crucial, on the basis of discussions with Essex County farmers, is the establishment of a comprehensive debt review board, able to negotiate between farmers and their creditors, in order to establish new payment schedules and interest relief to ease cash-flow problems for many badly pressured farms.
Farm group leaders in my constituency state flatly that financial pressures are now squeezing even very well managed farms, and that relief is crucial to maintain the viability of those farm enterprises.
I went on in my letter to indicate that I would be very pleased to meet with the Minister to discuss these concerns in more detail. My letter continues:
Farm leaders from my constituency, representing both the Essex County Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union would also be very pleased to participate in a discussion with you. There is a great sense of urgency and concern in Essex County, and we all want to provide as much impetus as possible to any government moves in the directions suggested above.
Despite this effort on the part of farmers across the country to push the Government, it has done little in the view of farmers to help their community. In early July we had a meeting in my constituency at which the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) and myself reported back to farmers. I have to tell Hon. Members that my poor colleague from Essex-Kent had a tough evening. It was not even necessary for me to be critical of him; the farmers of Essex County raked him over the coals for a Budget which they considered a betrayal of the farmers in this country. They considered it a

September 27, 1985
Canagrex Dissolution Act
betrayal because of tax increases on fuel and because of a lack of action on debt-


Arnold John Malone: False.


Steven W. Langdon: -and increases with respect to taxes on fuel in the past Budget, as my hon. friend, a former member of the joint committee, is all too well aware. There was no action with respect to prices and there was a decrease in the agriculture budget.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Are you speaking on Canagrex?


Steven W. Langdon: As a consequence of this dismal record, which includes Canagrex, of course, the National Farmers Union, which has not been a significant force in Ontario for a decade, has launched a massive recruiting drive in my county. There is a new local in existence, Local 309 of the National Farmers Union, which is signing up members like wildfire. There is a spirit of rural revolt in southwestern Ontario which is spreading throughout the country and, frankly, it will shake the very foundations of farm support for the Conservative Party.
In my constituency, as in many constituencies with rural constituents in Ontario, those farmers who voted for this Government last September have lost confidence with respect to this Government. How else can we explain the move of the National Farmers Union with its radical commitments to parity pricing and significant change in our agriculture policy sweeping up members across the townships in my constituency? I welcome the move with great pleasure. I wish to tell Hon. Members that it will not stop at the boundaries of the Essex-Windsor constituency. The movement is sweeping across Ontario. There are contacts which have developed between what is happening in Essex County and similar revolts in other parts of rural Ontario. All I can say is thank God for the capacity of farmers to fight back. They have learned that that is the way to make the Government listen. They have learned that they have to fight and push to make the Government realize the dismal error of its ways. Of course, it is tough to do that. In the time which is left I wish to try to do just that with respect to Canagrex. I want to do it knowing that I speak, unlike the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton) and it is interesting that the Minister of Mines should be here today defending the demolition of an agricultural exporting agency. The Minister of Agriculture has not seen fit to come and defend his action in winding up this agency here in the House. I want to express my strong view that I stand here speaking on behalf of farmers and on behalf of farm organizations across this country.
My fellow members on the joint committee on trade this summer know that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture came to us in Winnipeg and said that it was a mistake to do away with Canagrex, that Canagrex was doing a good job. The National Farmers Union came to talk to us here in Ottawa. They said it was a mistake to do away with Canagrex and that excellent work was being undertaken by the agency.
I know for whom I speak and I hope the record shows that this Government with this action speaks not for farmers but for the large grain companies for whom it fought a battle against this agency when it was first proposed by my predecessor.
Economists have an approach to assessing institutions and initiatives called cost-benefit analysis. They look at the costs of an institution and they look at the financial benefits of an institution. Usually if the costs are just a little bit less than the benefits they recommend going ahead.
Let us do that with respect to Canagrex. We can do so with official statistics provided by the Minister of Agriculture himself. I quote from the Order Paper, December 21, 1984, in which the Minister of Agriculture indicated that the total expendituree to October 31, 1984 to establish Canagrex, everything, setting it up, putting it in place, starting it off, cost $2,659,000. That is the cost side of the equation. He was asked how many sales have been explicitly and then indirectly established by Canagrex. The total number of explicit sales was $60 million, according to that answer and there were in addition, said the Minister, transactions in process worth a potential $100 million expected to be finalized March 31. If this Government could even come close to a benefit to cost ratio of $100 million to less than $3 million in any other aspect of its economic policy, I would be the first to congratulate it. Its record is a record of a billion dollar loss to the banks in the case of the Canadian Commercial Bank and probably another $500 million to be expected that it will lose with respect to the Northland Bank. So for these guys to even have a cost-benefit ration that is marginally positive should be something to celebrate, but with an unerring instinct for choosing good programs to get rid of they chose a program with a benefit to cost ratio of over $100 million in benefits to under $3 million in costs. Magnificent accounting, Mr. Speaker.
I quote from my own hometown newspaper in Windsor, January 24, 1984, in which the Minister now responsible for the Wheat Pool said that his Party would take an objective look at Canagrex before doing away with it.
Mr. Speaker, what did they do when they got their chance? The reality is they did not even sit down and talk with the management of Canagrex. They did not even do them the courtesy, before winding them up, of sitting down to get an objective evaluation from the people who were managing this agency, people who incidentally all came from the private sector and made quite clear in their testimony to the Agriculture committee that they wanted to operate as an agency which would work hand in glove with the private sector. But no, Mr. Speaker, they did not have the common decency to sit down and talk in order to give this supposed objective look to which they had committed themselves before they got power. Instead, not only did they move to wind up this agency without consideration, without looking at the costs and benefits, but they put on the record statements coming from the Minister of Agriculture that to my mind represent a major libel, a slander of the people in charge of this agency. They suggested that this agency was in fact endangering export sales.
September 27, 1985


