1987-08-28

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, August 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 10(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 1(c) and 8, because this House believes that amendments 1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (b), 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6, 7(a) and (b), 9 and 10(b) and (c) are in contradiction to the principles of the Bill which will increase intellectual property protection, increase research and development in Canada, create new high-technology jobs, improve the health care of Canadians, and protect consumers from higher drug prices. More specifically:
Amendments 1(a) and (b) delete the definitions of "Board" and "patentee". These definitions are necessary to support the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers.
Amendments 2(a) and (b) reduce Canada's export potential and fine chemical manufacturing.
Amendments 3, 4(a) and (b), reduce the periods of market exclusivity, thus eliminating the incentive for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendment 5(a) reduces the period of market exclusivity and export potential, thus reducing economic benefits for Canada.
Amendment 5(b) deletes the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers, and this amendment also removes the protection for Canadian-invented medicines and thus the incentives for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendments 6, 7(a) and (b), 10(b) and (c) arise out of amendments 1(a) and (b), 2, 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendment 9 arises out of Senate amendment 8, but is not consistent with the House amendment to Senate amendment 8, as set out below.
And, that:
Senate amendment 1(c) be amended to read as follows: "(c) Strike out lines 35 to 42 and add the following:
(2) For the purpose of sections 41.11 to 41.16, the notice of compliance that is first issued for either the original and distinct chemical composition of a medicine or the obvious chemical equivalent of the medicine shall be deemed to be the first notice of compliance issued in respect of that medicine."
Senate amendment 8 be amended to read as follows: "insert the heading "Transitional" and the following as clause 31:
31.(1) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shall pay to each province for each of the fiscal years commencing in the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1991, for the purpose of research and development relating to medicine, an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(i)	$25 million by
(ii)	the total population of all provinces for the fiscal year in respect of
which the payment is made, by
(b)	the population of the province for the fiscal year in respect of which the
payment is made.
(2)	Payment of any amount under this section shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such times and in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the population of a province for a fiscal year shall be the population of that province on the first day of June of that year as determined and published by the Chief Statistician of Canada."
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. 1 think the debate on Bill C-22 is proceeding. We are now calling it for the fifth day. We are naturally anxious that this Bill, which will do quite a bit for investment in Canada and jobs, proceed and be sent back to the Senate. Hopefully our motion will be granted. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the question be now put.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have just been caught by surprise. That is a debatable motion and I would like to address it, but not at any length.
I am happy to address the Hon. Member as the "Minister" now because yesterday he was elevated to that position. I want to offer him my congratulations, as well as those of all of us.


Mr. Murphy:: That was his first mistake.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: As the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has just reminded me, he has just made his first mistake. He is not usually the type who catches us by much surprise but sometimes he does these things and we do like to be given proper notice.
It is usually the procedure and the habit of the Government
to give us fair notice of what is going to be debated in the
House. We were told yesterday that we would be dealing with

August 28, 1987
Patent Act
Bill C-71 this morning. As a result, I asked people who understand Bill C-71 and who want to debate it to be here.
I understood also that the Government was going to call the debate on the amendments from the Senate on Bill C-22 which was to follow Bill C-71. 1 also expected the Minister, before Orders of the Day were called, by using Standing Order 57, to invoke closure, of which the Government had given notice through the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board two days ago. Therefore, I must admit that it was with some amazement at the Minister's sudden and, I would add, unexpected move, that I now rise to speak.
Two days ago 1 told the Minister that our leader, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), had spoken, and spoken very well I might add, on the issue making the position of the Liberal Party of Canada very clear. 1 had told the House that we believed Bill C-22 was a bad Bill, that we thought it should be amended in the interests of protecting the consumers of Canada, that the Government had caved in to the multinationals and that the Government was giving them what they had asked for in the free trade debate, namely, opened-ended access to the pharmaceutical market without any restrictions on patents. The Government has acceded to those requests from the Americans in the hope of getting a free trade deal. Two days ago I told the Minister, who was then Parliamentary Secretary, that after my Leader spoke we would not put up any additional speakers because we believed strongly that democracy must be given a chance to operate. There has been sufficient debate. We have made our points. The Senate sent back the Bill amended and we accept that as a parliamentary procedure very much in keeping with tradition. The Senate has that right. The Government accepted one of the Senate's amendments, 1 understand. Therefore, the process has worked.
1 do not think it is a question of whether or not the Senate should be abolished because it is doing its work. I think it is a debate on whether or not we will satisfy multinational American companies and others who want us to give up our patent protection on pharmaceutical products. We said at the beginning of this emergency session on August 11 that, indeed, the Government was not calling us back for an immigration crisis, it was calling us back to satisfy its own agenda on the question of the free trade deal.
1 was surprised to see how the Minister, on his first order before the House, changed the Order of the Day. The Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) just handed me a copy of the Projected Order of Business for today. I admit it says at the bottom that the document is intended as a guide but, nevertheless, it contains instructions that were given by the Government to the Table. It does say as 1 mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that Bill C-71 would be the first consideration at 10 this morning.
Having said all that, I say that I will not prolong this debate. I know that the Government with its huge majority will have its way. 1 simply say to the Minister that I hope he shows a little more understanding and operates a little differently in the days and months to come. Consultations with us will bring on better relations between the Parties. Indeed, if we want to carry forth in the spirit of the McGrath reforms, I think it would be appropriate that when we do say something, we mean it. We should stick to our word and should not play games with Members of Parliament. Indeed, in that habit of openness and truthfulness, we will establish reasonably good and fair grounds for debate.
1 do not know if anyone else from my Party will participate on this debate, but I am ready to vote on the question as soon as the debate is over.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, let me preface my brief remarks by saying how pleased we are that the new Minister of State has been given his new responsibilities as Deputy House Leader. We in the New Democratic Party look forward as we always do to working co-operatively with him and his colleagues to facilitate the business of the House of Commons.
Having said that, I must say that it is with a heavy heart that we begin a debate on the patent drug legislation. I find it disappointing that the first order of business the new Minister of State announced was a change of plans.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, and 1 know how committed you are to the effective workings of this House, that we do what we can to conduct the business of Canada as expeditiously and conscientiously as possible. To do that, we as responsible Members of Parliament must have some indication of what the business of the House will be. That indication then allows Hon. Members who are concerned about certain legislation an opportunity to prepare thoughtful remarks and add thoughtful comments to the debate. For us to act responsibly, we require some notice of what the business of the House will be. We cannot expect an Hon. Member to rise in his or her place to speak on legislation that he or she has just heard about seconds earlier.
As the Whip for the Official Opposition indicated, this morning's order of business indicated that the first order of business was to be Bill C-71. We were prepared to deal with that Bill. Our speakers were prepared to offer what 1 felt would have been thoughtful and constructive comments on that legislation. However, we now find that that will not necessarily be the case. 1 am not sure what the case is, but the first order the new Minister of State introduced is, in a sense, a form of closure.
The Minister indicated today that the Government will not tolerate any more amendments to this Bill. I do not know where he got any indication that there would be more amendments to this Bill. I think it is useful to note that this is simply part of a long train of events. At every stage of Bill C-22,
August 28, 1987

debate has been curtailed. I think this is rather unique in recent Canadian parliamentary history. The House of Commons has been muzzled. The Government has used its large majority in a rather jackbooted fashion and has said at every stage that it has had enough discussion on the Bill, it will curtail discussion through time allocation or one form of closure or another. It is not surprising that as we wrap up this discussion, once again the Government is telling us that it has had enough and it will begin cutting off any opportunity for debate. That is essentially what the new Minister of State said this morning.
This is distressing because we all want to get on with the business of governing Canada. We want to play our roles as government Members or as effective opposition Members. It is impossible to do that if we are not allowed to debate issues, if the Government uses its huge majority to muzzle Parliamentarians and say that it will not allow free speech or free and open debate on this or that issue.
If this is any indication of what we can expect from the new Minister of State in his role of assisting the business of the House of Commons, it will be a very, very dark fall for open parliamentary democracy in Canada. We are here to debate. We are here to work. We are here to discuss the issues of the day in a responsible, thoughtful and constructive way. To do that, there cannot be last-minute changes.
I suppose this tells us as opposition Members and, through us, the people of Canada, that the Government is out of control. It has no agenda. It does not know what it is trying to accomplish.


An Hon. Member:: Get serious.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear people saying, "Get serious, Nelson". Fair enough. I beg the government House Leader and the new Minister of State to begin to lay out some kind of a strategy. I think we are far beyond the day when we have to come here at 10 a.m. or 11 a.m. to find out what we will do during the day. Surely to goodness a Government with such a vast majority can say, "This is our plan for the next few days, the next few weeks or the next few months". But no; day by day, hour by hour, we wonder what the Government is going to do. This sends a very clear signal that the Government does not know what it is going to do. It is directionless. It is leaderless. It has no idea what its parliamentary agenda is and, by definition, it has no idea of what its government agenda is.
On behalf of all Members of the House of Commons, and I mean as well government Members who offer constructive and useful comments during debate on various sides of an issue, I beg the government House Leader and the new Minister of State to try to work with Members of Parliament and to lay out a strategy that has a longer term than five minutes. The Government might then begin to give some indication that it is in charge of its own agenda and has an idea of where it is going.
Patent Act
I apologize for making these rather harsh comments so early the day after we sat so late. However, I am very worked up, and very disappointed with the new Minister. Normally we enjoy working with him. It is unfortunate that his first order of business is to curtail debate and muzzle Parliament. In a sense he is using the jackboot tactics we have seen at every stage of Bill C-22 and it is unfortunate that we are seeing it once again today.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo and elaborate on the comments of my House Leader. I find this a very unusual procedure. The motion before us is that the question be now put. I do not have to explain the rules to you, but that prevents any amendments to the main motion with which we are dealing. The debate on that motion started last Friday. It was debated almost every day this week. There has not been one single amendment offered by a member of the Liberal Party or the NDP, or even by the Conservatives. Why move a motion saying there will be no more amendments?
We indicated as late as 2.15 a.m. to the new Minister of State that we were not going to be doing anything unusual or using any procedural tricks. We had no intention of making any amendments. The Liberals indicated the same thing. Therefore the motion is completely unnecessary. In fact, it seems to work against co-operation among the Parties.
I can tell you, as I have told the Government, we had about three more Members who were eligible and available to speak today. Obviously this legislation was going to be completed some time today. However, we are now in a situation where all the people who have spoken since Monday are now eligible to speak again. This motion works against the Government's intentions. I now have a bunch of people who are eligible to make another speech on Bill C-22. This is completely illogical and shows that the Government did not know what it is doing. At the same time, it unnecessarily antagonizes the Opposition.
When you talk to the new Minister, the person responsible for the progress of legislation in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), and tell him that you are not going to obstruct, that you expect the legislation to be completed Monday at the latest but probably today, you assume that is acceptable. He has been in the House since last Friday when the debate commenced and he knows we have run out of speakers. It is obvious. Given an opposition Party the size of ours with 33 Members, when you speak for five days on the same topic you are going to run out of speakers. The Liberals with 40 Members are going to do the same thing. Therefore I have to ask the new Minister of State why he would do something which only provokes the Opposition and at the same time enables it to prolong the debate for another week if it desires.
I think this really shows the paranoid attitude of the Government towards Bill C-22. Yesterday we had a bunch of
Patent Act

August 28, 1987
Tory back-benchers ranting and raving because the CBC did not cover for two nights in a row the hired demonstrators outside on the Hill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: Is that a nice way to talk about Canadian workers?


Rodney Edward Murphy: That was the situation. That was the concern of the Conservative back-benchers. They did not talk about unemployment or problems in their ridings. They were concerned about what the CBC did or did not cover on The National last night. Then today at ten o'clock when the House convenes we have a motion put which allows the Opposition to drag out this legislation for another week when the Government knew we had no intention of doing so. I really do not feel 1 would be upset if one of our Members had a few more words to say. The Government has now given us the opportunity to make one more speech per Member.
We do not intend to stall the legislation. We intend to keep our word despite the provocation and tactical stupidity of the new Minister. It was completely stupid and completely unnecessary and I think in some ways unforgivable and I hope he will apologize to Members of the House.


Mr. Beatty:: I hope you will apologize to the workers of Canada.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, 1 hope to speak briefly about the Government's tactics in just a few minutes, but I want to speak about the main motion which rejects the majority of Senate amendments to the Patent Act.
I am reminded of a Vancouver woman who some years ago married an up-coast logger and went to live with him at his float camp on an isolated inlet in British Columbia. In the first week at her new residence she decided she was going to bake some fresh bread for her new husband as a special treat. Something went wrong and the bread did not rise properly. Not wanting her husband to make fun of her when he came home, she decided to get rid of the bread. She took it out and threw it into the salt chuck. However, if the bread did not rise properly, it would not sink either. Instead, the tide carried it out, but not very far. The next tide carried it right back in. When her husband came home there was this ungodly-looking mess for him to see and ask what it was all about. For the next several days the tide would carry the bread out and then bring it right back.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, but she cast her bread on the waters.


James Douglas Manly: Now we have Bill C-22 back on our doorstep when it should have been given a decent burial.
I suppose I should congratulate the Government on one
significant achievement with regard to Bill C-22. Perhaps it is
the Government's most significant achievement over the past
three years. It is something that none of us could have expected. With Bill C-22 the Government made the Senate look good. Only a reactionary Tory Government playing sycophant to Uncle Sam and the American drug industry could have made that obsolete, undemocratic relic of 19th century colonialism, filled with Liberal patronage appointments, look good. The Government has managed to do that and I say, congratulations.
The Government has now announced closure. That is not surprising. Every stage of this Bill has been rammed through by the Government with some form of closure or time allocation. The Conservatives have not been willing to allow the debate on this issue to run its full course. They have had to introduce some form of closure to ram it through.
All of us, opposition Members as well as Government, would like to be able to salvage a little bit of the summer. We are not anxious to prolong any debate. However, the NDP wants to see that the issues are properly raised, and in spite of my own personal wish to be back on Vancouver Island visiting my constituency and enjoying the sunshine, the beaches and beautiful scenery, I am not going to abdicate my responsibility to speak out against a Bill which is so contrary to the interests of ordinary Canadians.
During the last couple of days we have seen a few demonstrators on Parliament Hill calling for passage of C-22. I have no doubt that those people are sincere, even though 1 understand their pilgrimage here was heavily subsidized by the drug companies. The Tories claim that somehow this demonstration represents strong grassroots support for Bill C-22. If that were really the case I think the Government would have wanted to let the movement build a little before killing it by bringing in closure. If this measure were all that popular with the Canadian people would it not be natural for the Government to let the Canadians see that the Opposition is just being obstructionist?
Instead the Government is bringing in closure because it does not want the people to see this debate. The Government knows that the more Canadians know about this Bill the more they will oppose it. Any window dressing such as the demonstration the other day does not really convince the Government that it has any real popular support.
We have documented time and again the real reasons for this Bill. It is an appetizer for American business interests as they get ready for the great free trade barbeque. Perhaps a little bit of history would help us understand. Up until 1969 Canadians paid the highest drug prices in the world. Under this Bill we will revert to those times.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, let us remember the words of Joe Wallace who said:
Ours is a sovereign nation Bows to no foreign will But whenever they cough in Washington
August 28, 1987

They spit on Parliament Hill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5) the division stands deferred until six o'clock p.m., Monday, August 31, 1987.


CRIMINAL CODE, IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 AND CITIZENSHIP ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are five motions at report stage of Bill C-71, all standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer). All of these motions were moved in committee and debated there and all of them were negatived. It is with regret, therefore, that I must inform the Hon. Member that under the powers granted to me by the Standing Orders none of his motions will be selected for debate at report stage.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Criminal Code


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to address this Bill at third reading. I shall not take a lot of the time of the House because I know there is an interest in proceeding quickly to pass this Bill at third reading.
Bill C-71 flows out of the efforts of the Government, through the setting up of the Deschenes Commission, to examine the issue of war crimes. I believe the Deschenes Commission served a very worthwhile purpose for our country. It put to rest the nagging question of whether or not there are Second World War criminals in Canada who were either allowed here illegally or came here legally having somehow escaped paying any penalty for their actions during World War II.
I believe the commission served a very useful purpose for a great many people, those who suffered under a threat that there may have been some wrong-doing, and others who suffered under no threat but wanted the matter cleared up. I believe that a great service was done for the country in the settling, once and for all, through the Deschenes Commission, of exactly who should be prosecuted and what laws should be put in place to enable that prosecution.
Bill C-71 was debated for a short time in the House and went to committee where it had a full hearing. My colleague, the Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer), who is interested in this subject, had the opportunity at committee to move his amendments. They were defeated in committee and the Chair has ruled them out of order. We are, therefore, now on third reading debate.
In conclusion, we are pleased that we have reached third reading of this very important Bill. There seems to be a disposition in the House that this measure receive third reading as soon as possible in order that prosecutions under this law can proceed. I would like to thank the members of both opposition Parties for their efforts and their co-operation.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, we have reached an important stage today in the making of Canada into a truly just and civilized society. We are finally giving third reading to a Bill which will, when passed by the Senate and proclaimed, give the criminal justice system of Canada the tool for bringing war criminals present in Canada to justice within our own country.
I want to congratulate the Government for bringing the Bill to the stage which has been reached today. I want to acknowledge, as the Minister has, the co-operation which he has received from the Official Opposition and from the NDP. That co-operation was more than necessary due to the urgency of dealing with this matter.

August 28, 1987
Criminal Code
As 1 say, the country has become a more just society because of the step being taken today, but it is almost too late because, albeit not exclusively, in the main the Bill is directed toward bringing to justice individuals responsible for some of the worst crimes committed in the history of mankind. These crimes were committed with the aid of official government policy and with the resources of the state. They were committed, with the technology that our modern civilization has created, and were directed toward the killing of innocent men, women and children.
Why is it necessary to bring these war criminals to justice so many years later? There are many reasons. I grew up as a member of the Jewish community, safe in Canada, but knowing of the holocaust being perpetrated in Europe and having relatives there, knowing of the unsuccessful efforts that millions made before the Second World War to come to Canada and other countries where the doors were closed. Following the war there was a long period when nothing at all was done by any of the countries which should have been interested, because of their commitment during the war and the victory for which they were responsible.
In the course of the last four or five years public opinion has finally come to recognize that the greatest crimes of all time might go unpunished, unpunished with the complicity of democratic countries that should have known better and which have a rich tradition of being committed to righting wrongs and seeing justice done. Why do we have to do it now?
Sometimes 1 hear people make the point that it is inevitable that people are killed in wars, and one should not make a special point of characterizing the act of war, when innocent people are killed, as one that should attract special punishment after the war is over. One hears people say that it happened, it is over, and we should try to forget and put the past behind us.
However, we must remember that the deaths we are talking about, in the overwhelming majority of cases, were not of people who were killed in the course of war. They were not people who died because their cities were bombed. They were not people who were struck by bullets straying from the valid targets of both sides in a war.
We are talking about an evil-as I think it can only be characterized-demographic policy of the Nazis which was not enforced during an actual battle. We are talking about events which took place in city after city, country after country, during the war, after a battle, after a military authority was established in each jurisdiction. There was an evil demographic policy by which people in the captive nations were rounded up and placed in concentration camps.
That is an act that could not have been done during actual fighting, but after the fighting and during the establishment of fascist governments in each of these jurisdictions. Innocent people were rounded up and systematically slaughtered, using all of the resources of the state. Hard pressed railway lines
were being diverted, and hard pressed administrators, with a losing war to continue, were taking time out of their busy schedule-if I can put it in that bizarre fashion-to kill millions and millions of innocent people who had been captured, including Ukrainians, Jews, and gypsies. People of every nationality were rounded up for slaughter. To say that this type of conduct can be forgiven after a war, because it happened in the course of a war, is unthinkable and totally unacceptable. 1 am pleased to see that this is recognized in the measure we are passing today with the support of all three Parties.
People also ask how one can prove cases. We can look at the Demjanjuk trial in Jerusalem. I had the opportunity three weeks ago to spend a day talking with the individuals involved in the conduct of the trial about some of the issues of evidence. In Israel, as in Canada, the highest standards of evidence continue to be applied. There must be absolute respect for the rule of law.
I am glad to note that nothing in this legislation diminishes in any way the safeguards which are available to any individual charged with any serious crime in Canada. 1 know that if it were otherwise it would be difficult to defend the legislation. However, now, even 43 years later, prosecution is still possible. I am looking forward with great anticipation to such trials.
I had responsibility for many aspects of the Rauca trial when it occurred. It was an extradition proceeding and I was concerned with the preparation of evidence and submission of evidence. I can assure the House that none of the safeguards of evidence that are required for any other accused person will be denied to individuals who are prosecuted under the law which is being brought forward today. It is a feature of the law which I very much commend.
Let me make one final point in this connection. One sometimes hears an argument against prosecuting war criminals because war criminals have suffered enough and have lived for decades with the full knowledge of their crime. I will refer to the case of Helmut Rauca. Helmut Rauca, who lived a few blocks from my constituency for 30 years, killed with his own actual physical involvement 15,400 people in one day. All of the evidence brought in that extradition trial related to Mr. Rauca's activities in one day.
After the city had been secured by German military forces, the Gestapo moved in, rounded up innocent people who were sleeping and waiting anxiously in their homes, took them to a central plaza in the city and shipped them to their deaths. Some argue that conduct like that must weigh heavily on an individual, and knowing that they could have been subject to prosecution all those years must have filled them with horror and remorse.
1 watched the trials that have occurred over the last few years. I hope Canadians watched the Barbie trial which was widely reported here in Canada, and the Rauca trial. You do not see individuals who have suffered great remorse. Of course, we are not yet in a position to draw a conclusion in the
August 28, 1987

Demjanjuk trial. However, in case after case where conclusions have been reached, one sees individuals who feel totally justified in what they did. They have their own explanations. When the facts are out and undeniable, and the conviction obtained, we see individuals who feel totally justified in what they did. It is a situation that cannot be left unremedied in a civilized nation.
I am not naive enough, as I hope no one is, to think that, with the power man has to commit atrocities like those which were committed in World War II, it will never happen again. I believe it can happen again, but I feel that the measure we have taken today in passing this legislation is one factor which will be borne in mind by those who would commit such atrocities in the future. They will keep in mind that there will be no safe haven in any fair-minded, decent country in the world.
I think the main reaction of Canadians when the Rauca case developed was that they were appalled. They were appalled to realize that among us there were unpunished individuals who had committed those crimes, whose identity, in some cases, were known to the Government or to other individuals, yet nothing had been done about it for decades.
In passing this legislation, we are sending a strong message about our civilization. The message is that that type of conduct will not go unpunished. Even 10 years, 20 years, 42 and 43 years later, as it is, a decent country will permit no haven. Canada is now becoming one of those countries, and there are a few of them, which are making that statement.
I directed all my remarks so far to the events of World War II. In the committee I proposed an amendment which was actually moved by another member. It was defeated. If enacted, it would have widened the scope of authority to the Attorney General to lay charges against more individuals who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. The definition is limited for reasons which those who are interested can read. They were put forward in the committee. But to my way of thinking the scope of the legislation should have been broader.
As I indicated on second reading, I thought that war criminals and criminals guilty of crimes against humanity, have appeared not only in the forum of World War II, and not only in western Europe, but in other places, in Asia, Central America and Africa. I ask anyone who thinks World War II could never happen again, that the Holocaust could never happen again, to look at some of these places in the world I mentioned where crimes have occurred and where survivors and others from that country have come to our country and made Canada their homeland.
We cannot ignore the injustices and crimes which, within their lifetime, have been committed against them if those guilty of committing those crimes have also come to our country. We cannot say that we want to bring justice, in the
Criminal Code
World War II context, but that we want to ignore it in relation to crimes against humanity which have occurred in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the other places I mentioned. As an example, I could mention Haiti which was much in the news about a ytear ago. I wanted a law which would be broad enough to ensure that, by our very high standards of justice, where a case could be made against an individual present in Canada, by witnesses who could come to Canada, or who are in Canada, and tell their story, that that would be done. The Government can correctly point out that the legislation is not directed only toward World War II, but it could have been broader.
I had some other amendments I wanted to explain as well to the House, but I see that with eleven o'clock approaching we may lose the opportunity to give third reading to the Bill right now, and I would very much like that to be done.


