1987-11-19

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board) A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (C) for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, was presented by Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the forty-second and forty-third reports of the Striking Committee. If the House gives consent, I intend to move concurrence in the forty-third report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.]

t 10)


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1987-88 REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83, I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, laid upon the table earlier this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
Since the list is naturally rather lengthy, being a detailed allocation of the Supplementary Estimates to the committees, in keeping with current practice, if it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard at this point as if it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editors Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 5c, 10c, 15c, L20c, L21c, 35c, 40c, 45c and L47c.
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture, Votes 5c and 15c.
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications, Votes lc, 5c, 10c, 46c, 50c, 55c and 75c.
To the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes lc and 22c.
To the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes lc, 5c, 25c, 30c, 35c and 45c.
To the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry Agriculture, Votes 20c and 30c.
Environment, Votes 10c, 15c, 20c and 25c.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade External Affairs, Votes 1, 5c, 10c, 15c, 21c, 30c and 50c.
To the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs Finance, Vote lc.
Privy Council,Vote 20c.
To the Standing Committee on Government Operations Governor General, Vote lc.
Privy Council, Vote lc.
Supply and Services, Vote lc.
Treasury Board, Vote lc.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General Justice, Votes lc, 15c, 35c and 40c.
Solicitor General, Votes lc and 20c.
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration Employment and Immigration, Votes 5c, 15c and 20c.
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services Parliament, Vote 5c.
To the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism Secretary of State, Votes lc and 5c (portions dealing with multiculturalism)
To the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare National Health and Welfare, Votes lc, 5c, 10c, 20c, 25c, 35c, 45c, 55c, 60c and 70c.

November 19, 1987
Motions
To the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology Science
and Technology, Votes lc, 5c, 10c, 15c and 20c.
To the Standing Committee on Secretary of State
Secretary of State, Votes lc and 5c (excluding portions dealing with
multiculturalism) and votes 10c and 30c.
To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport, Votes 2c, 10c, 25c, 35c and 40c.
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs
Veterans Affairs, Votes lc and 26c.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to move that the forty-third report of the Striking Committee presented earlier this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) to move the Motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) with respect to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By consent, the Hon. Member for Comox- Powell River (Mr. Skelly) for the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) will move the motion.


Mr. Ray Skelly (for Mr. Manly) moved:: That the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans,
presented to the House on Friday, June 19, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak to an issue as important as the small craft harbour issue. The subject, of course, of the debate today revolves around concurrence in a report by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with respect to an inquiry into the small craft harbour situation in Canada.
The Government, of course, manages a large number of harbours across Canada. There are some 1,415 commercial harbours and something in the order of 840 recreational harbours. In the management of that program there have been many serious concerns about the operations. In response to those concerns, the Government, when it first came to power, began with a policy that would be judged by many Canadians as less than desirable.
The Government in a very rigorous attempt to cut back federal spending, and to cut back on the number of people involved in the public service, essentially froze activity in this important area. In the freezing of this activity the Government made the statement that it was all the fault of the previous Government that the small craft harbour arrangements were in chaos, and that the previous Government had assigned resources to small craft harbours in Canada on a political basis and had created far more harbours than Canada needed and certainly far more than the Government of Canada was able to maintain.
The Government used this as a justification to shut down many small craft harbours, but said it would do it on a priorization basis. Those harbours which were now deemed to be under utilized and in a very degraded state of disrepair would be simply barricaded off and closed. Other harbours not important in the minds of the Government would not undergo extensive repairs to bring them up to the standard required by fishing communities across Canada. The Government had a further category of harbours that would in fact undergo regular maintenance and repair and be considered for later upgrading of facilities. Then, of course, there is the need for new facilities.
This was essentially a continuation of the restraint program that involved the cutting of staff and budgets as per the overall policy of this particular Government. This policy caused an enormous amount distress. This distress was reflected back to Members of Parliament and in turn to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and, of course, to the Minister.
The political pressure rose to the point where the standing committee felt it absolutely had to do something in terms of an inquiry into the impact of the Government's restraint position, the cutting of staff and budgets; that came about because government Members in the Conservative Party were under such tremendous flack in their own areas. Their own constituencies were rising up against them and threatening to defeat them in the next election if this issue was not addressed. There was pressure on the Minister, pressure on the Government and pressure on sitting Members in the Conservative Party. As a result, they then were prepared to undertake an examination of this matter through the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
When the examination was complete, the findings were that the program was inadequate. The Government also found there was enormous pressure, and it put in place a new
November 19, 1987

program which was announced in June of this year in the small craft harbour area.
It is interesting to note that the Government now deemed that there was a substantial need for small craft harbours. It seems to have forgotten the old sins of the previous Government in creating too many harbours and the need to shut them all down. It now finds there is an need for safe accessible harbours. The Government also said there was a very strong need to emphasize repair and improvement to ensure there was safety in those harbours, that someone did not drive a forklift out on the wharf in a small craft harbour in winter time and fall through it with the forklift; to determine that there was not such rot and decay in those harbours that one could not work on the harbour facility.
The Government said another need was to ensure that there was not disruption in the commercial fishing activity. There are communities like Port Hardy with a very limited number of berths available in the small craft harbour area. Because of this poor management by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, if a storm suddenly came roaring in, there could be up to 900 major commercial fishing vessels trying to tie up in a community where there was no moorage facilities, or very few, and creating a grave danger to the fishing vessels. The beach and the very small harbour facilities are then littered with garbage, vessels are tied to each other for mooring security, and the disruption to the commercial fishing service is incredibly apparent. Small Craft Harbours and the Government of Canada have seen a need to build facilities to ensure that there is not a disruption in service.
Many, harbours in Atlantic Canada have received extensive damage from storms. The Government was told of this time and time again. Those harbours need to be dredged and to have the storm damage repaired. Communities were paralyzed because the people could not get out to fish. They could not get out to earn a living. They could not safely moor their vessels, the tools which they use to earn their livings.
Surprise of surprises; the Government has now discovered that the dredging and the storm damage repair in Atlantic Canada can be done with the very paltry amount of $5 million, a figure which certainly understates the case. I think this represents the Government's failure to come to grips with the needed level of improvement in those Atlantic Canadian communities.
There must be an enhancement of that improvement. There must be a steady and ongoing allocation of resources to ensure that the damages are repaired in a quick and timely manner and that the dredging goes on on a regular basis. Those harbours in Atlantic Canada must be maintained so that people can continue to earn their livings safely without disruption.
As stated in the government program, the needs are correct. But what is required, something which is lacking, is the repair
Motions
of the storm damage and the implementation of the dredging programs in a timely manner so that further disruptions do not occur.
In the Great Lakes region the Government recognizes that high waters in those lakes have damaged a substantial number of harbours. It is being proposed that the damage level is at around $10 million. The harbours must be repaired in order to ensure the integrity of local economies. Because the damage was not repaired as it occurred it has cost the taxpayers a great deal more money. That is unfortunate. The dislocation which has occurred to local economies because of the failure of the Government to keep in place its infrastructure, which structure maintains and supports the local economy, has not only cost the taxpayers of Canada more money in terms of federal dollars but has also created major dislocations in the tourism and recreational sectors of those economies.
These measures must be carried out without causing the enormous disruptions we saw with the three-year program of the Government that turned a blind eye on these facilities under the guise of instituting savings. These are false savings and in the long run the taxpayers will pay a lot more.
One advantage the Government feels may accrue to it is, that if it suddenly stops spending money on small craft harbours, the damage which occurs can be repaired during an election period. What has happened on those occasions is that the Government has attempted to put itself forward as recognizing the needs of people and as attempting to buy votes during an election period. This is the manner in which the activity we are faced with today has occurred. Instead of regular and thoughtful priorized activity to fix storm damage, to repair facilities and to ensure federal support for communities both in Atlantic Canada and in the Great Lakes region, we have the situation of simply stopping all progress to try to make false savings. Then during an election period the Government opens the purse strings and tries to spend money effectively and as rapidly as possible in the hopes of buying a few votes.
That does not work. It creates a very poor contracting, repair and building regime. Often the contracts are let with the next Government trying to put them in place. The process is done in a very unplanned and generally unacceptable manner.
One of the things the Government says is wrong with the previous approach is the imprecise targeting of the upkeep program on these harbours. That is absolutely true. What we see is a situation in which the loudest voices receive the treatment. There is no effective priorization. Therefore, someone who happens to come along with the same party card as the Government in power will say, "We want our wharf fixed". When that happens, and when moderate problems in an area with very low utilization caused by major damage or major need for infrastructure are ignored, then instead of winding up where it should, the money goes to serve the needs of citizens. This seems to be politically expedient, and then the program has to start.

November 19, 1987
Motions
At least the Government has moved a fraction of an inch forward in recognizing that there has been, as the Government puts it very euphemistically, an imprecise targeting of the upkeep program. Resources are very thinly spread. That is quite a statement. The results of it fall on the previous Government which used these harbours as political plums wherever it could. Yet it did not provide the maintenance budget to ensure that those harbours were kept functional for the communities which depend on them. Indeed, they do depend on them. There was a complete under-budgeting for maintenance of important federal assets, the small craft harbours system. As a result, it is being damaged even further because the necessary repairs to maintain the integrity of those facilities was not done.
Stating that the resources were spread too thin and that the targeting was imprecise is an admission of the Government's negligence in its trusteeship of important Canadian resources. The need, the Government claims, is for expanded funding for small craft harbours, improved maintenance and project improvements. There is no doubt about that. There needs to be a substantial increase in facilities.
The nature of fishing is changing on the West Coast, for example. On the West Coast we have a large and active commercial fleet. We have two types of action that require servicing by the federal Government in small craft harbours. We need fishing ports in the fishing grounds so that vessels can moor during times when the fishing season is closed. They need places where they can moor in order to unload at processing facilities. They need places to moor and to seek security during storms when fishing cannot continue.
I point to the example of Port Hardy where we have had 900 vessels tied up at one time, with nowhere near that number of berths. During periods of storm such berthing causes damage to vessels. There is not proper garbage facilities or servicing facilities in the harbour environment and garbage is thrown overboard. There is tremendous environmental degradation. What has happened as a result of the actions of management regimes, and in this case in the Johnstone Strait fisheries, Fisheries and Harbours, through their Small Craft Harbour arm, have not kept pace with the need for additional harbour facilities.
The Government of Canada and, indeed, the Government of British Columbia have actively encouraged the development of aquaculture which is part of the fishing industry. There are many people who are absolutely appalled at the completely unplanned approach of both governments to aquaculture. They are appalled at the fact that foreign investors are allowed almost more priority than Canadian entrepreneurs in the industry. They are appalled that upland owners of property adjacent to fish farms and those with fish licences are given no say in the location of those particular facilities. Nevertheless, that industry is in place and growing rapidly.
The Government of Canada is making no movement to service that industry. This is definitely a function of Small
Craft Harbours. In many areas, especially on the northern and central coasts where licences and fish farms are selling rapidly, places away from major centres, the only movement of goods and people back and forth to those facilities is through Government of Canada wharves and small craft harbours.
Of course, the Government of Canada is doing nothing to develop those facilities. There needs to be a definite facility at Sultry Bay on the Sunshine Coast in the area of Powell River. What the Government of Canada is saying is that it has two agencies, the Small Craft Harbour agency under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the coast guard facility under the Coast Guard, which handles wharves and piers for the purposes of moving goods and people.
Small Craft Harbours says that its mandate is exclusively related to the tying up of fishing vessels. Therefore aquaculture is falling between the two, because Transport Canada says that it concerns fishing and Small Craft Harbours says that it concerns the movement of goods and people. What they are both saying is that neither one is responsible.
What is happening is that there is no planning for the federal Government to service the aquaculture industry and to ensure that these infrastructure resources come onstream in a time that is useful to the industry and to facilitate its growth. There is no provision for the safe movement of goods and people back and forth to the sites where the work is going on. Nor is there a method for moving the product in such a way that it will come ashore in top quality condition for the market to which it is destined. This is a serious failing. Communities like Port McNeill have appealed to the federal Government to examine the sites and develop them in order that the aquaculture industry developing on the northern end of Vancouver Island and along the central coast can develop in an orderly and effective manner. To this point, the Government has no plans on the drawing board to service that industry.
In the area of Jervis Inlet, an appeal has been made by the Powell River Regional District, by the Municipality of Powell River, and the aquaculture industry in the area to get moving on an acceptable dock where goods and people can move freely. Again the Government is stating that it is the other Department's responsibility, and it is falling right through the crack. The long-term losers are the communities that hope to benefit from that industry and, of course, the industry itself that does not have an effective area to move its goods and people back and forth safely, quickly, and effectively with no degradation of the product involved.
It is important, because for those areas that do have aquaculture potential, one of the major things is the federal Government infrastructure. This is absolutely imperative for communities on the west coast of Vancouver Island that have a large number of licences put into place. People are stating that those licences and the aquaculture sites cannot be developed until there is some assurance that there will be infrastructure;
November 19, 1987

a small craft harbour, or a pier with loading and unloading facilities.
The people who run the programs in the regional offices are completely unwilling, or have been in the past, to go into those communities and talk to the people about development. They have been very unreceptive to suggestions that plans should be put on the drawing board for those communities to service that industry in addition to the commercial fishing industry, and to service the small processing plants that tend to develop around those areas to handle that product quickly and effectively in order that the benefits from the product are maximized, and it can move quickly from the area where it is grown or taken into the markets.
Not only is the Government ignoring this, but in cases that I have specifically dealt with regional managers are stating that they do not even wish to talk to those people or listen to their story, that their minds are made up. They state that there is enough harbour facility, there is not the economic justification, or there is too much processing. They have no vision of the needs of the community or the industry, and the potential of the area. It is a tragedy that I feel can be rectified by the Government ordering people to move quickly in this matter.
I see that I am drawing rapidly to the end of my limited time here, and I have 20 more pages of very thoughtful material for the Elouse to consider.
In summary, the important aspect of the small craft harbours issue is that in the past the Government has completely failed to put an orderly process in place. If I were to give a single recommendation to the House, it would be to move the whole business of priorizing the small craft harbour activities away from departmental officials to an advisory body. That body would represent the organizations by election and nomination of those organizations to sit on an advisory body. It would then provide advice to the Government on what harbour facilities are needed and where they should be developed.


Mr. St. Julien:: Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the concerns of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) over small craft harbours.
In a region such as ours, Abitibi, a number of localities really deserve to be included in this program. Strangely enough, we have been hearing about eastern and western Canada, but this is the first time ever a government has been listening to the residents of a vast region like Abitibi. I have two examples which might interest the Hon. Member: Belcourt, a small village close to Senneterre, and Louvicourt, the gateway to Abitibi. Department officials came to see the people and for the first time ever they discussed access to lakes which people considered important. We did get some funding recently, this was last month, and discussions are continuing.
I should like to ask the Hon. Member whether remote regions like ours-Abitibi-are entitled to their share. Do you
Motions
think it is important? Nobody says it has to be by the oceanside. But I am saying that we have our share, we will continue, and it is important for a region like ours to have programs and funds for small craft harbours.


Raymond John Skelly: The Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien) has raised an interesting question. To develop it a little further, the question is in relation to where the federal jurisdiction lies. This Government has been giving a mixed message. When it started out it stated that it wanted nothing to do with anything except established commercial fishing harbours. The problem is that commercial fishing goes on all over. There is a great freshwater fishery.
Another area in which the Government became involved years ago was with recreational harbours and the developing of major recreational facilities. Then this Government stated it did not wish to become involved in recreational facilities. That is something that Abitibi certainly could be interested in, whether it is moving hunters, people who travel in the lake regions, or the commercial fishing that goes on in the lakes. Indeed, there are two main areas, recreation and tourism, and the commercial fishing fleet.
Essentially now the Government is coming back and stating that it made a mistake, it is interested in the recreational tourist aspect. In that regard, it certainly could be looking at freshwater commercial fisheries in an area such as Abitibi, and other areas of the country. If in fact the freshwater commercial fishery is felt to be an important part of the local economy, the Government has to quit going both ways on this issue. It has to stand up and say that it will take responsibility for that infrastructure and get rolling in Abitibi and other areas of the country where the freshwater fishery is important. The harbour facilities are needed there for safety, moorage, and as infrastructure to aid the local economy.
Tourism and recreation is another area; sports fishing, hunting, people who wish to enjoy the wilderness in a water environment, and it is an area especially important for native communities attempting to develop these facilities. Is this indeed a federal responsibility? At one time the Government said that it was not, but in some areas it has stated that it is.
We need to answer the question of the Hon. Member for Abitibi and other Canadians who want to know where they stand and why another community can receive the support of several millions dollars for a recreational and tourist harbour, yet a community with the same type of needs is told by the Government that it does not get involved in that.
One has to ask, is it because of the political affiliation of the Member who represents that area, or is it the size of the donations that have been contributed by those communities to the political Party? It is difficult to say. At the beginning of this Parliament the Government stated it was no longer interested in participating in areas that were not exclusively within its mandate. Its definition of the mandate appeared to

November 19, 1987
Motions
be managing existing harbours, and managing only those harbours where commercial fishing was under way.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I was pleased that a representative of our caucus moved this motion, and I was happy to second the motion. In my own riding of Churchill and in ridings adjacent to it, such as the Interlake riding and the Provencher riding, the whole issue of small craft harbours is of major concern to fishermen. We are talking about people involved in freshwater fishing. For too long they have been ignored by the federal Government. Many of the harbours in their areas come under this legislation.
In the past the federal Government, in a very slow method, has built up harbours in communities in areas which needed harbours for the livelihood of fishermen. Over the last couple of months I have had a chance to tour many of those areas. I have found that maintenance over the last number of years- and I am not only blaming the present Conservative Government-has been completely deplorable. We have harbours which are unsafe, and we have harbours which are a threat not only to the livelihood of the people involved in the fisheries but to their lives.
I would like the Hon. Member who introduced the motion to speak, as he did so eloquently for the West Coast, as one of our representatives on the fisheries committee about our concern for the people involved in freshwater fishing. I would like him to assure me, the House, and people across the land, that our policies would be for all Canadians and would ensure that we have a solid and safe harbours policy in Canada.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to examine another aspect of the matter, which only shows what an enormously large and diverse area is covered by the small craft harbour infrastructure of federal government.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) indicated the need for proper harbour facilities for the freshwater fishery in Manitoba. Of course we would work vigorously toward providing safe and necessary harbours. We would also be looking at that in terms of the major lakes and freshwater fisheries in the Northwest Territories. The federal Government is a partner in exploiting these resources, in assisting communities which depend upon them, and in making their economies viable.
It is almost impossible for freshwater fisheries harbours, such as the ones in Manitoba, in the Northwest Territories, and in other areas like the Great Lakes, to achieve the full benefit of the resource.
My Party is firmly committed to developing and securing those harbours through regular improvements. Additionally, on the decision in terms of where harbours should go, as I mentioned before this should be the responsibility of an advisory group which represents the communities and the users
of harbours. Whether it be freshwater fisheries regions, Atlantic Canada, the St. Lawrence or, indeed, the area around James Bay, there should be advisory committees which examine the small craft harbours situation, decide how the budget will be allocated and used for repairs, and decide where the budget will be used to enhance new facilities.
This would remove the whole matter from the political game. Small craft harbours people would be able to lay information before those who are dependent on them and before users' groups. They would give advice to small craft harbours people and the Minister on the allocation of resources. The Minister would not hand them out on the basis of political affiliation or the membership of a particular Member from an area. The tragic history of small craft harbours is that they have been given out as political patronage rather than under a rational, consistent system.