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Very interesting, Members opposite say "Hear, hear!" but they and their Minister have not been prepared to give a single iota of evidence to back up that claim, not a single iota despite questions and attempts by the Agriculture committee to pin down a specific case, not a single example. This from a Government that sanctiomoniously, now that it is under attack, not for questions and contradictions from Opposition Members but instead from contradictions that have come from its own people-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Is this about Canagrex?


Steven W. Langdon: A Government which sanctimoniously says but you opposition people are not prepared to give an iota of evidence of our wrongdoing despite the fact that we have learned that the Prime Minister's Office knew about the spoiled tuna two months before it came off the shelves-


An Hon. Member:: So did the CBC.


Steven W. Langdon: -despite the fact that that reality existed, their sanctimonious reply to the Opposition is but you are not prepared to give us evidence. Despite our asking for evidence for months with respect to Canagrex, the Government has not been prepared to give a single iota of that evidence. Instead, despite the opposition of the farming community, despite the favourable cost-benefit ratio of the agency, despite the testimony of the heads of the agency which indicated just how positive the contribution had been, despite all that, for ideological reasons, because of a blind faith in the operation of the large scale corporate sector, the Government wants to do away with Canagrex without being able to justify it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. He will have 12 minutes left in his speech the next time this matter is debated in the House.
It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jourdenais, that Bill C-221, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-221 in this House. The Bill contains two proposals that deal with the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would like to discuss the proposal for the UI appeal system.
The Bill requests that we repeal an existing section of the UI Act, Section 103, and replace it with another. To properly understand this section of the Act and the ramifications of its removal, I believe we must first look at the present UI appeal system and agree on the purpose of Section 103, and what would happen if it was changed along the lines suggested in this Bill. The UI appeal system has been a part of the UI Act since its inception in the 1940s. It is a bi-level appeal system. The first level of appeal is the Board of Referees. The Board is composed of a chairperson and at least two members, divided evenly amongst two groups, employers or representatives of employers, and insured persons or representatives of insured persons. The chairpersons of the Board of Referees are appointed by the Governor in Council and the other members are appointed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. Unlike, for example, a provincial Court of Appeal, the Board of Referees is not a permanent body with a fixed number of members, any of whom may at any time be called upon to sit, generally as members of a bench or judges, to hear any case within the jurisdiction of the court. The Board of Referees is constituted afresh, each time an appeal is lodged, from panels of members, one panel for each group of representative members, and a panel of chairpersons. All members of the Board are independent of UI and their decisions are based on the UI Act, regulations and previous jurisprudence of the umpire.
The second level of the UI appeal system is the umpire, who is usually a judge of the Federal Court. The principle of the existence of a second level of appeal is not universally recognized in law. Eminent jurists of both the Anglo-Saxon and civil legal traditions have asserted that the existence of a second level of appeal makes the first level virtually useless. In Canadian law, however, the two-tier appeal is the rule rather than the exception. The existence of the Supreme Court of Canada as a general court of appeal has accustomed Canadians who come before the courts to rely on a second level of appeal which can overrule decisions of their provincial Court of Appeal. The same is also true of administrative tribunals which we, the legislators, frequently endow with at least two, and sometimes more, levels of appeal. This adds to the safeguards flowing from the general power of supervision and review which is invested in the Superior Court of every province and in the Fedreal Court.
The existence of a two-tier appeal system in unemployment insurance cases can be explained easily. The subject matter of these appeals is the administration of a piece of social legislation, the purpose of which is to preserve the economic order by protecting wage-earners and developing a common goal between business and labour. It seemed quite natural to involve representatives of the two groups of society most directly