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, let me begin, in the time remaining, by stating very clearly that in my opinion Bill C-71 is a positive step to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act, after decades of neglect, of pretending the problem did not exist and of cover up. It is the first serious attempt by a Canadian Government to bring war criminals and those who committed crimes against humanity to justice. Yet, in my opinion, the Bill has a serious flaw. It should have been amended to comply with the principles of equity and civil liberties in Canadian law.
As it now reads, the Bill differentiates between crimes committed during periods of war and crimes committed during periods when Canada is not at war. But the problem is not in the differentiation of crimes. It is in the discrimination of the current wording of the Bill, levels against perpetuation of crimes against humanity when Canada was not involved in armed conflict. Clause 1(a) states that the crime must be committed by a Canadian citizen or an employee of Canada in a civilian or military capacity, by a citizen of a country with which Canada is at war. The victim must be either a Canadian citizen or a citizen of an allied state while Canada is at war. Clause 1(b), dealing with non-wartime crimes, states that at the time of the crime Canada would, in conformity with international law, exercise jurisdiction over the person with respect to the act or omission on the basis of the person's presence in Canada and subsequent to the time of the crime the person is present in Canada. No such restrictions are required for crimes committed while Canada is at war.
While in theory the Bill will permit prosecution of Canadian residents for any war crime or crime against humanity committed anywhere, the complex wording of the Bill would make it easier to prosecute some war criminals than others. The Bill may work well against suspected Nazis from World War II, but would allow others to escape justice; for example, former Soviet citizens who helped orchestrate the state imposed Ukrainian famine of 1933. To have easier access to the courts for some crimes than for others risks making the

August 28, 1987
Criminal Code
victims of some crimes feel their sufferings are being slighted and that Canada is treating them as lesser human beings.
Moreover, there is a risk that with two equally well documented crimes, one falling into paragraph 1(a) and the other falling into paragraph 1(b), the latter could fail to reach the courts due to an erroneous, narrow view of the Crown prosecutors as to what international law permits.
I am sure all Canadians would agree that any legislation dealing with war criminals should be of a quality sufficient to ensure that all and any war criminals found in Canada, regardless of when the crime took place, or of the criminals religious, ethnic or racial origin, are brought to trial in Canada under Canadian criminal law. In other words, a crime is a crime and a victim is a victim regardless of when and where the crime occurs.
The Government argues that the current wording of the Bill in fact meets these stringent requirements. For the sake of justice, I hope my interpretation is wrong and that the Government's interpretation is correct.
In closing, let me again congratulate the Government and both justice critics from the Opposition Parties for their cooperation and for bringing a " made in Canada" solution to this very important problem.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976, and the Citizenship Act. It is an honour because this legislation represents the culmination of a great deal of work by many, many people. At the same time, this legislation will bring about the opportunity for justice to be served against those responsible for the heinous crimes against humanity committed over 40 years ago.
It is important that we never forget these crimes or allow the perpetrators of them to continue to live freely. We must always be vigilant in order that the racism, hatred and anti-Semitism that was the foundation of Nazi ideology cannot be repeated. Such crimes against humanity are unimaginable still to this day, yet they must be imagined and remembered. It is, therefore, a tribute today in passing this Bill in the House of Commons to the memory of the millions who were murdered at the hands of war criminals.
It is never too late and, although the Canadian Government under previous administrations has a shameless record in this area, I would today recognize the work of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), who have had a continuing interest in this area for many years. As well, the former Minister of Justice, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), deserves full recognition for appointing the Commission of Inquiry into War Criminals back in February, 1985. It was this Commission, ably led by Mr. Justice Deschenes, that has been the focus of our work for the past two and a half years. His report is a landmark in the area
of war criminals. It served as the basis for this important legislation.
As well, the work of Mrs. Alti Rodal which was commissioned by Justice Deschenes should also be recognized today. Her study was both comprehensive and eloquent. We still urge the Government today to act upon Mrs. Rodal's request and the recommendation of the Deschenes Commission and release the entire study Nazi War Criminals in Canada.
One final group has been crucial to the passage of this legislation. I would like to give recognition today to the North American Jewish Students' Network. This group provided hours worth of meticulous and concise research, not only for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, but also for all other committee members. Special recognition should be given to Mr. Ken Narvey who worked tirelessly in order that this legislation would be passed. I know that all Members of the House appreciate the work he has done.
Canadians have witnessed many, many times the trials in recent years. We all feel very strongly that justice has been meted out in appropriate terms as individuals who committed heinous crimes have been recognized in terms of the dastardly deeds they committed.
The question often raised is this. Will the Holocaust ever happen again? I think it is only fair that when we look around the world today, whether we look to Africa, Asia, South America or the Caribbean, we find there are crimes being committed against humanity in these parts of the world. It is important more than ever before that Canada not become a hide-out, a safe haven for those individuals who have been involved in perpetrating these heinous crimes.
Finally, we must now look to the future. This legislation will be passed shortly. The work will then be turned over to the special team assembled at the Department of Justice. It is important that we have reached this stage in the legislation. The New Democratic Party calls upon the Minister of Justice, as was strongly recommended by Mr. Justice Deschenes in recommendation 81-c, to ensure that ample financial resources be given to this team in order that the work it carries out is thorough and complete.
Clearly, after 42 years of inaction we owe it not only to the memories of those who have died but also to their families who have suffered in surviving.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
August 28, 1987


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Price Waterhouse study was submitted, it was clear that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion-he must have had a dressing-down by the Prime Minister, and we saw the results in the Cabinet shuffle-that in recent weeks and months the Minister had failed in his duty to Parliament and the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that several times during the past few weeks, I raised the subject of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and more specifically, the fact that the Department was completely "broke". And every time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister categorically denied what we said. He said it was false, and today, we see that we were right about this grim state of affairs, and it has cost him his Cabinet post.
I think we have every reason to congratulate Price Waterhouse on their study, but we also have many reasons to be concerned about the way this Government is administering its departments. One wonders how a Minister could let his own Department get into such a mess. We happened to pick on this particular Department but I get the impression that many Ministers spend more time doing just about everything except administering their Department efficiently. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister who has some experience in financial administration, will restore the necessary controls in his new post because frankly, the former Minister failed utterly.



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, all too often the role that our seniors play in society is seriously underestimated and overlooked. Life does not stop after retirement. Our seniors can, and do, play a vital role in all aspects of Canadian life.
Yesterday Canada's seniors received long overdue, proper parliamentary recognition. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) set a wonderful precedent when he appointed my colleague, the Hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), as the Minister of State for Senior Citizens.
This is an historic initiative for all seniors, as they now have a direct voice to represent their concerns in Parliament.
Bert Hanmer, one of my constituents and a lifetime member of the Senior Citizens Council of Ottawa-Carleton, and all of his golden era colleagues, will now be able to make representations to Parliament through this wise, caring and experienced Minister.
After all that the seniors of our country have done and continue to do for Canada I am sure that every Member of the House welcomes this new Ministry.
Congratulations, Mr. Hees!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



HERBICIDES


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I was shocked this morning to see a sign on the West Block lawn stating: "This area treated with herbicide. Use at your own risk". "Secteur traite a I'herbicide. A vos risques".
The lawns of the House of Commons have always been a people place. They are not only to be well kept so that they are attractive to look at, but they should also be kept as an area that can be safely used and enjoyed by the people of Canada. Even crab-grass is better than herbicide. But lawn maintenance should not require herbicides.
The House of Commons should set an example for ecological sanity in a world that is turning irresponsible use of herbicides and pesticides into world suicide.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) announced that $18 million in new funding would be given to the granting councils to support university research. On Tuesday, August 25, the former Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina) announced that $30 million in new funding would be provided to the Unsolicited Proposals Program, a program to promote advanced technology manufacturing.
Yesterday, the Minister of State for Science and Technology announced that the Government will be providing $28 million in new funding to the National Research Council to support the I RAP, one of our most successful industrial programs. This program helps small companies use research developed at our universities and in government laboratories. Larkin

August 28, 1987
Kerwin, President of the National Research Council, said: "This is very welcome news, both for the NRC and the industrial sector".
The Government consulted with industry and the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) advisory board before making the decision to supply the extra funding to IRAP. The increased support for IRAP demonstrates the Government's commitment to research and technology.



HOUSING


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, the public housing situation in Metro Toronto has reached desperate proportions-5,900 families are on the list of those waiting for public housing. At the end of June the number had climbed to 7,200, and with the influx of college and university students at this time of year the number has greatly increased. Some 700 to 1,000 of these families are truly desperate.
Unsuspected is the effect of this crisis on children. These families pay so much for rent that they can only afford housing that is not big enough for their families, and there is not enough money left for food and clothing. The effect on the children is that they are doing poorly at school for lack of sleep, illness as a result of stress, and lack of ability to remain clean. A lack of proper cooking facilities in the home leads to bad nutrition-and the list goes on.
1 call on all levels of government to establish immediately an ad hoc committee to investigate this urgent matter. I urge the Minister responsible for housing to take leadership in this issue. The future of our children in Metro Toronto depends on it.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, many people who have high unpaid credit card balances are often given advice to go to the bank and meet with their friendly bank manager and arrange a consumer loan. This sounds wonderful until they try to practise it.
Many people have written to me and indicated that when they approach certain banks they cannot obtain a loan unless it is much larger than the amount they need. Others who go into other banks find that small loans are available at the same interest rates as those charged on a credit card. Clearly the
objective is to tie the consumer by the chains of excessive interest.
I hope that there will be widespread all-Party support for a Bill that I intend to introduce which will offer more protection to consumers.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, two days ago more than 2,500 people who were investors in the two failed Principal Group companies gathered in an Edmonton sports arena to hear first hand how they were victimized by an incompetent and, many feel, fraudulent use of their money.
These investors purchased investment certificates that they were told were guaranteed in full by assets held by the Principal Group with Canadian chartered banks. However, the real story is quite different. It has now been revealed that these assets were seriously over-valued. When the assets are liquidated they will cover no more than 60 per cent of the losses faced by the investors. We heard this story before when the Canadian Commercial Bank collapsed, when Northland Bank collapsed, and when Pioneer Trust and other financial institutions bit the dust.
This deception of both investors and depositors must stop. The New Democratic Party wishes a closer co-operation between provincial and federal regulators to ensure that the financial institutions meet the most stringent test of managerial competence and honesty. Farmers, working families, senior citizens, and others should not be left out in the cold when unscrupulous and incompetent financial managers fail to live up to their promises.
1 urge the Government to be vigilant and take action to improve regulation and supervision, sponsor a full public inquiry into the matter, and introduce legislation that requires waiver forms to be signed if CDIC or other insurance does not apply to a deposit or an investment. This action is an absolute must if we hope to preserve regional financial institutions.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Senate will be asked to follow the lead of the democratically elected with respect to Bill C-22, legislation that according to our calculations will create 1,300 jobs in the province of
August 28, 1987

Quebec and attract $700 million in investment. 1 said according to us, Mr. Speaker, because in the fall of 1986, an article published in Le Devoir economique and signed by Franqoise Cote, predicted 10,000 jobs in Montreal as a result of Bill C-22.
At that time, the New Democratic Party distributed across Canada a form drafted in English: Fund for Fair Drug Prices. In the form Canadians were urged to kill Bill C-22, which would of course kill the 10,000 jobs mentioned in Le Devoir. The form was in English only, and this was also an opportunity to do some campaigning and collect money. Mr. Speaker, this is the form drafted by the Socialists 1 am sorry, it is in English only-:

"Each $100 gift will enable us to send 400 more letters like this one".

Which means letters aimed at killing Bill C-22. The New Democratic Party is using taxpayers' money to campaign against Bill C-22 and against 10,000 jobs in Quebec.
We thank the Socialists on behalf of the province of Quebec and all Francophones in this country. Thank you very so you have been a great help in defending the cause of Bill C-22. We will remember that.



THE CONSTITUTION


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, yesterday private citizen Trudeau appeared before the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord. He was great.
He spoke about the cultivation of a national spirit and of a Canadian patriotism. He said that the proposed Accord weakens the national spirit because it gives greater powers to the provinces and nothing in return to the federal Government. He said that because of the Accord there will be greater powers for the provinces. "It's more than a triumph for provincial patriotism over national patriotism," he said. "This Accord digs right into the very essence of Canadian nationalism. The Accord saps the strength of the elements that compose a modern state".
"Towards one's country, one's nation, one's people," Mr. Trudeau said, "there must be a loyalty greater than the sum of the loyalties toward the provinces". The Accord undermines this greater loyalty.
Canadians appreciate what Mr. Trudeau says. The Accord is not good for Canada.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-GLOBE AND MAIL EDITORIAL

Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, it continues to concern me that many Canadians are living in the dark ages with respect to a new trading arrangement between Canada and the United States. They should read the editorial in The Globe and Mail of August 27. I wish to quote in part from that editorial:
Free trade is coming down to a choice between critical judgment and uncritical opposition . . . free trade's opponents are withdrawing even more aggressively into rigid and negative postures.
How is the national interest served by campaigns on the political left to prejudge a trade agreement with the United States? How are workers protected by purported leaders who reject out of hand the bulk of studies showing significant potential benefits to workers?
We may not get a deal. But why do my colleagues on the left insist on having no real faith in Canadians?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Canadian National has sent out a letter to its pensioners in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. In this letter CN announces that it will be deducting income tax off their pension cheques retroactive to January 1, 1987.
It concerns me that in this letter they refer to income tax increases in the Province of Manitoba. Those income tax increases became effective on July 1, 1987, not January 1, 1987. There is no justification whatever for CN to go back to January 1, 1987, and tell its pensioners that it will be deducting more than normal in these coming six months to make up for the period from January to July when that tax increase was not in effect from January to July.
God knows how it screwed it up with respect to the other provinces, but we know for sure with respect to Manitoba that CN is wrong in the manner it is going ahead with regard to income tax deductions from pensioners' cheques.
I know that pensioners have raised this issue, and I hope that by my raising it here CN will very soon rectify this situation that should not have happened in the first instance.

August 28, 1987
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that yesterday in a major communique the Premiers accused the United States of bad faith in its trade relations with Canada. The Premiers have called upon Canada to take the strongest possible retaliatory actions against the various forms of trade harassment, the latest case being that of potash.
We have received absolutely no response from the Government on the potash issue. There has been no letter of protest, no sign of strong reaction, no effort to deal with what could be the destruction of a major industry in this country.
In light of that demand by the Premiers that we use all strategic instruments possible to retaliate against the trade harassment by the United States on the potash issue, among others, what does the Government intend to do about that demand? Will we receive some action?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member finally realizes that there is a protectionist mood in the United States which has been developing for some time.
Three years ago the Prime Minister realized that and initiated trade talks with the United States because of its protectionist attitude. Those negotiations are presently ongoing.
In the communique from the Premiers, I do not believe that they said to retaliate in the strongest terms. 1 believe they want Canada to take firm action. We are taking firm action. As we speak this morning here in the House, negotiations are going on and are proceeding quite favourably. We hope that there will be a successful conclusion to those negotiations in order that this protectionist attitude in the United States will not affect Canada once these trade negotiations come to a successful conclusion.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I go back to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is quite clear that the Parliamentary Secretary has not read the communique from the Premiers where they make a direct request to use every available strategic instrument in retaliation against the specific cases of trade harassment. I simply say to the Parliamentary Secretary that in the last
three years we have had more cases of trade harassment from the United States than in the previous 25 years. So much for those negotiations.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, whom I presume might speak for the Government, when will we get action? When will the Government do something about the potash case and the other cases rather than simply providing concession after concession in the free trade talks? When will the Government start defending Canadian interests directly with the United States?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reassure the Hon. Member that the Parliamentary Secretary speaks for the Government when he answers questions, and I think he does it in a very articulate and informed manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Second, the Hon. Member knows that there is, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, a growing protectionist mood in the United States, and that, particularly, is why the Prime Minister exercised leadership in attempting to address this very serious problem through the discussions in the attempts to negotiate a comprehensive free trade arrangement.
One of the components of that comprehensive trade arrangement is an effective and an adequate disputes resolving mechanism. I think the Premiers in their communique very much struck that point.
That is the essence of the long term solution. I know the Hon. Member likes to engage in ad hoc solutions. We are attempting to address this in a comprehensive way. If the Hon. Member would get onside and join forces with the Government, we could present a unified force and make our case that much better to the United States of America.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, to be invited to join a three year string of absolute failures when it comes to dealing with the United States is like being asked to jump off a cliff.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the communique, the Premiers specifically requested or demanded-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Which was it, Lloyd?


Lloyd Axworthy: -that any comprehensive agreement must include a binding arbitrary mechanism-


Charles Joseph Clark: A binding arbitrary mechanism?
Come on now, Lloyd.
August 28, 1987


Lloyd Axworthy: They did not say adequate, they did not say effective, they said a binding mechanism, which is very different language from what the Government is now using.
Can we get a guarantee from the Government that it will not sign or initial any agreement that does not include a binding dispute mechanism? Not the adequate one the Minister is talking about, but a binding mechanism that would require the United States to accept those solutions, rather than simply having more of the kinds of concessionary consultations that we have now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said on many occasions that there will be no deal unless it is a good deal for Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Binding or not?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are backing away.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A comprehensive trade arrangement without an adequate dispute resolving mechanism certainly would not be considered as an adequate deal for Canada.


THE CONSTITUTION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Justice was asked by me whether it was deliberate or an accident that there was no provision for the Territories to submit names for consideration for appointment to the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada under the Meech Lake Accord. He refused to answer the question on the grounds that there was a court case in which the grievance of the Territories was being considered.
If the court case is that important, will the Minister of Justice agree that the ratification of the Accord should wait until that court case is settled and the Minister can answer the question?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is probably the first time in my parliamentary career that I have been accused of obfuscation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No? Maybe it is the second time, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As the Hon. Member knows, there is adequate precedent with respect to the political proceedings going on, notwithstanding the fact that there are matters before the court.
I only refer by way of example to the fact that in the time in which Mr. Trudeau-you will remember him, I think-was the Prime Minister, he had, in fact, put forward a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the Senate and the powers of the Senate. This did not preclude us from carrying on political responsibilities.
The matter is before the courts. It will be dealt with there. It seems to me it has been dealt with rather expeditiously at this point in time. At the same time I take it that the Member speaks on behalf of his Party, hoping that we will move forward with the Meech Lake Accord to ratify this most important Accord for Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Justice that Mr. Trudeau also took political responsibility for what he was doing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Never.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DECISION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in this case the Minister of Justice and the Government are not telling us whether this grievance of the Territories is the result of a deliberate decision that they not be allowed to put lists forward or whether that was an oversight. It is a simple question. The grievance before the court has nothing to do with it. Why can't the Minister just answer the question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is one of the members of the joint committee dealing with this important issue. He has a daily opportunity to question witnesses, speaking to the spokespersons on behalf of the Government, with respect to any aspect of this matter he cares to raise.
With respect to this particular issue, I have answered it adequately. I have said to the Hon. Member that we take the position that the Accord is a good one for Canada. I hope the Hon. Member is not trying to change the position of the Liberal Party to support this wholeheartedly, notwithstanding representations to the contrary.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister.

August 28, 1987
Oral Questions
In the midst of an emergency debate on back-to-work legislation yesterday and the appearance of a former Prime Minister before an important committee of the House, the Government tabled two documents that I am sure it hoped would be totally obliterated by this news, a Price Waterhouse study on the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion's operations, and an internal study.
The Price Waterhouse study says with reference to DRIE financial control that it "was not given a high priority". In fact there was no report until half-way through 1986-87. When it was done the information in the Department itself was incomplete and conflicting. The internal study said "no alarm bells were triggered" at that time in the Ministry, and they were not triggered until the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville raised the scandal about $100 million being misspent.
Considering there is absolute proof of total incompetence in management by the then Minister, why is it that this Minister, instead of being sacked, was given new responsibility for a Department that will be spending millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wrong, Ed.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my hon. colleague by telling him that as soon as we found out at the Ministry that there were serious overspending problems, the then Minister and his deputy immediately, as they should, asked for those two studies, one internal and one external.
The studies identified the problems and made a number of recommendations to solve them. Those recommendations are being acted upon and Price-Waterhouse has also been retained to ensure that they will be implemented as quickly as possible. Treasury Board followed the situation throughout the period and acted as expeditiously as possible to correct any flaws that existed in the operations of the Department. I would also like to say that those actions were taken well before any question was raised in this House.


DISCHARGE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have been asked to believe a lot by the Government. I will not elaborate on that particular observation, but I would like to ask a question of the Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister who should be speaking for the Prime Minister on this matter.
It has been shown beyond doubt that there was gross mismanagement, not by some junior clerk at some distant outpost, but right here in Ottawa at the highest level of the bureaucracy. Instead of accepting ministerial responsibility which the Government should do, why has the Minister, who ought to have had control of his Department and clearly did
not, now been put in charge of another Department with responsibilities for spending additional millions of dollars?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the Minister was made aware of the difficulties being experienced in the Department, he commissioned the two studies. The Treasury Board was immediately notified and brought into the picture so that we could follow the process. Obviously, before acting we wanted to have a full diagnostic of exactly what was going on. As soon as we got it-


John Edward Broadbent: As soon as we got it?


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, as soon as we got it, we took measures. We took measures on July 15 and on July 30. We acted by implementing a new regime for financial control and management in the Department.
I feel that the tabling of the two documents, far from indicating as the Hon. Member would suggest a Government that is trying to hide from the facts, indicates a Government that is willing to put all the facts on the table. They are all there. Hon. Members have all the information and we are willing to give them all the briefings they would possibly want on how we will correct the situation.


KNOWLEDGE OF DEPARTMENT S SPENDING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to be ignoring what was said in the report and what I quoted. It said that for half of fiscal year 1986-87 there was no financial report about what was going on presumably brought to the Minister's attention. Presumably the people of Canada were thinking at this time that the Minister was in control of his Department and would ensure that he knew what was going on with spending.
I direct a question to the Minister since he is now cleverly in the position of answering, not the other Minister, one day after the report has been tabled. I would suggest that that is not accidental.
Does the Government accept as reasonable procedure that a Minister would have no knowledge for six months of spending that is going on in his Department? Is that the Government's definition of managerial competence? It is not the definition of the people of Canada.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out two things to the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. First, there was a lack of financial control and we have admitted that. The reports point that out very clearly and there is a good reason for it. There is not an excuse but an explanation for it.
Going back throughout the years, in 1982-83 the Department underspent its budget by 30 per cent. The following year
it underspent its budget by 24 per cent. The following year it
August 28, 1987

underspent its budget by 20 per cent. The following year it underspent its budget by 24 per cent. It was continually underspending and I presume from what the reports indicate that this led to a lack of adequate financial control. They were always underspending.
The fact that the economy is now booming has led to a record number of requests under the existing programs of DRIE. That led to the situation as we now know it.
Since the reports were tabled and while we were going through the exercise this summer, we introduced new measures for budgeting, forecasting, financial reporting, financial control and program management. We appointed a new Deputy Minister, a new Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of finance, and soon we will appoint a new controller to ensure that this kind of situation will never repeat itself.


GOVERNMENT'S ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENTS- CONFIDENCE OF CANADIANS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who is responsible for DRIE. I am a little disappointed in his initial response and performance as Minister. I am trying to understand the Minister's logic. He wants to justify a short-fall of $350 million by saying that during the last two or three years they had a surplus and so there was no control over spending. This is like saying: Well I had a surplus in my family budget during the last month, so next month we'll go on a spending spree.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister what assurance Canadians, what assurance taxpayers have that this short-fall of $350 million is not repeated in other departments where no investigation has been conducted. How can Canadians be expected to trust this Government, which lost $350 million, to administer its other departments and the money they pay in taxes?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I want to be quite clear. There is a problem. I am not trying to deny that. There is a problem. But what I am trying to explain to Hon. Members is that as soon as we were aware of the nature of this problem, steps were taken immediately to deal with it, and we now have mechanisms to ensure there will be no recurrence of the problem that existed at DRIE. Furthermore, while I was in my previous post, the Comptroller General of Canada was asked to immediately investigate all other departments with similar budgets, to ensure that financial controls were in place so that this type of situation could not develop.


MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the Minister who until yesterday was the President of
Treasury Board-after all he didn't see the $350 million worth
Oral Questions
of commitments either. Three hundred and fifty million dollars-that ain't hay! How could anyone not notice what was going on? What I want to ask the Minister is, how can we be expected to count on him after he let this pass as if it were nothing? How can we count on him to take control of this Department and ensure that commitments are met and that money doesn't just disappear?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, 1 will say it again. It would take too long to explain all this during Question Period, and I would be delighted to talk to the Hon. Member privately.
We have taken all the necessary measures to ensure the Department's commitments do not exceed the amounts voted by this House. These measures include the budgetary aspect, the estimates, spending, the way the Department's financial reports are done, financial controls at the Department, and also a review of the criteria for various departmental programs.


TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIO
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am quite incredulous. We have here a $ 100-million misunderstanding. A Minister as a result of really gross mismanagement overlooked $100 million in his Department. The reality is that after misrepresenting and mismanaging his Department to the tune of $100 million, this Minister has not done the honourable thing, has not been sacked, but has been transferred.
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister if this is the kind of mismanagement and Government that we can now expect in the future. He said he would do something different from the Liberals. This is actually very different. This is a $ 100-million misunderstanding. Is this the kind of business practice we can expect from the Government and this Minister in his next portfolio?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member's statements and conclusions are false. I would invite him to read the reports before he pontificates in the manner in which he has.
The fact is that the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology has explained the corrective steps that have been taken. The record of the Government in financial management and control has been excellent. There is a problem here and that has been admitted.
When the Minister indicated that he would engage in both internal and external studies, he said that he would make them available. They are there for every Member to read and, I hope, to understand. The Ministers will be available to appear before parliamentary committees to explain the process in detail. Before he draws such rather drastic and radical

August 28, 1987
Oral Questions
conclusions so that he can get on television tonight, I would invite the Hon. Member to study the report in more detail.


MANAGEMENT QUERY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that $100 million has been mismanaged. The Minister took no responsibility and there were no reports for the first six months of this fiscal year.


John Edward Broadbent: In his Department.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In his Department. Surely he has to accept responsibility for that.
It is even more serious than that. The Government's reaction is to transfer the Minister to a Department where the expenditure plan indicates the Department is responsible for $600 million in government bank accounts. The Minister blew $100 million in his previous position. Now he is in a position of managing $600 million in government bank accounts. Is that the kind of management we can expect from now on?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is suggesting that $100 million has vanished. That is totally untrue. He should clearly study the report before he makes such false allegations and draws false conclusions.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton.


An Hon. Member:: You are being exposed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: One of these days you will be exposed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Great business ethics.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: How about some ethics over there? You do not know the meaning of the word.


UNITED NATIONS
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A $100 million, and he gets rewarded.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: You never understood, Nelson.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind-


Nelson Andrew Riis: I think we can understand this, Mike.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Order. The Speaker is rising.


Mr. Speaker:: I know all Hon. Members would want to hear the question from the Hon. Member.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, it has been a difficult summer.
An historic conference on the relationship between disarmament and development began on Monday of this week at the UN, regrettably without the participation of the United States. What impact does the Minister feel that may have on the outcome of the conference? Does he also feel that Canada is optimistic that a conference consensus can be reached on these two vital issues?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I believe that with determination on the part of all participants a constructive consensus can be achieved. I regret the absence of the U.S. I think it is always better to stay in a room and try to win an argument rather than leave it. I regret it particularly because it is tempting the Soviet Union to try to take a propaganda advantage in a field where the Soviet Union has no credentials and no claims at all.
It is worth entering into the record of the House of Commons that in 1985 western countries contributed $4.7 billion to UN development activities, or 91.7 per cent of the total. The East bloc countries, including the Soviet Union, contributed only 1.2 per cent. The developing countries themselves contributed 7.1 per cent. In other words, the record shows that developing countries contribute something like seven times more towards UN development assistance than the entire Soviet bloc.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has probably been briefed about the fact that in a few weeks Japan and the U.S. will sign an agreement for the shipment of plutonium from Europe to Japan. The Government of Canada has a limited time to tell the two parties that transport of plutonium through Canadian airspace is not in the cards.
Once again we ask the Government to make a commitment today to notify both Washington and Tokyo that Canada will not approve any application for the transportation of plutonium through Canadian airspace.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this question quite understandably gives
rise to a great deal of concern in Canada. That has been
August 28, 1987

registered in media comment and questions and answers in this House. One thing that is sometimes overlooked but which is absolutely clear is that the Government has the power to prohibit that kind of shipment through Canadian airspace, including the Canadian North.


