1986-05-21

Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the CRTC is about to decide whether the takeover of the Toronto multilingual television station, MTV, by Rogers Cable Television should be approved. MTV has become an institution in Toronto. It has served exceptionally well not only the ethnocultural community but also the community at large. It has fostered a better understanding between people of all races. It has allowed a sharing of the rich multicultural beauty of Canada.
The Rogers Cable takeover of MTV raises a number of serious questions. The takeover may present a threat to the very purpose and raison-d'etre of MTV.
I would hope that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) has obtained assurances that the multicultural mandate of MTV will continue and be strengthened. Control of MTV should not be transferred to those who lack complete understanding of multicultural television. If the transfer of MTV to Rogers is approved, I call upon the Government to ensure, at the very least, that the current application before the CRTC on the national multilingual television network is held in abeyance pending further


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


CHALLENGE '86 EMPLOYMENT FUNDING FOR NON-PROFIT GROUPS IN WINNIPEG
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks a coalition of non-profit groups has emerged in Winnipeg. It is concerned about being left out of the employment funds allocated by the Government under Challenge '86 and the Canadian Jobs Strategy. This group called FACE represents some 75 to 100 groups, being a crosssection of the community, including native people, women, disabled, and those involved in day care. They have been
waiting for answers for funding under the Canadian Job Strategy since last October. What they see happening is an arbitrary allocation of funds. Some groups get money, others don't. A lot of the money is going into the private sector now. In the past these groups got money under Canada Works. Now the money is having to be shared with private consultants and the private sector.
If the indication of spending over the last year is any benchmark, there is less money for non-profit groups, and these groups-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, for the past year the CN shops located in my federal constituency of Moncton have been the subject of an internal assessment conducted by CN regarding its maintenance capacity. The study supposedly involves Montreal and Winnipeg as well as Moncton, but fears exist that CN's attention is centred only on the Moncton facility as the location to be closed or downsized.
The Moncton shops are the largest single industrial employer in the Province of New Brunswick, employing approximately 1,000 people and injecting over $70 million annually into the Atlantic economy. Their existence is of vital economic concern to the Province of New Brunswick and represents a major federal contribution to the economy of Atlantic Canada.
It is past time that a clear signal be sent by our Government to Canadian National that closure or significant lay-offs by CN at the Moncton shops is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The Government of Canada has a responsibility to Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Canadians, and must ensure that CN continues to operate its shops in Moncton at viable employment levels. I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to take immediate action in order to live up to our federal commitment to Atlantic Canada by instructing Canadian National-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.

May 21, 1986
[ Translation]


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: For
several days now, Mr. Speaker, Opposition Members have been trying to intimidate Quebec shipyard workers by making every kind of unfounded allegations concerning our Government's plans about the survival of this major industry.
As a responsible Government we have decided to give serious consideration to this matter and to launch a consultation process involving all participants. Unlike the Liberals who for 20 years ignored the shipbuilding industry and let it go down the drain, we in the Conservative Party want to make sure it will survive to become a strong and prosperous business.
Mr. Speaker, my riding is home to Versatile Vickers, one of Canada's most productive and efficient shipyards. The workers need not worry about the ongoing process because the shipbuilding industry can indeed look forward to a promising future throughout Quebec.


CHALLENGE '86 EMPLOYMENT FUNDING OF NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were treated to the spectacle of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) defending government policies which mean this summer there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of children in camps for the mentally retarded who will be denied service, denied a chance to go to camp. At the same time the Government is funding projects like running rides at La Ronde, working in 7-Eleven stores, and stocking shelves for the Oshawa group.
I think it is an outrage that the Government's quota system for the private sector has meant that many, in fact thousands of good public and non-profit projects have been turned down or have been cut back. There has been a 44 per cent cut in the city of Toronto. At the same time the private sector is getting funded for projects which will never lead to any kind of professional development.
We do not need funding for 7-Eleven stores in this country. We need good non-profit funding, the kind that was delivered under past Liberal Governments and will be delivered in the future if we get a chance to cut back on this Government's private sector privatization fetish.


FRANCOPHONE COUNTRIES
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: In Montreal recently, Mr. Speaker, after the francophone summit in Paris, the Governments of Canada and Quebec played hosts to officials responsible for data processing in francophone countries.
Under the theme "The computer and its applications in francophone countries", the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation invited member States to a one-week seminar.
The objectives were, first to consider problems related to the development and use of French language computer software and, second, to draft strategies for data processing projects. One of the central issues was the advent of a new kind of international co-operation based on a spirit of partnership.
We urge all participants to continue their efforts to promote wider use of French language computer software.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend the National Association of Japanese Canadians stated that $25,000 for each surviving internee and a $50 million community fund would represent appropriate compensation for wartime losses. The Minister of State for Multicul-turalism (Mr. Jelinek) has talked carelessly in the past of redress demands which might exceed $5 million. He has rejected the Price Waterhouse calculations of $443 million. Now he is critical of the NAJC proposal which would cost no more than $300 million.
The time has surely come for the Government to review negotiations with the NAJC. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised the Japanese Canadian community a redress settlement. Does he think a $6 million human rights foundation represents adequate redress? Is he going to continue letting a flippant Minister pursue this issue in his own divisive way? When will the Prime Minister demonstrate his grasp of proper redress by sending Government representatives to negotiate with the NAJC?
May 21, 1986


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian postal system daily touches every home and business in Canada. Canadians expect and depend on good mail service. My constituents in Nepean-Carleton are growing increasingly frustrated with the current postal system. Given that the urban component of the riding is growing rapidly, hundreds of new home owners do not receive home delivery. Many travel several kilometres to pick up mail at postal outlets on busy arterials, with limited and inadequate parking. My constituents who use public transit for work or shopping, the poor and the elderly, find it next to impossible to visit these postal outlets regularly. This is an intolerable inequity which I hope will be quickly rectified.
I urge the Government to reverse years of deterioration in mail service and to deliver to Canadians a mail service that they once knew, one that is efficient, reliable, equitable, and respected.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union and the world nuclear situation give us all cause for concern. The future of Abitibi and Canada is at stake, and I am thinking not only of human beings but all living things on this planet.
This disaster should mark the beginning of a new era in international relations, and although I am not criticizing nuclear power programs, I must say I prefer hydro-electric projects such as the James Bay project in Quebec.
We should ask for an international convention and create a public information centre that would be open 24 hours a day, because we know now the world has already had ten nuclear accidents that were not revealed to the public.