September 27, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
affected, employers and workers, with the actions of the administrative authorities.
In order to establish some mechanism to review individual decisions concerning the application of the statute, it seemed necessary to add to these two elements, administrative and representative, a third element, maintaining values which are, properly speaking, legal in nature. Since there was a longstanding belief in Canada that neither law nor justice could exist outside the realm of the ordinary courts, we turn to the judiciary to provide this strictly legal contribution in the form of a second level of review of administrative decision.
The umpire is usually the final level of appeal for litigation regarding unemployment insurance benefits. The impact of the umpire's decisions, however, is not limited to merely settling the cases brought before him. In contrast to the decisions of the Boards of Referees, decisions of the umpire have been regarded as a source of case law ever since the early days of unemployment insurance.
This is how the UI appeal system is set up. How well does it work? Is it really the impartial, just, fair and logical system everyone tells us? If a claimant disagres with a decision on his or her claim, he or she has the right to appeal that decision to a Board of Referees. All claimants are told of this right when they are told of the decision on their claim. All claimants are told that they have 30 days within which to make this appeal. They are told what information should be included in their letter of appeal and where to send it. It is explained to them how their case will be decided by a Board composed of a chairperson and employer and employee representatives, and what they can expect at the hearing itself.
Every effort is made, Mr. Speaker, to make the Board hearing as easy as possible for people to attend. The hearing itself is free. There are many board centres across Canada so they are easily accessible. For claimants in remote areas, the Commission has established telephone hook-ups so claimants can attend their hearing by phone and answer and ask questions of the Board. Each claimant who appeals receives a copy of the file that the Board of Referees has on their case. They get this document before the hearing so that corrections or additions can be made. They are told when and where the hearing is to be and if they cannot attend, it is rescheduled. Every effort is made to have a fair, just and impartial hearing.
What happens if the Board of Referees upholds the Commission's decision? All claimants have the right to appeal to the second level of appeal, the umpire. The appeal must be made within 60 days. Under special circumstances the umpire can extend that limit. All appeals to the umpire must be made on certain grounds which are explained to claimants when and if they lodge an appeal. It is also carefully explained to all claimants that if the decision of the Board of Referees is favourable to them, then the Commission or their employer also have a right to appeal to the umpire. There is also a 60 day time limit in which to lodge this appeal.
Section 103(1) of the UI Act basically says that if a Board of Referee's decision is favourable to a claimant UI pays that claimant whatever is due, even if the Commission is going to
appeal, or does appeal, to the umpire. However, Section 103(2) of the Act goes on to say that if an appeal is lodged within 21 days for either of the following situations, then UI doesn't have to pay the claimant until the umpire has heard the case. The two, and I stress the only two, types of situations when payment can be stopped are where it involves labour disputes or where the Board or Refugees erred in law or did not take into account a provision of the UI Act or regulations.
Naturally, if the umpire rejects the appeal, the benefits that have been withheld are paid. The exception made for appeals involving a labour dispute can be justified by the size of the amounts at stake. Since these are often test appeals, the settlement of which affects an entire group of claimants, large amounts of money are often involved. In those cases where the appeal is based on the allegation that the Board of Referees failed to take into account all relevant provisions of the Act or regulations, the decisions in question are alleged to be manifestly erroneous and it would be an abuse of process to let them take their course. Withholding payments at the instigation of UI is a form of protection for the unemployment insurance amount; in the case of a labour dispute against a decision which, even though it may at first glance seem defensible, entails particularly serious financial consequences for many claims and in the case of an error in law, against a decision which seems indefensible at first glance. If we were to change the existing Section 103 to the one proposed in Bill C-221, a very imaginative and creative Bill, I think the effect would be immediate, and perhaps damaging, to the control of the UI account. The question raised by Bill C-221, what happens if the claimant receives a favourable decision, I believe is a fundamental one.
As I mentioned earlier, the present Section 103(1) states very clearly that if a claimant receives a favorable decision from the Board of Referees, and the area of appeal is not one of those covered by Section 103(2)-labour disputes or an error in law-the claimant is entitled to all benefits payable as a result of that favourable decision. The difference between the present Section and the proposed Section in Bill C-221 is only a few words, but a few words that could cause a difference to the unemployment insurance account.
I believe I can show the House the difference more clearly with the following practical example. A man quits his job and applies for unemployment insurance. He has the necessary weeks of insurable employment and the claim for UI is approved and set up for him. But he quit his job, and after talking to him it is felt that he did not have a good reason for quitting. Consequently, a six-week penalty, called a disqualification, is put on his claim. The man agrees with this decision and does not exercise his right to appeal to the Board of Referees. Ten weeks later, during an interview at the local Canada Unemployment Centre to help him in his search for work, he says that he is tired and plans to take a break and not look for work for a few weeks. He is advised that in order to continue to be eligible for UI he must be available, capable, and actively looking for work each and every day while
September 27, 1985