Mr. Orlikow:: Are you going to exercise that power?


Charles Joseph Clark: The question of whether we will choose to exercise that power, to come to a question from a member of the NDP, will be dealt with when it is no longer hypothetical.
The request made to me, as I understand it, by the Hon. Member for Davenport is that we send a signal now to the Government of Japan and the Government of the U.S. We are in contact with both those Governments.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PERMISSION WILL BE REFUSED
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, why can the Minister not give us the assurance today that the Government of Canada will give the signal he has referred to in advance of the signing of this agreement? In that way neither Japan nor the U.S. will entertain any notion that they will be able to get permission from Canada to fly this plutonium through our airspace? Why not give us this assurance now?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to make two points in response. The first is to reiterate that the Government of Canada has that clear power and there should be no doubt and no fear about that. The second is that we are at this stage in contact with both the U.S. and Japanese Governments and it is my judgment that is the most effective way to proceed in these circumstances at this time.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Transport. He will be aware that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board produced a report yesterday which said in part that the number of aircraft/air-craft and aircraft/vehicle conflicts reported in Canada is at a level significant enough to warrant serious safety concerns. The report makes a large number of recommendations. Will the Minister ensure that rather than studying these recommendations the Government will immediately begin the process of implementing them so we can increase the level of safety at Canadian airports?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member has acknowledged and recognized that as a Government we have always treated safety as a priority in all matters relating to transportation. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board, with respect to its responsibility for investigating accidents, has had a very successful track record. More importantly it has been successful in identifying ways and means of improving air safety in all its aspects. One of its objectives was to make recommendations from time to time to the Government concerning ways and means of improving the system. This is a classic and clear-cut example of that work which is being carried on very effectively-
I know the Minister of Transport will take the recommendations seriously. Having had some experience in working with the Department, I know they will be very eager to implement recommendations to improve safety at our airports, particularly on the ground.


Iain Francis Angus: The Minister will also be aware that the Department has not always accepted the recommendations of the CASB.


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that as a result of Bill C-18, the National Transportation Act, there will be an increase, at some airports, in the number of flights. There will an increase in the number of less experienced personnel involved. Because of what this report says will he undertake to delay the implementation of C-18 until such time as these recommendations have been fully implemented? Only then will we move to the next stage of the change in the transportation sector. Is he prepared to make that commitment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, not having had the benefit of reading the report and studying the recommendations I think it would irresponsible for me to accede to the Hon. Member's request. Suffice it to say there are suggested improvements in systems and co-ordination of the air navigational systems at the various airports. The Hon. Member is assuming there will be a lot more traffic involving inexperienced-


Iain Francis Angus: Less experienced.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -less experienced personnel at the controls. I am not sure whether that is a valid observation. I would not want to associate myself with that because I am not sure it is referred to in the report.
I can only repeat that I know the Minister of Transport and his Department will take these recommendations very seriously.

August 28, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications, with regard to the CBC, has said:
There may be services which could be purchased from the private sector at less expense than continued public ownership of stations and transmitters.
I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does he agree with the approach of the Minister of Communications to privatization of the CBC? Is this the kind of birthday present they should give the CBC for its fiftieth birthday?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify the assumption which was made with regard to the future of the CBC. First, I have made it very clear that we are looking at three companies; Petro-Canada, Radiochemical and Air Canada.
The statement made by the Minister of Communications was by way of example of some of the things that might be considered to assist the CBC to fill its public policy role. For example, it may be possible that some of the services could be produced more in the public interest and that of the Canadian people within the private sector.


FUTURE OF CORPORATION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, following a savage $85 million cut to the CBC-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, if I may, in January, 1985, the Prime Minister made the following comment:
Some people want to buy the CBC. The CBC is not for sale.
It is not our problem if the Minister of State for Privatization wants to have a job and is looking for something to do. The problem is what is happening to the CBC.
Is the Acting Prime Minister going to honour the promise of the Prime Minister and stop this move to privatize the CBC, or will we see the disappearance of another Crown corporation in order to keep the Minister of State for Privatization in business?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Liberals want to privatize John Turner.


Barbara Jean McDougall: That's not my department.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Wonderboy spoke again.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could answer the question without any help.


Henry Perrin Beatty: They don't ask me any questions.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's because you don't know any answers.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to accuse my colleague across the way of being frivolous. However, I think that that which the Minister of Communications said was very clear. There is no privatization of the CBC. This was raised almost by way of a question with regard to how the CBC can best serve the people of Canada.


Sheila Finestone: In other words what Mr. Mulroney says doesn't count.

[Translation)


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to get back to the issue of mismanagement at the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House why Canadians should have confidence in the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, now that he has taken over the Department of Supply and Services?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been two reports laid on the Table which are open to study and examination. I hope the Hon. Member will read the reports. The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology has indicated the corrective steps that have been taken. I think he would make officials or himself available to give the Hon. Member a full elaboration on the report. Perhaps then the Hon. Member might be able to come back to the House and ask some intelligent questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


INQUIRY WHY CANADIANS WOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN NEW MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, there was mismanagement. Canadians want to know whether they can have confidence. Could the Deputy Prime Minister answer the question and inform the House why and how Canadians can be expected to have confidence in the new Minister of Supply and Services?

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury
Board): Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that the
August 28, 1987

present Minister of Supply and Services initiated the studies to ensure that he got to the bottom of this issue,


Nelson Andrew Riis: Too late.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not late, as soon as it became available to him.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's taxpayers' money we are talking about.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Hon. Member reads the report he will find that it is stated that the reliability of the financial data used in the preparation of forecasts has been a problem for some years.


John Edward Broadbent: You are supposed to change it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There was inherited-


Ms. Mitchell:: Do something about it.


John Edward Broadbent: They are blaming the Liberals for this.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There was an inherited-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think 1 have a right to respond to this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister, of course, has the right to respond. He also has the right to the courtesy of a hearing by other Hon. Members.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there was inherited a system which, as a practice, established internal budgets in excess of voted amounts. It is clear that that practice should have been abandoned. The fact of the matter is that as soon as this came to the attention of the Minister he took the appropriate action and the corrective action is being implemented.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, I heard in Quebec that Francophone journalists with the French CBC network were planning to walk out during the Francophonie Summit. As you know, the journalists have been without an agreement for two and one-half years, and 1 would like to know whether the Minister is aware of this and what he intends to do to ensure, beforehand, that Frenchspeaking Canadians will be able to see and hear this important historic event, the Francophonie Summit on television?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, 1 heard the same rumour, and 1 know the parties have been negotiating for quite some time. As I indicated last night at the end of a long debate, last year 11,000 collective agreements were signed in Canada, and 94 per cent were signed without a single day lost to strikes or lock-outs.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this particular dispute will be resolved in the same fashion. 1 would urge the parties to reach an agreement, and 1 would be very sorry to see Canadians suffer the consequences should a strike be called this week.


HOUSING
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Housing.
Next September 14, 15 and 16 in Ottawa, we will have the privilege of hosting the International Conference of the Homeless, where the theme will be: building together for the future. The Minister will agree that the problem of the homeless is also a social problem. Has the Minister drafted an action plan for this conference and if so, could he give us an overview of the plan?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the Hon. Member. I heard her intervention during Statements by Members today. I think that which she pointed out was accurate and very much in keeping with attitudes in the House on the situation.
I cannot specifically reply to her question. 1 will take notice of it to the Minister in charge and ask for an early response.


SOCIAL HOUSING ON INDIAN RESERVES
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I will address my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. We have a problem of our own in Canada. This morning 1 met with members of the Assembly of First Nations and was made aware of an interdepartmental problem regarding funding for social housing on reserves.
The matter is between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister knows that there is a shortfall of almost $8 million flowing from the changes in the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program. On May 11, my colleague, the Member for Cochrane-Superior, asked a question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration who said he would

August 28, 1987
Oral Questions
look into it. I understand that the matter is in Cabinet at the moment. Will the Minister give us an answer today?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an answer to the latter part of the Hon. Member's question.
I believe many of us in the House, not only as Ministers but as Members have had the experience with the issue of the amount of money available for housing and the shortfall that often takes place when a house is built, in terms of development costs. In other words, one does not only take into account the price of the house, but also development costs for such things as access. I know this is being discussed by the Minister of Employment and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues will bring that to their attention.
There have been many discussions about that. The question of how much funding there should be and how much equity there should be in terms of individual housing, as an increasing number of Indian bands are moving toward a CMHC configuration as opposed to the former configuration of direct grants, is an ongoing issue.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In an article published in The Toronto Star the Secretary of State characterized the position that complete diplomatic sanctions ought to be imposed on South Africa as an extreme position. Of course, this was part of the position enunciated by the Prime Minister in 1985 before the United Nations.
Does the Minister's statement reflect a retreat from the position adopted and enunciated by the Prime Minister in 1985? Does this also apply to the other part of that promise by the Prime Minister that complete economic sanctions would be imposed upon South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member would apply to the reading of that article the moderation that has been his happy characteristic in dealing with questions relating to this Government's position against apartheid, he would know that what was described as extreme was the suggestion that two years ago we should have disrupted diplomatic and other relations with South Africa.
Had we done that, I would not have been able to go to South
Africa two weeks ago. I would not have been able to carry the
case, on one day, to the African National Congress, and carry the case on the next day to the South African Government, thus providing the possibility of some capacity to breathe life into the negotiations which can be the only means of a peaceful resolution to a situation that can lead to bloodshed in South Africa unless it is resolved peacefully.
The position of the Government of Canada remains as it has been, that if other measures do not work we will be prepared to sever all economic and diplomatic relations with South Africa.


David Orlikow: When?


Charles Joseph Clark: We believe it is important for us not to take a blind ideological position like some members of the New Democratic Party do, but rather to try to follow the Canadian tradition of working out a peaceful means to resolve a situation that could erupt into bloodshed.


SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT'S ADVERTISEMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I find it incomprehensible that the Secretary of State should become so agitated by a request for clarification, which I appreciate having received.


Mr. Speaker:: Members sometimes do become agitated here. However, given the hour, I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, in the article in The Toronto Star the Secretary of State also indicates a hope that negotiations may still represent a solution to the South African situation.
In The Globe and Mail this morning, we see an ad placed by the South African Government which attempts to demonize the ANC. In view of his hopes for negotiation, which does he think is the greater obstacle in view of this kind of activity on the part of the South African Government, the ANC or the South African Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I frankly do not think it is very helpful for me to respond to that kind of question at this stage. They are both an obstacle because at this stage-


John Edward Broadbent: ANC is an obstacle?


Charles Joseph Clark: At this stage the ANC is not prepared to come to the kinds of agreements that were set forth in the negotiating position of the Eminent Persons Group regarding the suspension of violence. They have reasons which they believe to be good reasons.
The South African Government, on the basis of my conversations with it, is not prepared to enter into negotiations because of the difficulty over the same piece of language.
What I find interesting, and-if one can find hope in this
circumstance-what is potentially hopeful is that neither the
August 28, 1987

ANC nor the South African Government, which is significant, have ruled out the possibility of negotiating one with the other. Neither side claims that the ANC would be the only representatives of blacks in South Africa.
I know Mr. Tambo has had conversations with Members of the House and others. I think his visit here can be a constructive step toward encouraging that kind of negotiation, if only because it will allow and require the ANC to respond to some of the accusations that, while they have appeared today in Canadian newspapers, are part of the regular fare issued by the Government of South Africa.
I think it is important for people who hear those accusations also to have the opportunity to hear directly Mr. Tambo's response to them. His presence here allows that to occur.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise Members that there will be a question by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West, followed by a question by the Hon. Member for Trinity, and that will be the end of Question Period.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The long awaited finalization of the new Ethiopian Constitution will give the Government of that country a chance to show that a new Constitution can mean a new beginning for human rights.
Will the Government consider using the considerable moral leverage of Canada, in view of its large and continued aid program, to persuade the Government of Ethiopia that its political prisoners should be released or, at the very least, be put on charge and given a fair trial?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is valuable and timely. There have been substantial rumours that in consort with the proclamation of a new Constitution there would be an amnesty granted in Ethiopia. We have been making representations on human rights questions for some time and certainly it is our view-and I take the opportunity to make it clear publicly again to the Government of Ethiopia- that the proclamation of the Constitution should be accompanied by an amnesty for political prisoners.
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his February, 1986, Budget he announced a new program for older worker adjustment to begin in August, 1986. The Government discontinued the previous Liberal Government's labour adjustment benefit but has yet to put in place its own program. Will the Minister assure the House that he is prepared to act to offer retraining and placement to the increasing number of Canadians in middle life who are facing unemployment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the objective of that program. We recognize the importance of this for people who see their jobs change as a result of technological progress and we must be responsive to that. That is particularly important for those who, in their later years of work, find it more difficult to get that training and find another occupation. That is precisely what we are trying to do.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if and when the Government introduces the program for older workers' adjustment, only about 2,000 older workers will be helped. The Government ended one generous program a year ago. It has not put in place even the limited replacement it promised. Will the Minister give us an assurance of just when the new program will be in place?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is well aware of the fact that there are negotiations under way with the provinces right now, and they have been going on for some little while. There needs to be some response from the provinces on this but we are very definitely committed to it, as is the case with the Canadian Job Strategy which makes a considerable amount of-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is really working well, isn't it? That is a wonderful program.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Those Hon. Members do not like to hear the truth again. They are very much aware that we have changed the previous Government's make work programs where money was spilled out to try to tide people over from one period of entitlement to unemployment insurance to another. That was changed by a new program which involved career development and training for almost the entire amount of the funds made available under the Canadian Job Strategy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The truth hurts and we understand that clearly.

August 28, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Blaikie


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that that concludes Question Period. I will hear the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) on a point of order and then I will hear the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on a point of order.


POINTS OF ORDER
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order with respect to the way in which the National Capital Commission has really thumbed its nose at the House of Commons by going ahead with the use of herbicides on the Parliamentary lawn against the all-party recommendations of Mr. Speaker, the environment critic of the Liberal Party, the environment critic of the New Democratic Party and other Members of Parliament who joined together in asking the National Capital Commission, in writing to Mrs. Pigott, the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, not to do this.
I noticed that some people thought this was a bit of a joke when it was raised by the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). I noticed the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) laughing. He is the last person on earth who should be laughing at this kind of matter. This is a matter which has been taken seriously by both sides of the House of Commons.
We should take it seriously for two reasons. First, it concerns the environmental question, both as to the effects of the herbicide used and also because we would like Parliament Hill to be an environmental example, if you will, and it certainly does not appear to be any kind of ecological example with little yellow signs all around the Hill saying you had better stay off the grass, not in order to keep the grass well, but to stay well yourself.
I think this is offensive both on environmental grounds and on the grounds that were established by the recommendations of the McGrath report which said that Parliament should have more control over its own life and over its own environs. We recommended at the time that a parliamentary intendant be appointed and that the House of Commons have more control over its own precincts.
We tried in a nice negotiatable sort of way to get the National Capital Commission not to do something which everyone agreed it should not be doing, and it basically told us to go to hell. That is what it did. It put that stuff all over the lawn here in spite of the objections of Members of Parliament, in spite of the will of Mr. Speaker, in spite of the collective will of the environmental critics and others who expressed a similar concern.
I think this points up the problem we have on Parliament Hill. We are not even in control of our lives here, of our own environs. We pretend to be running the country but we cannot even get the National Capital Commission not to dump poisons on our own lawn after we have asked it not to do so.
I would hope that you, Mr. Speaker, would send a very strong message to the National Capital Commission on behalf of Members of the House of Commons, that we find it offensive in the extreme that, against the recommendations made to it, it has gone ahead and done this.
I hope all Members will use this as an occasion to reflect on the need for the implementation of the recommendations of the McGrath report, the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform for a structure through which we have more control over our own environs and are not subjected to this kind of offensive action, and previous offensive actions, such as the time we wandered out one morning to find that everything had been dug up in order to facilitate the light show. That was done without the knowledge of the Speaker of the day. These kinds of offences continue to happen and it is about time they stopped.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could just advise Hon. Members that the Speaker is in a bit of an unusual situation here because, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has pointed out that this matter has been a matter of discussion among Members, brought to the attention of the Speaker, and there have been responses from myself with respect to this and other environmental considerations of the Hill.
I think I should make it clear that certainly these kinds of matters are matters which have been brought to the attention of the Chair by Members of all parties. Perhaps it is advisable if the Chair just makes that clear to the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am simply going to suggest that the Board of Internal Economy may wish to take another look at the complaint of my hon. friend, which he raises at the first available opportunity, and with a great deal of vigor. I know he is concerned about the environment in this particular matter and I can do no more than to suggest that is a very appropriate matter to be discussed by the Board of Internal Economy.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: I am not so sure that is the best approach. You, Mr. Speaker, gave us great leadership when on May 29 you wrote a letter to Madam Pigott of the National Capital Commission on this matter. We were extremely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having taken in hand a matter which, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) states, is intended to regain control of the Hill, by the Parliament, with respect to the kind of environment we have, making it into a model for other jurisdictions to see.
August 28, 1987

On June 4 the Speaker received a reply which he kindly circulated. In effect it said that the National Capital Commission management committee decided not to spray this spring with 2-4,D and to reassess its position later this year. It was signed by Madam Pigott.
What we see happening here is that both you, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps even the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, have been ignored by this management committee, or Madam Pigott has forgotten her commitment, or the matter has simply drifted so badly that we see this silly development whereby a commitment made only three months ago is now not even worth the paper on which it is written.
You have our fullest confidence and support, Mr. Speaker, in pursuing this matter. I am sure you are as upset as we are, because we do want to demonstrate that we can have grass, lawns and soil managed in a proper manner on the Hill without having to utilize chemical fertilizers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair wants to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the Hon. Minister. It is quite clear, and it should be clear to everyone \vatching or listening, that what we have just heard in this Chamber is a very strong expression of the will of all three parties. I will carefully take into account what has been said here and will be meeting with Members in order to make an appropriate response. I thank Hon. Members for taking the position they have, and I thank the Hon. Minister for supporting both the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill and the Hon. Member for Davenport.


ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF S. O. 99(2)
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on this point of order because it relates to the tabling of the Government's response to the interim report on the "Recommendations of the Task Force on Broadcast Policy, Speciality Programming Services", and some proposed legislative amendments. That was called our fifth report.
The point of order also relates to the response to the sixth report called "The Recommendations for a new Broadcasting Act, a Review of the Legislative Recommendations made by the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy". I think Hon. Members have noted the size of the Hansards which were required to bring our reports to the attention of this House. There were 150 pages of carefully considered documents and analysis which included 107 recommendations. Members of the committee, members of our staff and members of the Library of Parliament worked extremely hard to bring-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) but the Minister rises on a point of order. I will hear the Hon. Minister.
Point of Order-Mrs. Finestone


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I in turn do not wish to be seen to be interrupting anyone's argument. In view of the fact that this argument with respect to the tabling of a report is both substantive as to the contents, and procedural, will the Hon. Member for Mount Royal agree to stand down her argument on her point of order until such time as we are able to get the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) in the House in order to respond to the substantive part of the argument.
As I said, 1 am prepared to deal with the procedural part of the argument. I do not wish to be seen to be delaying the Hon. Member. We are perfectly prepared to deal with this at any time. However, I wonder if it would not be more appropriate for Your Honour to hear both the substantive and procedural parts of the argument at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering if perhaps the Chair can be of help. First, I want to say to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal that the Chair has heard not just one but several complaints of this type in connection with the rule that, after a committee reports, the Minister is to give a comprehensive response under the rules. The Chair has been reluctant to get into the position of defining what is a comprehensive response. However, if I may say to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, I think the Hon. Minister has made a very helpful suggestion. It is difficult under this particular rule to find a clear line between the substance and the procedure. The Minister has suggested that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal adjourn her point of order to a day soon when the Minister responsible can be here, I say to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal that that, frankly, would help the Chair.
I would invite the Hon. Member for Mount Royal to agree to the suggestion of the Minister that this matter be adjourned to a day, which can be arranged through myself, when the Hon. member can pursue her argument and the Minister can be here. I want to assure the Hon. Member that this is a matter that the Chair takes very seriously. If the Hon. Member would agree, then I think that would be the most expeditious way of dealing with the matter.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, with your many years of experience in the House I will certainly accept your guidance, in the hope that when the Minister hears the argument she will have had an opportunity to rethink the grievous way in which she has injured the committee with her snide four and one-half page response. Thus, I hope that the Minister, whose staff is watching, will prepare the kind of responsible report that she should have prepared in the first place. I look forward to that argument taking place at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Mount Royal for her intervention, and the subject that has been raised. Arrangements will be made to continue this discussion further. 1 know that the Minister will convey to his colleague the proceedings so far so that when we bring this matter back to the House it can be dealt with in an appropriate way.

August 28, 1987
Motions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with a view to the rest of today's business. As the House will know, we were able to dispose of Bill C-22, the debate on the motion to send the matter back to the Senate. We have also given third reading to Bill C-71. This is due to the co-operation of all three Parties. We have therefore decided that, having made that progress, the following draft order would be appropriate:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, upon the completion of Routine Proceedings this day, the House shall proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on this day's Order Paper for a period not to exceed one hour;
That upon the completion of Private Members' Hour the Speaker shall suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair; and
That, following the giving of Royal Assent to certain Bills, later this day, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until 11.00 o'clock a.m., Monday, August 31, 1987.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by residents of Vancouver, Halifax, Toronto, Rouyn-Noranda and Ottawa. The petitioners are asking for changes in highway safety regulations. They believe that current rear-seat car safety belts are inadequate and that the sufferings of car accident victims can be reduced or avoided. They believe as well that medical care costs can be reduced or eliminated.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, they urge Parliament to make a commitment with respect to the mandatory installation of adjustable shoulder safety belts for all rear-seat car passengers, and the installation of air bags for front-seat passengers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to present again today a petition urging
this Government to listen to the people, to listen to the many
representations of Liberal Members, to listen to the remarks of its own Quebec Conservative Members asking that a vital commodity such as food not be taxed.
The petition reads as follows, Madam Speaker:
Whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed upon Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack food, candies and soft drinks; whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the possibility of imposing a general tax on goods and services, including food; whereas food constitutes a vital element of everyday life, and whereas the imposition of this tax would have the effect of penalizing such categories of taxpayers as the aged, families, the unemployed, low income taxpayers, and youth;
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 162 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 162 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ms. McDonald: Between January 1, 1986 and June 26, 1987, did the Department of Communications receive any requests from organizations and/or individuals for grants under the Cultural Initiatives Program and, if so, in each case (a) what was the name of the organization and/or individual (6) what was the amount requested (c) on what date was the application received (d) on what date was the organization or individual notified of the Depatment's decision (e) what was the amount granted?
Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
August 28, 1987