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, today, 2,000 people from the Sorel area have come here again, to demonstrate like the people who came from Montreal and Quebec City. They have to come begging for
jobs because of the injustice perpetrated by this Conservative Government.
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Members promised us a marine transportation policy and jobs. Today, they have given the competition a mandate for rationalizing and phasing out shipyards.
I hope the Conservative Members from Quebec will wake up, so we will not get the same raw deal we got when the Gulf refinery was shut down in Montreal East.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's Globe and Mail, the editorial page was very positive about the achievements of our Government.
In major areas, the ideas, achievements, actions and changes that have been made by our Government deserve applause. Our economic policies have contributed to prosperity and begun to yield significant results in restoring public finance and controlling the deficit.
Our tax and trade policies which welcome investment and our deregulation policy have helped to bring down interest rates and sustain the value of the Canadian dollar.
Our rapprochement with the provinces and with the United States has reduced obstacles to economic growth and reinforced national unity.
Our foreign policy has shown more energy and consistency than we had ever seen under the previous Government. We have reformed our parliamentary process, which has helped to improve Government management.
Mr. Speaker, those are concrete achievements that were publicly recognized today, May 21, 1986, by the Globe and Mail.


HOUSING
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this House and the people of Canada the disgraceful actions of the federal Government and the Minister responsible for housing with regard to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, or RRAP as it is widely known.
13472

May 21, 1986
Oral Questions
The actions of the Minister have resulted in less money being allocated, fewer people being given assistance, and the criteria for eligibility being tightened beyond any reasonable conditions. The consequence of these ill-advised actions is that people who would have received funding last year are now going to receive absolutely no funding whatsoever.
The Minister has quite simply abdicated his responsibilities and set those Canadians in need of housing assistance adrift with little or no hope of receiving much needed Government assistance. The conclusion one must draw from all this is that the Minister must be removed if he is not going to protect the interests of those who desperately need his help.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is no coincidence that today, at the outset of negotiations for free trade with the United States, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker, sent an ultimatum to Canada to raise the value of our dollar. Does the Prime Minister feel that the U.S. can continue to put this kind of economic pressure on our country as part of the price for free trade? Will he not make it clear that his Government is not going to be pushed around in order to keep these negotiations going?
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TELEPHONE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the United States, which has been attacking our forestry workers, our farmers, our social programs, our cultural identity, has now launched an attack on the value of the dollar.
Will the Prime Minister finally decide to call up his friend, the President of the United States, and tell him he is going too far?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quick to turn into a demagogue. After all, the trade talks are only starting-


Jean-Claude Malépart: And the Canadian Constitution!


Martin Brian Mulroney: If it isn't the constitutional expert from Montreal-Sainte-Marie again!
The trade talks are only getting started today. In fact, these negotiations will provide the basis for discussions between our two countries, in order to take a serious look at certain problems and deal with them. And that is what we are doing today: Ambassador Reisman for Canada and Ambassador Murphy for the Americans. There will be quite a few problems to discuss before the final settlement, and we will have to come to terms with certain realities. We are going to have a mature discussion about our various problems with a view to creating a national and international climate that will result in a new dimension of prosperity for Canada and new jobs for Canadians.


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is a preposterous point of view. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows full well that Secretary Baker delivered himself of a response to a question that was, as far as we are concerned, rather academic. We are members of the-


Mr. Waddell:: It is always academic.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Absolutely. We are grateful for the rise, but it is quite academic because Canada, as the Minister explained, is a full partner in G-Seven now and we will work with all of our partners to strengthen our national and international economies.


John Napier Turner: The question is not academic at all. When the American negotiators start looking at our $22 billion trade surplus with the U.S., they will look at the value of our dollar as part of the price. It is not academic at all.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has taken the position that the President of the United States has nothing to do with the current American attack on our lumber exports, this despite a clear letter from the President to Senator Packwood. Is the truth not revealed in that letter where the President promised to play tough with our lumber industry in order to get the free trade negotiations on the rails? Will the Prime Minister call his good friend President Reagan and say "Back off, back off on our lumber exports"?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There are too many Edward G. Robinson movies being watched over there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: If the Americans-
May 21, 1986


Mr. Axworthy:: It is better than watching the Keystone Cops over there.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: "You dirty rat, you".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I missed that, and I missed the gymnastics lesson last week by the Member for Hamilton East.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I will go to the next questioner.


APARTHEID
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us that he would take no further action with respect to South Africa until he had consulted with our ambassador and our friends in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. What further action, beyond attacks and acts of war on three adjacent states by the South African regime, is necessary before Canada decides to terminate its diplomatic relations?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all Members of this House would want to give our priority to using every instrument we have to ending apartheid in South Africa, and not simply direct our attention toward attracting headlines in Canada. I would hope that would be the premise of the policy of the Liberal Party, as it is the premise of our policy and, I believe, from the tone of the questions by the Leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday, the approach being taken by the NDP.
We have been in preliminary consultation with High Commissioners of the Commonwealth countries who are in Canada. Roy McMurtry is meeting today in London under the auspices of the Commonwealth group in the subcommittee dealing with South Africa. I have called home our ambassador, and we will be getting his direct information on the situation in South Africa. We will be meeting Archbishop Scott, who has been a member of the Eminent Persons Group. We are seeking evidence of ways in which we can bring action and influence, either alone or with others, against apartheid. That is what we intend to do.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT CANADA SEVER DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SOUTH AFRICA
Donald James Johnston: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We quite agree with the spirit of the answer, but what else will South Africa have to do for Canada to decide to break off diplomatic relations with this country? He didn't answer that question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Canada is now proceeding to consider, with other Commonwealth countries, the feasibility of effective action within the Commonwealth. It is very important for all of us to maintain the effectiveness of this institution. And that is why yesterday, the Prime Minister of Canada telephoned to consult directly with the President of Zambia, Mr. Kenneth Kaunda. And that is why today we are continuing our consultations. It would of course be easy for us to take some kind of action against South Africa. However, to us, it is not a matter of making a gesture. What we want is the end of the apartheid system, and that is the objective of this Government and the Commonwealth.


COMPOSITION OF TEAM NEGOTIATING FREE TRADE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. In Ottawa today, talks are beginning with the Americans on the subject of free trade. According to the Minister, the Government intends to talk about Canadian realities. Does the Minister really believe that Canadian realities are accurately reflected in this important negotiating team that has only one francophone and one woman?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Ambassador Reisman's team is a preliminary one. We must point out that sitting at the table for Canada today we had Mrs. Sylvia Ostry, an internationally respected economist, as well as a francophone woman responsible for legal matters. However, we read the comments in the press today and we agree that the Canadian team should reflect Canadian society more accurately-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one would have hoped the thinking would have gone on before the mistake was discovered.