collecting UI benefits. It is determined that the man has, in fact, stopped looking for work and, consequently, payment of benefits are suspended indefinitely. This decision is felt to be unfair by our hypothetical man and he decides to appeal to the Board of Referees. The Board reviews his case and, for the sake of this example, decides in his favour.
Under the existing Section 103, Mr. Speaker, our man is now entitled to any UI benefits due him since the start of the indefinite suspension. But here is the difference between the present version of Section 103 and that proposed by Bill C-221. Under the Bill C-221 version our man is now entitled to benefits "form the day the initial claim for benefits is made .. ." Since our man also had a six-week disqualification from beneftis for quitting his job, those benefits are now payable too. They are payable under this proposal even though they were not in dispute or even under the Board of Referees' jurisdiction to consider.
The unemployment insurance system has evolved since its inception in the 1940s. It has responded to changing times, but it has never changed without careful examination and longterm study of the effects of these changes. The UI appeal system has changed and evolved over the years too. Section 103 is not there to penalize anyone or any group. It is there to ensure that those people entitled to benefits get them, and that those people not entitled do not.
My hon. colleague's proposal is interesting and comes at an appropriate time. As the House is aware, the Government recently set up a commission of inquiry on unemployment insurance. The commission will be travelling across the country to meet with Canadians to discuss their concerns and listen to their proposals for changes and improvements to the present unemployment insurance program. I think it is fitting to note that the chairman of this commission of inquiry, Mr. Claude Forget, is a distinguished Canadian who has already served the country this year through his expert work with the sub-committee on the revision of the copyright law. Mr. Forget is a former Cabinet Minister in the Liberal Government of the Province of Quebec and his work in social programs is recognized internationally.
I submit that the work of this commission will probe every aspect of unemployment insurance including the actuarial, the financial, the reserve, and the necessity for taxpayers to supplement the system. However, I am told by Mr. Forget that it will also include the humanity of dealing with claimants in unemployment insurance offices. I think that is immensely significant.
I had the opportunity to deal with a constituent in the south side UI office in Edmonton. The Kafkaesque treatment of this claimant, who had been disqualified from benefits because it was suggested that since he was a commission salesman he was not insurable, resulted in this man being reduced to eating one meal a day and truly becoming a hardship case. He was resourceful enough to write an 11-page appeal to Revenue Canada which was assessing his eligibility and he persevered with his claim. If he has not been able to persevere I shudder to think what would have happened to his health, or indeed,
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
his life. I hope that the new commission on UI will deal effectively with the administrative runaround and bureaucratic bungling to which he was subjected.
It has been suggested that perhaps the House should postpone making any changes to the UI program. It has been suggested that we should allow the commission to do the job that we have asked it to do and that when all levels of Canadian society have been polled that will be the time to make the necessary decisions on the direction the UI program will take. Thus, with the greatest regret, I submit that this most creative piece of legislation might be re-examined in the light of what the Forget commission does and that we have an opportunity to examine the Bill sponsored by my hon. friend, the Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) on another occasion.