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   HUMAN RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED DESIGNATION OF HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS DAY Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of designating August 1, 1987, as "Helsinki Human Rights Day"; and
That, further, in recognition of the importance of the twelfth anniversary of the signing of the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and to demonstrate Canada's commitment to the principle of universal human rights, this House encourage the government to continue efforts to achieve full implementation of the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords by raising the issue of non-compliance with the offending nations at every available opportunity; to increase efforts to effect the release of all political prisoners, including Helsinki monitors; and to work to provide people of all nations with the most basic of human rights, freedom of speech, movement and religious worship.
He said: The Oxford Companion to Law describes human rights or the rights of man or fundamental freedoms as "conceived of as rights inherent in individuals as rational, free-willing creatures, not conferred by positive law, nor capable of being abridged or abrogated by positive law".
The guiding principles of the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, better known as the Helsinki Accords, were to establish security in Europe, and to promote mutual co-operation in areas of economics, science, technology, the environment, and humanitarian concerns.
It is the humanitarian concerns, the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accord which are the subject of this motion, and the importance of those provisions is underscored by the precedents set by the agreement. Never in modern history have the heads of state of 35 countries come together to agree on a statement of principles which guide the conduct of countries to their own people. This was done in the case of the Helsinki Accords. My motion seeks to recognize the importance of that historic document by designating August 1 as "Helsinki Human Rights Day".
There are many compelling and significant reasons for such action, reasons which exemplify the very heart of the accord. The principle of respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms which derive from recognition of that principle.
While the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe is not a perfect document, it is significant in the history of human rights by its very nature. It must be viewed in context. It is not a legal document but a statement of principle, and therefore open to criticism for its lack of enforcement provisions. Nonetheless, while there is no enforcement mechanism in this agreement, no police, no judge to ensure compliance, there is, in fact, a jury. The humanitarian provisions of the Helsinki Accords have elicited a strong public response, particularly in the Eastern Bloc countries
Helsinki Human Rights Day
where Helsinki monitoring groups were organized by courageous individuals responding to the noble principles embodied in the accords. Along with the international attention focused on the CSCE conferences, they form a court of world opinion to which even the most intransigent of offenders must pay heed.
The importance of the final Act is that it placed respect for fundamental human freedoms squarely within the East-West framework, as a basic element of government to government relations. Through good faith, observance of the Final Act's standards for responsible and humane international conduct, signatory states were to advance along the difficult road toward mutual trust and co-operation.
It was an ambitious agenda involving an evolutionary process. In essence, by signing the Helsinki Final Act, the western democracies pledged to keep faith with the persecuted in the East. It is telling to recall that the West failed to anticipate the impact that the human rights provisions of the Final Act would have on East Bloc citizens. We in the West were not the first to act upon the Accords as a means to expose human rights violations in the East. East Bloc citizens seized upon the Helsinki provisions as a program for human rights advocacy. Many of them have paid a high price for their actions.
The reason the Accords have generated such a response is clear from a reading of the document itself. In the accords the participating states express the commitment to "recognize the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for the peace, justice and well-being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation among themselves as among all states".
The document further commits the signatories to "respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion", and to "promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and other rights and freedoms, all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free will and full development".
Additionally, the document recognizes the rights of the individual to profess or practice, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and the signatories express their commitment to respect the rights of persons belonging to a minority to equality before the law.
To those individuals living under a repressive regime, the wording of the principles of this document is a poignant expression of their hopes, dreams, and aspirations, and it is a reminder of all that is sadly lacking in their society.
It is this document that has spurred the efforts of individuals such as Yuri Orlov, Meral Kostava, Victor Pyatkus, Aleksey Tykhy, Mikolay Malusevych, Mirolsar Marynovych, Petro
[Stage Direction]
August 28, 1987
Helsinki Human Rights Day
Vins, Levko Lukyanenko, Shagen and Eduard Arutyunyan, Robert Nazarym, Viktor Rtskhiladze, Anatoly Shcharansky, Viktor Nekipelov, Yaroslav Lesiv, Vasyl Striltsir, Vitaly Kalynychenko, Yuri Lytvyn, Oles Berdnyk, Petro and Vasyl Sichko, and Grigory Goldshtein.
The persecution of these individuals for their brave actions has been amply documented, and their sacrifice represents a trust and obligation on the part of western democracies to fulfil the trust imparted by the Helsinki monitors, and to ensure that their sacrifices have not been in vain by using every possible means to ensure that the Eastern Bloc nations live up to the commitments they agreed to in the Final Act.
Once again, the importance of this document has been demonstrated by the willingness of these individuals to undergo persecution, arrest and imprisonment in the cause of the Helsinki Accords principles.
Of course, no discussion or debate of the importance of the Final Act would be complete without discussion of the reasons for the necessity of such an agreement. In the time available to me I could not begin to delve with any depth into the morass of human rights violations which occur behind the Iron Curtain, in Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, as well as the absolute atrocities committed in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
I cannot begin to describe the persecution and repression suffered by the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The Church has some four million followers in Ukraine yet has been outlawed. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has also suffered from such repression and has been forced to become plart of the Russian Orthodox Church which is under state control. But to attempt to detail the extent of that persecution in the time available would be impossible.
Some specific cases of human rights violations include: Vera Lipinskaya and Anatoly Ponomaryov, who dared to write complaints to government authorities; Teovils Kuma, who handed out religious leaflets and Anatoly Lupynos, who read his poetry at a public meeting honouring a Ukrainian national poet. All of these acts were labelled "socially dangerous", and were grounds for the commitment of these individuals to the Gulag or psychiatric hospitals.
Then there is Alexei Nikitin, a coal miner in the City of Donetsk, in Ukraine, a hard worker and popular with his coworkers. Nikitin took the complaints of his co-workers to his trade union leadership and to the director of the mine. These complaints were rejected, and Nikitin was eventually incarcerated in a local mental hospital, even though he had no history nor signs of psychiatric illness. Later, a mine explosion occurred, and several miners were killed. When Nikitin was released, in desperation he spoke to American journalists about the problems of Soviet coal miners, and within days, Nikitin was again incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital and
eventually was transferred to a special psychiatric hospital near the Chinese-Afghanistan border. He is still there.
At this point it is important to note the extent to which the Soviet Union uses the psychiatric commitment as a convenient instrument of policy. It enables Soviet authorities to substitute psychiatrists' judgment for sentencing in a trial or to avoid a trial altogether. It enables the Government to keep dissidents incarcerated for an indefinite length of time and allows the regime to claim that Soviet citizens who express dissatisfaction with the system are simply mentally ill.
It would be forgiveable if those of us who are uninitiated to the Soviet system assumed that when dissidents were committed on psychiatric grounds they were merely incarcerated indefinitely. However, the true facts are much more horrifying. Many dissidents must undergo what amounts to torture while in such hospitals. Dissenters are often given insulin shock therapy or the drug Sulfazin, which causes great physical discomfort, a raging fever so intense that the patient is virtually incapacitated for up to three days after the injection. Any psychiatrist who might dare to rebel against such abuse has all the incentive, he or she needs to stay in line when they contemplate the example of Dr. Anatoly Koryagin of Karkow. Koryagin was a consultant to a committee formed several years ago to fight psychiatric abuse. He had the opportunity to examine Alexei Nikitin, whom I discussed earlier, and published his findings in a British medical journal. He was subsequently arrested and sentenced to a work camp. He was then transferred to Christopol Prison, where he remains today.
This is the battle we are fighting and the Helsinki Accord have provided us with a forum, in the CSCE conferences, to focus world attention and international pressure on those who are responsible for these acts of persecution and repression. The Helsinki monitoring groups through their reports have provided and continue to supply the West with ammunition in the form of substantiated human rights violations. They must never be betrayed by failure on the part of the western democracies to use this hard-won information to pressure the offending Governments at every opportunity and with every means at our disposal to comply with the commitment they made in the Final Act of the conference on security and cooperation in Europe. It is our duty, as a free and democratic society, to speak out for those who cannot be heard through the blanket of silence imposed by the Iron Curtain. I believe the importance of the accords have been clearly established, both in the history of the human rights movement, and the catalyst they have provided to oppressed peoples.
The next step is to strengthen the CSCE process by every means available in order to increase pressure for reform in those nations which have ignored their commitments. By designating August 1 as Helsinki Human Rights Day, we will send a clear message of Canada's commitment to the accords and to the principles embodied in that agreement. It will put those countries who have a record of human rights abuses on notice that Canada will continue to press for compliance with the Final Act commitments. Finally, it will help to raise public
August 28, 1987
[Stage Direction]
awareness of the agreement and human rights issues, both at home and abroad.
Similar efforts are being undertaken in other western nations. 1 urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting these efforts through the passage of this motion.
With your assistance, much can be accomplished in the field of human rights. Without it, the future may be bleak for those freedom fighters in oppressed nations, who are relying on our support.
In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize last year, Elie Wiesel said:
We must always take sides, neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented . . . When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national border and sensitivities become irrelevant. Whenever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion or political views, that place must, at that moment become the centre of the universe.
While this motion may seem a small step on a long road toward the universal rights and freedoms we seek for those who look to us for help, it is a symbol of our commitment to make that journey a reality.
['I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees.']
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the idea of designating August 1, 1987 as Helsinki Human Rights Day as proposed by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) is a good one. He should be commended for coming forward with the idea and for the wording of the motion that he has put on the Order Paper for this debate today.
There is no doubt that the cause of human rights has been put forward in that fine document signed in 1975 by some 35 nations in Helsinki. The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park is, I am sure, familiar with that document in detail having participated at conferences where this agreement between East and West is regularly reviewed.
The Member for Parkdale-High Park probably knows that human rights is one of three baskets that are included in the accords. That is an important factor which must be kept in mind because I would submit to the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park that the cause of human rights within the Helsinki Agreement can best be pursued within the overall context of the agreement. As you know, Madam Speaker, 35 nations did get together in the mid-1970s with a feeling of optimism that there could be and there must be a rapprochement between East and West. The European nations added the United States and Canada to the 33 European signatories because they felt that the presence of two nations from North America, one of them being a superpower, was essential. So we did participate, and since 1985, Canada has held a very high profile in the promotion of human rights and in dealing at times also with specific cases of individuals. Today, the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park mentioned a list of names representing the present wave of cases that are on the agenda.
Helsinki Human Rights Day
I would urge the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park, however, to look at the advancement that must be made in human rights as part of a broader approach that is contemplated by and implicit in the conference and the accords themselves. In those accords, there is a basket of issues dealing with disarmament. There is another basket of issues dealing with economic matters. Then there is the very important basket of social matters including human rights. One cannot make substantial progress on just one of these fronts. One must keep the pressure going and chip away at the totality of these fronts because mutual interests must be met.
The Conference on Co-operation and Security in Europe does not work on the basis of a voting process like this Chamber. It operates by consensus. Therefore, it is important that the Hon. Member who is advancing a list of names also participate with other parliamentarians in the proceedings of this conference by advancing other elements of the conference itself. These elements are disarmament, economic matters including the environment, and human rights.
No doubt progress can be made within the Conference on Security and Co-operation, and it has been made. That process has gone through very difficult times. In 1980 particularly, at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, the conference came to a stalemate in Madrid for 18 months. Nevertheless, the spirit of Helsinki is basically a good one. That is what the Hon. Member is in essence endorsing. He is telling us that we should promote and advance the Helsinki spirit on August 1 by emphasizing Human Rights Day. We are with him all the way. However, it is important that the participation of parliamentarians be spread out on all fronts of that conference because it is a conference to which East and West come together with separate agendas and the two agendas must eventually be integrated.
For example, disarmament is very high on the agenda of eastern European countries. Elements of human rights are very high on the agenda of western nations including Canada. On the economic front, it is a mixed bag of different interests which not very often come together. Nevertheless, there is an awkward, difficult and sometimes not very focused convergence of interests. Therefore, the process must be refined and the role of parliamentarians, particularly through the Interparliamentary Union, is crucial.
I hope that the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park attends conferences of the Inter-parliamentary Union in order to advance the ideas he has advanced here today. I suggest that he put his time, efforts and energies, which I know are very high, into those conferences under the auspices of the Inter-parliamentary Union which brings together parliamentarians from East and West to discuss the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. That is where we as Canadian parliamentarians can communicate our preoccupations and priorities. That is where we can communicate the names of people we think ought to be given human rights

August 28, 1987
Helsinki Human Rights Day
considerations to our colleagues from eastern Europe. That is where the dialogue can take place, and it does take place at times.
The Elon. Member was quite right when he said that declaring August 1, 1987, as Helsinki Human Rights Day may appear to be a small step, but nevertheless it is a small step on a long road that began in 1975 when the Government of Canada participated, not only sympathetically but enthusiastically, in the notion of finding common ground and a convergence of interests, awkward and unfocused as it might be at times, in order to bring cohesion and build bridges between such different systems as are represented by the 35 nations that compose this particular conference.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park. He has done us a service by reminding us that there is a CSC process, that we have a particular interest and obligation on the side of human rights, that we want to intensify our efforts, that we want to participate in these efforts in their totality, and that Canada as a middle nation has a particular role to play. I must say that that conference is one of the world's forums in which middle nations can play a major leadership role notwithstanding the two superpowers which, in this kind of exchange, often tend either to drag their feet or sometimes to be so aggressive and unconstructive that the whole process comes to a grinding halt. That is neither the object nor the substance of this motion. Perhaps it should be the object of a debate on another day.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House on this motion and to underline the Government's support for the idea of a Helsinki Human Rights Day to be celebrated every year on the first day of August.
1 commend the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) for bringing this motion before the House. I listened very carefully as well to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and I think he made a very good point by saying that although the motion focuses on human rights, we should really remember that the Helsinki Final Act has many different element parts and we want to be supportive of the entire accords.
There is no question, nevertheless, that the promotion and protection of human rights in all of the 35 participating states of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is a very important and fundamental part of the Helsinki Final Act. Canadians have a deep interest in and respect for human rights throughout the world and have campaigned vigorously against abuses of these rights wherever they occur.
In its response to the Special joint committee report on Canada's international relations, the Government reiterated that its concern for the fundamental rights of individuals and groups is intrinsic to Canadian society and Canada's historical heritage. The Government further stated that human rights
are and will remain a fundamental, integral part of Canadian foreign policy.
Twelve years ago, the signing of the Helsinki Final Act evoked a wide range of reactions. Some naively beieved that the hostility and uncertainty which had marked East-West relations for so long would quickly disappear in an era of detente. Others, somewhat cynically, viewed the Final Act as a commendable set of principles which would be ignored and soon forgotten. However, most of us viewed the Final Act with both cautious hope and pragmatic realism.
Hope was essential. Canada has deep roots in Europe. Our historical origins lie in Europe. We have shared the benefits of Europe's political and social ideals, along with the tragic cost of Europe's wars. Experience has shown that even longstanding divisions can be healed, or at least managed peacefully. The relationship between West Germany and Canada since 1945 is a good example of that. In spite of two world wars we are good friends and committed allies in NATO, for peace and security and the progress of democracy and human rights in the world. Our hope, however, was then and is still today tempered by realism. The tortuous negotiations which led to the Final Act made it painfully clear that distrust and hostility were very deeply-rooted, and productive dialogue would take time, patience and, above all, commitment.
More than that, however, the history of Communism since 1917 has taught us that we must study very carefully and diligently both its theory and practice. We have to be very careful and constantly on guard. Words might mean one thing in our democratic system but may be used in an entirely different way by the Communists for their own ends. For example, in the Yalta Agreement it was declared that within two years there would be free and unfettered democratic elections in all of the liberated states of eastern Europe. Did that happen? Certainly not from the point of view of how we understand free, unfettered and democratic. Nevertheless, the three nations who signed the Yalta Agreement all agreed on those words. We have to look at the theory and practice of Communism to determine how the Soviet Union meant those words when it signed the agreement.
In order to have a free and unfettered democratic election under Communism you must first remove by torture, death, expropriation and imprisonment all of the wealthy, the educated, land owners, and all foreigners whatever their name. A cousin of mine, because of his German name, Reimer, was taken as a 15-year old boy and sent to a gulag. He came back to the Soviet Union and, fortunately, six years ago came to Canada. Then you remove all the churches' power and influence. Then you get rid of all the political Parties. When you have one Party left and all other influences have been eliminated, and the one Party is supreme in all the institutions of the state, you can have a free, unfettered and democratic election. That is what they meant because that is what they did in all the eastern European states. The Red Army came
August 28, 1987

through and got rid of whoever it wanted to get rid of, using the excuse of war. Then the Communists started their system of torture and imprisonment to the point where Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the rest of eastern Europe had imposed on them the Communist system with its understanding of those words.
We have to keep all of that in front of us when we deal with something like the Helsinki Final Act. We just celebrated Black Ribbon Day in many centres across Canada. We also have to remember the events of 1939 to 1941 and all they mean to the denial of human rights and self-determination. We have to remember the way in which three states, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, were simply annihilated by the Soviet Union. Many people were killed and others taken forcefully to the Soviet Union. Then Soviet citizens were brought in so they could say that those three states do not exist any more. That is the way it stands today.
I could go on to give many more examples, but in spite of all that, the Final Act is nevertheless a modest beginning which I think we must support. It is a product of compromise. Together the states involved determined they must come to some understanding and work out an agreement concerning the recognition of the events which had taken place. They came together in a climate of understanding and detente. The Soviet Union wanted the West to accept the fact that they now control all of eastern Europe and it was their sphere of influence. We of course were not going to war to change that. Therefore, we saw an opportunity not to recognize and accept all of that but simply to say, "Yes, that is the reality. If you want us to recognize this simple reality and not go to war to change it, we insist upon other human rights and the recognition of the right of free movement of people. We can at least start building some measure of detente".
In that way an agreement was signed which met the needs of the peoples and states that met together at this conference.
Let us look at what happened this past year in one small country, the Baltic Republic of Latvia. There a small group was formed to monitor the Final Act. By passing this motion today we would be saying to those people who have risked their freedom that we are with them. We stand with all the people throughout easter Europe. We stand with all those who are denied the rights we have. In passing this motion what we are doing is more than symbolic. We are saying that we stand with those who are in prison in Poland today because of their work with Solidarity.
In conclusion, I want to move two amendments to the motion before us. First, I move:
That Motion 119 be amended. That the year 1987 be deleted from line 3, so
that it will read, "designating August 1st as 'Helsinki Human Rights Day'."
I also move:
That Motion 119 be amended in lines 5 and 6 by deleting the words "of the
twelfth anniversary of the signing".
Helsinki Human Rights Day
The effect of those two amendments is that we will celebrate this agreement every August 1. The amendments are very simple and I am sure Members will understand and support them.
In conclusion, I want to say that one of the most effective ally for those in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union who would deny the human rights and many other things that we enjoy is our silence. By doing this we are saying, "we stand with you". By doing this we keep chipping away at the denial of human and political rights. We are showing that we recognize that although there is a huge gulf between us, we have to work at that and eliminate all of the rhetoric and the differences so that we can have at least a measure of peace and security.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair was in some difficulty having received two amendments. However, after studying them carefully we realize that the second amendment is consequential and the two amendments could become one. Therefore, I am sure the rewriting of the amendment will be done by the Table Officers as long as we all accept the substance of what is being done.
Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Reimer) agreed to.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of designating August 1 as Helsinki Human Rights Day. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Parkdale- High Park (Mr. Witer) for having brought forward this motion, which we support.
In his comments the Hon. Member said something to the effect that silence never helps the victims but always the perpetrators. Yet it was pointed out to me that last year when the Committee on Human Rights was holding hearings on the issue of human rights in South Africa the Hon. Member was the only one who voted against sanctions against South Africa. That, too, is a kind of silence which speaks very eloquently of support for the perpetrators of human rights violations in South Africa.


Andrew Witer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member will check the record he will see that the statement which he has just made about the way I voted in a committee is inaccurate. I am sure he would want to correct his statement.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I will check the record. If I prove to be inaccurate I would want to apologize to the House.
I support the whole concept of a Human Rights Day on which the spotlight of our concern here in Canada and, we hope, the spotlight of the entire international community will

August 28, 1987
Helsinki Human Rights Day
be put on human rights violations, not simply in Europe but throughout the world. The whole concept of human rights is far too often dealt with from an ideological perspective.
For example, the two superpowers are trying to use human rights in a very political way. The United States is able to pinpoint human rights violations in Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet Union is able to point to violations on the part of the United States through some of its covert activities throughout the world. In fact, both of these nations are quite right in pointing to the faults of the others, but we have to move beyond seeing human rights only from an ideological perspective and in terms of an East-West struggle. We must recognize that where human rights violations take place, whether in the East, West, North or South, they should be condemned and exposed.
We have to move away from the idea of trying to remove the speck from someone else's eye while ignoring the log in our own. We have to move away from this kind of hypocrisy. Canadians are guilty of this also.
We also need to recognize the complexity of human rights issues because sometimes what is defended as one nation's right to survive as a people becomes condemned by another nation as a violation of human rights when one nation is under a kind of seige.
We can see some of this in Canadian history. One of the most shameful incidents in Canadian history is the forcible expulsion of the Japanese from British Columbia. That was done under the provisions of the War Measures Act during World War II. That was a violation of the basic human rights of those people, many of whom were Canadian citizens. Yet it was justified by the Government of the time and the population of the time as being somehow necessitated by national survival.
More recently the imposition of the War Measures Act in the Province of Quebec in 1970 resulted in hundreds of people being arrested, many of them completely innocent of any kind of wrongdoing. That was a violation of human rights which took place under the rubric of some kind of national necessity.
We also need to recognize that the state of our world means that human rights violations are taking place in so many situations that it is almost overwhelming. How can we be aware of them all? Any spotlight that brings attention to one particular set of violations should be welcomed. However, while we might focus on one area we should not be blind or oblivious to the violations that take place in other parts of the world.
This past year the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade did a study on the development assistance policies of Canada. We issued our report entitled For Whose Benefit? In this report we make a strong case for linking our development assistance to the human rights policies and practices of the nations that are receiving our development
assistance. I would like to read some of the recommendations as follows:
The committee recommends:
i)	That emergency humanitarian aid continue to be given on compassionate grounds without preconditions, but that it be monitored closely to prevent abuses;
Even in situations where there are abuses, where there are compassionate needs, emergency needs such as following an earthquake or something of that nature, there would be emergency assistance.
The committee further recommended:
ii)	That the victims of human rights violations not be forgotten when decisions are taken to reduce or delay long-term development aid to governments;
Since we cannot support bilateral aid to governments that violate human rights, we have to remember the individual victims within those countries.
Third, the committee recommended:
iii)	That human rights criteria be developed coherently as part of overall Canadian foreign policy, and that these be applied in a universal, consistent and transparent manner;
In other words, we don't want one set of human rights criteria to be used for development assistance and another set of criteria to be used when we are developing military alliances or trade negotiations.
Fourth, the committee recommended:
iv)	That such criteria, embracing both individual, civil and political rights and socio-economic and cultural rights, be derived from established standards of international human rights law and convention;
It is very important that when we talk about human rights we not only talk about civil and political rights as we understand them in the western democracies, but that we also emphasize the importance of socio-economic rights. What do human rights mean to a child growing up in Mozambique, for example, a country which has been left poor from four centuries of Portuguese colonialism? They are under constant stress and threats from the destabilizing efforts of the South African Government. What do human rights mean to a child growing up in Mozambique? Do they not appear in the form of milk, food, education and a safe shelter, rather than in whether or not someone can run for a legislature, although that is also important? Next it reads:
That verifiable reports of violations, not ideology or strategic interest, be the basis for unfavourable assessments of human rights observance;
In other words, it is not a question of ideology but of objective description. Organizations such as Amnesty International try to provide that kind of evaluation of human rights. Groups such as that must be supported. It goes on to read:
That, more generally, progress on human rights be considered part of development, with assessments of the human rights situation in a given country being related to the over-all record of development, particularly from the vantage point of the poorest people.
August 28, 1987

As we assess human rights, we want to see what a particular country is doing in the whole concept of development. Nicaragua is a good example.
While some people have complained that certain rights and liberties have had to be suspended during a period of crisis, it is a country that is under seige. The American Government is financing a Contra movement that is working to destabilize the whole economy and working to destroy the whole process of development. Yet, since the revolution, Nicaragua has had one of the most remarkable achievements of development in terms of education and health. It has had one of the best records in Central America in terms of being able to make effective use of Canadian development assistance.
When one considers the total picture in a country like Nicaragua, one sees that it has a good human rights situation, even though there are one or two areas where certain human rights have had to be curtailed because of the political crisis that has resulted from the American funded Contra attack upon that country.
The committee goes on to recommend that a human rights unit be established in the Policy Branch of CIDA, and that it develop a human rights grid in line with what the committee recommends. The committee recommends that there be four categories: human rights negative, human rights watch, human rights satisfactory, and human rights positive. In other words, we would attempt to consider the whole situation of a country and apply that situation to a grid to determine whether, for example, the human rights situation in that country is so negative that it stands in universal condemnation. In that case, there should be no bilateral aid.
Human rights watch indicates that there are problems but we believe there are still possibilities. We would not want to rule out the possibility of Canadian aid in those areas. Human rights satisfactory means that we would want to be able to provide aid. Finally, human rights positive refers to situations where a country has made great strides in improving human rights.
In conclusion, I want to indicate our support for the whole concept of human rights, and the Helsinki Human Rights Day on August 1. Wherever a spotlight can be brought on the need for improvements in human rights, we in our Party will support it.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Madam Speaker, I wish there was time available to do justice to the motion and the message that it communicates. However, looking at the clock, I see that our time is running out very quickly, and if there is agreement in the House it might be possible for us to vote on this motion now because of the unanimous support which I detect from Members representing allParties.
I would welcome such support both as a colleague of the mover of the motion in the House and in the Committee on Human Rights.
Helsinki Human Rights Day
I am sure that I represent the general opinion of the House in supporting the mover of this motion and the intent of the motion. The great value of a motion such as this and the idea that it advocates, namely an annual remembrance of the Helsinki Human Rights Accords, is that it will raise the consciousness of our people about human rights and continue to maintain that consciousness year by year. It is absolutely vital, particularly in a democracy, that such a message not simply be a commitment on paper but that it be incarnated in the interest, devotion and sense of men and women throughout the land.
The message of human rights is part of the political obligation of every Government of the world. We recognized in our signing of the accords that we have a responsibility to concern ourselves with human rights in other parts of the world because they are the rights of men and women who share our humanity. They share with us this world and our humanity and we have a common obligation to them.
It has also been pointed out that we have a responsibility in that our commitment to human rights is such that when we speak to the world we can speak with sincerity, integrity and effect.
This is a subject that calls forth from the heart and the mind. There is much that might be shared but, alas, time is running out and I want to give an opportunity to speak to my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis).


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure today in joining my colleagues in their support for the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer).
His proposal that August 1 should be designated "Helsinki Human Rights Day" is indeed appropriate, because it expresses the profound sentiment that is felt by every person in this country. Madam Speaker, there is not a single person in Canada who is not concerned about this problem. The Hon. Member's proposal also addresses the vital role of the CSCE in seeking a greater element of trust and stability in East-West relations. Finally, it reflects the role of human rights in developing the trust that is a prerequisite for any tangible improvement in East-West relations. For Canada, human rights are a moral obligation. They are the expression in concrete terms of our obligation to respect others. Furthermore, they are the keystone of our democracy and the foundation of our civilization, because full respect for these rights opens the door to the free exchange of ideas that is the source of all creativity. Over the years, the Canadian Government has made a tremendous effort to reinforce the protection of these rights in Canada by enshrining them in the Constitution.
Our support for human rights does not stop at our borders. Since the Second World War, we have signed universal

August 28, 1987
Royal Assent
declarations of human rights and we have been signatories of UN conventions on human rights. In years gone by, the Canadian Government has been particularly active and sent delegations to other countries to express our position that human rights must be respected throughout the world.
Madam Speaker, I want to say that I wholeheartedly support this motion and that I would like to see it adopted today.
Rideau Hall Ottawa
28 August 1987 Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Claire L'Heureux-Dube, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 28th day of August, 1987, at 5.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Witer), as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the sitting is now suspended to the call of the Chair.
At 1.32 p. m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 5.14 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees.



ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour
to inform the House that a communication has been received
as follows:



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation-Chapter No. 34, 1987.
Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings-Chapter No. 35, 1987.
Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees-Chapter No 36, 1987.