But I am very pleased the Minister intends to change the team. That is a good thing.

May 21, 1986
Oral Questions


LAUNCHING OF COUNTERVAILING ACTION BY U.S. LUMBER INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: I have another question to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering the countervailing action initiated Monday in the United States against Canadian softwood producers, who thought they were producing already under a free trade agreement in this sector, could result in the loss of up to 45,000 jobs in British Columbia alone, I want to ask the Minister if Mr. Reisman was instructed today to say to the Americans that they cannot have it both ways. If they want the trade talks to continue they have got to stop the countervailing actions in the United States now.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade made it very clear in the House yesterday, as he, I, and others have on several occasions, that the purpose of these negotiations is to bring to an end, or at least substantially modify, a situation where Canadian interests can be threatened in the way they are being threatened now by countervailing action. We hope that these negotiations may lead to an alternative. The NDP wants us to stop the negotiations before an alternative can be found.


John Edward Broadbent: The New Democratic Party wants the Government to stand up for Canadian jobs for once. That is what the NDP wants.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that all the men and women working in this industry in British Columbia already thought they had a free trade arrangement, and that the Americans are trying to stop their imports, and that we are beating them at their own game, will the Minister now stand up for Canadian interests and tell the Americans that if they want free trade negotiations they have to practise what they preach and cancel the countervailing action?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as is well known, the New Democratic Party stands up for what the Canadian Labour Congress tells it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Try that in British Columbia. Go to B.C. and say that.


Charles Joseph Clark: With regard to jobs, the Leader of the New Democratic Party should know that since this Government was elected some 630,000 Canadian jobs have
been created. With regard to the future it is crystal clear that in order to maintain security for Canadians, opportunities for Canadians and growth in jobs, then we have to change our trading situation in the world. That is what we are trying to do.
The NDP can stay mired in the 1930s if it wants, but that is not good enough for this Government.


SALE OF U.S. BARLEY TO SAUDI ARABIA
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. It involves another example of the deteriorating relationship in our trade with the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The Conservatives laugh when the western farmers are losing their markets to the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: I want western farmers to know what they are laughing at.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would like to be able to hear the question.


Lloyd Axworthy: While his colleagues are laughing about it, I will direct my question to the Minister for International Trade. The Americans are undertaking subsidized sales of barley to Saudi Arabia, which is a prime Canadian market, thereby encroaching upon and transgressing the assurances they gave that their subsidy programs would not move into Canadian markets. Will the Minister take any action to protest this latest American announcement? Will the Tories stop laughing and start doing something about the fact that we are losing our western grain markets?


Mr. Crosbie:: You lost your marbles.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member was a Minister of the Crown of Canada, claiming to represent a western Canadian seat, his Government consistently let down western Canada, including western Canadian agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: This Government and this Prime Minister, at the Tokyo Economic Summit-for the first time in the history of the summits-raised the question of how we break the cycle of subsidy that is creating such problems for Canadian farmers across the country.


Mr. Orlikow:: What is the answer?


Charles Joseph Clark: It is not enough simply to stand up and demonstrate that one is anti-American. We know that of
May 21, 1986

the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. We need to break the cycle of subsidy, and we began that process at Tokyo.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! More, more!


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister is only demonstrating that he either does not understand or has been insensitive to the plight of western Canadian farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We never let prices drop 30 per cent in one year and he knows that.
[DOT] (M30)


REQUEST FOR EXPORT ASSISTANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Will the Government take some action and protest the American initiative, and begin providing some export assistance to Canadian farmers so we can compete against unfair trade practices by the United States?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, just to name a few of the things, interest rates are down, fuel costs have been dealt with, the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board will be meeting with-


Lloyd Axworthy: World prices are down 30 per cent for the farmers.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry can try to shout me down if he wants. He has asked what action we are going to take. 1 am indicating some of the action we have taken and are taking. The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board will be meeting with representatives of grain producing countries in Vancouver so we can-


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member disparages meetings. He would sooner shout at people-


Lloyd Axworthy: No, I want some action from you guys.


Charles Joseph Clark: -than sit down and reason with them-


Lloyd Axworthy: Let's have some action and less words. Come on. Let's see what you can do and stop talking about it.


Charles Joseph Clark: -so we can make progress together in the interests of Canadian farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: You're a big mouth, Clark. All words, no action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: More public relations, no action.


U S. BARLEY EXPORTS TO SAUDI ARABIA
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is a very important issue because the Americans have just decided to use their Export Enhancement Program to try to sell an extra 400,000 tonnes of barley to Saudi Arabia. Last year we sold around a million tonnes, about a quarter of our export market, to that country. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs speak directly to his American counterpart and tell him to back off from using this subsidized program to obtain Canadian markets which are so important to our farmers?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I think the Hon. Member knows because he follows these questions regularly, not like the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Take that, Lloyd.


Mr. Rodriguez:: That's true.


Charles Joseph Clark: -I think the Hon. Member knows that we have already made representations to the Americans with regard to the use of their new program. More importantly, we have begun to take an initiative which we hope with success will have the effect of breaking a cycle of subsidy which has led to the subsidization of agriculture in the European Community which, incidentally, is now the main supplier to the Saudi market, which has led to the U.S. Farm Import Bill which creates such very serious problems now for Canadian producers. We are dealing with individual action by the Americans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: We are dealing with the general problem.


INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COUNCIL-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT LODGE COMPLAINT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this is the thirty-first time the Americans have used that program. In the interest of protecting Canadian farmers I want to know if the Government is willing to lodge a complaint with the International Wheat Council that this is a violation of orderly marketing in the world. Will the Minister do that on behalf of the Canadian farmers?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have previously expressed to the Americans in the case of other markets our disagreement with their action.


John Edward Broadbent: You're not getting very far.

May 21, 1986
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Lots of results.


Charles Joseph Clark: If there is indeed a threat to existing Canadian markets in Saudi Arabia we will do that again with regard to existing Canadian markets. But I make the point that what needs to be broken here is the cycle of subsidy which has grown up over so many years.


Mr. Deans:: What about now?