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the debate on Bill C-221 which is introducing two amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.

The amendments are related to two separate articles of the Act. The first amendment is to Section 103 of the Unemployment Insurance Act which deals with the unemployment insurance appeal system, and specifically with the money payable to claimants as a result of an appeal, and the other amendment is to Section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which gives the authority to pay unemployment insurance benefits to unemployed people who are on training courses. The intention of the amendment in this area is one that I could hardly object to because it concerns education and training, an area in which I have spent many years of my life. In looking at the explanatory notes I see that:
This Bill entitles a person attending a course or program of instruction or training chosen and paid for by him to receive benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, subject to the approval of the Commission.
That preamble pleases those of us who believe that education and training are one of the major components to relieve unemployment in this country.
The Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) introduced this Bill and gave us his reasons for its introduction when he last spoke. He asked us to pass both amendments and has given his arguments. Many Members-probably most Members in the House today-are sympathetic to those views. This afternoon we heard another Member speak to this subject in some detail about these proposed amendments and that as simple as they may seem and as worth while as they may seem, they can introduce complexities to an already complex Act- parts of which I readily admit that neither I nor my constituents understand.
However, by introducing this Bill the Hon. Member has shown his concern for his constituents and, of course, for the many unemployed in Canada's larger constituency. As we

September 27, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
know, unemployment has been a major concern to many Canadians over the last few years in particular. The Government program that comes to the rescue and serves the unemployed most directly is the unemployment insurance program.
Over the last few years and particularly in the last few months we have heard much discussion on the many aspects of the unemployment insurance program. The variety of comments-indeed on occasion the volume of comments-are an indicator of the complexity of the issue that we face here today in these two amendments. This is a complexity that is recognized by the Government. We also recognize the impact of any change to unemployment insurance on Canadians and Canada. At the moment, unemployment insurance affects and indeed responds to pregnant women, fishermen, workers who have lost their jobs in many areas and workers who are sick. Many millions have been helped over the last few years by this program. As the amendment before us shows, unemployment insurance has helped people who are taking training of various kinds and who wish to re-enter the job market or wish to improve themselves and their job opportunities. However, unemployment insurance is not just another Government program. It is not a grant or a loan program. It is paid for by Canadians through premiums. Employers and workers alike give part of their earnings every working week to the unemployment insurance account.
In 1984, employers and workers together contributed more than $7 billion to that account. That $7 billion was the major share of the almost $10 billion paid out in 1984 to all unemployment insurance claimants. Because of that, changes to this Act cannot be simply a Government decision. Employers and workers across Canada are participants, partners in the unemployment insurance program. As partners, they too have a say. They have some concern about how the program is run. They know what issues they would like to see considered and we cannot make these changes without the significant consultation which is now going on.
There are many significant questions ahead of us in this field. For instance, there is the question of financing, the role of unemployment insurance in labour market adjustment and the very nature of unemployment insurance service to its clients. We heard the previous speaker explain how the program can deny worthy people of an opportunity to participate just because of some of the wording. Each of these issues and indeed many others must be closely examined and decisions taken to determine the future not only of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the programs but on the economic and labour climate of this country.
The Government has taken the initiative to look at the labour market as a whole. The new Canadian Jobs Strategy is a comprehensive plan to help Canadians find longlasting employment. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians will benefit from the Canadian Jobs Strategy which is designed to address specific problems. Federal funds in that strategy are being used to help those Canadians in the greatest need. Yet, while that strategy is being put in place there is still unemployment insurance. One of the major concerns of the Government is to
ensure that unemployment insurance is part of the over-all labour strategy. The two must surely work together. As most Members are aware, the unemployment insurance program is now subject to the review of the Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance. The hearings and consultations with interested parties in the coming months will form the basis of the commission's report to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) next March. Through these public consultations, the Commission will provide the Government with firm and accurate advice upon which to base proposals for the future of the whole unemployment insurance program.
This process requires time, Mr. Speaker. The Commission of Inquiry must be given every opportunity to do its job thoroughly and to do it right. It was for that reason last May that this Government introduced and passed Bill C-52, which extended the variable entrance requirements for unemployment insurance and froze the premium rate until December, 1986. The objective of that Bill was to maintain stability while the Commission was in progress.
In July, in announcing the members of the Commission of Inquiry, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) highlighted the importance of the Commission's task. He stated:
The questions the review must face are a challenge to all Canadians. The unemployment insurance program must be, and continue to be, a fair and effective investment in people.
The Hon. Member for La Prairie has demonstrated to all of us his belief in that principle. He is concerned that there are people who need our help. I know all of us in this House agree. The Member has done much more by introducing this Bill. He has highlighted the need for the unemployment insurance review and the difficulty the Commission of Inquiry will surely face as it goes about its task.
Unemployment insurance is there to help people who need help. There are questions. What kind of help to they need in today's labour market conditions? Over the last few years, in particular over the last few months, critics and supporters of the unemployment insurance program have suggested many ways. Some have suggested eliminating maternity benefits, making the entrance requirements much stricter or reducing the amount of money paid to claimants. Others have suggested improvements by extending maternity benefits, loosening the entrance requirements and paying out more money. We cannot look at any of these suggestions, even the amendments put forward in this Bill, in isolation. We must know what effect they will have on the rest of the program, and what effect they will have on the labour market.
In the beginning, unemployment insurance was there to help a worker when he lost his job. It was an insurance program. It still is, but it does much more than that now. Maternity benefits, adoption benefits, fishing benefits, illness benefits, special benefits for workers at age 65 are some of the special needs that are filled by the unemployment insurance program.
September 27, 1985