Mr. Suluk:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has expired. The Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau).


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate today. I listened to the previous speaker who in the past has shown interest in fisheries related issues. It was quite interesting to note that he was extremely cynical about Small Craft Harbours officials who in the past were only looking for good leadership and plans. He used a very cynical approach when he talked about those fine officials.
The previous speaker also talked about the need for a new small craft harbours management plan, as did the committee. The committee met over a number of months. It received representations and conducted many discussions on small craft harbours. On June 19, it submitted a report to the House outlining our concerns about small craft harbours.
On June 29, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) announced a program. In that very short period of time from June 19 to June 29 he did an absolutely superb job.
I will go into further details in that regard later this morning.
The previous speaker should be extremely happy about what was announced on June 29, but he did not go into very much detail on some of the specific items. He preferred to dwell upon past management plans and so on. If he had read the document he might have been very surprised and extremely happy with the way in which the Government has responded.
The fishing industry in Canada is a far cry from what it was a number of years ago. Vessels are now big, efficient, modern, and expensive. Some vessels are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. A vessel cannot afford to wait in harbour for high tide any longer in order to go fishing. That is what was the situation in the old days. Fishing vessels now need to be able to get out there to fish, not wait for tides.
November 19, 1987

1 will deal with the situation in Atlantic Canada because it is the area which I know better. It has something over 30,000 fishing vessels and over 59,000 fishermen. The landed value is over $1 billion. Activity in the fishing industry will increase with time, over coming years. The effect of free trade alone will increase the need for more wharfs and more facilities because the value-added aspect will be greater in our communities. We will not need to send unprocessed fish to the United States to be used in TV dinners, foods, and so on. The value-added aspect will occur right here in Canada, which will increase the need for safer and better harbours all that much more.
We have valuable fishing grounds in Atlantic Canada, such as Georges Bank, the Scotian Shelf, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Grand Banks, and so on. These areas will become veritable gold-mines for the citizens of Canada.
Yesterday morning I was able to take advantage of the new Small Craft Harbours program. I was able to visit some of the important fishing communities in my riding and to announce very much needed improvement programs for small craft harbours at Dennis Point in West Pubnico, Lower East Pubnico, and Camp Cove in Argyle. A couple of months ago I was finally able to announce improvements for the Saulnier-ville wharf in Saulnierville, Nova Scotia. Over 20 years ago the wharf had been built and suffered damage in a storm but had never been repaired. I might add that this wharf was ranked third in landings in the whole Scotia-Fundy region of Canada.
For the benefit of the novice, the Scotia-Fundy region of Atlantic Canada is the largest fishing area in the world. After 20 years we now have a program to start doing repairs which are very much needed.
Under the program, in my own riding alone I have been able to announce projects in Little River in Digby County, Little River in Yarmouth County, Cape St. Mary, East Ferry, and Delap's Cove. These communities needed good, safe, and efficient harbours.
Returning to the committee, as I noted earlier it met over a number of months. It pointed out some problems. The first was inadequate funding. It also pointed out our concern for the safety of fishermen and their materials and equipment which, as I noted a moment ago, can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Storms over the years had caused damage on wharfs which had never been repaired.
The committee came up with the following recommendation:
Your Committee therefore recommends that budgetary and corresponding program actions be taken to assure access to harbour users and their property, and to ensure the economical and timely upkeep of the harbours and the extension of their useful lives. The budgetary or program actions should be consistent with and appropriate for a program involving valuable long-term capital assets.
Motions
On June 29, the Minister did announce a program which met all the requirements of the request we had put forward. To respond to the very cynical comment made by the previous speaker to the effect that officials had not wanted to do this, that was not so. It was because, up until this time, we had not had the leadership that would allow us to respond to those requirements.
The program announced by the Minister calls for a management plan for fishing in recreational harbours maintained under Small Craft Harbours. The new management strategy responds extremely positively to our recommendations.
As 1 have already noted, the question of safety, both for fishermen and their vessels, came first. As well, there has been disruption caused by unsafe harbours, harbours which had not been dredged and harbours which were simply not adequate to respond to the needs of the industry. On the Atlantic coast of Canada alone, $5 million worth of damage had been caused by storms. High water levels on Lakes Superior, Huron and Erie had caused damage estimated at $10 million. These were problems that needed to be addressed.
Over the years there had been an imprecise targeting, as mentioned by the previous speaker. Many wharfs were repaired based on political considerations. This had to be stopped. We must respond to the fishermen and their needs rather than to political needs. That is what this program addresses.
Resources were spread too thinly, and I will note the figures later on. There were simply not enough dollars going into the program. When talking about harbours across Canada, we are talking about billions of dollars worth of harbours with which we needed to deal.
The expansion of funding for small craft harbour maintenance and improvement budgets responds much more fully now to the needs of harbour users and is particularly targeted at those involved in commercial fishing. Priorities have been aimed at safety and the elimination of disruption, and in the process, in order to get proper input, there will be more involvement at the local level of the users themselves. Those people who wish to become more involved in the planning of programs for harbours will receive first and better consideration.
The program is comprised of measures dealing with four main areas. First, there will be more effective management of existing small craft harbours. Structures at harbours which have had to be barricaded because they have become hazardous will be reopened. There is nothing that upsets a fisherman more than to see a barricade placed over a harbour which in the past the fisherman was able to use. There is nothing either that is more upsetting to people like me.
As I noted earlier, repairs of storm damage in Atlantic Canada and the upper Great Lakes will be carried out and there will be new infrastructure projects, services and facilities

November 19, 1987
Motions
at certain harbours where improvements are needed to meet the expanding demands of both the tourism and the fishing industries.
The following specific measures have been taken. There will be an increase from $48.5 million to $70 million. This is a 44 per cent increase to the ongoing level of funding assistance for the federal Small Craft Harbours program under which the federal Government manages some 1,415 commercial fishing and 840 recreational boat harbours throughout Canada. This 44 per cent increase will be in what is called the operating level or the A-Base budget.
The launching of a special three-year infrastructure revitalization program with additional funding of $85 million over three years is aimed at reducing the large backlog of accumulated damage and deterioration to harbours essential to commercial fishermen, recreational boaters and the communities which rely on them. This will bring our harbours up to a level at which they can again be used.
The use of funds for emergency repairs had risen from 40 per cent to 90 per cent of regular maintenance budgets since 1982. As Hon. Members will recall, the maintenance budget had been at the level of about $46 million. It was simply not adequate to repair harbours over the years. Emergency repairs were taking up most of the budgets. Last year alone, it was necessary to place safety barricades at 50 different locations. If these trends had been allowed to continue, 150 harbours would have closed over the next five years.
Under the new program there will be room for more community input. The users themselves-the fishermen-will be able to advise us on how to do improvements and where to put new harbours, as well as what kind of programs there should be for individual harbours. It will give fishermen and other users a more direct role in the management and operation of their harbours. At the same time, there will be important benefits to cost effectiveness. Under this approach, the federal Government will assist in the formation of harbour authorities appointed by the fishermen themselves and in some cases by local governments. In all cases, funding will be sufficient to keep all harbours up to standards of safety prescribed by the federal Small Craft Harbours program.
It is expected that some 500 harbours, which account for 80 per cent of the fish caught in Atlantic Canada, will opt for this local input process. Maintenance projects are far too costly and complex for small harbour authorities to assume on their own, so these will be assumed by the federal Government. Local fishermen will do small maintenance projects which they will be able to do quickly. They will not need to wait months and months for small craft harbours officials to go to the region to carry out these projects.
The establishment of a grassroots user-management system will allow the Government to match programs more precisely to local needs and priorities while reaping the cost-saving benefits of local tendering and procurement. The fishermen
themselves will be able to do repairs locally through local contractors under this new program.
The Government has come up with a program which was required for small craft harbours across Canada. As I noted earlier in my remarks, free trade will be coming onstream within the next couple of years. We will need these small craft harbours in order to accommodate the very expanded activity which will be going on in the fishing communities throughout Canada. I for one look forward to the benefits this program will have for my community.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) noted in the Throne Speech that we needed to place more emphasis on the safety of both fishermen and equipment. This new program has responded to that.
On behalf of the fishermen in my community, I wish to thank the Government for having come up with this program. It has been extremely well received in my community. The announcements I have been able to make over the past few months have been very well received. The fishermen are looking forward to working in closer co-operation with Small Craft Harbour officials. I see this as being a very positive approach on the part of the Government and I congratulate Small Craft Harbours officials for the way they have met with local communities and fishermen and for the way the program is coming into place.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, 1 too would leap for joy if I had found that $6 million had been spent in my riding since the inception and announcement of the program in June of this year. There is no doubt that spending in Canada is profoundly skewed. I would point to the fact that the Hon. Member did receive $6 million. I would not ask that one penny less be spent in that riding, indeed, in Atlantic Canada, or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There are still facilities there that need further repairs. However, I want equal treatment for the West Coast. There should be a more thoughtful allocation of resources by the Government. The Hon. Member might want to give us some indication of when the important needs of other regions of the country might be attended to.
The Hon. Member said I was cynical. I am not. It was the committee that he chaired which said that the operation of small craft harbours was a disaster. The committee was most critical of the fact that the Conservative Government was prepared to do nothing about it. Does he stand by that?
The third item is that of independent harbour authorities and the fact that if you do not form a harbour authority, it does not matter whether you have need or not, you are not on the priority list. Some communities cannot afford to take on the responsibility of a harbour authority. This is a move towards privatization of government infrastructure. This is total nonsense. The Government has already started giving away harbours that the people of Canada built and they, through the Government, should take responsibility for them.
November 19, 1987

These harbours should not be privatized, throwing the burden of maintaining the infrastructure on those who cannot handle it. The advisory committee should be a general regional committee which establishes regional priorities. Not a small group who will assume ownership under the Government's privatization regime, but a legitimate public mechanism.
I want to point out again that I am not cynical. Indeed, I am one of the optimists in here.


Gerald J. Comeau: Madam Speaker, 1 am rather surprised that the NDP spokesman denies that the wharf in Saulnierville is very badly needed. Of course, in the next election campaign I will point out what the NDP thinks.


Raymond John Skelly: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member cannot be allowed to distort the truth. I said I advocated more money be spent there.


Some Hon. Members:: Debate!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Both Hon. Members are engaged in friendly debate and I am sure the Hon. Member will allow the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) to answer.


Gerald J. Comeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member had his chance to say his piece and I would like to have mine.
Would he deny a wharf to the people of Saulnierville? They waited 20 years for it. That wharf is ranked third in its landing of fish in the Scotia-Fundy area. That is the largest fishing area in the world. My riding alone has the highest landed value of fish in all of Canada. Yet that Hon. Member would deny the need for repairs to that harbour. As I said earlier, the people of South West Nova will be very surprised to hear the Hon. Member's comments.
The Hon. Member would also deny the fishermen of our communities the right to form harbour authorities in order to take a more direct role in the management of their harbours. That is what the harbour authority is all about. Those areas that do not have enough fishermen to form a harbour authority will be given special consideration. Those areas that do have the numbers will be given the right, which they did not have in the past, to form an authority where they can set their own priorities.
The Hon. Member distorts the facts and will not look at the truth. We want to help the fishermen help themselves. Of course, the Hon. Member has never really been known to stress the truth all that much, so we will leave him be on that point.


Mr. Robichaud:: Madam Speaker, I also have a question for the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau). Like him, I welcome the efforts of a government that has finally realized that new money should be spent on repairing harbours from coast to coast.
Motions
In his response to the report on small craft harbours, there is nevertheless one item that worries me a great deal. It is a subject that was mentioned just now, and I am referring to the harbour authorities. Now this reminds me of the fight we had to put up during the debate on Bill C-75, and I think you will recall, Madam Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Humber- Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) spoke for nearly seven hours to block this Bill, especially Clause 4 which provided fees for users of Canada's ports, which meant that fishermen using various harbour facilities would be charged a fee. In fact, it says on page 3, item 3, that consideration is being given to introducing a user fee mechanism.
My question is as follows: Does the Hon. Member for South West Nova agree with this policy-a policy the Government is now trying to sneak in through the back door-of charging user fees, especially to fishermen?


Gerald J. Comeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member pointed out that we now have a mechanism to collect user fees. However, he forgets that user fees were collected for years, even by his own government. This has been going on for ages, and at the time, it was the Government that collected these fees. From now on, the fishermen will collect these funds.
Isn't it better to have the fishermen collecting the funds instead of the Government? Perhaps the Hon. Member should consider this aspect.
Personally, I prefer to leave it up to the fishermen.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on this concurrence motion, moved by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), I assume because the Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) was unable to be here today.
Over the last year and a half the committee worked very hard and spent many long hours trying to obtain funding for the Small Craft Harbours Program. I remember when our committee travelled to British Columbia and Atlantic Canada, hearing witnesses from those areas which are of great importance to the fishery. I guess, in every area that we travelled to, in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Quebec, one of the main irritants we found with fishermen was the lack of funding for small craft harbours. This is understandable because harbours and wharves are the heart and soul of the fishing communities. They are their home base, their infrastructure. They form a very integral part of the fishing community. The primary base of a fishing enterprise is the vessels, nets, gear and, of course, the stocks which they go to sea to fish.
Fishing is a very hazardous industry. Fishermen continue to fight the elements, not only at sea but in the ports themselves, especially in Atlantic Canada where we have a lot of winter

November 19, 1987
Motions
storms and a lot of ice. The elements are very hard on wharves, breakwaters and haul-out slips.
There are over 2,300 harbours across the country. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the maintenance of wharves and breakwaters. The figure of 2,300 includes 750 harbours which are used mainly for recreational purposes but are still included in the budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I have always maintained that recreational harbours should be funded by another source such as tourism. In the last number of years the budget for the maintenance of harbours has been between $41 million and $48 million. That hardly covers the most basic maintenance of wharves and breakwaters and leaves nothing for dredging.
Another problem we have in Atlantic Canada is in respect to dredging. ITarbours which have good water depth this fall may, as a result of storms, be totally sanded in during the spring when the fishermen are trying to go fishing. This is especially true in Prince Edward Island although there are areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that find themselves in the same situation with drifting sand. The fishermen do not know what the water depth is in the harbour until the ice leaves. The situation then, of course, can become an emergency. On top of all other problems we have a tremendous problem with dredging and getting dredging machinery when it is needed.
In my riding there are two seasons for lobster fishing, one on the northeast side and one on the west side of the Northumberland Strait. The season on the east side operates from May 1 until the end of June. It is imperative that the fishermen who fish in that district are able to set their traps by May 1 when the season opens. We all know that in the lobster fishery the first two or three weeks are generally the best weeks.
In my riding, the most important industry, in terms of employment, is the fishery. I was very fortunate this year. After much prodding of the Minister by the standing committee for improved funding for small craft harbours, there was an announcement made. I stress the word "announcement" because the work has not yet taken place and a number of announcements have been made in the past with no follow through. After a lot of debate and fighting, the Government announced that $500,000 would be available for the improvement of the breakwater at Fishing Cove, a very important harbour in my area. Of that, $25,000 is to be spent in this fiscal year on design with the remainder to be used for actual construction next year.
Alberton Harbour is another very important harbour in my area. The Government announced $400,000 for projects there. Of that, $200,000 is supposed to be spent this year with the remainder to be spent next year.
When the Government changed in 1984, tenders had already been called for Alberton. When the Government changed, it cut off the tendering process. Had that work been done at that time, as it should have, that would have saved the Government $150,000. This situation is happening right across
the country. It is happening in British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, the Great Lakes area, Manitoba, and Atlantic Canada.
We were able to persuade the Government to announce $800,000 for West Point in my riding. Apparently $25,000 will be spent for breakwater reconstruction this year with the remainder to be used in a number of stages over the next year and a half. This work has been a priority of the port committee for the last number of years. A lot of work has been done there since 1974, but the completion of the work which was scheduled in 1984 for completion in 1984-86 was deferred, basically due to lack of funding.
With 2,300 harbours and wharves across the country it is only natural that a budget of less than $50 million will not be sufficient to do the necessary work. I understand that there are priorities across the country. Therefore, I was very pleased, after a lot of prodding of the Minister by the standing committee, that those projects were announced. However, I repeat that they are only announcements. I will continue to keep after the Government to fulfil the promises it made.
My colleague, the Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau), tried to make the point that no politics were being played. Let us not kid ourselves. We are in a political forum. I do not get to make the announcements, of course, because I am a Liberal MP. However, that does not affect me. As long as I get the work done I do not care who announces it, and nor do the fishermen. They all know who fought for them. I have brought the issue up in the House and in committee many times. As a politician I make sure my people understand who is fighting for them in Ottawa.
Having said that, I am the first one to congratulate the Government for announcing these projects. It is proper, and I would fight for the people of South West Nova to get more funding. There was a headline in the Charlottetown Guardian on Tuesday, March 3, entitled: "Fisheries wish list carries $1 billion price tag". That is the amount of money they could spend if they had it. I would not be so naive to think they could spend it all in one year because they cannot gear up for it that quickly, but that is the amount of money that is necessary.
I would like to read from the article which states:
Piled on the corner of Mike Godin's desk at Fisheries Department
headquarters here is a wish list half a metre high, with a $1 billion price tag.
It goes on to state where all this money is needed, and that is actually a fact. My colleague, the Hon. Member for South West Nova mentioned that there was something like $85 million announced for the harbour revitalization program. The figures I received from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, naturally the A-base, continues at $48.5 million, and the harbour revitalization program for 1987-88 is $41.5 million, making a total this year of $90 million.
November 19, 1987