Charles Joseph Clark: There is some chance now that it can be broken. That is the best hope for Canadian farmers, and this Government has taken the lead in bringing that matter to international economic councils.


SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister would answer the question instead of asking the Minister to reply for him. Mr. Prime Minister, today 2,000 Sorel area residents are here begging for work. A month ago it was people from the Montreal area, and six months earlier it was people from the Quebec City area. Does the Prime Minister find it normal that Quebec residents should have to come here seeking justice, begging for work and asking for jobs in Quebec shipyards?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can see why the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie was booed outside the House by Marine Industries Limited workers. Now we understand why. He thinks Quebecers are beggars. Quebecers are not beggars, they are very proud individuals. In fact 630,000 Canadians found jobs since this Government was sworn in. And there will be many more, including Marine Industries workers who have been seriously harmed by the unkept promises of the Liberals. The Conservatives will honour their promises.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET PEOPLE FROM SOREL
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it is scandalous and demoralizing to see how far the bush-league Prime Minister can stoop. If the Prime Minister is not totally spineless after closing down Schefferville, let him show he has the courage to join me outside and address those 2,000 men. Will the Prime Minister meet with these people and promise them jobs? Yes or no?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: I did go outside!


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order!


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I did go outside and say that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie was a liar. I said that the only one here in Ottawa who spoke about shutdowns is the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. Other than the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, nobody here in Ottawa has been talking about closing down the shipyards.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members are complaining about language heard on the other side, expecting the Chair to be able to hear it despite the fact that side is making so much noise the Chair cannot hear it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think I heard through the noise the Hon. Minister refer to the Hon. Member for Sainte Marie-

-as being a liar. If he said that he must withdraw the word.


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I said-


Mr. Speaker:: No. Order, please. The Hon. Minister will please resume his seat.


John V. Nunziata: Bounce him.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston will please keep in his seat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Wednesdays are always my favourite day.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister knows that if he has said that he must withdraw it and do nothing but that. I must hear that, please.


André Bissonnette: I withdraw the word, Mr. Speaker.
May 21, 1986


RATIONALIZATION OF QUEBEC SHIPYARDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Today on Parliament Hill, the Minister of State for Small Businesses made it clear that Mr. Peter Paul Saunders of Versatile Industries had no mandate from the Government to rationalize shipyards in Quebec, while yesterday, the Acting Minister said the exact opposite, namely that the Government was trying to rationalize the industry.
Could the Minister explain this contradiction and inform the House whether the position of the Minister of State for Small Businesses is also the Government's position?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that the Government was taking action to deal with the problems and the plight of the shipbuilding industry not only as it exists in Canada but as part of the world-wide phenomena. What the Government is attempting to do is to provide a secure and stable future for the shipbuilding industry in Canada.


FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR MARINE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I would like to put a question directly to the Acting Minister: Is the Government prepared to guarantee that Marine Industries Limited can continue as a shipyard with a sizeable share of this industry? And will Marine Industries Limited have the right to tender for all federal shipbuilding contracts?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member, if he were honest with the situation, would recognize there is over-capacity and that is one of the things that is recognized not only by the Government but, indeed, by the shipbuilding industry itself. To the extent it can be rationalized and consolidated, the Government will certainly aid in that process. But I should remind the Hon. Member that MIL currently has work going on with two Coast Guard vessels. It is heavily engaged in the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program and will he able to compete for vessels which are going to be called for shortly under the TRUMP Program. So it certainly has a pretty optimistic future, I would suggest.
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It has been several months since de Havilland was privatized and sold to Boeing. At that time both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party strenuously opposed such action, stating that several hundred jobs would be lost to the United States. Can the Minister advise the House whether or not that is true or, in fact, has the opposite occurred?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first I should point out to the House and the people of Canada that my friend and colleague was certainly a very ardent supporter of the privatization process. It has paid off. Just today Boeing announced that it will be building a major structural wing component of the Super 747 in Winnipeg which will create some 250 jobs-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Briefly, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not only is that good for Winnipeg, it is good for Canada. That is standing up for Canadians and Canadian jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SHIPYARDS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
A moment ago we heard the Minister of Transport say that efforts must be made to rationalize the shipbuilding industry. The Minister of State for Small Businesses, widely known as the strong-arm man, went and told him that Mr. Saunders had no mandate to talk about rationalization-


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I would like to know whether or not his Government gave Versatile Vickers President Saunders a mandate to negotiate the rationalization of the shipbuilding industry? If so, can he explain to me why he chose to put Dracula in charge of the blood bank?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to repeat again the same

May 21, 1986
Oral Questions
answer I gave four times last week. No, nobody has been given a mandate to rationalize or shut down anything whatsoever.
The one thing I can tell you is that the federal Government is anxious to continue the discussions with all industry representatives so as to draft a national shipbuilding policy.


SCOPE OF MANDATE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Businesses was not even invited to the meeting.
I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who was there. Can he confirm that he and his colleague have given Mr. Saunders a mandate to meet with the provincial Minister and other shipbuilding industry officials to end production at Marine Industries?


André Bissonnette: One more time, Mr. Speaker, no, Pierre Paul Saunders was not given a mandate to rationalize or shut down any industry, either in Quebec or elsewhere.


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-INVITATION OF COUNTERVAIL PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I think he is aware that on May 8 President Reagan wrote a letter to Senator Packwood regarding Canadian softwood lumber in which he stated:
-I intend to press for an expedited resolution to this problem independent of comprehensive negotiations.
I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that President Reagan controls the acceptance or rejection of the countervailing action through Secretary of Commerce Baldrige. Has the Prime Minister himself, through his office, by phone or by letter, contacted President Reagan and asked that this countervailing action be stopped?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, no. I think I responded to that question yesterday. We are satisfied that the mechanisms in place are designed not only to eliminate problems but to create a climate of confidence within which these problems can be resolved. That is exactly what we are trying to do-not by yelling at the problems, not by denigrating anyone, but by sitting down in a reasonable, positive, and strong way to resolve these problems on behalf of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL AID FOR LEGAL ACTION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is prepared to accept a double-cross from President Reagan on a clean launch for the free trade talks, will he stand in the House today and commit funds to the Canadian forest industry so that it can at least prepare its legal defence against this unfortunate countervail action?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the allegation of the Hon. Member is denied by the words which he has quoted. The letter he has quoted from the President of the United States made reference to the fact that, as this House has been seeking, and as the New Democratic Party has been insisting, there would be a clean launch. That is what the word "independent" means.
Insofar as the question of legal support for the defence of Canadian interests by Canadians is concerned, as the Minister for International Trade made clear in the House yesterday, we intend to support the Canadian position and support Canadian interests in every way we can. If it is necessary for us to commit legal funds, that too will be done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHALLENGE '86 EMPLOYMENT FUNDING FOR NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As a result of her $19 million cut for student summer employment this summer and her quota limiting non-profit community projects, many excellent community services for the aged, the disabled, and youth, will be eliminated. While there is still time will the Minister restore the budget for Challenge '86 to the same level as last summer and eliminate the quota on non-profit community projects?
Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, there have not been any quotas put on either private sector jobs or jobs provided by the public sector. Some 35 per cent of the applications last year came from the private sector. This year it was a greater amount. However, this year the private sector will only receive 36 per cent of the funding and the non-private sector will receive 64 per cent of the funding. I do not see how the Hon. Member can say anything against that.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is misleading this House, if not lying to this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