As we know, unemployment insurance also finances training, job creation and work sharing. There is no simple definition of unemployment insurance today. Is it an insurance program? To some extent yes. Is it a social assistance program? It is certainly there to ensure that Canadians are able to benefit from the safety net we have built.
The Member from Lapierre has helped us to understand more clearly-


Fernand Jourdenais: La Prairie.


William C. Winegard: La Prairie. The Member from La Prairie has helped us to understand more clearly the need for a comprehensive and thorough examination of the unemployment insurance program. You have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that my first reference to the Member was not bad.


Fernand Jourdenais: It sounds Liberal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William C. Winegard: I applaud the action and motives of my colleague. I share his concern. Let us not move on this Bill until after the review process is complete when we can start afresh.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my colleague for the work he has performed in the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration to make sure that this Bill would be introduced in the House. Since I agree with my party that the measures provided for in the Bill will correct serious oversights in the present legislation, I do not think that I will speak at any length in support of the Bill, because it was thoroughly discussed and analyzed on April 19 when it was introduced in the House originally.

Indeed, I am sorry to see that although it is only the second time today that this measure has come before the House that significant opposition is being voiced to it. I have to advise the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) of a trap into which he has fallen, not relating to the content of the Bill, but when given a preformulated speech from the Minister's office, if one starts in French it is necessary to correct the grammar and make sure that one identifies oneself as being of the correct sex. Therefore, it is not right for him to say- [Translation]
"Je suis heureuse, monsieur le President."

I think it will be perceived that what we have here, what in my native country they call a "fit-up", the Government through the Minister's office is attempting to stifle this Bill. I will not be one to co-operate with that, for I perceive that measure which the Bill provides is a common sense one. It would bring our unemployment insurance system much more into line with European systems in providing, through the unemployment
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 insurance system not a meagre insurance against something seen as a casual accident, but a system of helping the unemployed to get back to work.
I think it is well understood in both languages that one has to step back in order to better jump. I think that-