That is not what we asked for. We asked for a lot more than that. However, I suppose we should be happy receiving at least that much. I was brought up in the school which believes that a half a loaf of bread is better than no bread. But I want to give warning to the Minister and to members of the Government that I will continue to fight. I am sure that when I say that I have a lot of support from Conservative backbenchers, certainly those who represent ridings which have fishing and recreational harbours within their boundaries.
In 1988-89 the A-base, of course, is still $48.5 million, but the harbour revitalization program is now $61.5 million, which gives us a total next year of $110 million. There is obviously a breakdown somewhere, because if I add up the figures of the revitalization program 1 come to $150 million. 1 guess there was some money put into the A-base for a short period of time. I imagine that is the explanation. In 1989-90 the A-base, once again, will be $48.5 million and the revitalization program will be $46.5, for a total of $95 million. That gives us a peak, if you will, next year. I never accuse anyone of anything in the House of Commons, but one could say that perhaps we could expect an election next year because there is a peak. This year, 198788, it is $90 million. In 1988-89 it is $110 million, but 1989-90, the A-base, including revitalization, will be $95 million. That is a total for revitalization of $150 million over three years. However, I stand corrected in that because the announcement was for $85 million for revitalization and I am told the A-base has not been increased. So somewhere along the line there is some other money going somewhere.
I know there was a lot of money spent on the St. John's East by-election for purposes we all understand. It was not too fruitful, of course, to the Government. I think that points out to politicians and governments that they cannot fool the people. They cannot have those little booms and busts. They cannot spend money a year or so before an election, and then after the election cut it off and freeze the capital.
In 1979 it was quite obvious that everything to do with small craft harbours was frozen under the former Conservative Government. I am not making any accusations because 1 am happy with the kind of money that has been committed thus far. We need more money in my riding. I need work done in Howard's Cove, paving and dredging. We need about another $350,000 for Miminegash. Tignish, one of the major ports in my riding needs an awful lot of work. We made strides in the 1970s and early 1980s, but we had three years of virtually nothing done at our ports and harbours in Atlantic Canada and, indeed, in British Columbia. The A-base was just enough to barely cover operations and maintenance. In fact, that is why we have seen so many barricades. We need a program. The wish list of $1 billion is perhaps a little high, but I presume it is being projected over a long period of time. I have said for many, many years that the A-base for small craft harbours should be $150 million. Everyone knows with escalating costs, looking at 1981 dollars, that is only about $100 million in 1987-88, so we need at the very least $150 billion in A-base. If there are a few political crumbs coming
Motions
during election time from small craft harbours, every Member who represents a fishing riding, will accept them. Let us not kid ourselves. There has always been a problem with underfinancing of this very, important infrastructure.
There is one other area in my riding for which I was able to obtain $164,000 for dredging, and that dredging has been completed at Milligan's Wharf. That was badly needed because we really did not have enough water for our boats to come in with even half a load of fish. Under the emergency program we were able to have it done this year. Those are the things about which I am speaking. I am sure every Member who represents fishermen in this House of Commons understands exactly what I am saying. There is tremendous problem when an infrastructure is subjected to the elements. If it is in salt water we have the added problem of salt corrosion. I would suggest as honestly as I can that we need better inspection on our wharves and harbours when contracts are given out.
The Minister made an announcement in committee for the operation of this new program. The Hon. Member for South West Nova mentioned parts of it, but I would like to look at paragraph 3. That paragraph deals with the new management approach.
I have no problem with fishermen determining their own destinies. Indeed, in my riding, and I think in most ridings, we have port chairmen and port committees elected by the fishermen. They were not political elections. I was here from 1980 to 1984 and I never made a recommendation with respect to the appointment of a port chairman. It was strange that out of my 18 wharves and harbours a number of these chairmen were relieved of their duties after the election. Mind you, very few were relieved of their duties; the ones who were known to be Liberals were relieve. The majority stayed on, which proves that I never got involved in that matter. Anyone who gets involved in playing politics at that level will never succeed.
I know that my time is almost up. I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and Members of the House for you attention, and thank the mover of the motion for bringing forward this very timely subject. I also wish to tell my colleagues, and I hope that they will support me in this, that while this is a small step in the right direction, let us work together to get some more money so that all the ridings can share in the same sort of revitalization that is so needed and necessary.


Thomas Suluk: Madam Speaker, I merely wish to make a brief comment regarding this subject. Every single arctic community in my riding is located on the arctic coast, the Sea of Hudson Bay or along Baffin Island. In fact, Baker Lake, which is supposed to be an inland community, is connected by waterway to Churchill from where that community receives its supplies.
I should say at the outset that I do not have to worry about user fees because we do not have harbours to begin with. Nor

November 19, 1987
Motions
do we have to worry about highways. We have a Highways Department in the Government of the Northwest Territories, but all the highways are located in the west. There are absolutely none located in the east. The new government leader who is from Iqaluit, a major centre on south Baffin Island, was very concerned about getting Iqaluit a wharf. I think that if at least some movement could be made toward the creation of harbours, then I would be able to participate in issues such as this.
The final point I wish to make is that the Hon. Member talks about fishing as a way of life. Hunting, which is also a way of life, is very similar. It involves the gathering of not just fish but other land mammals and birds. There is fishing and hunting done in every single place in my riding. But in the north when we want a place to beach our canoes and even larger boats we have to manhandle the boats on the beaches ourselves with our bare hands-just to get a place to beach our canoes.
I can say that I agree with the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) regarding his request that the Government spend more on small craft harbours in Canada.


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, I will make just a brief reply to the comment by the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk). I totally agree with the Hon. Member. 1 am not as familiar, of course, as is he with his riding, but I have made a number of trips to the eastern Arctic. I want to tell the Hon. Member that I certainly understand the plight of the fishermen and, indeed, the hunters in that part of this great country of ours. The Hon. Member is absolutely correct when he says that it is very difficult to find a wharf up there. A lot of canoes and small vessels are hauled up onto shore by hand. This does present a great dilemma. I understand fully what hunting and fishing means to the people of the north.
I also want to mention to the Hon. Member from the eastern Arctic that there is some connection between my riding and his inasmuch as a number of fishing boats that are used by fishermen in Frobisher Bay and up in the northern Arctic were built at Hutt Brothers, which is located in Alberton in my riding. In fact, two went up there this spring. I have met a number of people from the Hon. Member's riding. I have had the opportunity to talk with them and try to understand their concerns and their problems. I think that I do understand them.
Labrador is another area with a vast coastline. The proper infrastructure necessary to accommodate the fishermen who make their livelihoods from fishing is just not in place.


Mr. Rompkey:: Madam Speaker, I just want to ask my colleague if he does not see this as part of a pattern. The fact is that money has been reduced for small craft harbours. Also, the fact is that fishing vessel insurance has diminished, as have fishing vessel subsidies. This is in view of the fact, however, that inshore fish landings, according to statistics of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over the past six years,
have consistently gone down. At the same time the Government is talking about giving away more fish to foreign countries; that is, to France.
Does the Hon. Member not see this as part of a pattern? Are we only talking about small craft harbours? I know that the Hon. Member understands this point better than I because of his long experience with provincial fisheries as well as with federal fisheries. 1 ask him to bear in mind that in these communities we are not talking only about fishing; we are talking about a way of life. We are talking about villages and a culture. Are we not talking here more than just small craft harbours, more than just wharves? Are we not talking about individuals who are facing not simply a crisis but extinction? Is that not the reality?


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), I wish to say that I am in complete agreement with him. There is a pattern emerging with respect to the small craft harbours about which we are talking today. If we look at expenditures for 1979-80 we see that during that period the Government spent only $28 million. As the Hon. Member knows, those matters are budgeted ahead for some time. In 1981-82, the expenditures totalled $49 million. In 1982-83, they totalled $46 million. In addition, with the Special Initiatives Program which was announced, a great deal of that money went into small craft harbours. Thus, in 1983-84, expenditures rose to $108 million. In 1984-85, the figure was $121 million. It then dropped back down. I do not take any solace in those figures.
What I have tried to say here today is that with respect to the A-base we have to get rid of those fluctuations in small craft harbours before elections. We have to have an A-base of $150 million at the very least. If we can obtain those election goodies, then we will accept them on top of that. But, yes, the Hon. Member is absolutely correct. We have seen the vessel insurance diminish. There has been a drop in funding for small craft harbours. There has not been proper funding for sure. The vessels subsidies program also went out the window. We have seen a number of programs that were very important, especially to the inshore fishermen, that have been curtailed or slashed by the Government. Only now, if we look at it, enough money has been saved by discontinuing those programs to put this little blurp in, before an election, obviously.
But that is what we all have to fight against. Members of the Government, members of the opposition Parties, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, have to fight to get rid of this once and for all and give the fishermen and the communities of this country something that they can understand and plan for in the future, not just before an election.


Mr. Binns:: I have a question for the Hon. Member. I appreciate the remarks by the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) in terms of how important is this new program
November 19, 1987

that the Government has announced. Perhaps where we disagree a little is when he suggests that this increase in funding is a small step. I see it as a very major step in terms of increasing funding. We had an A-base of $48.5 million which has now been increased to $70 million. Another $30 million can be added on for the new program. That program is approximately $100 million per year. That is more than double the amount of money in the program up until this point. Whenever one sees a program double its funding, that is a very major step and not a minor step at all.
I do not think that there is any program in the whole of Government where that type of an increase in the budget has been made in one given year. I am sure that the Hon. Member would agree with me that this is a major step and an important undertaking.
I appreciate the support of the Opposition, because indeed they have supported it. Even the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) would have to agree that there is no decrease, that this is a major increase. It is a commitment, and it is not an election gimmick as we have seen so often in the past.


Bill Rompkey: Let the record show that you are only putting back what you took away previously.


Patrick George Binns: It is a real increase which has allowed funding for some 1,500 harbours. If we did not have this, 150 harbours would be closed in the next five years across Canada.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make that correction.


George Roland Henderson: Where the Hon. Member and 1 differ is in our terms of a major step and a very minor step. This would be a tremendous major step for the Government but, after all the cut-backs that it made over the years, there have been two steps back and one step ahead.
Looking at the total figures for the total harbour revitalization program and the A-base, it is $90 million this year, $110 million in 1988-89, but I cannot understand why it falls back to $95 million in 1989-90. All the articles that I read and all the information that I receive from staff tell me that we need far more money than that. We could use a $1 billion budget to look after this small craft harbours problem in the country.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate with some hesitation, representing a very insignificant part of the country in terms of the budget for Fisheries and Oceans.
I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson). Certainly, he came out loud and clear in wanting more money. He was also 100 per cent correct when he stated that Members on the government side of the House are just as interested and have been working very hard.
In my particular area, which is a great tourist area with a considerable number of small craft harbours, we certainly need
Motions
improvements just to keep our harbours the way they are. With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Egmont and my colleague who asked him a question, it was with some interest and envy over the past year that I looked at the budget for Fisheries and Oceans in the Province of Ontario and compared it with other parts and other provinces. I have every respect for fabulous Prince Edward Island, which I had the privilege of visiting a couple of years ago, and visiting the Hon. Member's home town of Alberton where I have a long-standing personal friend. But up until this year the Province of Prince Edward Island had a higher budget than the Province of Ontario. That did not sit too well with many of us in Ontario with 9.25 million people and, give or take or few, 450 small craft harbours, and a very important tourist industry.
The previous speakers have all stressed the importance of the tourist industry. I am also well aware of the importance of the fishery industry. I am not sure who mentioned the figure of $1 billion for the fishery industry, but the tourist industry generates $20 billion. In the Province of Ontario alone, sport fishing is estimated at approximately $1 billion. So the tourist industry is the second most important industry in the entire economy of Canada. It generates approximately one million jobs when the other industries that tie in with it are taken into consideration. This is important.
I also tell the House and the Members who have spoken that I have gone on my hands and knees to the powers that be in the Cabinet, from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) first-I give him every credit for attempting to get additional money for us-to the Treasury bench. Overcoming my usual bashfulness and shyness, I went to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) where I received promises and promises. Finally, I thought, if one is attempting to really get something, rather than talk to the disciples one should talk to the lord himself. So I certainly had a few words with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I think it worked, because the Ontario members of the caucus have been pressuring for some money for the small craft harbours here.
In recent years, our budget has been approximately $3.5 million. I am quite sure that the Hon. Member for Egmont will nod his head and say that Prince Edward Island received more than $3.5 million. That beautiful province is not much larger than the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. There is no doubt about it; one has to put pressure on the Government, but every Canadian wants the Government to reduce its deficit. There is no question about that. We all wish to see it reduced at the expense of someone else. I guess that is human nature. I am delighted to know that this year, through pressure, we were able to receive $8.9 million in capital funding for the Province of Ontario, which certainly was a great improvement and for which we are thankful.
The Hon. Member mentioned a figure of $1 billion as what is required to bring all harbours up to what they should be, both small and large harbours. He is probably quite correct. He will certainly receive no criticism from this side of the

November 19, 1987
Motions
House, especially from those of us who have small craft harbours or other types of harbours.
I wish to point out to the House that we are certainly with him, 100 per cent. It is up to us to sell the Treasury bench, the Cabinet, on the importance of the tourist industry. I know that Members who represent coastal areas both on the East and West Coast sometimes think that Ontario is an inland province-which, of course, it is-and the fishing industry means little or nothing. There is some small commercial fishing in Ontario; it runs into a considerable amount.


An Hon. Member:: It is not small.


Stan Darling: No, it is not small. My colleague here represents an area in which there is commercial fishing. However, we must remember that small craft harbours are important to the tourism industry. This is the thing I have been preaching down through the years, and I have had the privilege of being a Member for 15 years; at least that is what it was two weeks ago.
I would point out that in my riding of Parry Sound- Muskoka the tourism industry is all important. Parry Sound- Muskoka is within one day's driving distance of 100 million Americans. A lot of them are potential tourists. Just imagine what that means to the economy of Canada, Madam Speaker.
The Minister of Finance should take note-and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) would probably back it up-that literally millions of dollars are collected by the federal Government and provincial Governments on the sale of pleasure craft, as well as gasoline taxes. They are astronomical figures.
It is a very important industry. The federal Government should look at it on the basis of the fact that a great deal of revenue comes in from the industry. I agree that more money should be allotted to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I know very well that he is doing his best to get more, but the pie is only so large. Of course each Department is pressuring Treasury Board to get as much as it can. I hope there will be more funds. According to the forecasts for next year, there will be a slightly higher amount for capital expenditures for the Province of Ontario. I think it will be some $9 million. I have looked at recent amounts allotted to the Province of Ontario, and there are many of us who take a rather jaundiced view of them. They were allotted on the basis that Ontario does not have many harbours. However, I am quite sure that Ontario has more small craft harbours than any other province.
I know very well that the tourist industry in Ontario generates more dollars than in any other province. I am not trying to be argumentative; it is just a fact of life with 9.25 million people and many outstanding tourist attractions in the Province of Ontario. The population of the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka doubles or trebles in the summer season
because of the great influx of tourists. A great many of them are from the United States.
I was able to obtain approval of certain commitments and expenditures in my area this year. The major one was for $1.4 million in the Town of Parry Sound which is celebrating its centennial, its one hundredth anniversary. It was a pretty nice present from the federal Government. Two or three other smaller areas are getting improvements to their docks, and certainly there are many more which require them.
I am sure every Hon. Member, no matter on what side of the House, will be pressuring the Government for additional funds for this very important industry. I know other Hon. Members wish to make comments, so I will take my seat.