May 21, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


William Warren Allmand: I will not withdraw that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that I must ask him to withdraw at least part of that. Therefore he should do that and then put his question, please.


William Warren Allmand: I will not withdraw. We are being told all over the country-


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will resume his seat, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: And John Turner smiles!


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the Hon. Member to withdraw at least the allegation he has made. I think he knows that is the parliamentary way, and he should then put his question.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to tell a lie to the House. She is misleading this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Mr. Ouellet:: That is his right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is an experienced Member-


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Bourassa at least have some sympathy for his colleague, if not for the House?
I must ask the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East, who knows our practices, to withdraw the implication that the Minister is lying. I must ask him to do that. Will he please do that now?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if this Question Period is to have any meaning, we have to expect Ministers to tell the truth in answering questions-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no choice, then. I am given no choice. I must name Mr. Allmand and ask him to leave the House.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Allmand having withdrawn:]


Mr. Speaker:: Next question, please. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.
Oral Questions


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, it feels like the Stanley Cup finals.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-EXCHANGE VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Steven W. Langdon: My question is for the Prime Minister. Not content with telling us what to do in our lumber industry the United States has now told Canada to look at raising the value of our dollar in order to ease trade problems between the two countries. In view of this will the Prime Minister request the resignation of his Minister of Finance-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: -since, quite clearly, Washington has decided to direct our financial policies in the future?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is a challenging question, Mr. Speaker, a real tough one. I will think about it, but I think the answer is no.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not in fact recognize that we have opened ourselves up to pressure from the United States on our exchange rate by the statements of the Minister of Trade who said that this would be a subject for discussion in the trade talks which opened today? He talked about exchange rates in those terms.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is the vicious "supps" which kill me. The fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State-


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on. The guy
asked you a decent question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition defending the NDP-


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. He is a Member of Parliament.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Sweethearts on parade again.


John Napier Turner: A Member of Parliament deserves an answer.

May 21, 1986
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: But the Leader of the Opposition will not defend the Speaker. Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Prime Minister want to complete his answer briefly, please?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Sir, it should be noted that the Leader of the Opposition will defend an NDPer but he will not defend the Speaker against a vicious attack by-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André Ouellet: Withdraw that.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Withdraw that remark.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Willow-dale.


André Ouellet: Just a minute!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: That's the new civility!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course the comments about the Chair are out of order, but there is nothing unparliamentary requiring the Chair to have anything withdrawn.


ABORTION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Recently an Ottawa coroner's jury condemned the abortion practices of the Ottawa Civic Hospital when that particular hospital apparently approved an abortion after the abortion had taken place, and it cost the young lady her life. Will the Minister initiate an investigation into this serious breach of procedure? Are any changes being contemplated on the basis of the jury recommendations to the Minister?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the case which the Hon. Member cites is a very regrettable situation. A similar question was also answered by the Minister of Justice earlier. The recommendations, as I understand them, go to the Health Minister and Attorney General of the province, in this case the Province of Ontario. I think all of us in the House, regardless of what side of that difficult social issue we might be on, expect those committees to function within the ambit of the law. That was not done, and I would hope that the people responsible for those
committees will take note of the coroner's report which was very specific.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In an interview on the TV A network on May 15, the Minister of Public Works said, in referring to contracts, that he had no hesitation in showing his gratitude to the people that deserved it. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Mr. Lessard, the Minister's political adviser who works at the Montreal office, was put there to do just that: to show gratitude to Conservatives who deserved it, in other words, to those who contributed to the Prime Minister's election campaign and to those who followed the procedure recommended by the Hon. Member for Quebec East? Is that what he is supposed to do?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the question which the Hon. Member asks was answered yesterday by the Minister of Public Works. If the Hon. Member refers to page 13412 of Hansard he will find the Minister of Public Works was pleased to inform all Members of the House of Commons who were having to cope with the lack of information and often inadequate services that he had decided to post a departmental representative in Montreal who will be able to provide more and better information and services for all Members. I am sure all Hon. Members appreciate more information and more services being made available on behalf of the Government by the Minister of Public Works.


MINISTER'S ASSISTANT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is interesting. I wonder whether the Acting Minister could respond to the comment of Mr. Lessard in an interview when he said that there were 57 Conservatives who knew nothing about the routine of the federal Government and that it was his job to help them. Does he think that that follows through on what the Minister said yesterday? Will he not admit that he is a political hack? Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, dismiss the individual, and tell the Minister of Public Works to get his hands out of the taxpayers' cookie jar?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes aspersions about contracting and tendering done by Public Works. If he really cares about how contracting and tendering are done, he could refer to Chapter 310, Appendix F of the Treasury Board Administration Policy Manual, the same policy manual used by the previous Liberal administration.
May 21, 1986


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Mrs. Thatcher is quoted as saying that she does not believe sanctions are any more likely to succeed now than before the raids. Given the leadership role played by the Prime Minister in the Commonwealth, and given the dangers to the Commonwealth posed by a failure on the part of Great Britain to act, has the Prime Minister been in contact with the Prime Minister of Great Britain within the last 48 hours to convince her to change her mind?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of Mrs. Thatcher's point of view with regard to sanctions. It is not one that I share. It is one that she has explained and defended. I understand her point of view, but I believe that the Commonwealth is inclined to come to another point of view in the event of a failure of the Eminent Persons Group mission. We believe there is still a possibility for success. I will be meeting with the Archbishop on Friday in this regard. Pending that, Canada will continue to seek further information. However, we have not moved from the position set out by the Secretary of State last autumn with regard to the ultimate action that Canada will take if we are incapable of persuading South Africa to rid itself or rid the world of the evil of apartheid.