In the context of an unemployment insurance system, the underlying philosophy has to be consistent. It would appear that we have two separate strains of thought warring for the unemployment insurance system and supplying the philosophical basis for it. On the one hand we have, as is evident in many European systems, the belief that unemployment is a period which should be used to re-equip the unemployed individual for his or her re-entry into the workforce. The other philosophy is that unemployment insurance payments should be made to ease the transition of the individual on to the social assistance system or on to welfare. This Party does not subscribe to that philosophy. It is pessimistic, and I hope no Member of the House would subscribe to it.
I am sad to say that the Government has not brought forth progressive measures in unemployment insurance since its election. That is one reason, I regret, that I cannot hold out too much hope for the present measure. We have seen that vacation pay is to be included in the computation of earnings received after the date of unemployment. This will simply encourage employers and employees to get together so that the person who is to be unemployed will take his or her vacation before being laid off. In a sense it is a measure which will not save much for the Government. It will end up being a needless and ineffective provocation.
We have seen the Government table measures to treat severance pay as earned income for the purpose of calculating unemployment insurance entitlement. I do not believe that measure is consistent with the philosophy which I have outlined for re-equipping people to re-enter the labour force as soon as possible. Severance pay, essentially for older workers, is not something to reduce the financial burden on the unemployment insurance system. It is compensation for loss of employment and, particularly in the case of older workers, compensation for forcible eviction from a pension system which many older workers suffer when they are laid off.
The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) spoke eloquently about the inconsistencies regarding relocation benefits under the unemployment insurance system and the way in which make-work programs, unfortunately, often do not apply to those people who most need them. In the context of the present Bill, the anomaly which is being addressed by it is one of the most serious ones in the present unemployment insurance system. We should have a system which not only encourages but supports all those people, who are prepared to further their education and training, to equip them for areas in which there are skill shortages and demand.

September 27, 1985
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Unfortunately this Bill will end up as another submission to the Forget Commission, which of course we hope will produce progressive results, although we are critical of its structure.
The time I intended to use has passed. I urge Hon. Members opposite to show some understanding and appreciation of the motives of their colleagues in presenting this Bill and to allow it to proceed to committee.


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my hon. friend from Guelph (Mr. Winegard), who spoke earlier, on his efforts to express himself in French. Unlike the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), we do not demand perfection, we are not such purists, and I would urge my hon. friend from Guelph to persevere and to speak French more often.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to present my views on Bill C-221. I want to congratulate my hon. friend from La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) on his decision to table in the House a Bill aimed at amending the Unemployment Insurance Act. Thanks to his proposals, we now have a chance to take a closer look at the legislation and its implementation on behalf of Canadians.
Today I shall only be concerned with the proposed amendments to Section 39, which specifies the conditions under which an unemployed worker may draw ordinary unemployment insurance benefits when attending a course of training authorized by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.
Mr. Speaker, in this case we are concerned with innovative uses of the Unemployment Insurance fund. Section 39 repeats Section 57(3)(a) of the 1955 Act. In order to assess the repercussions of the proposed amendment to Section 39, I think we should first have a good understanding of what these innovative uses involve.
In the next few minutes I intend to summarize the objectives of Section 39 in its present form and explain how the legislation is applied.
In accordance with the innovative uses of the Unemployment Insurance fund, trainees receiving unemployment insurance benefits may continue to receive them while taking part in programs designed to upgrade their employability. The purpose of Section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to simplify the income maintenance provisions for claimants attending occupational training courses.
This procedure supports the following objectives:
First, to accelerate re-entry of claimants in the labour market;
Second, to increase training opportunities for claimants;
Third, to harmonize the objectives of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the National Training Act with respect to training opportunities for claimants;
Fourth, to increase the number of manpower training courses offered to unemployed workers, in accordance with labour market demand.
Trainees may get an extension of their unemployment benefit period and continue to receive unemployment insurance payments for the duration of the course, plus three weeks' benefits afterwards while they seek gainful employment.
Additional allowances-for being away from home, for having someone look after dependents, for moving, or for daily commuting-may be paid pursuant to the National Training Act or allocated directly from funds earmarked for the mobility program. Such additional allowances cannot be given to trainees who pay their own tuition fees.
The selection and presentation of trainess are made in the usual way by employment advisers who follow the normal practice for gathering documentation.
Trainess entitled to unemployment insurance benefits lower than the training allowance they would receive otherwise are eligible for benefits equal to the higher training allowance.
To be eligible for benefits pursuant to the terms of Section 39 the trainee must meet the conditions under which he would apply for unemployment insurance benefits. He must also have been selected by an employment advisor to take an approved training course. Trainees attending approved vocational training courses at their own expense are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, provided the funds appropriated for that purpose are not used up and the courses meet the requirements of the labour market.
Eligible trainees receive unemployment insurance benefits as income support for the duration of their training. The Government assumes part of the costs, while employers and employees pay the balance through their contributions. However the Government pays the full costs during a benefit period extension granted to a trainee to complete a course, and again during the additional three-week maximum extension to seek employment.
Trainees attending courses paid by the Employment and Immigration Commission are registered for training courses in trades of national or regional importance. Provisions have been made for members of target groups. Trainees may also be asked to take a language course if their lack of knowledge of either official language prevents them from securing employment.
Total appropriations allocated for each calendar year under the terms of Section 39 are set by order in council. The maximum unemployment insurance insurable weekly earnings
September 27, 1985