Mr. Caldwell:: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. When the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) said that he went to bat for all Members of the House for more money for small craft, certainly he was correct. He did so in no uncertain terms.
I should like to remind the Hon. Member that although he did mention fishing, fishing is a big industry in my riding. In Wheatley, Ontario, we have the biggest freshwater inland fishery in the world. I was very pleased that because of high water we were able to get that harbour back into tip top shape, as well as the one at Erieau which had been neglected by the previous Government for the past 10 years. It was almost falling into the lake. We have made some progress in that particular area.
The Hon. Member mentioned recreational harbours. I have one major, and three smaller ones in my area which are getting improvements under the new program. The tourist industry in my particular area is of utmost importance, as it is in his. I thank the Hon. Member for his significant efforts and contribution.


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, I want to make a brief comment and to put a small question. I thank the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) for his excellent speech. I know that he has worked very hard with a number of us to try to get money for small craft harbours.
I have a suggestion to make. We always have a conflict between recreational harbours, which are beneficial to tourism, and commercial fishing harbours. I have often thought that perhaps they should be separated to the point where tourism should be putting in some dollars to maintain or upkeep harbours which have a direct relationship to tourism. It might take away some of the animosity which we sometimes find between commercial fishermen and tourist operators and give us a few more dollars. Would the Hon. Member care to comment on that? They may not have to be separated, but the tourism department should recognize the benefits of harbours and wharfs to tourism. Funds should be either transferred into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or indeed separated so that recreation and tourism get a package which would go a
November 19, 1987

long way toward meeting their requirements. We would then also be able to spend more dollars for commercial fishermen.
I think there is a shortfall of money in this regard. I understand full well the difficulty in trying to get money from Treasury Board and Cabinet. All too often, we make requests but the funds are all too few. 1 have often noticed that the real power on the government benches does not basically come from fishing ridings. Usually the hands which hold the purse strings belong to someone who comes from Bay Street in Toronto, if I can be so rude as to say that, who probably does not have as full an understanding as that Hon. Member and some of us about the importance of the commercial and recreational fisheries.


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the Hon. member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) has stated. I will be frank and say that this matter has been talked about. There is no question that small craft harbours are oriented to the tourism industry.
There was some talk that perhaps they should be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of State for Tourism. Many of us looked at that and said that it was all very well and good, but we wondered, with the limited tourism budget, who would pay the shot. As the hon. member rightly pointed out, it could come under the Ministry of State for Tourism but that Ministry would have to have substantial funds. At least there are funds in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In many cases there is joint use of harbours by the tourist industry and fishermen. That in itself may create another problem, aside from lack of money.
It does not matter which Department will administer it. The important thing is that there must be substantial funds. If small craft harbours were sloughed off to Tourism with no funds, we would be a heck of a lot worse off than we are now with Fisheries and Oceans.


Patrick George Binns: Madam Speaker, I would like to touch briefly on the creation of harbour authorities, because I think it follows the discussion we are having at the moment. Everyone here is concerned about how we spend the money, but the intention behind harbour authorities is that they would be incorporated bodies to which the Government would give a block of funds- let us say $2,000 or $3,000-to take care of emergency repairs or minor maintenance. Of course minor maintenance problems become major maintenance problems if they are not taken care of quickly.
The present system is awkward in that regard. For example, if a few planks come off a slipway, the fishermen must first get in touch with the authorities in the capital of the province. Next, the Small Craft Harbours people take a trip out to look at the slipway. They go back and get in touch with the Department of Public Works, which sends out officials to look at it. They there get in touch with some contractors and get a
few bids. The first thing we know, major damage has occurred because the matter was not taken care of quickly.
These harbour authorities, with money in their pockets, will be able to take care of these problems right off the bat. They probably have a carpenter living next door or down the road who could take care of the little problem so that it does not become a major one. The Government would save money. It would be more efficient, and the fishing community would be able to respond. In that way we would have an opportunity to do more for both fishing and recreational harbours.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the desperation faced by Toronto's hungry has reached new levels as recent reports indicate that food banks in the city have handed out over $6 million worth of goods this year, an increase of 300 per cent over last year's amount.
The problems faced by the hungry are further aggravated by unaffordable housing costs and low wages. It is incomprehensible that, in the most prosperous city in Canada, many families must be humiliated by lining up for their daily meal at food banks, churches and community agencies.
In an effort to combat this seemingly never-ending dilemma, the York West Young Liberals will launch their second Christmas food drive next Monday, November 23, with the hope of raising 1,000 pounds of food donations. Their campaign against hunger will accept non-perishable food or financial contributions in my constituency office located at 2397 Finch Avenue West.
I urge the residents of my community, the riding of York West, and indeed the Toronto area to help those in need, especially during the holiday season so we can all enjoy this Christmas together and bring a smile to an otherwise dismal situation.

November 19, 1987



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the problem of Canada Post and rural postal services.
Every Member of the House of Commons respects the value of the rural lifestyle to Canada. We must also recognize that the postal service is an important element in that lifestyle. Adverse changes in postal services do diminish rural dignity.
All Canadians recognize the need for change in Canada's postal service. The $600 million deficits of the past must be eliminated and labour-management relations must be improved. But does that justify an attack on rural post offices? The answer is clearly no. And that is why a parliamentary committee imposed restrictions on changes, including a 90-day consultation period with customers of Canada Post.
In the case of the Head of St. Margaret's Bay in Halifax West, Canada Post violated the spirit of the common sense arrangement. Canada Post failed to consult, even to consider alternatives, and simply enforced its own decision, prematurely and against all better judgment.
The fate of rural post offices cannot be left in the hands of Canada Post. Canada Post is to blame for errors of the past and cannot be trusted in the future. The Government must act to protect rural Canadians who deserve and demand equality in postal services.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada this month forwarded to the ILO, a United Nations agency based in Geneva, a disturbingly weak position regarding the revisions of the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, known as Article 107.
Sadly, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) failed to consult with the broadly represented indigenous working groups here in Canada. The Conservative response spells out a view of aboriginal rights that is assimilationist at best. There is no reference to self-determination or self-government. There is no move to provide for revision to the preamble to reflect the fostering of indigenous self-reliance and protection of the fundamental rights of indigenous and tribal peoples.
Canada is sadly sending a message to the world that the survival of indigenous and tribal people as distinct and viable societies throughout the world is not a Canadian priority.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party view is not broadly held in Canada. Indigenous people in this country are, however, feeling the bite of these narrow-minded policies. Cuts to test case funding, resource development impacts, economic development, housing, education and medical care, combined with no action on self-government and constitutional evolution, comprehensive or specific claims, or even the creation of new reserves, have brought home clearly the intention of the Government to implement the Buffalo Jump of the 1980s- cultural genocide and assimilation.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, this year, 1987, the Lithuanian community in Canada and around the world began celebrations in honour of the six hundredth anniversary of Christianity in Lithuania. The joyousness of this historic occasion has been constrained only by the grim reminders of the severe Soviet repressions directed against the church in Lithuania.
In a country of over two million Catholics, it is against the law for priests to teach catechism. All religious orders and organizations are banned, and half of the churches have been closed or secularized by government order. Yet Christianity lives on. It is estimated that at least 90 per cent of the population of Lithuania are baptized Roman Catholics. Such faith in the face of adversity is an inspiration to Christians of all nations.
Canadians of Lithuanian heritage invite all Canadians to join with them in celebration of the six hundredth anniversary of Christianity in Lithuania and in paying tribute to the brave spirit which keeps Christianity alive despite the cost.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, although it will soon be Christmas, Mr. Speaker, Quebecers are being royally shafted, if you will pardon the expression, with respect to the frigates program.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Maritimes and I am glad New Brunswick got the contract to build the frigates.
November 19, 1987

Mr. Speaker, 1 would, however, urge the Conservative Government to follow the example set by the previous Liberal Government which made sure there were jobs in all Canada's shipyards. Quebecers will not tolerate what the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Cote) is trying to do. Jobs on the frigate contract must be shared by Quebec's three shipyards in Lauzon, Sorel and Montreal. Today, 3,000 workers in Quebec's shipyards are out of work: 800 in Montreal, 1,000 at the yards in Sorel and 1,300 in Lauzon.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Conservative Government will be generous to all shipyards in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased that the Government has introduced Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code as it relates to victims of crime. This is an encouraging first step in what I hope will be a major movement toward bringing victims of criminal activity into the judicial system where for far too long they have been ignored.
The Bill allows for the use of victim-impact statements which detail the pain and loss suffered by victims of crime. These statements will be included as evidence during criminal trials and will presumably lead to fairer court decisions.
On a pilot project over the past two years, victim-impact statements were successfully used in four Canadian communities, including my community of The Battlefords. So far, this program has been well received by the courts, the police forces involved and the general public.
Bill C-89 will also strengthen the legal importance and priority of restitution to be paid by offenders. Victims of crime need to know that the Canadian judicial system is sensitive to their plight. Victims deserve the support and understanding of our courts. It is my view that Bill C-89 is the first measure toward achieving this.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF FORMER ALBERTA PREMIER

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during committee hearings on the trade agreement we had the opportunity to hear from the former Premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed. Mr. Lougheed was very open and
honest with the committee. He was much more forthcoming about what he saw as the effects of this agreement than any of his colleagues in the federal Cabinet have ever been.
One of the things Mr. Lougheed was very forthcoming about was the fact that, in his view, this agreement would prevent a made-in-Canada oil policy and it would also prevent a made-in-Alberta oil price. Mr. Lougheed was very open about the fact that if this agreement comes into effect, the provinces will no longer have the power to set prices for their energy resources. Mr. Lougheed said that that is something that Alberta wants, and it may be the case that that is what Alberta Tories want. However, it is also the case that it is something about which Canadians should be very concerned.
Under cover of this agreement, the power of both the federal Government and the provincial Government to set prices for energy will be taken away. It will not be taken away on a temporary basis, it will be taken away for a long, long time.
Mr. Lougheed also indicated his opposition to the former Government's National Energy Program. I asked him what he would have thought if the former Government had tried to entrench the National Energy Program beyond the reach of future Governments, like this Government is trying to put its program beyond the reach of future Governments. I am sure all would join me in finding that kind of action on the part of any Government unacceptable.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: The Department of National Defence is negotiating with a principal contractor for the construction of six new frigates. The principal contractor has informed the Government that if he has to share the order with other Canadian yards, it will cost $79 million more per frigate. The contractor is taking advantage of his position to embarrass the federal Government and engage in outright intimidation.
I challenge this contractor to prove what he said about the extra $79 million per frigate, and I may remind the House that his credibility is not that good, since he was twelve months behind schedule on the first frigate and, although the price agreed on for the first frigate is already close to the maximum, he is negotiating additional payments with the federal Government.
I fail to understand why the federal Government is putting all its eggs in one basket and relying on a single source of expertise. It means we may well see prices escalate as soon as the contract is signed, and there are, of course, dangers

November 19, 1987
inherent in having all the expertise concentrated in one part of the country.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence should bear all of this in mind when making its recommendations to this House.



SHIPBUILDING


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of State (Forestry) stated that the decision to build the frigates had been made and that the contract would be awarded in New Brunswick. That same week the Minister of Regional Development told us that no decision had been made. Last night the Minister of National Defence said that no decision has been made. And now we read in today's papers that the Minister of Regional Development . . . that the decision has been made and that the frigates will be built in New Brunswick.
If a decision has been made, the people of New Brunswick are still not aware of it, that is Saint John Shipbuilding and the Premier of New Brunswick.
This decision must be made at the earliest opportunity so that these ships can be built at the lowest cost possible to Canadians. And even if the decision were to build the six frigates in New Brunswick, it would mean that only 50 per cent of the money would stay in New Brunswick, 50 per cent of this contract award would also go elsewhere in Canada, namely Quebec, Ontario, and the other provinces.
And those who claim that the Government would be putting all its eggs in the same basket by having all six frigates built in New Brunswick are badly mistaken. All people know that at least half of this work will be subcontracted elsewhere in Canada.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of free trade has given rise to a host of comments, both during negotiations and now that we have the text of the agreement.
Poll results show that 81 per cent of Canadians are not adequately informed on this subject.
Since the end of October, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade has been hearing witnesses. And even witnesses as famous as Margaret Atwood and Mordecai Richler admitted they had not taken the trouble to read the concise, 35-page document, preferring to rely on newspaper articles in the Toronto Star or the The Globe and Mail.
Starting Monday, the Committee will travel across Canada to hear as many intervenors as possible.
Mr. Speaker, 1 hope that this exercise, with the media coverage, will shed more light on an issue that is of vital importance to Canadians.



CONDEMNATION OF HOCKEY VIOLENCE

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, hockey in Canada is a tough sport. To be successful, you have to get in the corners, take the hits, and be able to dish out the body checks. Nobody wants to change this because it defines the kind of hockey we play, and the kind most fans enjoy. However, there is no place in Canadian hockey for the kind of wanton violence we have witnessed for far too long.
It is very gratifying to see that, finally, some of our hockey officials are beginning to get serious about getting rid of this blight on our national sport. The Ontario Hockey Association, for example, recently handed out life suspensions to players who attacked others in a particularly vicious way. The Nova Scotia Hockey Association recently developed a strong program to stamp out violence in its jurisdiction, and 1 wish it well.
However, if we are to be truly successful in eliminating violence from hockey, we must get the co-operation of the National Hockey League. The Globe and Mail said recently that, "If you stare long enough at the crime statistics of the NHL, it begins to look like the South Bronx of North American sport." Yet this same NHL is the model for all our young, developing players. It sets the tone, and unless it is prepared to take strong action to get violence out of the game once and for all, all other efforts will meet with only partial success.
Sooner or later this violence is going to result in people being critically injured, or worse. If the NHL continues its refusal to clean up its act, then perhaps the only recourse is legal action.


November 19, 1987



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations, more particularly certain of its agencies such as the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, do not always work in the way intended. To put it mildly, the degree of professionalism in their operation and management is not what we would expect, for instance, in the Public Service of Canada.
Canada is correct in demanding accountability for the funds being spent, if for no other reason than that we are a major financial contributor, and Canadian taxpayers have the right to know, for instance, how wisely their $40 million donation to the FAO is being spent.
The assistance of Canadian financial experts in straightening out the books of the United Nations will be appreciated by those countries which, like ourselves, insist that public funds be properly used and properly accounted for.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last evening the former Premier of Alberta, now one of the most strident and strong advocates of the proposed trade arrangement with the Americans, said unequivocally that one of the consequences of the proposed agreement will be that the provinces will lose their responsibility and right to determine prices for consumers and industry.
How can the Government go ahead with an agreement which so substantially erodes the powers of the provinces and the rights of Canadian consumers, without any consultation or agreement with the provinces? How can the Government take such a major stand which changes the jurisdiction of the country without any agreement from the parties involved?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the free trade agreement in no way alters the constitutional authority of the provinces in the field of natural resources.
The Hon. Member talks about the lack of consultation. I point out that the Premier of Alberta was present at seven or eight First Ministers Conferences where this subject was discussed at length. In addition, the former Premier of Alberta said that the free trade agreement was a "win, win" situation
Oral Questions
for all of Canada and would create jobs and investment for all regions of the country.


POSITION OF FORMER ALBERTA PREMIER
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I was not quoting my own words but the very clear and unmistakable statement made by that former Premier which the Tory benches have just applauded. He said that, based upon his consultations with the Government and his reading of the agreement, the powers of the provinces are now totally limited. They will no longer have the power to set prices and will no longer have the power to give their consumers or industries any preferential advantage.
Is the Minister for International Trade contradicting the former Premier of Alberta who says that he knows something about energy? Is that what she is doing?


Pat Carney: course not, Mr. Speaker. The provinces, as I have said, have full rights to deal with their resources within the Constitution. They have full rights to set royalties, to regulate, to conserve, and to manage their resources. It has not been the practice of provinces to set consumer prices rather than royalties.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, really?


Pat Carney: There has not normally been a need for a province to do that unless it has been faced with programs such as the National Energy Program established by the Member's Government, which forced Alberta to sell below market prices, at great loss to the Province and the people of Alberta.


FORTHCOMING MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is going to come as a great surprise to the Provinces of Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba, which have all used preferential prices to provide comparative advantage to establish industry for economic development purposes and which have provided special pricing for consumers, that the Minister for International Trade does not even know that those practices have been put in place. That is an example of just how ignorant the Minister is of provincial rights.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: How can we go ahead and hold a First Ministers meeting next week at which a very fundamental right of the provinces will be eliminated when the provinces will not even have access to the final draft? They will not know what is in the text and they have a Minister who does not know what she is talking about.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: What a lousy leadership speech that was.

November 19, 1987
Oral Questions


Mr. Masse:: We want Turner back.


Pat Carney: they can find him, Mr. Speaker.
The point the former Premier of Alberta was making was that, of course, our action in removing the tariffs which kept Alberta products out of its big market means you do not have to have preferential prices because the petrochemicals can now move into the big U.S. market.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh God!


Pat Carney: That was the goal that Alberta sought for years and years.


HYDRO-ELECTRICITY PRICES FOR QUEBECERS AND AMERICANS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade and concerns the trade agreement signed with the United States.
I would like to refer to a statement made by the former Premier of Alberta, whom 1 intend to quote. The former Premier said:

"the only thing that is basically going to be taken from the authority of
governments will be the authority to establish a price below market value".