Mr. Prud'homme:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: My colleague for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and myself simply want to say that we appreciate your patience. We were with you this morning until 2.14 and we are still here at 5.30 this afternoon. We find you very patient and would like to wish you a good week-end.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In the opinion of the Chair, that is not a point of order, but a touch of humour on the part of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.
Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11.00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, August 31, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, August 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 10(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 1(c) and 8, because this House believes that amendments 1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (b), 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6, 7(a) and (b), 9 and 10(b) and (c) are in contradiction to the principles of the Bill which will increase intellectual property protection, increase research and development in Canada, create new high-technology jobs, improve the health care of Canadians, and protect consumers from higher drug prices. More specifically:
Amendments 1(a) and (b) delete the definitions of "Board" and "patentee". These definitions are necessary to support the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers.
Amendments 2(a) and (b) reduce Canada's export potential and fine chemical manufacturing.
Amendments 3, 4(a) and (b), reduce the periods of market exclusivity, thus eliminating the incentive for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendment 5(a) reduces the period of market exclusivity and export potential, thus reducing economic benefits for Canada.
Amendment 5(b) deletes the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers, and this amendment also removes the protection for Canadian-invented medicines and thus the incentives for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendments 6, 7(a) and (b), 10(b) and (c) arise out of amendments 1(a) and (b), 2, 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendment 9 arises out of Senate amendment 8, but is not consistent with the House amendment to Senate amendment 8, as set out below.
And, that:
Senate amendment 1(c) be amended to read as follows: "(c) Strike out lines 35 to 42 and add the following:
(2) For the purpose of sections 41.11 to 41.16, the notice of compliance that is first issued for either the original and distinct chemical composition of a medicine or the obvious chemical equivalent of the medicine shall be deemed to be the first notice of compliance issued in respect of that medicine."
Senate amendment 8 be amended to read as follows: "insert the heading "Transitional" and the following as clause 31:
31.(1) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shall pay to each province for each of the fiscal years commencing in the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1991, for the purpose of research and development relating to medicine, an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(i)	$25 million by
(ii)	the total population of all provinces for the fiscal year in respect of
which the payment is made, by
(b)	the population of the province for the fiscal year in respect of which the
payment is made.
(2)	Payment of any amount under this section shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such times and in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the population of a province for a fiscal year shall be the population of that province on the first day of June of that year as determined and published by the Chief Statistician of Canada."
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. 1 think the debate on Bill C-22 is proceeding. We are now calling it for the fifth day. We are naturally anxious that this Bill, which will do quite a bit for investment in Canada and jobs, proceed and be sent back to the Senate. Hopefully our motion will be granted. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the question be now put.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have just been caught by surprise. That is a debatable motion and I would like to address it, but not at any length.
I am happy to address the Hon. Member as the "Minister" now because yesterday he was elevated to that position. I want to offer him my congratulations, as well as those of all of us.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That was his first mistake.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: As the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has just reminded me, he has just made his first mistake. He is not usually the type who catches us by much surprise but sometimes he does these things and we do like to be given proper notice.
It is usually the procedure and the habit of the Government to give us fair notice of what is going to be debated in the House. We were told yesterday that we would be dealing with

August 28, 1987
Patent Act
Bill C-71 this morning. As a result, I asked people who understand Bill C-71 and who want to debate it to be here.
I understood also that the Government was going to call the debate on the amendments from the Senate on Bill C-22 which was to follow Bill C-71. 1 also expected the Minister, before Orders of the Day were called, by using Standing Order 57, to invoke closure, of which the Government had given notice through the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board two days ago. Therefore, I must admit that it was with some amazement at the Minister's sudden and, I would add, unexpected move, that I now rise to speak.
Two days ago 1 told the Minister that our leader, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), had spoken, and spoken very well I might add, on the issue making the position of the Liberal Party of Canada very clear. 1 had told the House that we believed Bill C-22 was a bad Bill, that we thought it should be amended in the interests of protecting the consumers of Canada, that the Government had caved in to the multinationals and that the Government was giving them what they had asked for in the free trade debate, namely, opened-ended access to the pharmaceutical market without any restrictions on patents. The Government has acceded to those requests from the Americans in the hope of getting a free trade deal. Two days ago I told the Minister, who was then Parliamentary Secretary, that after my Leader spoke we would not put up any additional speakers because we believed strongly that democracy must be given a chance to operate. There has been sufficient debate. We have made our points. The Senate sent back the Bill amended and we accept that as a parliamentary procedure very much in keeping with tradition. The Senate has that right. The Government accepted one of the Senate's amendments, 1 understand. Therefore, the process has worked.
1 do not think it is a question of whether or not the Senate should be abolished because it is doing its work. I think it is a debate on whether or not we will satisfy multinational American companies and others who want us to give up our patent protection on pharmaceutical products. We said at the beginning of this emergency session on August 11 that, indeed, the Government was not calling us back for an immigration crisis, it was calling us back to satisfy its own agenda on the question of the free trade deal.
1 was surprised to see how the Minister, on his first order before the House, changed the Order of the Day. The Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) just handed me a copy of the Projected Order of Business for today. I admit it says at the bottom that the document is intended as a guide but, nevertheless, it contains instructions that were given by the Government to the Table. It does say as 1 mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that Bill C-71 would be the first consideration at 10 this morning.
Having said all that, I say that I will not prolong this debate. I know that the Government with its huge majority will have its way. 1 simply say to the Minister that I hope he shows a little more understanding and operates a little differently in the days and months to come. Consultations with us will bring on better relations between the Parties. Indeed, if we want to carry forth in the spirit of the McGrath reforms, I think it would be appropriate that when we do say something, we mean it. We should stick to our word and should not play games with Members of Parliament. Indeed, in that habit of openness and truthfulness, we will establish reasonably good and fair grounds for debate.
1 do not know if anyone else from my Party will participate on this debate, but I am ready to vote on the question as soon as the debate is over.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let me preface my brief remarks by saying how pleased we are that the new Minister of State has been given his new responsibilities as Deputy House Leader. We in the New Democratic Party look forward as we always do to working co-operatively with him and his colleagues to facilitate the business of the House of Commons.
Having said that, I must say that it is with a heavy heart that we begin a debate on the patent drug legislation. I find it disappointing that the first order of business the new Minister of State announced was a change of plans.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, and 1 know how committed you are to the effective workings of this House, that we do what we can to conduct the business of Canada as expeditiously and conscientiously as possible. To do that, we as responsible Members of Parliament must have some indication of what the business of the House will be. That indication then allows Hon. Members who are concerned about certain legislation an opportunity to prepare thoughtful remarks and add thoughtful comments to the debate. For us to act responsibly, we require some notice of what the business of the House will be. We cannot expect an Hon. Member to rise in his or her place to speak on legislation that he or she has just heard about seconds earlier.
As the Whip for the Official Opposition indicated, this morning's order of business indicated that the first order of business was to be Bill C-71. We were prepared to deal with that Bill. Our speakers were prepared to offer what 1 felt would have been thoughtful and constructive comments on that legislation. However, we now find that that will not necessarily be the case. 1 am not sure what the case is, but the first order the new Minister of State introduced is, in a sense, a form of closure.
The Minister indicated today that the Government will not tolerate any more amendments to this Bill. I do not know where he got any indication that there would be more amendments to this Bill. I think it is useful to note that this is simply part of a long train of events. At every stage of Bill C-22,
August 28, 1987

debate has been curtailed. I think this is rather unique in recent Canadian parliamentary history. The House of Commons has been muzzled. The Government has used its large majority in a rather jackbooted fashion and has said at every stage that it has had enough discussion on the Bill, it will curtail discussion through time allocation or one form of closure or another. It is not surprising that as we wrap up this discussion, once again the Government is telling us that it has had enough and it will begin cutting off any opportunity for debate. That is essentially what the new Minister of State said this morning.
This is distressing because we all want to get on with the business of governing Canada. We want to play our roles as government Members or as effective opposition Members. It is impossible to do that if we are not allowed to debate issues, if the Government uses its huge majority to muzzle Parliamentarians and say that it will not allow free speech or free and open debate on this or that issue.
If this is any indication of what we can expect from the new Minister of State in his role of assisting the business of the House of Commons, it will be a very, very dark fall for open parliamentary democracy in Canada. We are here to debate. We are here to work. We are here to discuss the issues of the day in a responsible, thoughtful and constructive way. To do that, there cannot be last-minute changes.
I suppose this tells us as opposition Members and, through us, the people of Canada, that the Government is out of control. It has no agenda. It does not know what it is trying to accomplish.


An Hon. Member:: Get serious.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear people saying, "Get serious, Nelson". Fair enough. I beg the government House Leader and the new Minister of State to begin to lay out some kind of a strategy. I think we are far beyond the day when we have to come here at 10 a.m. or 11 a.m. to find out what we will do during the day. Surely to goodness a Government with such a vast majority can say, "This is our plan for the next few days, the next few weeks or the next few months". But no; day by day, hour by hour, we wonder what the Government is going to do. This sends a very clear signal that the Government does not know what it is going to do. It is directionless. It is leaderless. It has no idea what its parliamentary agenda is and, by definition, it has no idea of what its government agenda is.
On behalf of all Members of the House of Commons, and I mean as well government Members who offer constructive and useful comments during debate on various sides of an issue, I beg the government House Leader and the new Minister of State to try to work with Members of Parliament and to lay out a strategy that has a longer term than five minutes. The Government might then begin to give some indication that it is in charge of its own agenda and has an idea of where it is going.
Patent Act
I apologize for making these rather harsh comments so early the day after we sat so late. However, I am very worked up, and very disappointed with the new Minister. Normally we enjoy working with him. It is unfortunate that his first order of business is to curtail debate and muzzle Parliament. In a sense he is using the jackboot tactics we have seen at every stage of Bill C-22 and it is unfortunate that we are seeing it once again today.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo and elaborate on the comments of my House Leader. I find this a very unusual procedure. The motion before us is that the question be now put. I do not have to explain the rules to you, but that prevents any amendments to the main motion with which we are dealing. The debate on that motion started last Friday. It was debated almost every day this week. There has not been one single amendment offered by a member of the Liberal Party or the NDP, or even by the Conservatives. Why move a motion saying there will be no more amendments?
We indicated as late as 2.15 a.m. to the new Minister of State that we were not going to be doing anything unusual or using any procedural tricks. We had no intention of making any amendments. The Liberals indicated the same thing. Therefore the motion is completely unnecessary. In fact, it seems to work against co-operation among the Parties.
I can tell you, as I have told the Government, we had about three more Members who were eligible and available to speak today. Obviously this legislation was going to be completed some time today. However, we are now in a situation where all the people who have spoken since Monday are now eligible to speak again. This motion works against the Government's intentions. I now have a bunch of people who are eligible to make another speech on Bill C-22. This is completely illogical and shows that the Government did not know what it is doing. At the same time, it unnecessarily antagonizes the Opposition.
When you talk to the new Minister, the person responsible for the progress of legislation in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), and tell him that you are not going to obstruct, that you expect the legislation to be completed Monday at the latest but probably today, you assume that is acceptable. He has been in the House since last Friday when the debate commenced and he knows we have run out of speakers. It is obvious. Given an opposition Party the size of ours with 33 Members, when you speak for five days on the same topic you are going to run out of speakers. The Liberals with 40 Members are going to do the same thing. Therefore I have to ask the new Minister of State why he would do something which only provokes the Opposition and at the same time enables it to prolong the debate for another week if it desires.
I think this really shows the paranoid attitude of the Government towards Bill C-22. Yesterday we had a bunch of
Patent Act

August 28, 1987
Tory back-benchers ranting and raving because the CBC did not cover for two nights in a row the hired demonstrators outside on the Hill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Is that a nice way to talk about Canadian workers?


Rodney Edward Murphy: That was the situation. That was the concern of the Conservative back-benchers. They did not talk about unemployment or problems in their ridings. They were concerned about what the CBC did or did not cover on The National last night. Then today at ten o'clock when the House convenes we have a motion put which allows the Opposition to drag out this legislation for another week when the Government knew we had no intention of doing so. I really do not feel 1 would be upset if one of our Members had a few more words to say. The Government has now given us the opportunity to make one more speech per Member.
We do not intend to stall the legislation. We intend to keep our word despite the provocation and tactical stupidity of the new Minister. It was completely stupid and completely unnecessary and I think in some ways unforgivable and I hope he will apologize to Members of the House.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I hope you will apologize to the workers of Canada.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, 1 hope to speak briefly about the Government's tactics in just a few minutes, but I want to speak about the main motion which rejects the majority of Senate amendments to the Patent Act.
I am reminded of a Vancouver woman who some years ago married an up-coast logger and went to live with him at his float camp on an isolated inlet in British Columbia. In the first week at her new residence she decided she was going to bake some fresh bread for her new husband as a special treat. Something went wrong and the bread did not rise properly. Not wanting her husband to make fun of her when he came home, she decided to get rid of the bread. She took it out and threw it into the salt chuck. However, if the bread did not rise properly, it would not sink either. Instead, the tide carried it out, but not very far. The next tide carried it right back in. When her husband came home there was this ungodly-looking mess for him to see and ask what it was all about. For the next several days the tide would carry the bread out and then bring it right back.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, but she cast her bread on the waters.


James Douglas Manly: Now we have Bill C-22 back on our doorstep when it should have been given a decent burial.
I suppose I should congratulate the Government on one significant achievement with regard to Bill C-22. Perhaps it is the Government's most significant achievement over the past
three years. It is something that none of us could have expected. With Bill C-22 the Government made the Senate look good. Only a reactionary Tory Government playing sycophant to Uncle Sam and the American drug industry could have made that obsolete, undemocratic relic of 19th century colonialism, filled with Liberal patronage appointments, look good. The Government has managed to do that and I say, congratulations.
The Government has now announced closure. That is not surprising. Every stage of this Bill has been rammed through by the Government with some form of closure or time allocation. The Conservatives have not been willing to allow the debate on this issue to run its full course. They have had to introduce some form of closure to ram it through.
All of us, opposition Members as well as Government, would like to be able to salvage a little bit of the summer. We are not anxious to prolong any debate. However, the NDP wants to see that the issues are properly raised, and in spite of my own personal wish to be back on Vancouver Island visiting my constituency and enjoying the sunshine, the beaches and beautiful scenery, I am not going to abdicate my responsibility to speak out against a Bill which is so contrary to the interests of ordinary Canadians.
During the last couple of days we have seen a few demonstrators on Parliament Hill calling for passage of C-22. I have no doubt that those people are sincere, even though 1 understand their pilgrimage here was heavily subsidized by the drug companies. The Tories claim that somehow this demonstration represents strong grassroots support for Bill C-22. If that were really the case I think the Government would have wanted to let the movement build a little before killing it by bringing in closure. If this measure were all that popular with the Canadian people would it not be natural for the Government to let the Canadians see that the Opposition is just being obstructionist?
Instead the Government is bringing in closure because it does not want the people to see this debate. The Government knows that the more Canadians know about this Bill the more they will oppose it. Any window dressing such as the demonstration the other day does not really convince the Government that it has any real popular support.
We have documented time and again the real reasons for this Bill. It is an appetizer for American business interests as they get ready for the great free trade barbeque. Perhaps a little bit of history would help us understand. Up until 1969 Canadians paid the highest drug prices in the world. Under this Bill we will revert to those times.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, let us remember the words of Joe Wallace who said:
Ours is a sovereign nation Bows to no foreign will But whenever they cough in Washington
August 28, 1987

They spit on Parliament Hill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5) the division stands deferred until six o'clock p.m., Monday, August 31, 1987.


CRIMINAL CODE, IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 AND CITIZENSHIP ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are five motions at report stage of Bill C-71, all standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer). All of these motions were moved in committee and debated there and all of them were negatived. It is with regret, therefore, that I must inform the Hon. Member that under the powers granted to me by the Standing Orders none of his motions will be selected for debate at report stage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Criminal Code


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to address this Bill at third reading. I shall not take a lot of the time of the House because I know there is an interest in proceeding quickly to pass this Bill at third reading.
Bill C-71 flows out of the efforts of the Government, through the setting up of the Deschenes Commission, to examine the issue of war crimes. I believe the Deschenes Commission served a very worthwhile purpose for our country. It put to rest the nagging question of whether or not there are Second World War criminals in Canada who were either allowed here illegally or came here legally having somehow escaped paying any penalty for their actions during World War II.
I believe the commission served a very useful purpose for a great many people, those who suffered under a threat that there may have been some wrong-doing, and others who suffered under no threat but wanted the matter cleared up. I believe that a great service was done for the country in the settling, once and for all, through the Deschenes Commission, of exactly who should be prosecuted and what laws should be put in place to enable that prosecution.
Bill C-71 was debated for a short time in the House and went to committee where it had a full hearing. My colleague, the Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer), who is interested in this subject, had the opportunity at committee to move his amendments. They were defeated in committee and the Chair has ruled them out of order. We are, therefore, now on third reading debate.
In conclusion, we are pleased that we have reached third reading of this very important Bill. There seems to be a disposition in the House that this measure receive third reading as soon as possible in order that prosecutions under this law can proceed. I would like to thank the members of both opposition Parties for their efforts and their co-operation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, we have reached an important stage today in the making of Canada into a truly just and civilized society. We are finally giving third reading to a Bill which will, when passed by the Senate and proclaimed, give the criminal justice system of Canada the tool for bringing war criminals present in Canada to justice within our own country.
I want to congratulate the Government for bringing the Bill to the stage which has been reached today. I want to acknowledge, as the Minister has, the co-operation which he has received from the Official Opposition and from the NDP. That co-operation was more than necessary due to the urgency of dealing with this matter.

August 28, 1987
Criminal Code
As 1 say, the country has become a more just society because of the step being taken today, but it is almost too late because, albeit not exclusively, in the main the Bill is directed toward bringing to justice individuals responsible for some of the worst crimes committed in the history of mankind. These crimes were committed with the aid of official government policy and with the resources of the state. They were committed, with the technology that our modern civilization has created, and were directed toward the killing of innocent men, women and children.
Why is it necessary to bring these war criminals to justice so many years later? There are many reasons. I grew up as a member of the Jewish community, safe in Canada, but knowing of the holocaust being perpetrated in Europe and having relatives there, knowing of the unsuccessful efforts that millions made before the Second World War to come to Canada and other countries where the doors were closed. Following the war there was a long period when nothing at all was done by any of the countries which should have been interested, because of their commitment during the war and the victory for which they were responsible.
In the course of the last four or five years public opinion has finally come to recognize that the greatest crimes of all time might go unpunished, unpunished with the complicity of democratic countries that should have known better and which have a rich tradition of being committed to righting wrongs and seeing justice done. Why do we have to do it now?
Sometimes 1 hear people make the point that it is inevitable that people are killed in wars, and one should not make a special point of characterizing the act of war, when innocent people are killed, as one that should attract special punishment after the war is over. One hears people say that it happened, it is over, and we should try to forget and put the past behind us.
However, we must remember that the deaths we are talking about, in the overwhelming majority of cases, were not of people who were killed in the course of war. They were not people who died because their cities were bombed. They were not people who were struck by bullets straying from the valid targets of both sides in a war.
We are talking about an evil-as I think it can only be characterized-demographic policy of the Nazis which was not enforced during an actual battle. We are talking about events which took place in city after city, country after country, during the war, after a battle, after a military authority was established in each jurisdiction. There was an evil demographic policy by which people in the captive nations were rounded up and placed in concentration camps.
That is an act that could not have been done during actual fighting, but after the fighting and during the establishment of fascist governments in each of these jurisdictions. Innocent people were rounded up and systematically slaughtered, using all of the resources of the state. Hard pressed railway lines
were being diverted, and hard pressed administrators, with a losing war to continue, were taking time out of their busy schedule-if I can put it in that bizarre fashion-to kill millions and millions of innocent people who had been captured, including Ukrainians, Jews, and gypsies. People of every nationality were rounded up for slaughter. To say that this type of conduct can be forgiven after a war, because it happened in the course of a war, is unthinkable and totally unacceptable. 1 am pleased to see that this is recognized in the measure we are passing today with the support of all three Parties.
People also ask how one can prove cases. We can look at the Demjanjuk trial in Jerusalem. I had the opportunity three weeks ago to spend a day talking with the individuals involved in the conduct of the trial about some of the issues of evidence. In Israel, as in Canada, the highest standards of evidence continue to be applied. There must be absolute respect for the rule of law.
I am glad to note that nothing in this legislation diminishes in any way the safeguards which are available to any individual charged with any serious crime in Canada. 1 know that if it were otherwise it would be difficult to defend the legislation. However, now, even 43 years later, prosecution is still possible. I am looking forward with great anticipation to such trials.
I had responsibility for many aspects of the Rauca trial when it occurred. It was an extradition proceeding and I was concerned with the preparation of evidence and submission of evidence. I can assure the House that none of the safeguards of evidence that are required for any other accused person will be denied to individuals who are prosecuted under the law which is being brought forward today. It is a feature of the law which I very much commend.
Let me make one final point in this connection. One sometimes hears an argument against prosecuting war criminals because war criminals have suffered enough and have lived for decades with the full knowledge of their crime. I will refer to the case of Helmut Rauca. Helmut Rauca, who lived a few blocks from my constituency for 30 years, killed with his own actual physical involvement 15,400 people in one day. All of the evidence brought in that extradition trial related to Mr. Rauca's activities in one day.
After the city had been secured by German military forces, the Gestapo moved in, rounded up innocent people who were sleeping and waiting anxiously in their homes, took them to a central plaza in the city and shipped them to their deaths. Some argue that conduct like that must weigh heavily on an individual, and knowing that they could have been subject to prosecution all those years must have filled them with horror and remorse.
1 watched the trials that have occurred over the last few years. I hope Canadians watched the Barbie trial which was widely reported here in Canada, and the Rauca trial. You do not see individuals who have suffered great remorse. Of course, we are not yet in a position to draw a conclusion in the
August 28, 1987

Demjanjuk trial. However, in case after case where conclusions have been reached, one sees individuals who feel totally justified in what they did. They have their own explanations. When the facts are out and undeniable, and the conviction obtained, we see individuals who feel totally justified in what they did. It is a situation that cannot be left unremedied in a civilized nation.
I am not naive enough, as I hope no one is, to think that, with the power man has to commit atrocities like those which were committed in World War II, it will never happen again. I believe it can happen again, but I feel that the measure we have taken today in passing this legislation is one factor which will be borne in mind by those who would commit such atrocities in the future. They will keep in mind that there will be no safe haven in any fair-minded, decent country in the world.
I think the main reaction of Canadians when the Rauca case developed was that they were appalled. They were appalled to realize that among us there were unpunished individuals who had committed those crimes, whose identity, in some cases, were known to the Government or to other individuals, yet nothing had been done about it for decades.
In passing this legislation, we are sending a strong message about our civilization. The message is that that type of conduct will not go unpunished. Even 10 years, 20 years, 42 and 43 years later, as it is, a decent country will permit no haven. Canada is now becoming one of those countries, and there are a few of them, which are making that statement.
I directed all my remarks so far to the events of World War II. In the committee I proposed an amendment which was actually moved by another member. It was defeated. If enacted, it would have widened the scope of authority to the Attorney General to lay charges against more individuals who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. The definition is limited for reasons which those who are interested can read. They were put forward in the committee. But to my way of thinking the scope of the legislation should have been broader.
As I indicated on second reading, I thought that war criminals and criminals guilty of crimes against humanity, have appeared not only in the forum of World War II, and not only in western Europe, but in other places, in Asia, Central America and Africa. I ask anyone who thinks World War II could never happen again, that the Holocaust could never happen again, to look at some of these places in the world I mentioned where crimes have occurred and where survivors and others from that country have come to our country and made Canada their homeland.
We cannot ignore the injustices and crimes which, within their lifetime, have been committed against them if those guilty of committing those crimes have also come to our country. We cannot say that we want to bring justice, in the
Criminal Code
World War II context, but that we want to ignore it in relation to crimes against humanity which have occurred in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the other places I mentioned. As an example, I could mention Haiti which was much in the news about a ytear ago. I wanted a law which would be broad enough to ensure that, by our very high standards of justice, where a case could be made against an individual present in Canada, by witnesses who could come to Canada, or who are in Canada, and tell their story, that that would be done. The Government can correctly point out that the legislation is not directed only toward World War II, but it could have been broader.
I had some other amendments I wanted to explain as well to the House, but I see that with eleven o'clock approaching we may lose the opportunity to give third reading to the Bill right now, and I would very much like that to be done.