THREAT TO COMMONWEALTH
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given the threat to the very existence of the Commonwealth which this situation poses, how can the Prime Minister explain not even having made the attempt to contact Mrs. Thatcher to convince her to change her mind?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member, who has a genuine interest in this question, was absent from the House earlier when I indicated that I had met yesterday with the High Commissioners of various country members of the Commonwealth, including Great Britain. While there was disagreement in that room, naturally, about the measures which should be taken now, there was general agreement about the importance of maintaining the integrity and the strength of the Commonwealth as an institution. That is a position which we are pursuing. That is a position which the Prime Minister advanced materially in his call yesterday to Mr. Kuanda, to indicate the continuing solidarity of Canada with the citizens of Commonwealth countries which were attacked, and our continuing determination to play a leadership role in any way we can-our sanctions if necessary, and working in the Commonwealth, if that will work, to bring an end to apartheid.
Petitions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With Canada's reputation for conducting fair and free elections, and with a number of Canadians having acted as observers of elections in foreign countries, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate what initiatives he is taking to export democracy and, in particular, whether he has had any discussions with the Government of Haiti in respect to its objective of developing free elections in that country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated publicly our-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: It may be that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is not interested in the help which Canada might bring to Haiti. However, I think there are other members in the House, and I would have no doubt citizens in her constituency, who-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot allow that.


André Ouellet: Imputing motive. Withdraw.


Lloyd Axworthy: How do you withdraw pomposity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Minister knows why I must interrupt at that point. Order, please. Three o'clock.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to designate Friday as an allotted day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages

May 21, 1986
Tabling of Documents
the Government's response to the following seven petitions: Nos. 331-386 to 331-389, inclusive, and 331-413 to 331-415, inclusive.



WAYS AND MEANS


Hon. Barbara McDougail (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 84(1), I wish to table in both official languages a notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Customs Tariff Act, and pursuant to Standing Order 84(2) I request that an Order of the Day be designated for its consideration.



GRASSY NARROWS AND ISLINGTON INDIAN BANDS MERCURY POLLUTION CLAIMS SETTLEMENT TABLING OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages copies of a Memorandum of Agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, the Islington Indian Band, the Grassy Narrows Indian Band, Great Lakes Forest Products Limited and Reed Incorporated.
This Memorandum of Agreement establishes the terms of a settlement between the Parties for claims arising from the mercury pollution of the Wabigoon and English Rivers.



TABLING OF ESCROW AGREEMENT

David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I also table an Escrow Agreement, dated as of December 16, 1985, between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, Great Lakes Forest Products Limited, Reed Incorporated and the National Trust Company.
The terms of this Escrow Agreement were approved of and consented to by the Grassy Narrows Indian Band, the Islington Indian Band and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.
Hon. Members have been given notice of the intent to introduce a Bill to approve, give affect to and declare valid these agreements.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this Government, I welcome this opportunity to announce to the Members of this House and to all Canadians the details of the proposed new refugee determination system for Canada.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Government has the honour of announcing to the Members of this House, and to all Canadians, a new refugee determination process.

There is agreement that claims to refugee status should be treated fairly, humanely and expeditiously. I want to assure you today, Mr. Speaker, that this Government has given very careful consideration to all the views expressed by refugee aid groups, church groups and ethnic organizations across the country. These groups help to identify those who need our assistance, they sponsor about one-quarter of the flow of refugees to Canada and they are invaluable in helping refugees integrate into Canadian society.
I want to state also that the Government is indebted to the invaluable contributions of Rabbi Gunther Plaut and the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. I believe that all those who have studied the system and proposed reforms will see reflections of their ideas in the model I am proposing today.
The refugee determination process, like the definition of a refugee itself, is dynamic and evolving. I do not see these measures as the end of the journey we have travelled together, but they are steps in the right direction.

As a Canadian, I am proud of our humanitarian tradition. Over one half million refugees have settled in Canada since World War II.

As a Canadian, I know we can proud of our tradition of humanitarianism. More than a half million refugees have settled in Canada since the Second World War. For the past six years, over 125,000 refugees and designated class immigrants have found new homes in Canada. Thousands of others have been helped by humanitarian measures developed to deal with special unexpected circumstances in the volatile world in which we live.
The new refugee determination system will continue this humanitarian tradition of our nation, Canada. In a time of restraint, our Government is allocating substantial new resources to the system. Over the years, however, all levels of Government will be saving millions because nothing could be more expensive, or less effective, than our present
May 21, 1986

system. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, Canada as a prosperous and fortunate country must continue to do all it can for refugees seeking protection at our borders while continuing our program of resettlement from abroad in consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Canada will continue to do everything in its power to help refugees who ask for our protection.

In formulating our proposals, we have been mindful of our international legal and moral obligations as a signatory to the United Nations convention as well as Canadian standards of justice as set out in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have taken a cumbersome and elaborate system, an outdated system which caused tragic delays for genuine refugees and months of uncertainty for others, and we have streamlined it. I believe we have made it essentially more fair and more efficient.
The highlights of the new refugee determination system are as follows. First, an oral hearing on questions of merit for all claimants; second, independent and well-informed decisionmaking; third, a new Convention Refugee Determination Board with full and part-time members to meet the ebb and flow in this volatile situation. Fourth, we will have a nonadversarial format, moving human rights away from the immigration mode and its legal mode so as to see the refugee stream more in the broad humanitarian and human rights tradition. Fifth, we will have a two-member expert panel. Any split decision, if one happens, will go in favour of the claimant. Our system will be a generous one. Sixth, we will have an appeal by leave to the Federal Court of Canada. Seventh, in order to meet the needs of those bona fide refugees, those most in need, we will have limited access controls such as for those exceeding the time limits, for those granted protection already in another country and for those who are making repeat claims. Eighth, we will have a legislated requirement that claims be heard expeditiously so that those whose lives have been turned upside down will not find themselves faced by interminable delays.
In addition to the details of the proposed system, I am announcing today that a case by case clearance of the backlog will commence July 15, 1986. Further, I wish to inform the House and Members of the public that those individuals whose claims have not been initiated prior to this date, May 21, 1986, will have their refugee claims dealt with swiftly. This will enable the Government to assist genuine refugees in getting on with the rebuilding of their lives. It will ensure that those whose claims have no merit will be promptly removed from Canada.