I would like to ask the Minister whether this means, whether the correct interpretation is that a province like Quebec will no longer be able to sell its electric power to its Quebec corporate customers at cheaper rates than it sells to its corporate customers in the United States?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the agreement we intend to sign with the United States does not take away any constitutional powers from any province whatsoever, since the purpose of these negotiations is not to negotiate sections of the Canadian Constitution but to negotiate free trade between Canada and the United States, based on the principle of access to the U.S. market at U.S. market prices.
That is why the Premier of Quebec supports the Government's proposal, since it will give Hydro-Quebec, for instance, access to the North American market. And that is what the Quebec Government is seeking.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROVIDE ASSURANCES
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister, since he rose to answer the first one which, in fact, he failed to answer. I am not talking about the Constitution! I am asking the Minister whether this means that the whole debate that took place in Quebec when we said "Maitres chez nous!" and nationalized the power companies, that this is history and that Quebec will
no longer be able to sell power to the United States at higher rates than it does to Quebec companies.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's position is based on rhetoric and ignorance. There is nothing in the text we intend to sign with the United States that calls in to question a simple right exercised by the Government of Quebec in its commercial dealings.


RIGHTS OF PROVINCES TO SET ENERGY PRICES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a straightforward question to direct to the Minister. As the Minister knows, up to the present recently both the Province of Alberta and the Province of Ontario have had differential pricing structures giving advantages to their own citizens. In the case of Alberta, to encourage the development of the petrochemical industry the Government of Alberta has established prices lower for firms in its own province than for firms in the United States to buy gas. In the case of Ontario, Ontario residents have had a hydro rate in the past of some 7 per cent lower than would have been the case because it was able to charge the Americans more for hydro exports.
Will these traditional rights, exercised by these two provinces in the past, be able to continue under this proposed agreement?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Hon. Member understands what we did when we deregulated energy prices. The reason that Alberta had to have a price system was because its product could not flow into the U.S. market because it had a 15 per cent to 18 per cent tariff barrier. We are removing the tariff barrier. Therefore, the product from Alberta will have access to that market and will get market prices. In return, with respect to Ontario, I can point out that we supported and put in place a policy which ensured that we cannot sell power, or we cannot sell energy to the Americans, at a price below that which Canadians pay in the neighbouring regions, and that is unchanged in this agreement.


PROVINCIAL RIGHTS-EFFECT OF TRADE AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 noticed that the Minister did not deny or answer the question that I asked. She knows that if she did she would have to acknowledge what former Premier Lougheed has said is absolutely right, this agreement is nullifying a power traditionally exercised by the provinces. The Conservatives, who used to stand up for provincial rights, have sold them completely down the drain in this deal.
For once, will the Minister give a straight answer on this matter? Will the Province of Ontario, the Province of Alberta,
November 19, 1987

the Province of Quebec, or any other province which sells energy resources, have the rights they now have after this agreement is signed between Canada and the United States? Or will their rights in terms of pricing policies be substantially altered, yes or no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the provinces will have the same rights after this agreement as before. May I point out to the House that the Province of Alberta begged for the Western Accord. It begged for our Party's energy policy. It begged for deregulation. It worked very hard with us to establish the energy policy, the deregulation and the collapse of the National Energy Program that we put in place. Peter Lougheed was the biggest fan of that policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it may indeed be the case that Peter Lougheed is the greatest fan, but at least he has the honesty today to say that the powers of the provinces have been reduced as a result of getting what he wanted. 1 wish the Government would be at least that honest.
I want to ask a question of either this Minister or-

-Minister responsible for the Energy Sector.


CONTROL OF COSTS BY PROVINCIAL AUTHORITIES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, is he pleased that the provinces of Quebec, Alberta, Ontario and Manitoba will no longer be able to let their citizens run their industries more cheaply than in the United States? Is he pleased with a result that will be responsible for destroying much of Canada's future potential?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Premier of Quebec is very pleased, that thousands of Quebecers are very pleased, and that the people at Hydro-Quebec are pleased as well. And if you go to Quebec and say that the Government of Quebec is not satisfied with the Government's proposals as far as Quebec's hyro-electric and energy sectors are concerned, they will turn you out. The Liberal Member was talking about Maitres chez nous!, in referring to hydro-electric power, and it means above all that we are in a position to use it, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday I indicated that the Liberal Party is opposed to the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines while the Conservative Party is interested in acquiring them. Because the British nuclear submarines contain U.S. technology, in order for Canada to purchase the British submarine system U.S. congressional approval will be required. Yesterday, at a Financial Post conference, I was very surprised to hear the U.S. naval attache to Canada indicate that the price-tag that Canada will have to pay in order to have that technology transferred will be to agree to a joint U.S.-Canada navy strategy.
What is it that we are getting into in terms of these negotiations? What role will Canada have to play as a result of these negotiations and the U.S. forward maritime strategy which everyone knows is an attack strategy which destabilizes the system and is totally contradictory to Canada's defence policy?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member did not check to find out that today at noon the United States Embassy issued a release saying that Captain Hoffard expressed his own personal views and did not-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I do not know why Members opposite are laughing. Perhaps they would like to have some facts rather than keeping their heads in the sand.
The release states that he did not reflect the views of the American Embassy or the United States Government. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there have been no discussions between the Canadian Armed Forces or the Canadian Government and the American Government or the American Armed Forces about joint use of any of our maritime naval craft. I can further say that we have never had a request from the United States about that matter.


TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY FROM UNITED STATES
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, today he may have issued a clarification, but yesterday he astounded everyone at that conference by the other comments that he made.
I wish to ask the Minister to what extent has the Minister of National Defence, or the Associate Minister of National Defence, entered into negotiations with the U.S. in order to transfer that technology? What will be the price tag demanded by the United States administration in order to transfer the technology?

November 19, 1987
Oral Questions


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, it is not our responsibility to talk to the United States about transferring that technology. It is the responsibility of the British Government to see if it can get agreement from the United States in order to transfer that technology.
The fact is that we also have another option which does not depend on the United States at all, which is a very active option, that is, looking at the nuclear powered submarines made by France.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT BUY CONVENTIONAL POWERED SUBMARINES
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
In view of the fact that the price tag for those nuclear powered submarines is escalating all the time and could conceivably come in at $10 billion to $12 billion, and in view of the fact that if the Government insists upon going ahead with those high priced toys, other sectors of the Canadian Armed Forces will suffer, such as the surface fleet, Mobile Command, and Air Command, would the Associate Minister reconsider that policy and buy conventional powered submarines in order that our sovereignty would not be held up to ransom by the United States, the United Kingdom, or, for that matter, by France?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear the Hon. Member mention that those submarines are toys. I think that he should be a little more factual. They are a very important type of equipment which we in Canada can use to enhance our own sovereignty and security.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I further wish to advise the Hon. Member that decisions made about the Canadian Armed Forces will be made in Canada, not in the United States, Britain, or France, but will be made only in consultation with our allies in NATO-from which the NDP wishes to withdraw but with which the Government wishes to stay-they will be made for our own first purposes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOGIC OF DEFENCE POLICY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.
I wish to know if the Minister could explain where the logic lies in a defence program where we have virtually to beg for a transfer of technology from the United States through the United Kingdom to Canada, in order to protect the very sovereignty in our Arctic that the United States objects to and refuses to accept?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the defence critic for the New Democratic Party was aware that part of our commitment to NATO is to have surveillance on the submarines of other countries which are in our quadrant. We can hardly do that if we have a submarine that moves a lot slower than theirs.
The reason that we must have a submarine of equal capability is to maintain our commitments to NATO and to assure our own security and sovereignty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR DETAILS ON ELECTRICITY RATES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister, and it has to do with the slogan Maitres chez nous! and the nationalization of electricity. I am aware that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has always belonged to political Parties which, in Quebec, had no use for the Maitres chez nous! slogan. He was against nationalizing electricity in Quebec.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, Quebecers pay lower Quebec Hydro rates than the Americans. According to the statement made by Mr. Tarant, an advisor at the American embassy, the consequence of this agreement is that American consumers would have guaranteed access to Canadian energy surpluses at the same price as that paid by Canadians.
On the basis of the interpretation of Mr. Peter Lougheed and American embassy spokesmen to the effect that U.S. consumers might indeed pay the same prices, would the Minister not agree that if their interpretation is correct we may as well forget the Maitres chez nous! slogan with respect to hydro energy in Quebec?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I like it better when the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie follows his political instinct and speaks up against his Party concerning Bill C-22 than when he supports his finance critic as he does now. If the Hon. Member wants interprertations, I can tell him that I prefer the interpretation of the Premier of Quebec and that of Quebec Hydro management. They support the free trade agreement because they are convinced it is in the economic and social interests of the Government of Quebec. What the Hon. Member is talking about is controlled by the National Energy Board, and nothing in that respect will be changed.
November 19, 1987

The criteria referred to by the Hon. Member will be covered in the agreement.


ELECTRICITY PRICES IN QUEBEC AND IN UNITED STATES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the reply of the Minister means that the spokesman of the American Embassy and Mr. Lougheed have misled the population. This morning, Mr. Racicot of the Federation nationale des associations de consommateurs du Quebec said before a parliamentary committee that this Agreement could mean a 10 to 15 per cent increase in electricity rates, or a couple of $100 more, for Quebec consumers.
Can the Minister give a straightforward and honest answer to this question: Will Mrs. Lebrun in the Frontenac riding still be able to pay less for her electricity than Mrs. Brown in the United States? Will the Quebec Government be able to make its own decision, as provided by the Constitution, about the residential rates for electricity?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Hon. Member does not or will not understand the situation. I repeat that, first, nothing in the Agreement affects the constitutional powers of any province, including Quebec. Second, nothing in the Agreement can prevent Hydro-Quebec from negotiating contracts according to market prices. In that sense, the Agreement, by giving Hydro-Quebec access to the North American market, will favour Mrs. Lebrun in the Frontenac riding because electricity rates will be lower thanks to a larger market.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As the Minister knows, Canada can alone, or with other GATT members, oppose and thereby kill the recent and erroneous GATT panel report on Canadian fishery regulations at the meeting on December 1.
1 wish to ask the Minister if he would assure the House, and the fishing industry, that the Government will do two things: one, immediately contact the senior government officials in the other 95 GATT countries and seek their support in opposing this erroneous panel decision; and, second, assure the House that at the December 1 meeting Canada will oppose the panel decision.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, Members should understand that, at this stage in the GATT proceeding, the option of taking it public is not before
Oral Questions
us right now, because it is at a stage where the parties are studying it and negotiating it.
I can assure the Hon. Member that we have obligations to the workers in the fishery which we will honour; and we have obligations under the GATT which we will honour. We will seek solutions that allow us to do both.


Mr. Benjamin:: And allow us to do it both ways.


Pat Carney: The Hon. Member says "and allow us to do it both ways". That is precisely what the GATT allows us to do. It allows us to maintain those jobs. It allows us to look after our resources. All GATT asks us to do is to ensure that our solutions are compatible with the international trading system, and that is what we are seeking to do.


CANADIAN RESPONSE TO DECISION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, because this falls clearly within his area.
This panel report goes to the 95 GATT members tomorrow. The GATT panel ruling is contrary to the international Law of the Sea. It is contrary to the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty. I wish to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a very specific question.
If he cannot get the support of the Minister for International Trade-which he clearly does not have on this issue-by December 1, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans serve notice on the United States of our intent to withdraw from the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty, because this panel decision takes away one-half of the value to Canada of the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty, and strikes at the very foundation of the international Law of the Sea and the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that Canada's response to this GATT ruling will be a response which meets our obligations to the workers in the fishery and meets our obligations to the GATT.
It is interesting to note that the New Democratic Party, which has wrapped itself in the multinational flag of the GATT, is busily unwrapping itself and trying to ditch the international trading system.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Once again the Prime Minister has broken his promise and dropped children from

November 19, 1987
Oral Questions
the national agenda by reducing child care discussions at the First Ministers Conference. Instead, the Government is engaging in policy by strip-tease by refusing to unveil its child care policy until December.
Today we heard the Government liken this secret policy to medicare, but isn't that a farce? Our sources tell us that this new policy will encourage private, not non-profit, day care, and will leave children at risk with no plan for a national child care standard.


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is out of the House today. However, I think it is fair for me to say that the Government-certainly the Minister of Health-from time to time has emphasized its commitment to child care.
I think there will be meetings on December 2 and 3 in respect of the provinces. Thereafter there will be announcements made, and I think the Hon. Member will be pleased with those announcements.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I asked my question of the Prime Minister because it was he who made the promises during the infamous women's debate almost three and a half years ago.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. We know that the Government is already making plans for a Ways and Means Motion which will abolish child deductions for child care replacement, with a measly $200 credit targeted toward families who are not working and also parents who have their children in unlicensed day care.
I realize this is an issue which is so petty the Prime Minister cannot listen to it and must review his notes. However, I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he has broken his Government's promise to establish a national child care policy which will ensure that every child is safe. Why, instead, is he replacing it with a short-term, miniscule cash payment which is nothing but a pre-election grab?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I think anyone who has been following the debate on this matter knows that there has been an historic approach. That approach will be of benefit to a great number of Canadians.
I think the Hon. Member should find it in her heart to begin to support that initiative.
[ Translation]


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: My
question is directed to the Minister of State (Science and Technology).
Perhaps the most effective way of supporting industrial research and development and creating jobs in Canada is throught the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program.
How does the Government respond to the fact that Cimtech, which received nearly $2 million from IRAP to develop a unique technology for shoe design, will be sold with its technology and the jobs that technology can generate to an American company, Microdynamic in Dallas?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes reference to a small high-tech firm in Ontario which has, over time, received some assistance through a research assistance program managed by the National Research Council.
Firms in receipt of such grants make certain contractual undertakings in connection with the transfer of such technology. It is the intention of the National Research Council and myself to make sure that these undertakings are honoured.


TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of State for Science and Technology agree that, with the new ownership and American investment rules attached to the trade deal, we may be faced with further significant instances of technology-and perhaps technology government funded-which is presently being transferred, as well as the jobs such technologies produce, to the United States at a cost to the Canadian economy?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite is true. There is no one who is more enthusiastic about the free trade deal than the high-tech sectors, in fact the transfer of technology is one of the most important and salient reasons for which we have entered into this agreement.
We produce roughly 2 per cent of the new ideas generated in the world and desperately need access to the other 98 per cent. This agreement will provide us with that access.
If the Hon. Member checks he will find that the high-tech industry is euphoric about the agreement.
November 19, 1987


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-ENERGY PRICES-PROVINCIAL POWERS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Last night former Premier Peter Lougheed said that under the terms of the Canada-U.S. trade deal provinces would not be able to give lower power prices to their own citizens than they give to U.S. customers.
For instance, Ontario Hydro would not be able to give a lower price to industrial users in northern Ontario to promote industrial development than they give to Michigan or New York. Could the Minister say why she has given away this power of the provincial Governments to set their own regional development policies?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we have made every attempt to indicate that what the Hon. Member has said is simply not true.
I suggest to him one way that he may be able to establish this. Why does he not go out to Alberta and ask whether or not they would like to have the regulated prices that were necessary under the Liberal Government, whether they would like the 15 per cent to 18 per cent tariff barriers that were necessary under the Liberal Government which never bothered to negotiate them away, and whether the people of Ontario, who are so dependent upon hydro electric resources, would like to see their markets disrupted in the U.S.? I think that would be a very good test of the former Government's policy.


CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the trade deal requires that the federal Government is responsible to see that provincial Governments, and even municipal Governments, carry out the terms of the agreement.
Why did the Minister not consult with the Ontario Government and other provincial Governments which have power exports to the United States before she signed this deal?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, in terms of consultation, we had about seven or eight First Ministers' meetings with the Premier of Ontario and the other Premiers. We had something like 20 meetings of the officials on these issues. We had about 200 meetings of private sector groups on this issue.
The only people who refused to consult with the Government on the free trade deal were the opposition Parties themselves who were offered a chance to do so by this Government.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


SIKH REFUGEE CLAIMANTS-WORK PERMITS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, in a recent-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: -Globe and Mail report, 26-


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: As the Minister knows-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Spit it out, Dan.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, could we have some order, please?