Andrew Witer: Madam Speaker, let me begin, in the time remaining, by stating very clearly that in my opinion Bill C-71 is a positive step to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act, after decades of neglect, of pretending the problem did not exist and of cover up. It is the first serious attempt by a Canadian Government to bring war criminals and those who committed crimes against humanity to justice. Yet, in my opinion, the Bill has a serious flaw. It should have been amended to comply with the principles of equity and civil liberties in Canadian law.
As it now reads, the Bill differentiates between crimes committed during periods of war and crimes committed during periods when Canada is not at war. But the problem is not in the differentiation of crimes. It is in the discrimination of the current wording of the Bill, levels against perpetuation of crimes against humanity when Canada was not involved in armed conflict. Clause 1(a) states that the crime must be committed by a Canadian citizen or an employee of Canada in a civilian or military capacity, by a citizen of a country with which Canada is at war. The victim must be either a Canadian citizen or a citizen of an allied state while Canada is at war. Clause 1(b), dealing with non-wartime crimes, states that at the time of the crime Canada would, in conformity with international law, exercise jurisdiction over the person with respect to the act or omission on the basis of the person's presence in Canada and subsequent to the time of the crime the person is present in Canada. No such restrictions are required for crimes committed while Canada is at war.
While in theory the Bill will permit prosecution of Canadian residents for any war crime or crime against humanity committed anywhere, the complex wording of the Bill would make it easier to prosecute some war criminals than others. The Bill may work well against suspected Nazis from World War II, but would allow others to escape justice; for example, former Soviet citizens who helped orchestrate the state imposed Ukrainian famine of 1933. To have easier access to the courts for some crimes than for others risks making the

August 28, 1987
Criminal Code
victims of some crimes feel their sufferings are being slighted and that Canada is treating them as lesser human beings.
Moreover, there is a risk that with two equally well documented crimes, one falling into paragraph 1(a) and the other falling into paragraph 1(b), the latter could fail to reach the courts due to an erroneous, narrow view of the Crown prosecutors as to what international law permits.
I am sure all Canadians would agree that any legislation dealing with war criminals should be of a quality sufficient to ensure that all and any war criminals found in Canada, regardless of when the crime took place, or of the criminals religious, ethnic or racial origin, are brought to trial in Canada under Canadian criminal law. In other words, a crime is a crime and a victim is a victim regardless of when and where the crime occurs.
The Government argues that the current wording of the Bill in fact meets these stringent requirements. For the sake of justice, I hope my interpretation is wrong and that the Government's interpretation is correct.
In closing, let me again congratulate the Government and both justice critics from the Opposition Parties for their cooperation and for bringing a " made in Canada" solution to this very important problem.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976, and the Citizenship Act. It is an honour because this legislation represents the culmination of a great deal of work by many, many people. At the same time, this legislation will bring about the opportunity for justice to be served against those responsible for the heinous crimes against humanity committed over 40 years ago.
It is important that we never forget these crimes or allow the perpetrators of them to continue to live freely. We must always be vigilant in order that the racism, hatred and anti-Semitism that was the foundation of Nazi ideology cannot be repeated. Such crimes against humanity are unimaginable still to this day, yet they must be imagined and remembered. It is, therefore, a tribute today in passing this Bill in the House of Commons to the memory of the millions who were murdered at the hands of war criminals.
It is never too late and, although the Canadian Government under previous administrations has a shameless record in this area, I would today recognize the work of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), who have had a continuing interest in this area for many years. As well, the former Minister of Justice, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), deserves full recognition for appointing the Commission of Inquiry into War Criminals back in February, 1985. It was this Commission, ably led by Mr. Justice Deschenes, that has been the focus of our work for the past two and a half years. His report is a landmark in the area
of war criminals. It served as the basis for this important legislation.
As well, the work of Mrs. Alti Rodal which was commissioned by Justice Deschenes should also be recognized today. Her study was both comprehensive and eloquent. We still urge the Government today to act upon Mrs. Rodal's request and the recommendation of the Deschenes Commission and release the entire study Nazi War Criminals in Canada.
One final group has been crucial to the passage of this legislation. I would like to give recognition today to the North American Jewish Students' Network. This group provided hours worth of meticulous and concise research, not only for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, but also for all other committee members. Special recognition should be given to Mr. Ken Narvey who worked tirelessly in order that this legislation would be passed. I know that all Members of the House appreciate the work he has done.
Canadians have witnessed many, many times the trials in recent years. We all feel very strongly that justice has been meted out in appropriate terms as individuals who committed heinous crimes have been recognized in terms of the dastardly deeds they committed.
The question often raised is this. Will the Holocaust ever happen again? I think it is only fair that when we look around the world today, whether we look to Africa, Asia, South America or the Caribbean, we find there are crimes being committed against humanity in these parts of the world. It is important more than ever before that Canada not become a hide-out, a safe haven for those individuals who have been involved in perpetrating these heinous crimes.
Finally, we must now look to the future. This legislation will be passed shortly. The work will then be turned over to the special team assembled at the Department of Justice. It is important that we have reached this stage in the legislation. The New Democratic Party calls upon the Minister of Justice, as was strongly recommended by Mr. Justice Deschenes in recommendation 81-c, to ensure that ample financial resources be given to this team in order that the work it carries out is thorough and complete.
Clearly, after 42 years of inaction we owe it not only to the memories of those who have died but also to their families who have suffered in surviving.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
August 28, 1987


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Price Waterhouse study was submitted, it was clear that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion-he must have had a dressing-down by the Prime Minister, and we saw the results in the Cabinet shuffle-that in recent weeks and months the Minister had failed in his duty to Parliament and the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that several times during the past few weeks, I raised the subject of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and more specifically, the fact that the Department was completely "broke". And every time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister categorically denied what we said. He said it was false, and today, we see that we were right about this grim state of affairs, and it has cost him his Cabinet post.
I think we have every reason to congratulate Price Waterhouse on their study, but we also have many reasons to be concerned about the way this Government is administering its departments. One wonders how a Minister could let his own Department get into such a mess. We happened to pick on this particular Department but I get the impression that many Ministers spend more time doing just about everything except administering their Department efficiently. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister who has some experience in financial administration, will restore the necessary controls in his new post because frankly, the former Minister failed utterly.



SENIOR CITIZENS


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, all too often the role that our seniors play in society is seriously underestimated and overlooked. Life does not stop after retirement. Our seniors can, and do, play a vital role in all aspects of Canadian life.
Yesterday Canada's seniors received long overdue, proper parliamentary recognition. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) set a wonderful precedent when he appointed my colleague, the Hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), as the Minister of State for Senior Citizens.
This is an historic initiative for all seniors, as they now have a direct voice to represent their concerns in Parliament.
Bert Hanmer, one of my constituents and a lifetime member of the Senior Citizens Council of Ottawa-Carleton, and all of his golden era colleagues, will now be able to make representations to Parliament through this wise, caring and experienced Minister.
After all that the seniors of our country have done and continue to do for Canada I am sure that every Member of the House welcomes this new Ministry.
Congratulations, Mr. Hees!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



HERBICIDES


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I was shocked this morning to see a sign on the West Block lawn stating: "This area treated with herbicide. Use at your own risk". "Secteur traite a I'herbicide. A vos risques".
The lawns of the House of Commons have always been a people place. They are not only to be well kept so that they are attractive to look at, but they should also be kept as an area that can be safely used and enjoyed by the people of Canada. Even crab-grass is better than herbicide. But lawn maintenance should not require herbicides.
The House of Commons should set an example for ecological sanity in a world that is turning irresponsible use of herbicides and pesticides into world suicide.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) announced that $18 million in new funding would be given to the granting councils to support university research. On Tuesday, August 25, the former Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina) announced that $30 million in new funding would be provided to the Unsolicited Proposals Program, a program to promote advanced technology manufacturing.
Yesterday, the Minister of State for Science and Technology announced that the Government will be providing $28 million in new funding to the National Research Council to support the I RAP, one of our most successful industrial programs. This program helps small companies use research developed at our universities and in government laboratories. Larkin

August 28, 1987
Kerwin, President of the National Research Council, said: "This is very welcome news, both for the NRC and the industrial sector".
The Government consulted with industry and the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) advisory board before making the decision to supply the extra funding to IRAP. The increased support for IRAP demonstrates the Government's commitment to research and technology.



HOUSING


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the public housing situation in Metro Toronto has reached desperate proportions-5,900 families are on the list of those waiting for public housing. At the end of June the number had climbed to 7,200, and with the influx of college and university students at this time of year the number has greatly increased. Some 700 to 1,000 of these families are truly desperate.
Unsuspected is the effect of this crisis on children. These families pay so much for rent that they can only afford housing that is not big enough for their families, and there is not enough money left for food and clothing. The effect on the children is that they are doing poorly at school for lack of sleep, illness as a result of stress, and lack of ability to remain clean. A lack of proper cooking facilities in the home leads to bad nutrition-and the list goes on.
1 call on all levels of government to establish immediately an ad hoc committee to investigate this urgent matter. I urge the Minister responsible for housing to take leadership in this issue. The future of our children in Metro Toronto depends on it.



BANKS AND BANKING


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, many people who have high unpaid credit card balances are often given advice to go to the bank and meet with their friendly bank manager and arrange a consumer loan. This sounds wonderful until they try to practise it.
Many people have written to me and indicated that when they approach certain banks they cannot obtain a loan unless it is much larger than the amount they need. Others who go into other banks find that small loans are available at the same interest rates as those charged on a credit card. Clearly the
objective is to tie the consumer by the chains of excessive interest.
I hope that there will be widespread all-Party support for a Bill that I intend to introduce which will offer more protection to consumers.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, two days ago more than 2,500 people who were investors in the two failed Principal Group companies gathered in an Edmonton sports arena to hear first hand how they were victimized by an incompetent and, many feel, fraudulent use of their money.
These investors purchased investment certificates that they were told were guaranteed in full by assets held by the Principal Group with Canadian chartered banks. However, the real story is quite different. It has now been revealed that these assets were seriously over-valued. When the assets are liquidated they will cover no more than 60 per cent of the losses faced by the investors. We heard this story before when the Canadian Commercial Bank collapsed, when Northland Bank collapsed, and when Pioneer Trust and other financial institutions bit the dust.
This deception of both investors and depositors must stop. The New Democratic Party wishes a closer co-operation between provincial and federal regulators to ensure that the financial institutions meet the most stringent test of managerial competence and honesty. Farmers, working families, senior citizens, and others should not be left out in the cold when unscrupulous and incompetent financial managers fail to live up to their promises.
1 urge the Government to be vigilant and take action to improve regulation and supervision, sponsor a full public inquiry into the matter, and introduce legislation that requires waiver forms to be signed if CDIC or other insurance does not apply to a deposit or an investment. This action is an absolute must if we hope to preserve regional financial institutions.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, once again the Senate will be asked to follow the lead of the democratically elected with respect to Bill C-22, legislation that according to our calculations will create 1,300 jobs in the province of
August 28, 1987

Quebec and attract $700 million in investment. 1 said according to us, Mr. Speaker, because in the fall of 1986, an article published in Le Devoir economique and signed by Franqoise Cote, predicted 10,000 jobs in Montreal as a result of Bill C-22.
At that time, the New Democratic Party distributed across Canada a form drafted in English: Fund for Fair Drug Prices. In the form Canadians were urged to kill Bill C-22, which would of course kill the 10,000 jobs mentioned in Le Devoir. The form was in English only, and this was also an opportunity to do some campaigning and collect money. Mr. Speaker, this is the form drafted by the Socialists 1 am sorry, it is in English only-:

"Each $100 gift will enable us to send 400 more letters like this one".

Which means letters aimed at killing Bill C-22. The New Democratic Party is using taxpayers' money to campaign against Bill C-22 and against 10,000 jobs in Quebec.
We thank the Socialists on behalf of the province of Quebec and all Francophones in this country. Thank you very so you have been a great help in defending the cause of Bill C-22. We will remember that.



THE CONSTITUTION


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, yesterday private citizen Trudeau appeared before the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord. He was great.
He spoke about the cultivation of a national spirit and of a Canadian patriotism. He said that the proposed Accord weakens the national spirit because it gives greater powers to the provinces and nothing in return to the federal Government. He said that because of the Accord there will be greater powers for the provinces. "It's more than a triumph for provincial patriotism over national patriotism," he said. "This Accord digs right into the very essence of Canadian nationalism. The Accord saps the strength of the elements that compose a modern state".
"Towards one's country, one's nation, one's people," Mr. Trudeau said, "there must be a loyalty greater than the sum of the loyalties toward the provinces". The Accord undermines this greater loyalty.
Canadians appreciate what Mr. Trudeau says. The Accord is not good for Canada.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-GLOBE AND MAIL EDITORIAL

William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, it continues to concern me that many Canadians are living in the dark ages with respect to a new trading arrangement between Canada and the United States. They should read the editorial in The Globe and Mail of August 27. I wish to quote in part from that editorial:
Free trade is coming down to a choice between critical judgment and uncritical opposition . . . free trade's opponents are withdrawing even more aggressively into rigid and negative postures.
How is the national interest served by campaigns on the political left to prejudge a trade agreement with the United States? How are workers protected by purported leaders who reject out of hand the bulk of studies showing significant potential benefits to workers?
We may not get a deal. But why do my colleagues on the left insist on having no real faith in Canadians?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Canadian National has sent out a letter to its pensioners in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. In this letter CN announces that it will be deducting income tax off their pension cheques retroactive to January 1, 1987.
It concerns me that in this letter they refer to income tax increases in the Province of Manitoba. Those income tax increases became effective on July 1, 1987, not January 1, 1987. There is no justification whatever for CN to go back to January 1, 1987, and tell its pensioners that it will be deducting more than normal in these coming six months to make up for the period from January to July when that tax increase was not in effect from January to July.
God knows how it screwed it up with respect to the other provinces, but we know for sure with respect to Manitoba that CN is wrong in the manner it is going ahead with regard to income tax deductions from pensioners' cheques.
I know that pensioners have raised this issue, and I hope that by my raising it here CN will very soon rectify this situation that should not have happened in the first instance.

August 28, 1987
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that yesterday in a major communique the Premiers accused the United States of bad faith in its trade relations with Canada. The Premiers have called upon Canada to take the strongest possible retaliatory actions against the various forms of trade harassment, the latest case being that of potash.
We have received absolutely no response from the Government on the potash issue. There has been no letter of protest, no sign of strong reaction, no effort to deal with what could be the destruction of a major industry in this country.
In light of that demand by the Premiers that we use all strategic instruments possible to retaliate against the trade harassment by the United States on the potash issue, among others, what does the Government intend to do about that demand? Will we receive some action?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member finally realizes that there is a protectionist mood in the United States which has been developing for some time.
Three years ago the Prime Minister realized that and initiated trade talks with the United States because of its protectionist attitude. Those negotiations are presently ongoing.
In the communique from the Premiers, I do not believe that they said to retaliate in the strongest terms. 1 believe they want Canada to take firm action. We are taking firm action. As we speak this morning here in the House, negotiations are going on and are proceeding quite favourably. We hope that there will be a successful conclusion to those negotiations in order that this protectionist attitude in the United States will not affect Canada once these trade negotiations come to a successful conclusion.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I go back to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is quite clear that the Parliamentary Secretary has not read the communique from the Premiers where they make a direct request to use every available strategic instrument in retaliation against the specific cases of trade harassment. I simply say to the Parliamentary Secretary that in the last
three years we have had more cases of trade harassment from the United States than in the previous 25 years. So much for those negotiations.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, whom I presume might speak for the Government, when will we get action? When will the Government do something about the potash case and the other cases rather than simply providing concession after concession in the free trade talks? When will the Government start defending Canadian interests directly with the United States?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reassure the Hon. Member that the Parliamentary Secretary speaks for the Government when he answers questions, and I think he does it in a very articulate and informed manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Second, the Hon. Member knows that there is, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, a growing protectionist mood in the United States, and that, particularly, is why the Prime Minister exercised leadership in attempting to address this very serious problem through the discussions in the attempts to negotiate a comprehensive free trade arrangement.
One of the components of that comprehensive trade arrangement is an effective and an adequate disputes resolving mechanism. I think the Premiers in their communique very much struck that point.
That is the essence of the long term solution. I know the Hon. Member likes to engage in ad hoc solutions. We are attempting to address this in a comprehensive way. If the Hon. Member would get onside and join forces with the Government, we could present a unified force and make our case that much better to the United States of America.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, to be invited to join a three year string of absolute failures when it comes to dealing with the United States is like being asked to jump off a cliff.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the communique, the Premiers specifically requested or demanded-


Charles Joseph Clark: Which was it, Lloyd?


Lloyd Axworthy: -that any comprehensive agreement must include a binding arbitrary mechanism-


Charles Joseph Clark: A binding arbitrary mechanism? Come on now, Lloyd.
August 28, 1987


Lloyd Axworthy: They did not say adequate, they did not say effective, they said a binding mechanism, which is very different language from what the Government is now using.
Can we get a guarantee from the Government that it will not sign or initial any agreement that does not include a binding dispute mechanism? Not the adequate one the Minister is talking about, but a binding mechanism that would require the United States to accept those solutions, rather than simply having more of the kinds of concessionary consultations that we have now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said on many occasions that there will be no deal unless it is a good deal for Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Binding or not?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are backing away.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A comprehensive trade arrangement without an adequate dispute resolving mechanism certainly would not be considered as an adequate deal for Canada.


THE CONSTITUTION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Justice was asked by me whether it was deliberate or an accident that there was no provision for the Territories to submit names for consideration for appointment to the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada under the Meech Lake Accord. He refused to answer the question on the grounds that there was a court case in which the grievance of the Territories was being considered.
If the court case is that important, will the Minister of Justice agree that the ratification of the Accord should wait until that court case is settled and the Minister can answer the question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think this is probably the first time in my parliamentary career that I have been accused of obfuscation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No? Maybe it is the second time, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As the Hon. Member knows, there is adequate precedent with respect to the political proceedings going on, notwithstanding the fact that there are matters before the court.
I only refer by way of example to the fact that in the time in which Mr. Trudeau-you will remember him, I think-was the Prime Minister, he had, in fact, put forward a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the Senate and the powers of the Senate. This did not preclude us from carrying on political responsibilities.
The matter is before the courts. It will be dealt with there. It seems to me it has been dealt with rather expeditiously at this point in time. At the same time I take it that the Member speaks on behalf of his Party, hoping that we will move forward with the Meech Lake Accord to ratify this most important Accord for Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Justice that Mr. Trudeau also took political responsibility for what he was doing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Never.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DECISION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in this case the Minister of Justice and the Government are not telling us whether this grievance of the Territories is the result of a deliberate decision that they not be allowed to put lists forward or whether that was an oversight. It is a simple question. The grievance before the court has nothing to do with it. Why can't the Minister just answer the question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is one of the members of the joint committee dealing with this important issue. He has a daily opportunity to question witnesses, speaking to the spokespersons on behalf of the Government, with respect to any aspect of this matter he cares to raise.
With respect to this particular issue, I have answered it adequately. I have said to the Hon. Member that we take the position that the Accord is a good one for Canada. I hope the Hon. Member is not trying to change the position of the Liberal Party to support this wholeheartedly, notwithstanding representations to the contrary.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister.

August 28, 1987
Oral Questions
In the midst of an emergency debate on back-to-work legislation yesterday and the appearance of a former Prime Minister before an important committee of the House, the Government tabled two documents that I am sure it hoped would be totally obliterated by this news, a Price Waterhouse study on the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion's operations, and an internal study.
The Price Waterhouse study says with reference to DRIE financial control that it "was not given a high priority". In fact there was no report until half-way through 1986-87. When it was done the information in the Department itself was incomplete and conflicting. The internal study said "no alarm bells were triggered" at that time in the Ministry, and they were not triggered until the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville raised the scandal about $100 million being misspent.
Considering there is absolute proof of total incompetence in management by the then Minister, why is it that this Minister, instead of being sacked, was given new responsibility for a Department that will be spending millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wrong, Ed.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my hon. colleague by telling him that as soon as we found out at the Ministry that there were serious overspending problems, the then Minister and his deputy immediately, as they should, asked for those two studies, one internal and one external.
The studies identified the problems and made a number of recommendations to solve them. Those recommendations are being acted upon and Price-Waterhouse has also been retained to ensure that they will be implemented as quickly as possible. Treasury Board followed the situation throughout the period and acted as expeditiously as possible to correct any flaws that existed in the operations of the Department. I would also like to say that those actions were taken well before any question was raised in this House.


DISCHARGE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have been asked to believe a lot by the Government. I will not elaborate on that particular observation, but I would like to ask a question of the Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister who should be speaking for the Prime Minister on this matter.
It has been shown beyond doubt that there was gross mismanagement, not by some junior clerk at some distant outpost, but right here in Ottawa at the highest level of the bureaucracy. Instead of accepting ministerial responsibility which the Government should do, why has the Minister, who ought to have had control of his Department and clearly did
not, now been put in charge of another Department with responsibilities for spending additional millions of dollars?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the Minister was made aware of the difficulties being experienced in the Department, he commissioned the two studies. The Treasury Board was immediately notified and brought into the picture so that we could follow the process. Obviously, before acting we wanted to have a full diagnostic of exactly what was going on. As soon as we got it-


John Edward Broadbent: As soon as we got it?


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, as soon as we got it, we took measures. We took measures on July 15 and on July 30. We acted by implementing a new regime for financial control and management in the Department.
I feel that the tabling of the two documents, far from indicating as the Hon. Member would suggest a Government that is trying to hide from the facts, indicates a Government that is willing to put all the facts on the table. They are all there. Hon. Members have all the information and we are willing to give them all the briefings they would possibly want on how we will correct the situation.


KNOWLEDGE OF DEPARTMENT S SPENDING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to be ignoring what was said in the report and what I quoted. It said that for half of fiscal year 1986-87 there was no financial report about what was going on presumably brought to the Minister's attention. Presumably the people of Canada were thinking at this time that the Minister was in control of his Department and would ensure that he knew what was going on with spending.
I direct a question to the Minister since he is now cleverly in the position of answering, not the other Minister, one day after the report has been tabled. I would suggest that that is not accidental.
Does the Government accept as reasonable procedure that a Minister would have no knowledge for six months of spending that is going on in his Department? Is that the Government's definition of managerial competence? It is not the definition of the people of Canada.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out two things to the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. First, there was a lack of financial control and we have admitted that. The reports point that out very clearly and there is a good reason for it. There is not an excuse but an explanation for it.
Going back throughout the years, in 1982-83 the Department underspent its budget by 30 per cent. The following year it underspent its budget by 24 per cent. The following year it
August 28, 1987

underspent its budget by 20 per cent. The following year it underspent its budget by 24 per cent. It was continually underspending and I presume from what the reports indicate that this led to a lack of adequate financial control. They were always underspending.
The fact that the economy is now booming has led to a record number of requests under the existing programs of DRIE. That led to the situation as we now know it.
Since the reports were tabled and while we were going through the exercise this summer, we introduced new measures for budgeting, forecasting, financial reporting, financial control and program management. We appointed a new Deputy Minister, a new Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of finance, and soon we will appoint a new controller to ensure that this kind of situation will never repeat itself.


GOVERNMENT'S ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENTS- CONFIDENCE OF CANADIANS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who is responsible for DRIE. I am a little disappointed in his initial response and performance as Minister. I am trying to understand the Minister's logic. He wants to justify a short-fall of $350 million by saying that during the last two or three years they had a surplus and so there was no control over spending. This is like saying: Well I had a surplus in my family budget during the last month, so next month we'll go on a spending spree.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister what assurance Canadians, what assurance taxpayers have that this short-fall of $350 million is not repeated in other departments where no investigation has been conducted. How can Canadians be expected to trust this Government, which lost $350 million, to administer its other departments and the money they pay in taxes?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I want to be quite clear. There is a problem. I am not trying to deny that. There is a problem. But what I am trying to explain to Hon. Members is that as soon as we were aware of the nature of this problem, steps were taken immediately to deal with it, and we now have mechanisms to ensure there will be no recurrence of the problem that existed at DRIE. Furthermore, while I was in my previous post, the Comptroller General of Canada was asked to immediately investigate all other departments with similar budgets, to ensure that financial controls were in place so that this type of situation could not develop.


MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister who until yesterday was the President of Treasury Board-after all he didn't see the $350 million worth
Oral Questions
of commitments either. Three hundred and fifty million dollars-that ain't hay! How could anyone not notice what was going on? What I want to ask the Minister is, how can we be expected to count on him after he let this pass as if it were nothing? How can we count on him to take control of this Department and ensure that commitments are met and that money doesn't just disappear?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, 1 will say it again. It would take too long to explain all this during Question Period, and I would be delighted to talk to the Hon. Member privately.
We have taken all the necessary measures to ensure the Department's commitments do not exceed the amounts voted by this House. These measures include the budgetary aspect, the estimates, spending, the way the Department's financial reports are done, financial controls at the Department, and also a review of the criteria for various departmental programs.


TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIO
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am quite incredulous. We have here a $ 100-million misunderstanding. A Minister as a result of really gross mismanagement overlooked $100 million in his Department. The reality is that after misrepresenting and mismanaging his Department to the tune of $100 million, this Minister has not done the honourable thing, has not been sacked, but has been transferred.
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister if this is the kind of mismanagement and Government that we can now expect in the future. He said he would do something different from the Liberals. This is actually very different. This is a $ 100-million misunderstanding. Is this the kind of business practice we can expect from the Government and this Minister in his next portfolio?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member's statements and conclusions are false. I would invite him to read the reports before he pontificates in the manner in which he has.
The fact is that the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology has explained the corrective steps that have been taken. The record of the Government in financial management and control has been excellent. There is a problem here and that has been admitted.
When the Minister indicated that he would engage in both internal and external studies, he said that he would make them available. They are there for every Member to read and, I hope, to understand. The Ministers will be available to appear before parliamentary committees to explain the process in detail. Before he draws such rather drastic and radical

August 28, 1987
Oral Questions
conclusions so that he can get on television tonight, I would invite the Hon. Member to study the report in more detail.


MANAGEMENT QUERY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that $100 million has been mismanaged. The Minister took no responsibility and there were no reports for the first six months of this fiscal year.


John Edward Broadbent: In his Department.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In his Department. Surely he has to accept responsibility for that.
It is even more serious than that. The Government's reaction is to transfer the Minister to a Department where the expenditure plan indicates the Department is responsible for $600 million in government bank accounts. The Minister blew $100 million in his previous position. Now he is in a position of managing $600 million in government bank accounts. Is that the kind of management we can expect from now on?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is suggesting that $100 million has vanished. That is totally untrue. He should clearly study the report before he makes such false allegations and draws false conclusions.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton.


An Hon. Member:: You are being exposed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: One of these days you will be exposed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Great business ethics.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: How about some ethics over there? You do not know the meaning of the word.


UNITED NATIONS
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A $100 million, and he gets rewarded.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You never understood, Nelson.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind-


Nelson Andrew Riis: I think we can understand this, Mike.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Order. The Speaker is rising.


Mr. Speaker:: I know all Hon. Members would want to hear the question from the Hon. Member.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, it has been a difficult summer.
An historic conference on the relationship between disarmament and development began on Monday of this week at the UN, regrettably without the participation of the United States. What impact does the Minister feel that may have on the outcome of the conference? Does he also feel that Canada is optimistic that a conference consensus can be reached on these two vital issues?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I believe that with determination on the part of all participants a constructive consensus can be achieved. I regret the absence of the U.S. I think it is always better to stay in a room and try to win an argument rather than leave it. I regret it particularly because it is tempting the Soviet Union to try to take a propaganda advantage in a field where the Soviet Union has no credentials and no claims at all.
It is worth entering into the record of the House of Commons that in 1985 western countries contributed $4.7 billion to UN development activities, or 91.7 per cent of the total. The East bloc countries, including the Soviet Union, contributed only 1.2 per cent. The developing countries themselves contributed 7.1 per cent. In other words, the record shows that developing countries contribute something like seven times more towards UN development assistance than the entire Soviet bloc.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has probably been briefed about the fact that in a few weeks Japan and the U.S. will sign an agreement for the shipment of plutonium from Europe to Japan. The Government of Canada has a limited time to tell the two parties that transport of plutonium through Canadian airspace is not in the cards.
Once again we ask the Government to make a commitment today to notify both Washington and Tokyo that Canada will not approve any application for the transportation of plutonium through Canadian airspace.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this question quite understandably gives rise to a great deal of concern in Canada. That has been
August 28, 1987

registered in media comment and questions and answers in this House. One thing that is sometimes overlooked but which is absolutely clear is that the Government has the power to prohibit that kind of shipment through Canadian airspace, including the Canadian North.