are reviewed every two years. Maximum weekly benefits in 1984 were $255, and they are up to $276 in 1985, an increase of 8.2 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, statistical data provided by the CEIC indicate that roughly 56 per cent of trainees attending courses this year will have been registered under the terms of Section 39.
The average duration of courses should be 16 weeks and total outlays for fiscal year 1984-85 have been estimated at $234 million-a sizeable sum in every respect. Nobody can say we are stingy and, in fact, it should be considered as a sound investment in our own human resources. It is an effective way to prepare the unemployed for labour market re-integration.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you more about the proposed amendment to Section 39. In its present wording Section 39 deals with steering benefit recipients towards training courses which meet their aspirations and which are likely to help them improve their earning potential and employment opportunities. Trainees are registered for various courses on the basis of labour market standards set under the National Training Act. In concrete terms, when an unemployed individual attends a course the costs are assumed by the CEIC and income support is provided through unemployment insurance benefits.
If a claimant decides to attend a course of his choice at his own expense and asks that benefits continue to be paid to him under Section 39, he must first comply with the requirements of the National Training Program.
It is expected that during 1984-85, some 4,000 trainees taking courses at their own expense will have complied with these requirements, which are basically concerned with the needs of the labour market and not those of the claimant.
There would not be many changes arising from Bill C-221. Instead of being directed to a training course by the Commission, the claimant would simply be authorized to attend a course. There are some similarities between training courses attended by trainees at their own expense and the policy now in effect which allows the proposed procedure.
According to this policy, a claimant may, on certain conditions, attend a training course and receive unemployment insurance benefits under Section 25, provided an employment counsellor certifies he cannot be sent to a course under Section 39, that he cannot find suitable employment within a reason-
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
able length of time, that the proposed course would increase his chances of finding employment and that he would drop the course if he were offered a job. However, adopting this Bill would entail additional costs for benefits. The claimants covered by Section 39 may receive unemployment insurance benefits equal to the training allowance, if the latter is higher than the former. Furthermore, the benefit period may be extended to 104 weeks if the trainee is on a course.
I would like to point out that the proposed wording of Section 39 would no longer exclude the claimant from benefits for a maximum period of three weeks, for failing to take a course according to the Commission's instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide some more details on the financial repercussions of the proposed amendment to Section 39. Out of $227 million earmarked for training in 1984 under Section 39, about $45 million, or 20 per cent, was paid out in the form of extended benefits. These benefits would not have been paid if the recipients had not attended the approved training courses. We are in fact talking about a benefit extension. Take the case of someone who is receiving ordinary unemployment insurance benefits and who is eligible for three more weeks of weekly benefits only. An Employment and Immigration Canada counsellor arranges for the recipient to enroll in a training course at a community college. If the course lasts for nine months, the trainee will be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits for a period of nine months. If the trainee receives $275 a week, the extension benefits paid out during these nine months would amount to $10,536.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that I admire and respect the good intentions of my colleague in proposing this bill. However, during our review of the unemployment insurance system, the proposals made by my hon. friend could be examined more closely. The Inquiry Commission on Unemployment Insurance will be dealing within the next few months with many questions of this type which are related with unemployment insurance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour allotted for Private Members' Business has now expired.
It being 5 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 30, 1985