John Horton McDermid: Don't pay any attention, Dan; just keep going.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that Hon. Members would want to exercise the appropriate courtesies to the Hon. Member who has been given the floor by the Speaker to ask a question. The Hon. Member for Spadina has the floor.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Minister knows, 26 Sikh refugee claimants were recently given their examinations under oath but told that they must now wait at least a month before getting permission to work.
Is he now reneging on the policy he announced on February 20, when he said that under the revised approach all refugee claimants would be given permission to work when they had their inquiry and their examination under oath?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I don't know exactly which cases the Hon. Member has in mind. However, we have no intention of diverging from the policy we put into place. However, if we are both thinking about the same people, the permit was not granted because they failed to meet all the criteria.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the regulations state very clearly that when they have had their examination, in accordance with the Department's regulations, they do not need a further examination. The Minister also knows that these people had their examinations when they were admitted into this country.
The 26 Sikhs are being told, in violation of that regulation, that they have to have a further medical examination. Is this

November 19, 1987
Oral Questions
something the Minister does for all refugee claimants or only for Sikhs?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Government's policies apply to everyone, and I repeat, as I said before, that the people or cases to which he is referring failed to meet the criteria, otherwise they would have had a work permit. Of course, I can and will make some additional checks, but I am confident that the Department's officers were simply carrying out government policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: I have consulted our defence specialists and they say that they do not feel threatened by this particular vessel.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a case of pure irresponsibility in not checking the facts. I think we will have to call the hon. gentleman from now on "Tugboat Tobin".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
* *
*


FISHERIES
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Could the Minister advise the House what the Government has learned about the deployment of the French naval vessel La Centure which the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe yesterday described as a act of provocation?'
Has France, indeed, established for the first time in history a French naval presence off the East Coast, or did the Hon. Member know what he was talking about?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the latter part of that question was certainly the correct part.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We have checked into this matter and we have discovered what the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe was trying to alarm the House with yesterday. He suggested that there was an act of provocation by the Government of France in establishing, for the first time in history, a naval presence off the East Coast of Canada, but La Centure is, in fact, a deepsea tug.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: He had his mug in a tug, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: She is one of a series of four naval tugs that support fishing vessels or vessels generally in the Atlantic. She has been coming out for the last 10 years, so the Member is 10 years behind.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is certainly not only crying wolf, Mr. Speaker, he has become a pussy-cat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-CHURCHILL FALLS HYDRO CONTRACT
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, on a different subject!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, French language newspaper accounts yesterday quoted a source in the Prime Minister's office as saying:
The Premier of Newfoundland will support the U.S.-Canada free trade
agreement if the federal Government intervenes to reopen the Churchill Falls
hydro contract.
That is the 40-year, 1969, contract under which Hydro Quebec buys electricity from Newfoundland for $8 million a year and sells it for $800 million a year.
Does the Prime Minister still believe what he so firmly declared in 1983 when he wrote: "The inequality and absence of fair play in the contract in question is obvious. Simple decency and the most elementary spirit of justice demand its immediate renegotiation". That is from the Prime Minister's book Where I Stand.
Does he stand by those words today, Mr. Speaker?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do indeed, and I thank my hon. friend for quoting from what is an outstanding best seller in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: She is armed with one machine gun.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just before Christmas.
November 19, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: And I mention that just before the Christmas season, if anyone is listening.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is now, I am informed, on the preferred reading list of all Canadian colleges, universities and high schools.


Lloyd Axworthy: As history.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I thank my hon. friend for quoting one part of an eloquent and impressive chapter dealing with the development of hydro-electric resources.
Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, I stand entirely by what I said.


POSITION OF NEWFOUNDLAND PREMIER
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister demanded an immediate renegotiation of the contract that costs Newfoundland S800 million a year, an immediate renegotiation. It is obvious that the Prime Minister's definition of immediacy has changed to that of expediency.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister where then is the so-called simple decency and the most elementary spirit of justice when the Premier of a province is forced into a position where he says: "Yes, I will support the free trade deal with the United States, about which I have already objected several times on many occasions in Newfoundland, if you will only renegotiate the Churchill Falls agreement".
Where is the decency in that, Mr. Speaker?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no decency in it because there is no truth in that statement. There is no truth in that statement whatsoever. Premier Peckford never said to me or to any member of my Government: "Yes, I will support the free trade with the United States if the contract is renegotiated". I must tell my hon. friend that that is an absolute misleading statement-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is from your office.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -by my hon. friend. In point of fact, those who follow federal-provincial conferences and international trading matters will know that from the very beginning Premier Peckford has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the concept of free trade over the years.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, he has been, and he remains very much convinced, as I understand it-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That was yesterday.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: -that free trade is key to the economic well-being of the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Ask him today.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This does not change the fact, although there has been no hinging of the two, that Premier Peckford and his predecessors have fought long and hard to have a contract changed that is in my judgment, as I indicated in my book, fundamentally unfair to one of the participants. But he did not make it a condition precedent of his support for the trade agreement, any kind of a change in that contract, although the federal Government has in the past, and I repeat it again today, offered the Province of Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland our good services to be of assistance to them in trying to resolve an extremely difficult matter.


SHIPBUILDING
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Canada's Department of National Defence will soon be awarding a major contract for six frigates worth S3.5 billion. This contract provides a spectacular and unique opportunity for developing expertise. Does the Minister feel that the Department of National Defence should put all its eggs in one basket in this particular case?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question and for his interest in the matter which I think is of general concern in the country.
Let me emphasize that no decision has been finalized at this stage. I can assure the Hon. Member that, consistent with this Government's approach to remodernizing and revitalizing our Armed Forces, the total defence infrastructure throughout Canada will be taken into consideration in the decision.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that there will be two more questions, the Hon. Member for Churchill followed by the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

November 19, 1987
Business of the House
With the deplorable situation that we have for housing on our reserves throughout the country, with children growing up in shacks with rotten floors and walls falling down, and with the cold winter coming, could he explain why there is no extra money for native housing in the Supplementary Estimates that came down today?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Member, 1 am sure, is aware that the expenditures for 1987-1988 for housing for individuals under Bill C-31 alone totalled over $10 million. The housing expenditure projected for next year under the same proposal is $17 million. The estimate that was made on the passing of Bill C-31 called for budgetary expenditures and dollars to be set aside to address the returnees and the demand that will be put on the Department. That assessment was not accurate and we are now reviewing the way to draw down the dollars that have been identified for future years.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well that the money for Bill C-31 returnees as he calls them is not even a pittance compared to what is required. 1 ask my question also on behalf of those people who have been living on reserves all their lives. Why did the Government not have the decency to provide money for decent housing for native people?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 know the Hon. Member is familiar with the housing program of the Department of Indian Affairs. There is also a responsibility on behalf of Indian people and Indian government in providing this. We provide subsidies and, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government of Canada, through the taxpayers of Canada, provides subsidies for housing units on reserves. Naturally, there can be more need identified than there are dollars available, but I want the Hon. Member to take a moment and reflect on the fact that in each of the last several years 2,500 new units have been built, and over 3,000 renovations have been done on Indian reserves including in 1986 and 1987.
The Hon. Member keeps muttering to his Leader. I recognize that there is not adequate money for every housing need, but there is a recognition on the part of the Government that we will do everything we can to assist. There is a responsibility on the part of Indian leadership to assist as well in providing housing on reserves.


HOUSING
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. Last week, in Montreal, a number of co-operative housing organizations advised us that several managers of projects being built in Montreal and its suburbs cannot find tenants because the rents are much too high. What is the Minister planning to do to help these co-operative groups?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I met with the groups in question a couple of months ago. They raised some problems. I have directed officials of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the area to try to work out a formula and they have been holding a succession of meetings on an ongoing basis. It is not an easy problem to solve. Some of the rents are too high. We are trying to concentrate our efforts and our money on those most in need. 1 hope that a resolution will be forthcoming quickly.
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REDUCE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING RENTS BY 15 PER CENT
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must be aware that the problem is unique to Montreal and its suburbs-quite unique-because the rents in these co-operative housing projects are higher than those in the market place, even if co-op members share in the maintenance of rental accommodation. Is the Minister prepared to reduce by 15 p. cent these co-operative rental levels?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member understands that we have two main thrusts in our housing program. One is directed at non-profit organizations and those most in need. The co-op program is geared to market rental income for people who can afford to pay rents relevant to co-ops. They are two different programs and there is sometimes confusion between the two.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask the deputy government House Leader to give us a statement of the business the Government intends to put before the House for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, today we will commence
November 19, 1987

second reading of Bill C-89, the Bill respecting victims of crime. 1 understand that this Bill may possibly pass second reading stage today. It would not be the intention of the Government to call any further government business after that time, and we would suggest that you may find there is agreement to move private Members' business forward immediately, and to go to the adjournment debate immediately after the one hour of private Members' business.
Tomorrow will be an allotted day and on Monday we will commence the second reading debate on Bill C-51, a Bill respecting tobacco products. Thereafter, we do have other business in mind but we have not decided which business we will call. There will also be an opposition day next week.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I am certainly in agreement with the government House Leader's position that after the debate on the Bill has taken place we should move immediately to private Members' business, and we certainly give our consent to that. We would appreciate it if the Government did know what business it would call next week. It would be especially important to the many MPs who have other duties and committee commitments or who would like to go to their ridings to know what will happen in the House next week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's point and it is well taken. Part of our difficulty in deciding exactly what to call surrounds exactly that, in that we want to try to make it convenient for opposition Party critics to be present to debate the Bills we will bring forward.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to address the concerns of those Canadians who are often the forgotten persons in our criminal justice system, the victims of crime. We have a responsibility to respond to these concerns.
This is a high priority of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), of the Government and of me as Minister of Justice to address this issue in an effective manner. Victims of crime have become a focal point of concern and priority in our criminal justice system. We have been involved in extensive federal-provincial consultations to address the special needs and circumstances of crime victims and I believe that the legislative proposals which are now before the House represent concrete measures sought by and on behalf of victims of crime.
Criminal Code
The legislation I will address today is only one part of the Government's comprehensive proposal for victims. Equally important is the commitment made to the funding of programs in Canada. I have offered to more than double the federal contribution to provincial criminal injury compensation schemes and to fund a new victims' assistance fund. This commitment will involve $27.2 million over three years. This is a near tripling of federal money in this area.
Turning to the Bill itself, the major effect of the proposed legislation is to enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to respond to the special circumstances of the victims of crime in a fair and sensitive manner.

This bill, to amend the Criminal Code, introduces procedures which will ease the burden which our criminal justice system imposes on the victims of criminal acts. It will also make it an obligation for the accused to compensate the victims for the damages they have suffured.
I am pleased to introduce these measures which will increase the capacity of the criminal justice system to meet the needs of criminal act victims without compromising its basic objectives.
The proposals now before this House will, first, create a victim fine surcharge to be imposed on those convicted or discharged of offences under the Criminal Code, Part III or Part IV of the Food and Drugs Act, and the Narcotic Control Act. Second, they will allow input by the victim through the use of victim impact statements at the time of sentencing. Third, they will allow the use of photographs and affidavit evidence to provide for the early and prompt return of recovered property to the victim, and remove the need for the victim to testify as to ownership and value of property. Fourth, they will require the courts to consider restitution in all cases involving damage, loss or destruction of property, and bodily harm, thereby removing the need for the victim to apply for restitution. Fifth, they will extend the discretionary and mandatory ban on the publication of the identity of victims and witnesses of sexual and extortion offences.
Let me now expand on each of these proposals. The victim fine surcharge is one of the most important features of this Bill. This proposal further recognizes the entitlement of victims of crime to reparation, and the need for offenders to make amends for the wrongs suffered by their victims. The purpose of the victim fine surcharge is to require the offender to provide redress not only for the harm done to the victim but to the community at large. The surcharge will assist offenders in the process of accepting responsibility for their crimes by requiring them to contribute to victim services within each province as part of the debt they owe to society.
The victim fine surcharge will generate revenue to be applied by the provinces for the purpose of providing assistance

November 19, 1987
Criminal Code
to victims of crime. The work of the Task Force and the Working group on Justice for Victims of Crime, the federal-provincial consultation process, and various research projects, have all highlighted the need for a stable source of funding for victim services.
The proposed amendment would require the court to impose a victim fine surcharge on those offenders convicted or discharged of offences under the Criminal Code, Part III or Part IV of the Food and Drugs Act, and the Narcotic Control Act. The surcharge would be ordered in addition to any other punishment imposed. The only time where a victim fine surcharge would not be imposed is where the offender could establish to the satisfaction of the court that undue hardship to the offender or the offender's dependants would result. In such a case, the court would be required to provide written reasons for waiving the surcharge. Here once again the needs and circumstances of offenders have been recognized.
The proposed amendment provides maximum limits for the imposition of the victim surcharge; 15 per cent of any fine imposed upon the offender for the offence or, where no fine is imposed, a maximum amount of $10,000, or such lesser amount as may be prescribed by regulation.
With respect to default of payment, failure to pay the victim fine surcharge would be enforceable in the same manner as failure to pay a fine under Section 646 of the Criminal Code. The court would have the discretion to impose a term of imprisonment in default of payment.
With respect to victim crime impact statements, one of the needs often expressed by victims of crime is the desire to be heard, to feel their viewpoint has been taken into consideration. With respect to the criminal justice process this translates into a need to have the impact of the crime upon the victim considered by the court at the time of sentencing.
[ Translation]
Even though the courts may allow the victim to produce a declaration, this has not become current practice. As a Government we participated in projects aimed at promoting the use of such declarations. We recognize the need for the victim to be heard and that is why Bill C-89 provides for a procedure that makes official and encourages the production of a victim statement at the time of sentencing.
The proposed amendment allows the victim of an offence to describe the harm done to that person or the damages that person suffered from the commission of the offence, whether financially, socially, psychologically or physically. It does not allow the victim, however, to express any opinion on the sentence that should be imposed on the accused.

The introduction of a victim impact statement would not preclude the court from hearing the victim, if so required. The court would not be restricted from considering any other evidence concerning any victim of the offence for the purpose of determining the sentence of the offender. The proposal
outlines the procedure for preparation of the victim impact statement. It provides that the statement would be prepared in writing in the form and in accordance with the procedures established by a program designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council in each province. This provision is intended to allow the preparation and form of the victim impact statements to be left to local practice.
The victim impact statement would be admissible at the sentencing hearing. It is expected that the ordinary rules of evidence applicable to sentencing hearings would apply. If the accused cannot challenge the victim impact statement, as with pre-sentence reports, the contents of the statement could be accepted by the court and taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the effect of the crime upon the victim. If, however, there was any dispute as to the facts, the ordinary legal principles governing criminal proceedings would apply. Any facts relied upon by the Crown and challenged by the accused would have to be established on the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would like to turn now to the provisions with respect to photographic evidence. The procedures proposed in this Bill concerning photographic evidence, proof of ownership, and value of property, are intended to ensure early and prompt return of property to the victim. The victims of property offences such as theft or breaking and entering have often referred to the further victimization they have suffered at the hands of the criminal justice process for the financial and emotional burden they must bear while their stolen property, although recovered, remains out of their control.
The proposed amendments concerning photographic evidence and proof of ownership and value of property further addresses this issue by authorizing the replacement of the actual property by a photograph. Therefore nothing will preclude the early return of the property to the victim, resulting in less inconvenience to the victim before and during any court proceedings. It would also remove the need for the victim or additional witnesses to appear at the trial. The affidavit or solemn declaration that must be filed by the person or peace officer who seized and detained the property until the photograph was taken is intended to remove the need to call additional witnesses, by establishing the continuity of the exhibit until the time the photograph was taken. Attendance in court may often result in considerable financial and personal costs to the victim or witness.
The proposed amendment providing for the use of an affidavit or solemn declaration to establish proof of ownership and value of property would avoid the need for the personal attendance in court of the victim to testify as to the ownership and value of the property of which the person has been deprived as a result of the particular offence.
The right of an accused person to have the Crown prove all of its case against him has been recognized in the various notice provisions contained in the proposed amendments concerning photograph evidence and proof of ownership and
November 19, 1987

value of property. Reasonable notice of intention to produce a photograph, certificate, affidavit, or solemn declaration in evidence must be given by the prosecutor to the accused in order for it to be received in evidence, unless the court orders to the contrary. The accused can then challenge these certificates or affidavits and require the Crown to prove its case in the ordinary way.

The right of the accused to dispute any fact contained in a certificate, solemn declaration or affidavit produced in court has been recognized in the proposed amendments that give the court the power to order that the person whose name appears on the certificate, solemn declaration or affidavit be examined or cross-examined on the content of the document he or she signed.
The court may also order the production of the goods recovered when it is convinced it is necessary in the interest of justice.
I would now like to return to the provisions in the Bill with respect to restitution. One of the key concerns often expressed by victims of crime is the need to increase the opportunities for a victim to receive financial reparation for the losses resulting from the criminal activity. This has led to the increased emphasis in this Bill on the payment of restitution by the offender.
The proposals in this Bill enhance and strengthen the current restitution provisions in the Criminal Code. By requiring the court to consider ordering restitution in all cases where such an order might be appropriate the onus on the victim to apply for a restitution order at the time of sentencing is removed. The responsibility is now upon the criminal justice system to consider the victim.
In addition, the concept of victim's rights is expanded under this section. The definition of victim includes those who assist in the arrest or attempted arrest of the offender, thereby enabling the court to make the offender accountable for all harm caused during the commission of the offence.
In an effort to avoid further victimization, restitution would also be available to a person who has purchased a property in good faith and without notice not knowing it to be the object of an offence. This would include cases where the offender may have offered stolen property as security for financial transactions. Restitution would thereby be available for persons who innocently lend money on the security of such property. Restitution would not only be ordered for loss or damage to property, but also for pecuniary damages incurred as a result of bodily injury.
The proposed amendments do not call upon the court to make an involved assessment of the damages incurred to person or property. The proposals specifically limit the
Criminal Code
availability of restitution to damages to property or as a result of bodily injury in cases where the amounts are "readily ascertainable". These include such matters as medical bills, property damage, loss of salary, and other expenses.
Once the judge has decided that there are some readily ascertainable damages that could be the object of a restitution order, he would then be required to determine whether he should make the order in the particular case. He would then direct his mind to the question of how to ascertain whether a restitution order would be satisfied and to lessen any likelihood of default on the part of the offender.
This Bill contains various provisions which respond to this question. The judge would be able to consider the future ability of the offender to pay at some time within the next three years. He could also determine the existence of any assets in the name of the offender. The Bill contains a procedure which provides for execution against such assets. In addition, all or any part of the moneys found in the offender's possession at the time of the arrest could be taken to satisfy the restitution order.
Bill C-89 also contains a provision which would direct the court to give priority to orders of restitution over orders of forfeiture and fines. This provision reflects the commitment of the criminal justice system to be responsive to the needs of victims of crime. It clearly states that the victims are not to be deprived of their right to receive restitution and such rights should prevail over forfeiture or payment of fines.
I would like to deal now with the provisions with respect to bans on publication of identity. I think Members of the House would agree that victims of sexual offences and victims of extortion are particularly vulnerable to public disclosure of their identity. Protecting their identity where necessary will help in obtaining their co-operation in testifying and encourage increased reporting of these types of offences.
Under the current provisions of the Code, the judge can order, for some sexual offences, that the hearings be held in camera or that the identity of the complainant not be disclosed. You will recall, Madam Speaker, as will other Members of the House, that with the amendments to the Criminal Code adopted by this House which received Royal Assent this past June, protection has been granted to victims of sexual offences. The protection granted to victims of sexual offences was extended by allowing them to testify outside the presence of the accused. The Bill also extended the protection against disclosure of identity to witnesses under the age of 18 years.
This Bill further expands that protection. First, the protection against disclosure of identity is extended to all witnesses regardless of their age. In the case of adult witnesses the ban on publication of identity is discretionary. In the case where application is made by any victim or witness under the age of 18 years, the publication ban is mandatory.
Second, these rules are made applicable to extortion and loansharking offences where threats are likely to be made to