David Orlikow: Are you going to exercise that power?


Charles Joseph Clark: The question of whether we will choose to exercise that power, to come to a question from a member of the NDP, will be dealt with when it is no longer hypothetical.
The request made to me, as I understand it, by the Hon. Member for Davenport is that we send a signal now to the Government of Japan and the Government of the U.S. We are in contact with both those Governments.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PERMISSION WILL BE REFUSED
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, why can the Minister not give us the assurance today that the Government of Canada will give the signal he has referred to in advance of the signing of this agreement? In that way neither Japan nor the U.S. will entertain any notion that they will be able to get permission from Canada to fly this plutonium through our airspace? Why not give us this assurance now?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to make two points in response. The first is to reiterate that the Government of Canada has that clear power and there should be no doubt and no fear about that. The second is that we are at this stage in contact with both the U.S. and Japanese Governments and it is my judgment that is the most effective way to proceed in these circumstances at this time.


AIR SAFETY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Transport. He will be aware that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board produced a report yesterday which said in part that the number of aircraft/air-craft and aircraft/vehicle conflicts reported in Canada is at a level significant enough to warrant serious safety concerns. The report makes a large number of recommendations. Will the Minister ensure that rather than studying these recommendations the Government will immediately begin the process of implementing them so we can increase the level of safety at Canadian airports?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member has acknowledged and recognized that as a Government we have always treated safety as a priority in all matters relating to transportation. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board, with respect to its responsibility for investigating accidents, has had a very successful track record. More importantly it has been successful in identifying ways and means of improving air safety in all its aspects. One of its objectives was to make recommendations from time to time to the Government concerning ways and means of improving the system. This is a classic and clear-cut example of that work which is being carried on very effectively-
I know the Minister of Transport will take the recommendations seriously. Having had some experience in working with the Department, I know they will be very eager to implement recommendations to improve safety at our airports, particularly on the ground.


Iain Francis Angus: The Minister will also be aware that the Department has not always accepted the recommendations of the CASB.


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that as a result of Bill C-18, the National Transportation Act, there will be an increase, at some airports, in the number of flights. There will an increase in the number of less experienced personnel involved. Because of what this report says will he undertake to delay the implementation of C-18 until such time as these recommendations have been fully implemented? Only then will we move to the next stage of the change in the transportation sector. Is he prepared to make that commitment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, not having had the benefit of reading the report and studying the recommendations I think it would irresponsible for me to accede to the Hon. Member's request. Suffice it to say there are suggested improvements in systems and co-ordination of the air navigational systems at the various airports. The Hon. Member is assuming there will be a lot more traffic involving inexperienced-


Iain Francis Angus: Less experienced.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -less experienced personnel at the controls. I am not sure whether that is a valid observation. I would not want to associate myself with that because I am not sure it is referred to in the report.
I can only repeat that I know the Minister of Transport and his Department will take these recommendations very seriously.

August 28, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications, with regard to the CBC, has said:
There may be services which could be purchased from the private sector at less expense than continued public ownership of stations and transmitters.
I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does he agree with the approach of the Minister of Communications to privatization of the CBC? Is this the kind of birthday present they should give the CBC for its fiftieth birthday?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify the assumption which was made with regard to the future of the CBC. First, I have made it very clear that we are looking at three companies; Petro-Canada, Radiochemical and Air Canada.
The statement made by the Minister of Communications was by way of example of some of the things that might be considered to assist the CBC to fill its public policy role. For example, it may be possible that some of the services could be produced more in the public interest and that of the Canadian people within the private sector.


FUTURE OF CORPORATION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, following a savage $85 million cut to the CBC-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, if I may, in January, 1985, the Prime Minister made the following comment:
Some people want to buy the CBC. The CBC is not for sale.
It is not our problem if the Minister of State for Privatization wants to have a job and is looking for something to do. The problem is what is happening to the CBC.
Is the Acting Prime Minister going to honour the promise of the Prime Minister and stop this move to privatize the CBC, or will we see the disappearance of another Crown corporation in order to keep the Minister of State for Privatization in business?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Liberals want to privatize John Turner.


Barbara Jean McDougall: That's not my department.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Wonderboy spoke again.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could answer the question without any help.


Henry Perrin Beatty: They don't ask me any questions.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's because you don't know any answers.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to accuse my colleague across the way of being frivolous. However, I think that that which the Minister of Communications said was very clear. There is no privatization of the CBC. This was raised almost by way of a question with regard to how the CBC can best serve the people of Canada.


Sheila Finestone: In other words what Mr. Mulroney says doesn't count.

[Translation)


THE ADMINISTRATION
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to get back to the issue of mismanagement at the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House why Canadians should have confidence in the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, now that he has taken over the Department of Supply and Services?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been two reports laid on the Table which are open to study and examination. I hope the Hon. Member will read the reports. The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology has indicated the corrective steps that have been taken. I think he would make officials or himself available to give the Hon. Member a full elaboration on the report. Perhaps then the Hon. Member might be able to come back to the House and ask some intelligent questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


INQUIRY WHY CANADIANS WOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN NEW MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, there was mismanagement. Canadians want to know whether they can have confidence. Could the Deputy Prime Minister answer the question and inform the House why and how Canadians can be expected to have confidence in the new Minister of Supply and Services?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that the
August 28, 1987

present Minister of Supply and Services initiated the studies to ensure that he got to the bottom of this issue,


Nelson Andrew Riis: Too late.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not late, as soon as it became available to him.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's taxpayers' money we are talking about.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Hon. Member reads the report he will find that it is stated that the reliability of the financial data used in the preparation of forecasts has been a problem for some years.


John Edward Broadbent: You are supposed to change it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There was inherited-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Do something about it.


John Edward Broadbent: They are blaming the Liberals for this.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There was an inherited-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think 1 have a right to respond to this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister, of course, has the right to respond. He also has the right to the courtesy of a hearing by other Hon. Members.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there was inherited a system which, as a practice, established internal budgets in excess of voted amounts. It is clear that that practice should have been abandoned. The fact of the matter is that as soon as this came to the attention of the Minister he took the appropriate action and the corrective action is being implemented.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, I heard in Quebec that Francophone journalists with the French CBC network were planning to walk out during the Francophonie Summit. As you know, the journalists have been without an agreement for two and one-half years, and 1 would like to know whether the Minister is aware of this and what he intends to do to ensure, beforehand, that Frenchspeaking Canadians will be able to see and hear this important historic event, the Francophonie Summit on television?
Oral Questions


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, 1 heard the same rumour, and 1 know the parties have been negotiating for quite some time. As I indicated last night at the end of a long debate, last year 11,000 collective agreements were signed in Canada, and 94 per cent were signed without a single day lost to strikes or lock-outs.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this particular dispute will be resolved in the same fashion. 1 would urge the parties to reach an agreement, and 1 would be very sorry to see Canadians suffer the consequences should a strike be called this week.


HOUSING
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Housing.
Next September 14, 15 and 16 in Ottawa, we will have the privilege of hosting the International Conference of the Homeless, where the theme will be: building together for the future. The Minister will agree that the problem of the homeless is also a social problem. Has the Minister drafted an action plan for this conference and if so, could he give us an overview of the plan?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the Hon. Member. I heard her intervention during Statements by Members today. I think that which she pointed out was accurate and very much in keeping with attitudes in the House on the situation.
I cannot specifically reply to her question. 1 will take notice of it to the Minister in charge and ask for an early response.


SOCIAL HOUSING ON INDIAN RESERVES
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I will address my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. We have a problem of our own in Canada. This morning 1 met with members of the Assembly of First Nations and was made aware of an interdepartmental problem regarding funding for social housing on reserves.
The matter is between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister knows that there is a shortfall of almost $8 million flowing from the changes in the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program. On May 11, my colleague, the Member for Cochrane-Superior, asked a question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration who said he would

August 28, 1987
Oral Questions
look into it. I understand that the matter is in Cabinet at the moment. Will the Minister give us an answer today?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an answer to the latter part of the Hon. Member's question.
I believe many of us in the House, not only as Ministers but as Members have had the experience with the issue of the amount of money available for housing and the shortfall that often takes place when a house is built, in terms of development costs. In other words, one does not only take into account the price of the house, but also development costs for such things as access. I know this is being discussed by the Minister of Employment and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues will bring that to their attention.
There have been many discussions about that. The question of how much funding there should be and how much equity there should be in terms of individual housing, as an increasing number of Indian bands are moving toward a CMHC configuration as opposed to the former configuration of direct grants, is an ongoing issue.


APARTHEID
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In an article published in The Toronto Star the Secretary of State characterized the position that complete diplomatic sanctions ought to be imposed on South Africa as an extreme position. Of course, this was part of the position enunciated by the Prime Minister in 1985 before the United Nations.
Does the Minister's statement reflect a retreat from the position adopted and enunciated by the Prime Minister in 1985? Does this also apply to the other part of that promise by the Prime Minister that complete economic sanctions would be imposed upon South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member would apply to the reading of that article the moderation that has been his happy characteristic in dealing with questions relating to this Government's position against apartheid, he would know that what was described as extreme was the suggestion that two years ago we should have disrupted diplomatic and other relations with South Africa.
Had we done that, I would not have been able to go to South Africa two weeks ago. I would not have been able to carry the
case, on one day, to the African National Congress, and carry the case on the next day to the South African Government, thus providing the possibility of some capacity to breathe life into the negotiations which can be the only means of a peaceful resolution to a situation that can lead to bloodshed in South Africa unless it is resolved peacefully.
The position of the Government of Canada remains as it has been, that if other measures do not work we will be prepared to sever all economic and diplomatic relations with South Africa.


David Orlikow: When?


Charles Joseph Clark: We believe it is important for us not to take a blind ideological position like some members of the New Democratic Party do, but rather to try to follow the Canadian tradition of working out a peaceful means to resolve a situation that could erupt into bloodshed.


SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT'S ADVERTISEMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I find it incomprehensible that the Secretary of State should become so agitated by a request for clarification, which I appreciate having received.


Mr. Speaker:: Members sometimes do become agitated here. However, given the hour, I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, in the article in The Toronto Star the Secretary of State also indicates a hope that negotiations may still represent a solution to the South African situation.
In The Globe and Mail this morning, we see an ad placed by the South African Government which attempts to demonize the ANC. In view of his hopes for negotiation, which does he think is the greater obstacle in view of this kind of activity on the part of the South African Government, the ANC or the South African Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I frankly do not think it is very helpful for me to respond to that kind of question at this stage. They are both an obstacle because at this stage-


John Edward Broadbent: ANC is an obstacle?


Charles Joseph Clark: At this stage the ANC is not prepared to come to the kinds of agreements that were set forth in the negotiating position of the Eminent Persons Group regarding the suspension of violence. They have reasons which they believe to be good reasons.
The South African Government, on the basis of my conversations with it, is not prepared to enter into negotiations because of the difficulty over the same piece of language.
What I find interesting, and-if one can find hope in this circumstance-what is potentially hopeful is that neither the
August 28, 1987

ANC nor the South African Government, which is significant, have ruled out the possibility of negotiating one with the other. Neither side claims that the ANC would be the only representatives of blacks in South Africa.
I know Mr. Tambo has had conversations with Members of the House and others. I think his visit here can be a constructive step toward encouraging that kind of negotiation, if only because it will allow and require the ANC to respond to some of the accusations that, while they have appeared today in Canadian newspapers, are part of the regular fare issued by the Government of South Africa.
I think it is important for people who hear those accusations also to have the opportunity to hear directly Mr. Tambo's response to them. His presence here allows that to occur.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise Members that there will be a question by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West, followed by a question by the Hon. Member for Trinity, and that will be the end of Question Period.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The long awaited finalization of the new Ethiopian Constitution will give the Government of that country a chance to show that a new Constitution can mean a new beginning for human rights.
Will the Government consider using the considerable moral leverage of Canada, in view of its large and continued aid program, to persuade the Government of Ethiopia that its political prisoners should be released or, at the very least, be put on charge and given a fair trial?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is valuable and timely. There have been substantial rumours that in consort with the proclamation of a new Constitution there would be an amnesty granted in Ethiopia. We have been making representations on human rights questions for some time and certainly it is our view-and I take the opportunity to make it clear publicly again to the Government of Ethiopia- that the proclamation of the Constitution should be accompanied by an amnesty for political prisoners.
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his February, 1986, Budget he announced a new program for older worker adjustment to begin in August, 1986. The Government discontinued the previous Liberal Government's labour adjustment benefit but has yet to put in place its own program. Will the Minister assure the House that he is prepared to act to offer retraining and placement to the increasing number of Canadians in middle life who are facing unemployment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the objective of that program. We recognize the importance of this for people who see their jobs change as a result of technological progress and we must be responsive to that. That is particularly important for those who, in their later years of work, find it more difficult to get that training and find another occupation. That is precisely what we are trying to do.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if and when the Government introduces the program for older workers' adjustment, only about 2,000 older workers will be helped. The Government ended one generous program a year ago. It has not put in place even the limited replacement it promised. Will the Minister give us an assurance of just when the new program will be in place?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is well aware of the fact that there are negotiations under way with the provinces right now, and they have been going on for some little while. There needs to be some response from the provinces on this but we are very definitely committed to it, as is the case with the Canadian Job Strategy which makes a considerable amount of-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is really working well, isn't it? That is a wonderful program.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Those Hon. Members do not like to hear the truth again. They are very much aware that we have changed the previous Government's make work programs where money was spilled out to try to tide people over from one period of entitlement to unemployment insurance to another. That was changed by a new program which involved career development and training for almost the entire amount of the funds made available under the Canadian Job Strategy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The truth hurts and we understand that clearly.

August 28, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Blaikie


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that that concludes Question Period. I will hear the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) on a point of order and then I will hear the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on a point of order.


POINTS OF ORDER
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order with respect to the way in which the National Capital Commission has really thumbed its nose at the House of Commons by going ahead with the use of herbicides on the Parliamentary lawn against the all-party recommendations of Mr. Speaker, the environment critic of the Liberal Party, the environment critic of the New Democratic Party and other Members of Parliament who joined together in asking the National Capital Commission, in writing to Mrs. Pigott, the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, not to do this.
I noticed that some people thought this was a bit of a joke when it was raised by the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). I noticed the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) laughing. He is the last person on earth who should be laughing at this kind of matter. This is a matter which has been taken seriously by both sides of the House of Commons.
We should take it seriously for two reasons. First, it concerns the environmental question, both as to the effects of the herbicide used and also because we would like Parliament Hill to be an environmental example, if you will, and it certainly does not appear to be any kind of ecological example with little yellow signs all around the Hill saying you had better stay off the grass, not in order to keep the grass well, but to stay well yourself.
I think this is offensive both on environmental grounds and on the grounds that were established by the recommendations of the McGrath report which said that Parliament should have more control over its own life and over its own environs. We recommended at the time that a parliamentary intendant be appointed and that the House of Commons have more control over its own precincts.
We tried in a nice negotiatable sort of way to get the National Capital Commission not to do something which everyone agreed it should not be doing, and it basically told us to go to hell. That is what it did. It put that stuff all over the lawn here in spite of the objections of Members of Parliament, in spite of the will of Mr. Speaker, in spite of the collective will of the environmental critics and others who expressed a similar concern.
I think this points up the problem we have on Parliament Hill. We are not even in control of our lives here, of our own environs. We pretend to be running the country but we cannot even get the National Capital Commission not to dump poisons on our own lawn after we have asked it not to do so.
I would hope that you, Mr. Speaker, would send a very strong message to the National Capital Commission on behalf of Members of the House of Commons, that we find it offensive in the extreme that, against the recommendations made to it, it has gone ahead and done this.
I hope all Members will use this as an occasion to reflect on the need for the implementation of the recommendations of the McGrath report, the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform for a structure through which we have more control over our own environs and are not subjected to this kind of offensive action, and previous offensive actions, such as the time we wandered out one morning to find that everything had been dug up in order to facilitate the light show. That was done without the knowledge of the Speaker of the day. These kinds of offences continue to happen and it is about time they stopped.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could just advise Hon. Members that the Speaker is in a bit of an unusual situation here because, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has pointed out that this matter has been a matter of discussion among Members, brought to the attention of the Speaker, and there have been responses from myself with respect to this and other environmental considerations of the Hill.
I think I should make it clear that certainly these kinds of matters are matters which have been brought to the attention of the Chair by Members of all parties. Perhaps it is advisable if the Chair just makes that clear to the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am simply going to suggest that the Board of Internal Economy may wish to take another look at the complaint of my hon. friend, which he raises at the first available opportunity, and with a great deal of vigor. I know he is concerned about the environment in this particular matter and I can do no more than to suggest that is a very appropriate matter to be discussed by the Board of Internal Economy.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: I am not so sure that is the best approach. You, Mr. Speaker, gave us great leadership when on May 29 you wrote a letter to Madam Pigott of the National Capital Commission on this matter. We were extremely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having taken in hand a matter which, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) states, is intended to regain control of the Hill, by the Parliament, with respect to the kind of environment we have, making it into a model for other jurisdictions to see.
August 28, 1987

On June 4 the Speaker received a reply which he kindly circulated. In effect it said that the National Capital Commission management committee decided not to spray this spring with 2-4,D and to reassess its position later this year. It was signed by Madam Pigott.
What we see happening here is that both you, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps even the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, have been ignored by this management committee, or Madam Pigott has forgotten her commitment, or the matter has simply drifted so badly that we see this silly development whereby a commitment made only three months ago is now not even worth the paper on which it is written.
You have our fullest confidence and support, Mr. Speaker, in pursuing this matter. I am sure you are as upset as we are, because we do want to demonstrate that we can have grass, lawns and soil managed in a proper manner on the Hill without having to utilize chemical fertilizers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair wants to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the Hon. Minister. It is quite clear, and it should be clear to everyone \vatching or listening, that what we have just heard in this Chamber is a very strong expression of the will of all three parties. I will carefully take into account what has been said here and will be meeting with Members in order to make an appropriate response. I thank Hon. Members for taking the position they have, and I thank the Hon. Minister for supporting both the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill and the Hon. Member for Davenport.


ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF S. O. 99(2)
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on this point of order because it relates to the tabling of the Government's response to the interim report on the "Recommendations of the Task Force on Broadcast Policy, Speciality Programming Services", and some proposed legislative amendments. That was called our fifth report.
The point of order also relates to the response to the sixth report called "The Recommendations for a new Broadcasting Act, a Review of the Legislative Recommendations made by the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy". I think Hon. Members have noted the size of the Hansards which were required to bring our reports to the attention of this House. There were 150 pages of carefully considered documents and analysis which included 107 recommendations. Members of the committee, members of our staff and members of the Library of Parliament worked extremely hard to bring-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) but the Minister rises on a point of order. I will hear the Hon. Minister.
Point of Order-Mrs. Finestone


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I in turn do not wish to be seen to be interrupting anyone's argument. In view of the fact that this argument with respect to the tabling of a report is both substantive as to the contents, and procedural, will the Hon. Member for Mount Royal agree to stand down her argument on her point of order until such time as we are able to get the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) in the House in order to respond to the substantive part of the argument.
As I said, 1 am prepared to deal with the procedural part of the argument. I do not wish to be seen to be delaying the Hon. Member. We are perfectly prepared to deal with this at any time. However, I wonder if it would not be more appropriate for Your Honour to hear both the substantive and procedural parts of the argument at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering if perhaps the Chair can be of help. First, I want to say to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal that the Chair has heard not just one but several complaints of this type in connection with the rule that, after a committee reports, the Minister is to give a comprehensive response under the rules. The Chair has been reluctant to get into the position of defining what is a comprehensive response. However, if I may say to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, I think the Hon. Minister has made a very helpful suggestion. It is difficult under this particular rule to find a clear line between the substance and the procedure. The Minister has suggested that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal adjourn her point of order to a day soon when the Minister responsible can be here, I say to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal that that, frankly, would help the Chair.
I would invite the Hon. Member for Mount Royal to agree to the suggestion of the Minister that this matter be adjourned to a day, which can be arranged through myself, when the Hon. member can pursue her argument and the Minister can be here. I want to assure the Hon. Member that this is a matter that the Chair takes very seriously. If the Hon. Member would agree, then I think that would be the most expeditious way of dealing with the matter.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, with your many years of experience in the House I will certainly accept your guidance, in the hope that when the Minister hears the argument she will have had an opportunity to rethink the grievous way in which she has injured the committee with her snide four and one-half page response. Thus, I hope that the Minister, whose staff is watching, will prepare the kind of responsible report that she should have prepared in the first place. I look forward to that argument taking place at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Mount Royal for her intervention, and the subject that has been raised. Arrangements will be made to continue this discussion further. 1 know that the Minister will convey to his colleague the proceedings so far so that when we bring this matter back to the House it can be dealt with in an appropriate way.

August 28, 1987
Motions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with a view to the rest of today's business. As the House will know, we were able to dispose of Bill C-22, the debate on the motion to send the matter back to the Senate. We have also given third reading to Bill C-71. This is due to the co-operation of all three Parties. We have therefore decided that, having made that progress, the following draft order would be appropriate:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, upon the completion of Routine Proceedings this day, the House shall proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on this day's Order Paper for a period not to exceed one hour;
That upon the completion of Private Members' Hour the Speaker shall suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair; and
That, following the giving of Royal Assent to certain Bills, later this day, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until 11.00 o'clock a.m., Monday, August 31, 1987.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by residents of Vancouver, Halifax, Toronto, Rouyn-Noranda and Ottawa. The petitioners are asking for changes in highway safety regulations. They believe that current rear-seat car safety belts are inadequate and that the sufferings of car accident victims can be reduced or avoided. They believe as well that medical care costs can be reduced or eliminated.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, they urge Parliament to make a commitment with respect to the mandatory installation of adjustable shoulder safety belts for all rear-seat car passengers, and the installation of air bags for front-seat passengers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present again today a petition urging this Government to listen to the people, to listen to the many
representations of Liberal Members, to listen to the remarks of its own Quebec Conservative Members asking that a vital commodity such as food not be taxed.
The petition reads as follows, Madam Speaker:
Whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed upon Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack food, candies and soft drinks; whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the possibility of imposing a general tax on goods and services, including food; whereas food constitutes a vital element of everyday life, and whereas the imposition of this tax would have the effect of penalizing such categories of taxpayers as the aged, families, the unemployed, low income taxpayers, and youth;
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 162 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 162 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ms. McDonald: Between January 1, 1986 and June 26, 1987, did the Department of Communications receive any requests from organizations and/or individuals for grants under the Cultural Initiatives Program and, if so, in each case (a) what was the name of the organization and/or individual (6) what was the amount requested (c) on what date was the application received (d) on what date was the organization or individual notified of the Depatment's decision (e) what was the amount granted?
Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
August 28, 1987