Mr. Speaker, with these conditions in our new system, the Government will be able to continue to assist those who are genuine refugees.
Statements by Ministers
Through this proposed system my Government is continuing to do what it always intended to do, that is, to help those who genuinely need protection and discourage those who seek to use the system for purely economic reasons.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of my Party to the statement of the Minister. Over the years and under successive Liberal Governments Canada has been a leader within the international community regarding the issues of human rights and immigration policies and our role in resolving the crisis of world refugees. Our traditional instinct throughout in such dilemmas was to act compassionately, progressively and with a vision that was to be respected world-wide. We in Canada took our international obligations seriously and played our part just as well as did any other country.
Canadians do not want people to be sent back to countries where they will be persecuted, suffer loss of freedom, or face sure death. At the same time, particularly during recent international incidents of terrorism and conflict, Canadians are concerned that the huge backlog gives rise to an increase of bogus refugee claimants to the detriment of legitimate refugee claims. The backlog weakens Canada's acceptability of making our rightful contribution to the plight of refugees. What better way of convincing the public and politicians to not allow refugees to seek protection than by pointing to the illegitimate refugee cases which are abusing our regulations, using our health and social services, working at jobs that would otherwise be available for Canadians and generally clogging up the system. Thus, a reformed and improved refugee determination system would cater to these two aspirations of Canadians. The present system is inadequate and gives rise to a grey, middle-of-the-road approach which does not meet these two fundamentally important expectations.
When you stip away the public relations aspect of this particular policy you will see that the Conservative Government's new policy is a regressive move which tarnishes our proud tradition. One of the major flaws in this particular piece of legislation is the Government's willingness to limit access to the refugee process on the grounds of the claimant's country of last sojourn. The vast majority of refugees must escape their country of persecution into a secondary country before coming to Canada simply because persecution cuts off direct access to Canada.
This decision by the Minister lacks morality and integrity and, in essence, is washing the Government's hands of the obligation to the refugee reality. It is intellectually dishonest. It runs counter to the spirit of the 1951 U.N. Convention and the subsequent protocol of 1967. It runs counter to the recommendations made by every single group and witness that came before the committee.
Another major flaw is the appeal procedure. The Minister suggested that appeals should be to the Federal Court of

May 21, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Appeal with leave. Once again, the Liberal Party strongly disagrees and believes that the entire refugee determination procedure is only as effective and fair as its appeal process. The Liberal Party favours an oral appeal to a three-member refugee appeal board before proceeding to the Federal Court of Appeal. An additional level of appeal to a specialized body would ensure and safeguard claimants' rights.
It should be noted that the Federal Court lacks the expertise in refugee law and understanding of international and individual country situations. Also, its mandate precludes it from receiving new factual evidence and reassessing the credibility of the claimant. It is unrealistic to expect that changes and reforms in the Federal Court will take place in the foreseeable future. A competent and specialized appeal body, as advocated by numerous witnesses, must be part of the process and would place an appropriate priority on the important issues of the right to life, liberty and freedom, the absence of which has given rise to the refugee phenomenon.
Another fall-out from this piece of legislation is the silence on the right to legal counsel from the initial stages of the process. The Government does not feel it is necessary or practical to provide individuals with the right to counsel prior to an inquiry. The Liberal Party disagrees once again. We believe that it is necessary to give counsel to all refugees. From the refugee's perspective especially, where his or her liberty or security is in jeopardy, this right becomes all the more important.
Moreover, it is incorrect that some information collected prior to the inquiry, without the presence of counsel, can be used against the claimant. The Liberal Party does not believe this practice to be right or constiutionally fair. Therefore, we ask the Minister to change this very serious flaw.
In his prepared statement the Minister made the decision to slap visa requirements on Portugal. It is amazing that the Government decided to impose visa requirements. Fortunately, due to pressure, it decided to reverse itself at the eleventh hour. Notwithstanding this decision, I believe the Minister has besmirched the good name of an ally and owes the Portugese-Canadian community an apology.
In short, if the process limits access to the process and denies a refugee claimant the right to counsel, and if the process does not, from beginning to end, provide an appropriate and strong appeal for the refugee claimant, how fair is that process? How have we as a country helped the claimant seek refugee status in this country?
In conclusion, I would like to quote from the report of Rabbi Gunther Plaut. He said:
The number of refugees we are asked to admit, and especially the number of inland refugee claimants, is small when compared to the vastness of our land, the wealth of its resources and the peaceful internal and external conditions which are Canada's. To be sure, like everyone else we worry about our own well-being but our adherence to the U.N. Convention, and the incorporation of its principles into Canadian law, are flags we have run up on our pole of moral purpose, and there they must continue to wave.
It is my humble submission, Mr. Speaker, that that flag has been pulled down the pole of morality. This policy is bankrupt of any morality and discussions which have been held over the last number of years. First, there is an absence of right to legal counsel. Second, there is the question of limiting access to the refugee process. Third, there is an absence of a strong and genuine appeal body. Once those three elements are stripped away there is no longer a legitimate, genuine, and effective process which will protect the rights of individuals who are escaping torture and death. It will not protect the interests of Canadians and Canada. I hope that these elements will be changed.
In addition to the legislative changes, I hope that the regulations which the Minister has highlighted will be subject to a parliamentary debate so that we can expand on our principles on the floor of the House of Commons, thus informing Canadians of what really lies behind the ten-page statement we just heard from the Minister.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I am happy to respond to the Minister's announcement. I welcome the fact that he has made an announcement, although it is a matter of great regret that there has been so much delay. I am personally satisfied that it was possible for me to withdraw my legal action which would have required the Minister to respond. I am very pleased that he has now finally responded.
After a long delay we have a report by the Government which contains about five good points and about six serious flaws. The report of Rabbi Plaut, which is universally praised, was due in December of 1984. It was received by the Minister before April, according to what the Minister said in a committee. It was not made available until the end of June. Then of course it was referred to the standing committee for consideration. There was a half-year delay. Then the reports of the standing committee were tabled in November and December, and neither of them had the substantial response required and envisaged by the rules, until at least a month or two later. We are told now that the program will not begin until mid-July. However, we at last have something in front of us.
As I say, there are five good points. I believe they will be unanimously supported by all sides of the House because they were unanimously supported by the standing committee. There is the matter of an oral hearing for all claimants, as the Supreme Court required more than a year ago, although it has not yet of course been put into action. We are told, however, it will be at some point. There is the matter of an independent and well-informed decision-making body. This is true up to a point, according to the Minister's announcement, but only put to a point. I will come back to that and the matter of the very shabby appeal provision. There is the matter of the new convention refugee determination board with full and parttime members. That is also good. There is the matter of the non-adversarial format for the hearings which was also asked
May 21, 1986