November 19, 1987
Adjournment Debate
victims and witnesses. Extending the ban on publication to include victims of extortion threats and loan sharking should encourage victims of these offences to bring information to the attention of law enforcement agencies with respect to this type of crime under the Code.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, our criminal justice system forgets the victims of criminal acts. These amendments in my view demonstrate this Government's will to promote social justice for the victims of crime. With these proposals, judicial proceedings and the penalty award process will be better adapted to the victims' particular needs. Those changes will enable us to compensate victims in a fair and sensitive way for the physical, emotional and economic damage they suffer.
The support which this Bill has already received from victims' groups, the Canadian public and Members of Parliament indicates just how important it is. We all recognize the need to provide protection and assistance to victims of crime. To that end, I am asking for the support of all Members in this House in order that this legislation may be dealt with without delay.
1 will conclude with one further remark with respect to this initiative. I want to underline the fact that we on the federal side are moving as a national Government with respect to areas which, in many instances, are under provincial jurisdiction. It has been necessary for the federal Government, in the best sense of federal-provincial co-operation, to seek and obtain the assistance of the provinces in this initiative.
I want to pay tribute to my provincial colleagues who have worked with me in an open and very helpful spirit. I do not think I am telling any secrets out of school if I say that in the course of our discussions we have been talking about a statement of principles for the entire country, national standards with respect to programs for victims of crime in Canada. I propose to continue those discussions with my provincial colleagues and, hopefully, in the not too distant future, we will be able to come to an agreement as to the content and scope of that statement.
Notwithstanding the fact that we have not succeeded in that one respect, this initiative on the part of the federal Government is an initiative which comes at a time in the history of our country which I think is appropriate and which is a progressive move on the part of our Government and this Parliament. As 1 indicated at the beginning of my remarks, it reflects a very widely felt sentiment in our country. People who are victimized as a result of criminal activity are entitled to some reasonable consideration in the criminal justice system. It is with great pride, therefore, that I bring forward this initiative. I am asking, as I indicated in my remarks, for the co-operation of Members of the House, and I understand that
it will be forthcoming. I appreciate the assistance of the opposition Parties in this initiative. I hope we can soon go to the committee to examine this matter and pass it into law so that at last victims in Canada will feel that parliamentarians in Ottawa are on their side.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Trade-United States export enhancement program- Reported sale of wheat to Algeria/Position of United States administration; The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher)-Immigration-Amnesty for refugee claimants- Government position/Statement attributed to Chairman- Designate of Refugee Board; The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Canadian Security Intelligence Service- Alleged infiltration of labour unions/Allegation of interference in legal prosecution.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-89, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), the justice critic for the Official Opposition, and respond to the Minister's statements with respect to Bill C-89. I will say quickly at the outset that we in this Party are particularly encouraged by the Minister's closing remarks when he indicated to the House that he has worked over the last period of time, and intends to continue to work in the months ahead, to establish national standards in consultation and discussion with Ministers of Justice right across the land. The Minister talked about the mood and desire in this country, and indeed that is something that Canadians right across Canada would want to see happen and happen as quickly as possible.
I should say at the outset that we in the Liberal Party believe that a truly just society must do more than simply
November 19, 1987

ensure that the punishment handed out to criminals matches the severity of a particular crime. If the people who are seriously injured, the victims of crime, are ignored in the process, they are in fact victimized twice. We believe the clauses contained in Bill C-89 begin the process of addressing the rights and needs of the victim. We believe that victims have been the forgotten persons in the legal system. Therefore, we welcome all those parts of the Bill that seek to emphasize the position of the victims.
As I said, we welcome the Bill. Indeed, it shall have our support. However, the public and indeed the Government should regard Bill C-89 as only a first step in finding a solution to the problems of victims. I think the Minister would himself acknowledge that the Bill is largely a symbolic move on the part of the Government. The public should be aware that even when this Bill is enacted, and it will be in its present form, there are many gaps remaining in the area of compensation for victims. This Bill will not assist the vast majority of victims whose attackers are never caught, and I want to repeat that. This Bill cannot compensate or assist those victims whose attackers are never caught and convicted.
Professor Irvin Waller, a University of Ottawa criminologist, tells us that in some nine out of 10 cases the victim never finds out who did it, and in the tenth case, where the perpetrator is caught, even in that instance there is not a 100 per cent rate of prosecutions. Therefore, the only people who can be assisted under the provisions outlined by the Minister in this Bill are those people who are lucky enough to have a day in court where they see the person who committed the crime being convicted. That is in one out of 10 cases. The other catch is that judges are only instructed or compelled to impose a surcharge on a convicted criminal if it is shown that that criminal has the financial resources to pay a fine. As the Minister pointed out the fine that can be levied by a judge is up to $10,000. But in the case of the one person in 10 who gets his day in court, who sees a conviction, if the perpetrator of that crime does not have the financial resources to pay compensation, then the judge under the clauses contained in this Bill has the right to waive any penalty.
While this is a step in the right direction, while it is a step we endorse and for which we applaud the Minister, the reality is that Canadians should not get too carried away with the notion that every victim of crime is going to be compensated under the clauses of this Bill. In fact, it is probably fair to say that somewhat fewer than one victim out of 10 will be compensated. I know the Minister will agree with that.
Most crime victims will still have to resort to provincial compensation boards to which the Minister alluded in his comments. As the Minister knows, these boards have small budgets and do not always honour the various claims. In early November, 1987, the Ontario criminal injuries compensation board refused to pay any compensation to the widow of a Toronto area police officer who was killed in the line of duty. The board's reasoning was that the widow had already received life insurance money as a result of her husband's
Criminal Code
murder. The board, therefore, came to the conclusion that no compensation under the provincial compensation scheme would be paid to the widow in question. The provincial boards, as the Minister has said, use different standards to adjudicate claims. We in this Party are asking the question: since the federal Government has now announced increased funding of these boards, why did it not attempt at the same time to have national standards set for victim compensation?
The Minister, and I applaud him for it, indicated at the end of his speech that he wanted to continue the process of seeking to establish national standards. However, those standards are not in place today. In fact, in my own Province of Newfoundland, the level of compensation available to victims of crime is the lowest in Canada. It is the very lowest in Canada. I use this opportunity to suggest to the Premier of Newfoundland and his Minister of Justice that now is a good time in light of this symbolic gesture today in Parliament to have a look at that compensation system.
Here is another problem. A Canadian who is a victim of crime in one province may be eligible for compensation on the basis of being victimized even though a conviction or successful prosecution is not realized, while in another province the only way compensation can be paid is if the offender in question is caught and convicted. The standards are very uneven across the country.
With respect to Bill C-89, we are saying today that it is a step in the right direction. It is one which we support. It is one that begins to respond to the feeling the Minister described out there on the part of Canadians who want to see some recognition of the needs and of the position of victims of crime. Canadians, those who are interested in this area, ought not to rest on their laurels, and members of the Opposition will not do that, because this Bill does not go far enough.
Last night with respect to this Bill we saw on the CBC program The Journal a timely piece on break and enters. It was a piece approximately 20 minutes long. We saw that in the vast majority of cases, almost 99 per cent of the time, no one is ever caught. None of those people would be eligible for assistance under this Bill. What we really saw is that more than just loss of property is involved in a break and enter.
Last night we saw the face of terrorism on our television sets. We saw an actual recorded event of a young lady at home alone in her apartment talking on the telephone quite hysterically, obviously terrified, telling the police that someone was trying to come into her apartment. The price she paid because of that attempted break and enter was not the loss of material goods. What she lost was the sense of security in her own home. What she suffered was terrorism at its worse, fear for one's property-indeed, fear for one's life.
While this Bill is not designed specifically to deal with that reality for many victims, this is an appropriate time to raise again the report of the Canadian federal-provincial task force

November 19, 1987
Criminal Code
on justice for victims of crime. It is stated in that report that beyond compensation the services which would appear to be the most widely needed by victims are those which help them in coping with the effects of victimization, for example, the work of transition houses, rape crisis centres, the provision of crisis intervention services, the training of workers in the system to recognize and respond to the needs of victims, and helping the victims financially where loss and suffering has been incurred.
I take advantage of this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-89 and again to call upon my colleagues on all sides of the House and, indeed, members of the Cabinet and members of the Government, in this time of financial restraint and cut-backs to be aware of the very necessary and important role that is played by so many governmental and non-governmental agencies, many of which exist on federal subsidies and other financial assistance in assisting victims of crime. It would be a shame that on the one hand we would take an important symbolic step to recognize the needs of victims while on the other, because of constraints, we would see some of the dollars available to non-governmental agencies such as rape crisis centres and so on disappear. This, too, is important for victims of crime.
With those remarks, Madam Speaker, I offer the support of the justice critic of the Liberal Party and, indeed, of the Official Opposition with respect to Bill C-89.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, some 2,005 years ago the great Athenian legislator Solon said that there can be no justice until those of us who are unaffected by crime become as indignant as those who are. I think those words should echo today in the House as we consider the legislation which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has put before the House at second reading today, Bill C-89.
I want to say that my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party strongly support the principle of this legislation and, indeed, believe that it is long overdue. As the spokesperson on justice for the New Democratic Party I have called for many years now for effective steps to be taken to ease the trauma that victims of crime and the families of victims of crime too often suffer at the hands of the criminal justice system. Too often victims of crime are doubly victimized, once by the perpetrator of the crime, and subsequently by the criminal justice system which is too often callous and indifferent to their concerns.
It is because of the fundamental concern that victims have been forgotten by those in the criminal justice system for far too long, too often stripped of their dignity and respect, that we believe that this legislation is long overdue. We support it in principle.
The statistics are staggering. Each year in Canada some 700 families are victimized by murder, some, 2500 more lose someone to a drunk driver, and over 100,000 Canadians suffer, enduring emotional trauma and scars as a result of crime.
Many, many more lose their property or are victims of breaking and entering. In fact, one in six Canadian households will be the victim of a crime in Canada today. However, only a tiny fraction of these victims receive any kind of recognition or compensation.
Effectively, while crimes can have different impacts on different victims, there are four general ways in which victims suffer. Some victims of crime suffer physical injury or lasting disability. Some victims suffer emotional trauma and distress. Of course, here as well one must speak of the emotional trauma and the devastation suffered by those who are the families of victims, particularly the families of those who have been murdered. Other victims lose money or personal possessions. Finally, there are victims who suffer additionally, as 1 mentioned, due to the insensitive treatment they receive from the police or the courts, the denial of dignity which really goes to the core of their treatment.
In Canada last year there were over 400,000 break and enters. I might say that we in this House, I suspect, are not immune to that phenomenon. I myself have been a victim of a break and enter at my own home. I have suffered arriving at my home to find the house having been broken into and things scattered everywhere. Too many Canadians have suffered similarly. Unfortunately, the poorest of those Canadians do not even have insurance to cover the cost of that crime. It is very important indeed that we recognize that they must not be additionally victimized by the criminal justice system.
Too often victims of crime suffer from a lack of assistance, support and delay in the return of their property. In this regard I welcome the provision in the legislation with respect to photographing evidence and then returning it to those who have been victimized. That is an important step forward. They often suffer from a lack of basic information about what is going on with the crime. They have been shut out from receiving information. Sometimes there is total indifference when they get to the court room. The case may have been adjourned and they do not know anything about it. They have not been informed.
In one particularly difficult case, one of my constituents, a very brave woman named Doreen Helm, whose daughter was brutally murdered, was in court during the proceedings on the jury trial. The jury had recessed to consider its verdict. She and her family were not even informed that the jury had returned and were delivering the verdict. That type of callous indifference to the concerns of victims must end. Those steps which the Government is taking in this legislation are important first steps in that regard.
In Canada today approximately one in fifty victims of violence receives any form of compensation from the Government. Only one Canadian community in one hundred has any type of practical assistance organized through the RCMP or through non-profit agencies for victims of common crimes. I
November 19, 1987

am very pleased that in my own community of Burnaby there is an excellent victim assistance program which has been established by the Burnaby attachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is a new program that began in January of this year. It currently has a complement of dedicated volunteers who provide a variety of services to victims of crime in Burnaby. They file up-to-date information and they explain basic police and court procedures. They accompany people and families to court. They refer to social services and community agencies. They get involved in making people aware of criminal injuries compensation programs, witness appreciation letters, and condolence letters.
I wish to take this opportunity to commend those who are involved in this program, in particular Constable Earla-Kim McColl and Constable Nancy Wilson for the outstanding job that they have done in this important victim assistance program, and to encourage other communities to embark upon similar programs.
I also wish to mention the fact that only one community in twenty-five has a sexual assault crisis centre or a shelter for victims of violence within the home. When we speak of the importance of assisting victims of crime in our society, we must recognize that, to a significant extent, women in our society are still more victimized than men as a result of violent crime. As a society we have to recognize our responsibility to assist those women. Instead, Governments, both the federal Conservative Government and provincial Governments, have cut back on programs to assist women who are victims of violence. For example, I am speaking here of women who have to leave their homes as a result of domestic violence. It is essential that those women have access to emergency and short-term physical shelters for themselves and their children, that they have access to immediate personal counselling, and that they have access to advice.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), represents a rural constituency. He has done an outstanding job in bringing to the attention not only of his colleagues in the New Democratic caucus but to Parliament, the particular concerns of women in rural communities. Those women in rural communities are particularly hard hit by the absence of basic support services for situations in which they are victims of family violence.
There is also the concern about those who are victims of sexual assault. Here again the federal Government has cut back on funding for rape crisis centres and sexual assault centres. Instead, funding should be increased for those services to assist women who have suffered the trauma of sexual assault.
We should also be provided funding to assist adults who have been victims of sexual abuse as children. There are a number of groups in Canada pressing the Government to move forward with respect to aid for adult survivors of sexual and other forms of abuse. Yet the Government has turned a deaf ear to their requests.
Criminal Code
There have been many reports and studies done on the plight of victims in Canada. As a New Democrat, I am proud that it was the Province of Manitoba, an NDP Government under the leadership of then Attorney General Roland Penner, that moved forward and blazed the trail in Canada for programs for victims of crime. It was the NDP Government in Manitoba that introduced legislation in 1986, a Bill entitled justice for victims of crime that placed Manitoba among the world leaders in assisting victims of crime. In referring to Manitoba as a world leader, I am quoting from an article that was written by Professor Irvin Waller who has done an outstanding job in pressing for programs to assist victims of crime.
As a Parliament we should acknowledge the contribution that he has made not only nationally but internationally in a variety of forums, including the United Nations in pursuing aggressively the rights of victims of crime. Indeed, it was as a result of his work, and the work of other dedicated individuals that, in 1985, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a detailed declaration on victims rights calling upon all member countries to do far more to prevent crime and provide for programs to assist victims of crime.
In a few moments I wish to talk about the importance of prevention of crime as well as assisting victims of crime. One of the most effective ways of dealing with concerns about victims of crime is to take the steps as a society to reduce the number of victims of crime. There are a variety of steps that can and should be taken.
The legislation before us, Bill C-89, while it does represent an important step forward, there is still a great deal of work left to be done. For example, I suggest that the federal Government could be showing the way with respect to policing. After all, in many cases, the first contact the victims have is with the police. With respect to policing, the RCMP could establish guidelines for members of the force to give the victim information on services and remedies that are available, as well as the manner in which the victim might be informed while the investigation continues.
The Bill before the House should be amended. I intend to propose an amendment that would require police officers to inform victims of crime at the earliest possible opportunity of their right to possible compensation under provincial legislation, and possibly also restitution if the aggressor is caught and convicted, and also of their right to make a victim impact statement to the court. Rights without awareness of those rights are hollow. Who better to ensure that victims of crime are made aware of those rights than the person with whom they first come in contact? I speak here of the police. I suggest that this is an important amendment.
I mentioned the possibility of restitution. This Bill does indeed provide for the possibility of restitution. We have to be realistic in examining this proposal and recognize that it is not likely in real terms that many victims of crime or their families will in practice be able to receive restitution from the perpetrator of the crime.

November 19, 1987
Criminal Code
In 90 per cent of all crimes the victim does not know who committed the crime, which reduces significantly the possibility of restitution. If one does not know who committed the crime, of course one cannot demand restitution. In the other 10 per cent of cases suspects may not be charged; if they are charged, they may not be convicted; and if they are convicted, in the vast majority of cases they do not have the money to make restitution in any event. While it is important in principle to recognize that obligation, let us not lose sight of the reality that the principle of restitution will not make a practical difference to many Canadians.