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   HUMAN RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED DESIGNATION OF HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS DAY Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of designating August 1, 1987, as "Helsinki Human Rights Day"; and
That, further, in recognition of the importance of the twelfth anniversary of the signing of the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and to demonstrate Canada's commitment to the principle of universal human rights, this House encourage the government to continue efforts to achieve full implementation of the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords by raising the issue of non-compliance with the offending nations at every available opportunity; to increase efforts to effect the release of all political prisoners, including Helsinki monitors; and to work to provide people of all nations with the most basic of human rights, freedom of speech, movement and religious worship.
He said: The Oxford Companion to Law describes human rights or the rights of man or fundamental freedoms as "conceived of as rights inherent in individuals as rational, free-willing creatures, not conferred by positive law, nor capable of being abridged or abrogated by positive law".
The guiding principles of the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, better known as the Helsinki Accords, were to establish security in Europe, and to promote mutual co-operation in areas of economics, science, technology, the environment, and humanitarian concerns.
It is the humanitarian concerns, the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accord which are the subject of this motion, and the importance of those provisions is underscored by the precedents set by the agreement. Never in modern history have the heads of state of 35 countries come together to agree on a statement of principles which guide the conduct of countries to their own people. This was done in the case of the Helsinki Accords. My motion seeks to recognize the importance of that historic document by designating August 1 as "Helsinki Human Rights Day".
There are many compelling and significant reasons for such action, reasons which exemplify the very heart of the accord. The principle of respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms which derive from recognition of that principle.
While the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe is not a perfect document, it is significant in the history of human rights by its very nature. It must be viewed in context. It is not a legal document but a statement of principle, and therefore open to criticism for its lack of enforcement provisions. Nonetheless, while there is no enforcement mechanism in this agreement, no police, no judge to ensure compliance, there is, in fact, a jury. The humanitarian provisions of the Helsinki Accords have elicited a strong public response, particularly in the Eastern Bloc countries
Helsinki Human Rights Day
where Helsinki monitoring groups were organized by courageous individuals responding to the noble principles embodied in the accords. Along with the international attention focused on the CSCE conferences, they form a court of world opinion to which even the most intransigent of offenders must pay heed.
The importance of the final Act is that it placed respect for fundamental human freedoms squarely within the East-West framework, as a basic element of government to government relations. Through good faith, observance of the Final Act's standards for responsible and humane international conduct, signatory states were to advance along the difficult road toward mutual trust and co-operation.
It was an ambitious agenda involving an evolutionary process. In essence, by signing the Helsinki Final Act, the western democracies pledged to keep faith with the persecuted in the East. It is telling to recall that the West failed to anticipate the impact that the human rights provisions of the Final Act would have on East Bloc citizens. We in the West were not the first to act upon the Accords as a means to expose human rights violations in the East. East Bloc citizens seized upon the Helsinki provisions as a program for human rights advocacy. Many of them have paid a high price for their actions.
The reason the Accords have generated such a response is clear from a reading of the document itself. In the accords the participating states express the commitment to "recognize the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for the peace, justice and well-being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation among themselves as among all states".
The document further commits the signatories to "respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion", and to "promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and other rights and freedoms, all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free will and full development".
Additionally, the document recognizes the rights of the individual to profess or practice, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and the signatories express their commitment to respect the rights of persons belonging to a minority to equality before the law.
To those individuals living under a repressive regime, the wording of the principles of this document is a poignant expression of their hopes, dreams, and aspirations, and it is a reminder of all that is sadly lacking in their society.
It is this document that has spurred the efforts of individuals such as Yuri Orlov, Meral Kostava, Victor Pyatkus, Aleksey Tykhy, Mikolay Malusevych, Mirolsar Marynovych, Petro
[Stage Direction]
August 28, 1987
Helsinki Human Rights Day
Vins, Levko Lukyanenko, Shagen and Eduard Arutyunyan, Robert Nazarym, Viktor Rtskhiladze, Anatoly Shcharansky, Viktor Nekipelov, Yaroslav Lesiv, Vasyl Striltsir, Vitaly Kalynychenko, Yuri Lytvyn, Oles Berdnyk, Petro and Vasyl Sichko, and Grigory Goldshtein.
The persecution of these individuals for their brave actions has been amply documented, and their sacrifice represents a trust and obligation on the part of western democracies to fulfil the trust imparted by the Helsinki monitors, and to ensure that their sacrifices have not been in vain by using every possible means to ensure that the Eastern Bloc nations live up to the commitments they agreed to in the Final Act.
Once again, the importance of this document has been demonstrated by the willingness of these individuals to undergo persecution, arrest and imprisonment in the cause of the Helsinki Accords principles.
Of course, no discussion or debate of the importance of the Final Act would be complete without discussion of the reasons for the necessity of such an agreement. In the time available to me I could not begin to delve with any depth into the morass of human rights violations which occur behind the Iron Curtain, in Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, as well as the absolute atrocities committed in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
I cannot begin to describe the persecution and repression suffered by the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The Church has some four million followers in Ukraine yet has been outlawed. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has also suffered from such repression and has been forced to become plart of the Russian Orthodox Church which is under state control. But to attempt to detail the extent of that persecution in the time available would be impossible.
Some specific cases of human rights violations include: Vera Lipinskaya and Anatoly Ponomaryov, who dared to write complaints to government authorities; Teovils Kuma, who handed out religious leaflets and Anatoly Lupynos, who read his poetry at a public meeting honouring a Ukrainian national poet. All of these acts were labelled "socially dangerous", and were grounds for the commitment of these individuals to the Gulag or psychiatric hospitals.
Then there is Alexei Nikitin, a coal miner in the City of Donetsk, in Ukraine, a hard worker and popular with his coworkers. Nikitin took the complaints of his co-workers to his trade union leadership and to the director of the mine. These complaints were rejected, and Nikitin was eventually incarcerated in a local mental hospital, even though he had no history nor signs of psychiatric illness. Later, a mine explosion occurred, and several miners were killed. When Nikitin was released, in desperation he spoke to American journalists about the problems of Soviet coal miners, and within days, Nikitin was again incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital and
eventually was transferred to a special psychiatric hospital near the Chinese-Afghanistan border. He is still there.
At this point it is important to note the extent to which the Soviet Union uses the psychiatric commitment as a convenient instrument of policy. It enables Soviet authorities to substitute psychiatrists' judgment for sentencing in a trial or to avoid a trial altogether. It enables the Government to keep dissidents incarcerated for an indefinite length of time and allows the regime to claim that Soviet citizens who express dissatisfaction with the system are simply mentally ill.
It would be forgiveable if those of us who are uninitiated to the Soviet system assumed that when dissidents were committed on psychiatric grounds they were merely incarcerated indefinitely. However, the true facts are much more horrifying. Many dissidents must undergo what amounts to torture while in such hospitals. Dissenters are often given insulin shock therapy or the drug Sulfazin, which causes great physical discomfort, a raging fever so intense that the patient is virtually incapacitated for up to three days after the injection. Any psychiatrist who might dare to rebel against such abuse has all the incentive, he or she needs to stay in line when they contemplate the example of Dr. Anatoly Koryagin of Karkow. Koryagin was a consultant to a committee formed several years ago to fight psychiatric abuse. He had the opportunity to examine Alexei Nikitin, whom I discussed earlier, and published his findings in a British medical journal. He was subsequently arrested and sentenced to a work camp. He was then transferred to Christopol Prison, where he remains today.
This is the battle we are fighting and the Helsinki Accord have provided us with a forum, in the CSCE conferences, to focus world attention and international pressure on those who are responsible for these acts of persecution and repression. The Helsinki monitoring groups through their reports have provided and continue to supply the West with ammunition in the form of substantiated human rights violations. They must never be betrayed by failure on the part of the western democracies to use this hard-won information to pressure the offending Governments at every opportunity and with every means at our disposal to comply with the commitment they made in the Final Act of the conference on security and cooperation in Europe. It is our duty, as a free and democratic society, to speak out for those who cannot be heard through the blanket of silence imposed by the Iron Curtain. I believe the importance of the accords have been clearly established, both in the history of the human rights movement, and the catalyst they have provided to oppressed peoples.
The next step is to strengthen the CSCE process by every means available in order to increase pressure for reform in those nations which have ignored their commitments. By designating August 1 as Helsinki Human Rights Day, we will send a clear message of Canada's commitment to the accords and to the principles embodied in that agreement. It will put those countries who have a record of human rights abuses on notice that Canada will continue to press for compliance with the Final Act commitments. Finally, it will help to raise public
August 28, 1987
[Stage Direction]
awareness of the agreement and human rights issues, both at home and abroad.
Similar efforts are being undertaken in other western nations. 1 urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting these efforts through the passage of this motion.
With your assistance, much can be accomplished in the field of human rights. Without it, the future may be bleak for those freedom fighters in oppressed nations, who are relying on our support.
In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize last year, Elie Wiesel said:
We must always take sides, neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented . . . When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national border and sensitivities become irrelevant. Whenever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion or political views, that place must, at that moment become the centre of the universe.
While this motion may seem a small step on a long road toward the universal rights and freedoms we seek for those who look to us for help, it is a symbol of our commitment to make that journey a reality.
['I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees.']
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the idea of designating August 1, 1987 as Helsinki Human Rights Day as proposed by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) is a good one. He should be commended for coming forward with the idea and for the wording of the motion that he has put on the Order Paper for this debate today.
There is no doubt that the cause of human rights has been put forward in that fine document signed in 1975 by some 35 nations in Helsinki. The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park is, I am sure, familiar with that document in detail having participated at conferences where this agreement between East and West is regularly reviewed.
The Member for Parkdale-High Park probably knows that human rights is one of three baskets that are included in the accords. That is an important factor which must be kept in mind because I would submit to the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park that the cause of human rights within the Helsinki Agreement can best be pursued within the overall context of the agreement. As you know, Madam Speaker, 35 nations did get together in the mid-1970s with a feeling of optimism that there could be and there must be a rapprochement between East and West. The European nations added the United States and Canada to the 33 European signatories because they felt that the presence of two nations from North America, one of them being a superpower, was essential. So we did participate, and since 1985, Canada has held a very high profile in the promotion of human rights and in dealing at times also with specific cases of individuals. Today, the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park mentioned a list of names representing the present wave of cases that are on the agenda.
Helsinki Human Rights Day
I would urge the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park, however, to look at the advancement that must be made in human rights as part of a broader approach that is contemplated by and implicit in the conference and the accords themselves. In those accords, there is a basket of issues dealing with disarmament. There is another basket of issues dealing with economic matters. Then there is the very important basket of social matters including human rights. One cannot make substantial progress on just one of these fronts. One must keep the pressure going and chip away at the totality of these fronts because mutual interests must be met.
The Conference on Co-operation and Security in Europe does not work on the basis of a voting process like this Chamber. It operates by consensus. Therefore, it is important that the Hon. Member who is advancing a list of names also participate with other parliamentarians in the proceedings of this conference by advancing other elements of the conference itself. These elements are disarmament, economic matters including the environment, and human rights.
No doubt progress can be made within the Conference on Security and Co-operation, and it has been made. That process has gone through very difficult times. In 1980 particularly, at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, the conference came to a stalemate in Madrid for 18 months. Nevertheless, the spirit of Helsinki is basically a good one. That is what the Hon. Member is in essence endorsing. He is telling us that we should promote and advance the Helsinki spirit on August 1 by emphasizing Human Rights Day. We are with him all the way. However, it is important that the participation of parliamentarians be spread out on all fronts of that conference because it is a conference to which East and West come together with separate agendas and the two agendas must eventually be integrated.
For example, disarmament is very high on the agenda of eastern European countries. Elements of human rights are very high on the agenda of western nations including Canada. On the economic front, it is a mixed bag of different interests which not very often come together. Nevertheless, there is an awkward, difficult and sometimes not very focused convergence of interests. Therefore, the process must be refined and the role of parliamentarians, particularly through the Interparliamentary Union, is crucial.
I hope that the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park attends conferences of the Inter-parliamentary Union in order to advance the ideas he has advanced here today. I suggest that he put his time, efforts and energies, which I know are very high, into those conferences under the auspices of the Inter-parliamentary Union which brings together parliamentarians from East and West to discuss the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. That is where we as Canadian parliamentarians can communicate our preoccupations and priorities. That is where we can communicate the names of people we think ought to be given human rights

August 28, 1987
Helsinki Human Rights Day
considerations to our colleagues from eastern Europe. That is where the dialogue can take place, and it does take place at times.
The Elon. Member was quite right when he said that declaring August 1, 1987, as Helsinki Human Rights Day may appear to be a small step, but nevertheless it is a small step on a long road that began in 1975 when the Government of Canada participated, not only sympathetically but enthusiastically, in the notion of finding common ground and a convergence of interests, awkward and unfocused as it might be at times, in order to bring cohesion and build bridges between such different systems as are represented by the 35 nations that compose this particular conference.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park. He has done us a service by reminding us that there is a CSC process, that we have a particular interest and obligation on the side of human rights, that we want to intensify our efforts, that we want to participate in these efforts in their totality, and that Canada as a middle nation has a particular role to play. I must say that that conference is one of the world's forums in which middle nations can play a major leadership role notwithstanding the two superpowers which, in this kind of exchange, often tend either to drag their feet or sometimes to be so aggressive and unconstructive that the whole process comes to a grinding halt. That is neither the object nor the substance of this motion. Perhaps it should be the object of a debate on another day.


John Henry Reimer: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House on this motion and to underline the Government's support for the idea of a Helsinki Human Rights Day to be celebrated every year on the first day of August.
1 commend the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) for bringing this motion before the House. I listened very carefully as well to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and I think he made a very good point by saying that although the motion focuses on human rights, we should really remember that the Helsinki Final Act has many different element parts and we want to be supportive of the entire accords.
There is no question, nevertheless, that the promotion and protection of human rights in all of the 35 participating states of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is a very important and fundamental part of the Helsinki Final Act. Canadians have a deep interest in and respect for human rights throughout the world and have campaigned vigorously against abuses of these rights wherever they occur.
In its response to the Special joint committee report on Canada's international relations, the Government reiterated that its concern for the fundamental rights of individuals and groups is intrinsic to Canadian society and Canada's historical heritage. The Government further stated that human rights
are and will remain a fundamental, integral part of Canadian foreign policy.
Twelve years ago, the signing of the Helsinki Final Act evoked a wide range of reactions. Some naively beieved that the hostility and uncertainty which had marked East-West relations for so long would quickly disappear in an era of detente. Others, somewhat cynically, viewed the Final Act as a commendable set of principles which would be ignored and soon forgotten. However, most of us viewed the Final Act with both cautious hope and pragmatic realism.
Hope was essential. Canada has deep roots in Europe. Our historical origins lie in Europe. We have shared the benefits of Europe's political and social ideals, along with the tragic cost of Europe's wars. Experience has shown that even longstanding divisions can be healed, or at least managed peacefully. The relationship between West Germany and Canada since 1945 is a good example of that. In spite of two world wars we are good friends and committed allies in NATO, for peace and security and the progress of democracy and human rights in the world. Our hope, however, was then and is still today tempered by realism. The tortuous negotiations which led to the Final Act made it painfully clear that distrust and hostility were very deeply-rooted, and productive dialogue would take time, patience and, above all, commitment.
More than that, however, the history of Communism since 1917 has taught us that we must study very carefully and diligently both its theory and practice. We have to be very careful and constantly on guard. Words might mean one thing in our democratic system but may be used in an entirely different way by the Communists for their own ends. For example, in the Yalta Agreement it was declared that within two years there would be free and unfettered democratic elections in all of the liberated states of eastern Europe. Did that happen? Certainly not from the point of view of how we understand free, unfettered and democratic. Nevertheless, the three nations who signed the Yalta Agreement all agreed on those words. We have to look at the theory and practice of Communism to determine how the Soviet Union meant those words when it signed the agreement.
In order to have a free and unfettered democratic election under Communism you must first remove by torture, death, expropriation and imprisonment all of the wealthy, the educated, land owners, and all foreigners whatever their name. A cousin of mine, because of his German name, Reimer, was taken as a 15-year old boy and sent to a gulag. He came back to the Soviet Union and, fortunately, six years ago came to Canada. Then you remove all the churches' power and influence. Then you get rid of all the political Parties. When you have one Party left and all other influences have been eliminated, and the one Party is supreme in all the institutions of the state, you can have a free, unfettered and democratic election. That is what they meant because that is what they did in all the eastern European states. The Red Army came
August 28, 1987

through and got rid of whoever it wanted to get rid of, using the excuse of war. Then the Communists started their system of torture and imprisonment to the point where Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the rest of eastern Europe had imposed on them the Communist system with its understanding of those words.
We have to keep all of that in front of us when we deal with something like the Helsinki Final Act. We just celebrated Black Ribbon Day in many centres across Canada. We also have to remember the events of 1939 to 1941 and all they mean to the denial of human rights and self-determination. We have to remember the way in which three states, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, were simply annihilated by the Soviet Union. Many people were killed and others taken forcefully to the Soviet Union. Then Soviet citizens were brought in so they could say that those three states do not exist any more. That is the way it stands today.
I could go on to give many more examples, but in spite of all that, the Final Act is nevertheless a modest beginning which I think we must support. It is a product of compromise. Together the states involved determined they must come to some understanding and work out an agreement concerning the recognition of the events which had taken place. They came together in a climate of understanding and detente. The Soviet Union wanted the West to accept the fact that they now control all of eastern Europe and it was their sphere of influence. We of course were not going to war to change that. Therefore, we saw an opportunity not to recognize and accept all of that but simply to say, "Yes, that is the reality. If you want us to recognize this simple reality and not go to war to change it, we insist upon other human rights and the recognition of the right of free movement of people. We can at least start building some measure of detente".
In that way an agreement was signed which met the needs of the peoples and states that met together at this conference.
Let us look at what happened this past year in one small country, the Baltic Republic of Latvia. There a small group was formed to monitor the Final Act. By passing this motion today we would be saying to those people who have risked their freedom that we are with them. We stand with all the people throughout easter Europe. We stand with all those who are denied the rights we have. In passing this motion what we are doing is more than symbolic. We are saying that we stand with those who are in prison in Poland today because of their work with Solidarity.
In conclusion, I want to move two amendments to the motion before us. First, I move:
That Motion 119 be amended. That the year 1987 be deleted from line 3, so
that it will read, "designating August 1st as 'Helsinki Human Rights Day'."
I also move:
That Motion 119 be amended in lines 5 and 6 by deleting the words "of the
twelfth anniversary of the signing".
Helsinki Human Rights Day
The effect of those two amendments is that we will celebrate this agreement every August 1. The amendments are very simple and I am sure Members will understand and support them.
In conclusion, I want to say that one of the most effective ally for those in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union who would deny the human rights and many other things that we enjoy is our silence. By doing this we are saying, "we stand with you". By doing this we keep chipping away at the denial of human and political rights. We are showing that we recognize that although there is a huge gulf between us, we have to work at that and eliminate all of the rhetoric and the differences so that we can have at least a measure of peace and security.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair was in some difficulty having received two amendments. However, after studying them carefully we realize that the second amendment is consequential and the two amendments could become one. Therefore, I am sure the rewriting of the amendment will be done by the Table Officers as long as we all accept the substance of what is being done.
Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Reimer) agreed to.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of designating August 1 as Helsinki Human Rights Day. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Parkdale- High Park (Mr. Witer) for having brought forward this motion, which we support.
In his comments the Hon. Member said something to the effect that silence never helps the victims but always the perpetrators. Yet it was pointed out to me that last year when the Committee on Human Rights was holding hearings on the issue of human rights in South Africa the Hon. Member was the only one who voted against sanctions against South Africa. That, too, is a kind of silence which speaks very eloquently of support for the perpetrators of human rights violations in South Africa.


Andrew Witer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member will check the record he will see that the statement which he has just made about the way I voted in a committee is inaccurate. I am sure he would want to correct his statement.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I will check the record. If I prove to be inaccurate I would want to apologize to the House.
I support the whole concept of a Human Rights Day on which the spotlight of our concern here in Canada and, we hope, the spotlight of the entire international community will

August 28, 1987
Helsinki Human Rights Day
be put on human rights violations, not simply in Europe but throughout the world. The whole concept of human rights is far too often dealt with from an ideological perspective.
For example, the two superpowers are trying to use human rights in a very political way. The United States is able to pinpoint human rights violations in Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet Union is able to point to violations on the part of the United States through some of its covert activities throughout the world. In fact, both of these nations are quite right in pointing to the faults of the others, but we have to move beyond seeing human rights only from an ideological perspective and in terms of an East-West struggle. We must recognize that where human rights violations take place, whether in the East, West, North or South, they should be condemned and exposed.
We have to move away from the idea of trying to remove the speck from someone else's eye while ignoring the log in our own. We have to move away from this kind of hypocrisy. Canadians are guilty of this also.
We also need to recognize the complexity of human rights issues because sometimes what is defended as one nation's right to survive as a people becomes condemned by another nation as a violation of human rights when one nation is under a kind of seige.
We can see some of this in Canadian history. One of the most shameful incidents in Canadian history is the forcible expulsion of the Japanese from British Columbia. That was done under the provisions of the War Measures Act during World War II. That was a violation of the basic human rights of those people, many of whom were Canadian citizens. Yet it was justified by the Government of the time and the population of the time as being somehow necessitated by national survival.
More recently the imposition of the War Measures Act in the Province of Quebec in 1970 resulted in hundreds of people being arrested, many of them completely innocent of any kind of wrongdoing. That was a violation of human rights which took place under the rubric of some kind of national necessity.
We also need to recognize that the state of our world means that human rights violations are taking place in so many situations that it is almost overwhelming. How can we be aware of them all? Any spotlight that brings attention to one particular set of violations should be welcomed. However, while we might focus on one area we should not be blind or oblivious to the violations that take place in other parts of the world.
This past year the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade did a study on the development assistance policies of Canada. We issued our report entitled For Whose Benefit? In this report we make a strong case for linking our development assistance to the human rights policies and practices of the nations that are receiving our development
assistance. I would like to read some of the recommendations as follows:
The committee recommends:
i)	That emergency humanitarian aid continue to be given on compassionate grounds without preconditions, but that it be monitored closely to prevent abuses;
Even in situations where there are abuses, where there are compassionate needs, emergency needs such as following an earthquake or something of that nature, there would be emergency assistance.
The committee further recommended:
ii)	That the victims of human rights violations not be forgotten when decisions are taken to reduce or delay long-term development aid to governments;
Since we cannot support bilateral aid to governments that violate human rights, we have to remember the individual victims within those countries.
Third, the committee recommended:
iii)	That human rights criteria be developed coherently as part of overall Canadian foreign policy, and that these be applied in a universal, consistent and transparent manner;
In other words, we don't want one set of human rights criteria to be used for development assistance and another set of criteria to be used when we are developing military alliances or trade negotiations.
Fourth, the committee recommended:
iv)	That such criteria, embracing both individual, civil and political rights and socio-economic and cultural rights, be derived from established standards of international human rights law and convention;
It is very important that when we talk about human rights we not only talk about civil and political rights as we understand them in the western democracies, but that we also emphasize the importance of socio-economic rights. What do human rights mean to a child growing up in Mozambique, for example, a country which has been left poor from four centuries of Portuguese colonialism? They are under constant stress and threats from the destabilizing efforts of the South African Government. What do human rights mean to a child growing up in Mozambique? Do they not appear in the form of milk, food, education and a safe shelter, rather than in whether or not someone can run for a legislature, although that is also important? Next it reads:
That verifiable reports of violations, not ideology or strategic interest, be the basis for unfavourable assessments of human rights observance;
In other words, it is not a question of ideology but of objective description. Organizations such as Amnesty International try to provide that kind of evaluation of human rights. Groups such as that must be supported. It goes on to read:
That, more generally, progress on human rights be considered part of development, with assessments of the human rights situation in a given country being related to the over-all record of development, particularly from the vantage point of the poorest people.
August 28, 1987

As we assess human rights, we want to see what a particular country is doing in the whole concept of development. Nicaragua is a good example.
While some people have complained that certain rights and liberties have had to be suspended during a period of crisis, it is a country that is under seige. The American Government is financing a Contra movement that is working to destabilize the whole economy and working to destroy the whole process of development. Yet, since the revolution, Nicaragua has had one of the most remarkable achievements of development in terms of education and health. It has had one of the best records in Central America in terms of being able to make effective use of Canadian development assistance.
When one considers the total picture in a country like Nicaragua, one sees that it has a good human rights situation, even though there are one or two areas where certain human rights have had to be curtailed because of the political crisis that has resulted from the American funded Contra attack upon that country.
The committee goes on to recommend that a human rights unit be established in the Policy Branch of CIDA, and that it develop a human rights grid in line with what the committee recommends. The committee recommends that there be four categories: human rights negative, human rights watch, human rights satisfactory, and human rights positive. In other words, we would attempt to consider the whole situation of a country and apply that situation to a grid to determine whether, for example, the human rights situation in that country is so negative that it stands in universal condemnation. In that case, there should be no bilateral aid.
Human rights watch indicates that there are problems but we believe there are still possibilities. We would not want to rule out the possibility of Canadian aid in those areas. Human rights satisfactory means that we would want to be able to provide aid. Finally, human rights positive refers to situations where a country has made great strides in improving human rights.
In conclusion, I want to indicate our support for the whole concept of human rights, and the Helsinki Human Rights Day on August 1. Wherever a spotlight can be brought on the need for improvements in human rights, we in our Party will support it.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Madam Speaker, I wish there was time available to do justice to the motion and the message that it communicates. However, looking at the clock, I see that our time is running out very quickly, and if there is agreement in the House it might be possible for us to vote on this motion now because of the unanimous support which I detect from Members representing allParties.
I would welcome such support both as a colleague of the mover of the motion in the House and in the Committee on Human Rights.
Helsinki Human Rights Day
I am sure that I represent the general opinion of the House in supporting the mover of this motion and the intent of the motion. The great value of a motion such as this and the idea that it advocates, namely an annual remembrance of the Helsinki Human Rights Accords, is that it will raise the consciousness of our people about human rights and continue to maintain that consciousness year by year. It is absolutely vital, particularly in a democracy, that such a message not simply be a commitment on paper but that it be incarnated in the interest, devotion and sense of men and women throughout the land.
The message of human rights is part of the political obligation of every Government of the world. We recognized in our signing of the accords that we have a responsibility to concern ourselves with human rights in other parts of the world because they are the rights of men and women who share our humanity. They share with us this world and our humanity and we have a common obligation to them.
It has also been pointed out that we have a responsibility in that our commitment to human rights is such that when we speak to the world we can speak with sincerity, integrity and effect.
This is a subject that calls forth from the heart and the mind. There is much that might be shared but, alas, time is running out and I want to give an opportunity to speak to my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis).


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure today in joining my colleagues in their support for the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer).
His proposal that August 1 should be designated "Helsinki Human Rights Day" is indeed appropriate, because it expresses the profound sentiment that is felt by every person in this country. Madam Speaker, there is not a single person in Canada who is not concerned about this problem. The Hon. Member's proposal also addresses the vital role of the CSCE in seeking a greater element of trust and stability in East-West relations. Finally, it reflects the role of human rights in developing the trust that is a prerequisite for any tangible improvement in East-West relations. For Canada, human rights are a moral obligation. They are the expression in concrete terms of our obligation to respect others. Furthermore, they are the keystone of our democracy and the foundation of our civilization, because full respect for these rights opens the door to the free exchange of ideas that is the source of all creativity. Over the years, the Canadian Government has made a tremendous effort to reinforce the protection of these rights in Canada by enshrining them in the Constitution.
Our support for human rights does not stop at our borders. Since the Second World War, we have signed universal

August 28, 1987
Royal Assent
declarations of human rights and we have been signatories of UN conventions on human rights. In years gone by, the Canadian Government has been particularly active and sent delegations to other countries to express our position that human rights must be respected throughout the world.
Madam Speaker, I want to say that I wholeheartedly support this motion and that I would like to see it adopted today.
Rideau Hall Ottawa
28 August 1987 Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Claire L'Heureux-Dube, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 28th day of August, 1987, at 5.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Witer), as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the sitting is now suspended to the call of the Chair.
At 1.32 p. m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 5.14 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees.



ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation-Chapter No. 34, 1987.
Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings-Chapter No. 35, 1987.
Bill C-85, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of railway operations and for the settlement of disputes respecting terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees-Chapter No 36, 1987.


George Albert Proud: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: My colleague for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and myself simply want to say that we appreciate your patience. We were with you this morning until 2.14 and we are still here at 5.30 this afternoon. We find you very patient and would like to wish you a good week-end.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In the opinion of the Chair, that is not a point of order, but a touch of humour on the part of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.
Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11.00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 31, 1987