for. There is the matter of a two-member expert panel, requiring one to find in favour, but both if the decision is to be against the refugee's claim. These are points strongly supported by all the public witnesses, church representatives, the Bar Association, and refugee serving organizations which came before and were unanimously supported by the committee. I believe there should be no difficulty in putting these into effect through this House.
However, there are, as I say, serious flaws in what the Minister has proposed and I hope he will give them further consideration. The appeal system is not satisfactory. There was a Justice of either the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court who told a gathering in Hart House in February of 1982 that the Federal Court is not the place to handle refugee questions. It has neither the time nor the expertise. Furthermore, since the question in a refugee claim is almost always one of credibility of the claimant, and that is the very question which is almost entirely excluded from the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal, an appeal will be almost entirely useless for most claimants who may seek one. It is in that respect that I say the independent and well-informed decisionmaking process is only partly present. It is present, I hope, in the board, but there is no provision for making it present in the Federal Court of Appeal.
My second concern is that the limitation on access is very loosely handled in the statement we have where it says "Those granted prior protection in another country". It is not at all clear whether we are talking about a country which according to its laws has solemnly granted that protection and that protection will not be reversable. It is not clear whether that is what we are talking about or whether we are talking about some official at an airport who says "You came from such a country and we are going to send you back, you have prior protection".
Third, there is a harsh time limit considering that the right of counsel is still denied at the port of entry. It is not at all clear that a refugee will have a reasonable time to prepare his case.
Fourth, there is the question of the backlog and who is eligible. That is not defined here. It may be made clear later on but it is not defined on page seven. It says individuals whose claims have not been initiated, and so on, will have their refugee claim dealt with swiftly. That is a very vague statement. Furthermore, we are not told how it will be handled swiftly and whether they will have a proper right of appeal.
There is also a very ominous statement in the original draft, which has perhaps now been dropped, that a visa requirement may be imposed suddenly on a country to serve as a prompt deterrent to further abuse when there is an increase in claims. In other words, the Minister is taking the view that as soon as there is an increase in claims it is an abuse. If there was a right-wing coup in Chile and refugee claims rose, then that would be considered an abuse and a visa would be slapped on. The same in El Salvador and Guatemala and other countries.
Petitions
In other words, genuine refugees are then suggested to be abusers.
In conclusion, I want to say that the many Canadian citizens who the Minister has acknowledged, citizens who helped to settle about a quarter of all the refugees, who have helped at all stages of the process, those who asked for a better report than this on the six points I have named, should be heard because they are the ones on whom the Minister says he depends for help in settlement. They should be heard through the medium of a debate in this House and in its committees. In particular, the regulations on the backlog which have not been spelled out in any kind of detail must be heard in a committee, or we will find ourselves with the same system of injustice from which we are trying to escape.


PETITIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and privilege to present a petition signed by many residents of Stratford, Ontario; Halifax, Nova Scotia; and Calgary, Alberta. They are protesting changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which see pension income treated as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes. The petitioners call upon Members of Parliament and this House in particular to rescind that iniquitous provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to present a petition in this House on behalf of numerous citizens of this country from British Columbia and Alberta. They are very seriously concerned about the removal of unemployment insurance benefits for currently active and retired Armed Forces members. This Government has, without consultation, changed the ground rules and the petitioners urge the Government to reconsider this position, play fair with them, and reinstate their benefits.


Raymond John Skelly: I have a second petition from numerous people who live and work on the coast of British Columbia. It is the intention of the Government to automate lighthouses and remove their capacity to provide search and rescue communications and accurate weather briefings. Many fishermen and mariners have lost their lives on the coast of British Columbia because of a lack of this information. The fact that the Government is willing to shut these down will wreak great hardship on those who must live and work on the coast of British Columbia and depend on marine and air services, which in turn depend on the services provided by lighthouses. The petitioners urge that these

May 21, 1986
Introduction of Bills
lighthouses not be decommissioned and turned into automated lights and fog-horns.


David Edward Crombie: for leave to introduce Bill C-110, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, Reed Inc., Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd., the Islington Indian Band and the Grassy Narrows Indian Band.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House or later this day?


David Edward Crombie: Later this day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By consent? Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 546 and 547?


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): 1.	Since 1960, have violent incidents taken place at embassy locations within the National Capital Region and, if so, which embassies were directly affected and on how many occasions?
2.	Since 1960, how many threats of violent incidents were received within the National Capital Region and directed at which embassies?
3.	What amount is spent annually by the RCMP to protect embassy locations within the National Capital Region?


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Yes, the following incidents took place at
embassy locations within the National Capital Region since
1960:		
Date	Victim/Target	Incident1961	Indian First Secretary	Assassination1966	Cuban Embassy	Bombing1967	Yugoslav Embassy	Bombing1969	Lebanese Embassy	Occupation1972	Cuban Ambassador's Residence	Bombing1972	Cuban Embassy	Bombing1972	Israeli Officials	Bombing1974	Cuban Embassy	Bombing1977	Indian High Commission	Bombing1981	Iranian Embassy	OccupationAttempted1985	Turkish Embassy	Armed Takeover1986	Bahamian High Commission	Hostage Taking
In answer to Part 2, we are unable to answer this question for security reasons.
In answer to Part 3, the figure for the total cost administrative and operational for the fiscal year 1984-1985 is $7,037,000.
For 1985-1986, the cost figure from April 1, 1985 to February 28, 1986, for administrative and operation expenses is $6,596,000. Total financial figures for the year 1985-1986 are not yet available.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): Did the United States State Department indicate that the proposed Ottawa site for the new U.S. Embassy on Sussex Drive was unacceptable and, if so, on what date and for what reasons?


John B. Stewart: On December 10, 1984, the Acting Charge d'Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa informed the General Manager of the NCC in writing that the U.S. Department of State had determined that the proposed site for the new U.S. Embassy on Sussex Drive had very serious shortcomings from a security standpoint. In subsequent discussions with U.S. officials, it was learned that the State Department no longer considered the Sussex Drive site acceptable due to the fact that this site no longer met the State Department's increased security requirements, in particular with respect to setbacks of the building from the nearest public road.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 21, 1986


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, this day's sitting will be extended by 25 minutes.