As was said for instance by Mr. Robert Menard from Montreal, the founder of a new association of victims of criminal acts, the Bill will even induce John to rob Peter. He has been a policeman in Montreal for 29 years. He was himself the victim of a criminal act. He was seriously wounded in a shoot-out in front of a bank in La Salle. Mr. Menard feels that small-time robbers will make the maximum number of victims. He states for instance that gangsters do not hoard money, they sell their stolen goods immediately to buy drugs or other fast kicks. Even if they have to compensate their victims, if and when they are convicted they do not have one cent to their names. Still, Mr. Menard admits that the Bill is a first step forward. 1 met personally with Mr. Menard here in Ottawa and I congratulate him for the work he has already been doing for the victims of crime in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

Another group of victims of crime has been bitterly disappointed at the actions of the Conservative Government. They are the victims of violent crime who need some form of counselling-psychiatric or psychological assistance. The same Government which preaches concern for victims of crime through the Minister of Justice has, on the other hand, just cancelled callously the funding which has been made available until now to mental health programs for victims of violent crime.
The group Victims of Violence, based in Edmonton, with which the Minister of Justice is familiar, is headed by Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt, the parents of a young man who was murdered by Clifford Olson. The Rosenfeldts have said that they are horrified to learn that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has cancelled all efforts at improving the mental health response to violent crime victims.
What has been going on here? We have a Conservative Minister of Justice standing up and talking about how important it is that we assist the victims of crime in Canada, and we have a Conservative Minister of National Health and Welfare in the same Government brutally and callously cutting off funding for victims of violent crime in the area of mental health. Surely that kind of hypocrisy and indifference to the concerns of victims of violent crime who need counselling or some assistance is not acceptable to Canadians and
should not be acceptable to the House. I call upon the Government to reverse this decision, to restore funding as victims of violence have requested, and to ensure that this amount of money is in fact available.
It is not a provincial matter. It is a matter which should be of concern to all Canadians. It is about time the Conservative Government recognized it and restored this important funding.
Another concern has been raised in respect of the question of restitution. In the event of inability to pay, it is suggested in the Bill that the criminal would go to jail, would do more time. Our prisons are already overcrowded. I suggest that we should approach with great caution the suggestion that if one is too poor to be able to make restitution, if one is unable to make that restitution, or if one does not make that restitution, one goes to jail. Indeed that could lead to even further crowding.


An Hon. Member:: And to debtors' prisons.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, as my colleague has just pointed out, the old debtors' prisons. There is new money going into victims' assistance programs from the federal Government. However, I very much hope that we do not in fact take away at the provincial level funding which is being granted at the federal level. I hope the Minister of Justice, in his consultations with the provinces, will make it very clear to them that he expects that the money being granted to the provinces will be put into new programs to assist the provinces in dealing with the victims of crime.
This brings me to another very important area, one which has been touched upon by my colleague in the Official Opposition, that is, the question of minimal national standards for compensation. Not only is it important that there be a statement of the fundamental objectives of this legislation similar to that found in the United Nations Declaration and the Manitoba legislation, but also that minimum national standards be established. At the present time we have a patchwork of programs in Canada. If one loses a family member in Newfoundland, one gets $9,000. If one loses a family member in New Brunswick, one gets $5,000. If one loses a family member in another province, one gets $15,000. If one loses a family member in Ontario, one gets $25,000. How on earth can we justify this patchwork approach to the concerns of victims of crimes and their families? If one is assaulted in the Province of Quebec and one's clothes are ripped, one gets compensation for the clothes, but across the border, in the Province of Ontario, one does not get compensation for clothes. On and on it goes.
It is about time that the Government showed some leadership and imposed some minimal national standards, something which it is quite able to do under the federal-provincial agreement. They provide funding and, even after Meech Lake, they can still ensure that minimum national standards and objectives are met.
One existing standard is that provinces should publicize their provincial programs for compensation. One great concern
November 19, 1987

is that that is not happening, and far too many Canadians are not aware of these programs for compensation.
I have a couple of other points to make before concluding my remarks. The legislation deals with the whole question of victim impact statements. Once again this program was pioneered by the Province of Manitoba. I believe there have been some pilot projects in a number of jurisdictions. However, on the question of victim impact statements, given appropriate safeguards and that on balance this represents an improvement in the criminal justice system, concerns have been expressed, in particular by defence counsel, that there could be abuse and that sentences could in fact be lengthened. As a committee we will want to study with care the arguments on the question of victim impact statements.
A Crown Attorney in the City of Toronto, Paul Culver, has said that in his view there is no doubt that sentences are longer as a result of the use of victim impact statements in the courts. If that is the case, we want to examine whether it is a desirable consequence.
Morris Manning has pointed out the following:
But if you go back to sentencing based on impact, you get into retribution, an eye for an eye concept. That is not appropriate in modern society.
Even the former president of the group Victims of Violence, Don Sullivan, said this:
The fear now is that the pendulum may swing too far and we become a vengeance seeking society. Rights for victims should not be achieved by denying rights to others.
-meaning the accused. On balance, the proposals for victim impact statements are worthy of support. For too long victims have been shut out of the process. As well, it is important that the accused, the individuals convicted of crime, confront directly the victims of their crime and hear personally face to face the impact the crime has had. Obviously it is essential that the judge in no way lengthen sentence or in no way include in his or her sentence the element of revenge as a result of the hearing of that statement. But I believe it is important that the victim be given the opportunity to make that statement.
It is also important, in dealing with the whole question of victims of crime, that we recognize the terrible inadequacies of the legal aid system. That is the subject of another speech at another time, but I do want to highlight that as one of the serious concerns in the criminal justice system today, namely, the very grave underfunding of the legal aid system both criminal and civil in Canada. Just this morning we heard in the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General from Gerald Ruygrok, the father of Celia Ruygrok, the 21 year old woman who was brutally murdered at Kirkpatrick House. He pointed out at the coroner's inquest that there were seven or eight lawyers representing everybody under the sun, but he himself, the father of the victim, was denied the right to legal representation.
Criminal Code
When we talk about victims of violent crime, surely we should recognize that our legal aid system should be expanded. A Tory Member opposite says he disagrees.
An Hon. Mlember: Order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I hope that all Conservative Members would recognize the importance of the greater involvement of victims of violent crime in expanding the criteria for legal aid.
Finally, I want to note that the definition of victims of crime is far too narrow. I suggest that we examine the nature of victimization in our society today. When we do that examination, we will see that there are many victims who are left uncompensated by this Bill. What are some of the examples of that, Madam Speaker? The victims of corporate crime and white collar crime are not compensated by this legislation. The victims of a corporation that pollutes and destroys the environment, that poisons a lake or river and victimizes people in a community, receive no assistance from this legislation. The victims of a corporation which in its greed for profit produces unsafe and hazardous goods resulting in injury or death receive no compensation whatsoever. A corporation or a mine, which is not prepared to take the basic steps to protect the health and safety of men and women who work in a mine who, as a result, experience injury or death, will not be required to pay any restitution under the terms of this legislation. The crimes of multinational corporations in the Third World and elsewhere are not dealt with by this legislation. Racially motivated crimes and other organizational crime is left untouched. I hope the Government will recognize that there are victims in this area as well.
The last point is the one I alluded to earlier concerning the prevention of crime, reducing the number of victims of crime in our society. We know what has to be done. The Government is well aware of the steps that could and should be taken to prevent crime. Yet it has done little or nothing to carry out these important objectives. What about neighborhood watch programs, community and urban planning to ensure a sense of community responsibility to cut down on crime, funding for alcohol and drug programs, funding for those who are mentally ill and for those with learning disabilities? What about attacking poverty, homelessness and unemployment in our society, assisting victims of physical and sexual abuse and dealing with the question of violence in the media and elsewhere?
What about gun controls, including, I might say, an examination of the abuse of firearms by those who are enforcing a law in Canada? Recently in Montreal-

Recently in Montreal people saw a policeman use his service revolver to shoot an innocent Black youth. There are too many victims of armed policemen in Canada. So here again if we want to cut down on the number of victims we must do everything possible to reduce such abuses, such unacceptable crimes.

November 19, 1987
Criminal Code

We support this legislation in principle. We say that its steps to assist the victims of crime are long overdue in Canadian society. Certainly we look forward to studying this legislation in committee, to bringing forward the necessary improvements in some of the areas that I have outlined with respect to national standards and to informing victims and their families of what they are entitled to. At the end of the day, after having passed this legislation, there remains a great deal of work to be done if true justice for victims in Canada is to become a reality.


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me today as Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister to comment on Bill C-89, and particularly on each one of us because for a while now the Opposition Parties have been referring to victims at the third person. So I think each one of us can easily identify with the problem of victims of crime generally. Who among us can be assured that he or she will not be the victim of a criminal act in the future?
Madam Speaker, who indeed can claim to be safe from such acts as car theft, break in and a number of other infractions? 1 would not want to scare anybody but I think it is important to acknowledge that anyone of us can of course be a victim one of these days.

1 would like to thank the opposition critics who have agreed to get on very quickly with second reading of this very important Bill C-89. I hope that we will still have their cooperation as quickly as possible to make this legislation law.
Some of you may have been victims in the past. In spite of the fact that each Canadian is a potential victim of a criminal offence, paradoxically, today, in 1987, the victims are still considered as the casualties of the criminal process. Is it not a paradox which is totally out of place in today society? Surveys show that two thirds of Canadians consider that the rights of victims should be protected as well as those of the accused in the name of justice.
Is it not absurd, Madam Speaker, that most victims complain that they were victimized not only by the offender but also by our judicial system? We have all heard a victim saying that after her T.V. set was found by the police she had to wait for several months or even several years to get it back? We all know a victim who was kept waiting for hours in the corridors of a court of justice only to be told, after several hours of anxiety and several visits to the court, that her evidence was not required anymore.
Madam Speaker, many victims will also tell you that if they had known better, they would not have hesitated to ask for restitution from the offender. How many people would have made themselves known and asked for the help of the judicial system if they had been given the assurance that their identity would be withheld in order to ensure their safety?
Madam Speaker, among other needs, the victim must be able to explain what he or she suffered, and yet, we frequently hear victims complain that no one is listening to them, not even the justice system.
Therefore, I am pleased today to join with the Government which showed its interest for the fate of victims and did not hesitate to take necessary steps to meet in a fair, adequate and energetic way the pressing needs of victims.
In fact, since it came to power, this Government examined the fate of victims of offences involving property. In 1985, this House passed Bill C-18 which provided for the prompt return to victims of belongings that had been stolen or otherwise and were no longer required as evidence.
More recently, in order to assist and protect children who are victims of sexual assault, the Government introduced Bill C-15 and other major amendments to the Criminal Code and the Evidence Act.
As you all know, the provisions contained in both bills were designed to meet the needs of specific groups of victims. The provisions of Bill C-18 are more general as they apply to all classes of victims of crime. A first set of measures is aimed at minimizing hardship likely to be suffered by victims as a result of the criminal justice system.
Those measures can be summarized as follows: First, the use of photographs as evidence to provide for the prompt and early return of recovered property to victims. Second, the use of an affidavit or a solemn declaration to establish the ownership and value of property will remove once again the need for the victim to testify as to those facts. Third, the victim will no longer be required to apply for restitution: in appropriate cases, the court will automatically consider the opportunity of issuing a restitution order. Fourth, the identity of victims and witnesses of sexual and extortion offences will not be published.
Finally, if a declaration is filed, there will be no need for the victim to give evidence on sentencing.
However, Madam Speaker, it must be emphasized that these amendments in no way reduce or violate the basic rights of the accused. Indeed, the presumption of innocence and the right to a full defence are both recognized in Bill C-89.
I have no intention of discussing in detail the effects of these various provisions or the technical aspects of their application. Others have done so before me.
However, there is another provision which I would like to discuss further, namely, the provision related to restitution. Certain provisions to force the offender to make restitution to
November 19, 1987

his victim will now apply to someone who is found guilty by a judge or a jury of the offence with which he or she had been charged. Madam Speaker, I believe that it is important to take a few minutes to explain the difference between compensation and restitution.
Compensation refers to a contribution or payment made by the state to the victim under a compensation program for victims of crime. These programs are subsidized partly by the federal Government, but administered by the provinces or territories.
As the Minister of Justice pointed out, the federal Government has made an offer to the provinces which would more than double the amount they now receive. In passing, Madam Speaker, I must say that Bill C-89 has been very well-received by the provinces, particularly Quebec. The Quebec Minister of Justice, Mr. Herbert Marx, is very satisfied with the negotiations and with Bill C-89, which is the result of these negotiations.
Now with respect to restitution, Madam Speaker, it is a factor which must be taken under advisement by the court when sentence is handed out, if such an order is deemed appropriate. Unlike compensation which comes from the state, restitution is made to the victim by the offender. You will agree with me that one of the first consideration for the person who has incurred material losses or sustained physical injuries is to return to the situation as it was before the crime was committed. In other words, whenever possible it means securing material compensation for damage sustained.
Madam Speaker, this is why the federal-provincial task force on justice for victims of criminal acts published a report in 1983 and recommended changes to the Criminal Code provisions concerning restitution so that, in appropriate cases, the judge would have to consider the advisability of issuing a restitution order. The task force recommended as well that victims be given an opportunity to appear before the court concerning such losses as might be ascertainable.
More recently, in a report released last February the Canadian Sentencing Commission recommended that restitution orders take the following elements into account: first, property damage resulting from the commission of the offence and calculated on the basis of the actual cost of repairing or replacing such property; hospital and medical care expenditures incurred by the victim as a result of the commission of a crime; losses of income resulting from the commission of such crime, including those due to the victim's hospitalization or participation in the investigation or trial.
Madam Speaker, I am convinced that all Members in the House today will agree that the amendments introduced in Bill C-89 adequately respond to these recommendations.
But what exactly is meant by damage whose amount can be easily ascertainable? These could, for instance, include medical bills, property damage or loss of income. It should be understood that only damages where the amount is readily
Criminal Code
ascertainable may be the subject of a restitution order in respect of an offence under the Criminal Code. Other damages whose amount is not readily ascertainable, pain and suffering for instance, will continue to be the subject of claims in civil proceedings.
I mentioned earlier that the onus was no longer on the victim to seek a restitution order. In fact, the proposed amendment requires the judge to consider whether a restitution order would be appropriate. This means the victim will no longer have to worry about exercising this right, since in all cases, the judge will do so on the victim's behalf. A restitution order is not restricted to property damage alone. For instance, damages incurred as a result of bodily injury, provided the amount is readily ascertainable, may also be covered by a restitution order.
The proposed amendments expand our concept of "victim" to cover persons who arrested or tried to arrest the offender. However, the Bill does not propose a definition of the word "victim". As a result, the courts will have the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of each case. However, it is not enough to require the courts to consider whether the restitution order is appropriate. The court must also be satisfied that the offender will be able to comply with the order.
I shall now describe the procedures available to the Court to decide whether the offender will be able to comply with the order. First, the judge will be able to inquire into the offender's present or future ability to pay. He may also consider his financial status. In this respect, the judge may subpoena the offender to provide the requisite information on his assets. This means that subsequently, the victim may, if necessary, file for execution of the restitution order against the assets thus identified.
Another important detail, Madam Speaker, is that the judge may order that any money found on the offender at the time of his arrest be taken to satisfy the restitution order. Finally, in every case the judge must give priority to the restitution order.
Unfortunately, in some cases the offender will be either unable or will simply refuse to comply with the restitution order. The order must therefore be readily enforceable.
The Bill provides that the order is enforceable as a judgment of a superior court, either in civil or criminal proceedings. The offender may of course be able to provide a reasonable excuse for his default, and the judge may then extend the term of the restitution order.
Madam Speaker, the Government's proposals have been warmly welcomed by victims groups because they respond to a real need. I would like to quote the author to which the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) referred earlier, Mr. Robert Menard, founder of a new association of victims of criminal offences, who also said, and I quote:
Nevertheless, 1 believe the new Bill before the House is a first step towards
improving the status of victims.

November 19, 1987
Criminal Code
Madam Speaker, once again, I wish to stress the importance of this Bill and say that we in the House and in this Government should set aside political considerations and look at this Bill as objectively as we can. We all know that every day, people become victims of criminal acts.
Each day we defer the enforcement of the Bill, we prevent victims of crime from enjoying some direct results. Of course, crime will always be with us and they will still be victims, Madam Speaker, but at least this may help them to obtain some sort of compensation in certain areas. As long as there is no wonder solution which would allow totally and definitely to eradicate crime, we should applaud the steps taken in Bill C-89.
Once again, this Bill is extremely important for victims of crime in Canada. I hope that my friends in the opposition Parties agree and will work with this Government not on a partisan basis but with a Government representing the people of Canada. We have to deal with this Bill as quickly as possible because it does not address a specific part of the country or a specific group. It addresses the entire population of Canada because everyone, in one way or another, is a victim of crime.
I also want to express again my thanks to the Liberal and NDP critics who supported this Bill on second reading today.

Madam Speaker, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, everyone of us, though we do not wish it, could eventually become a victim. It is therefore reassuring and encouraging that finally a government is looking after us and not after someone else.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the Member has spoken today as acting Parliamentary Secretary, and since I do not know exactly what his status is, I would like to ask the Chair or the Hon. Member what is now going on. There has been no Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for a long time and I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary for today should perhaps provide some information on that really unacceptable situation about such an important matter. Why do we not yet have a Parliamentary Secretary?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member will agree with the Chair that this is not a point of order but a question which the Hon. Member could ask the Prime Minister some other time.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) entering the Chamber. Perhaps he might explain why he has not yet had a Parliamentary Secretary appointed to himself as Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair really does not see how that is a point of order. Are there any questions and comments?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have come into the House just when a point of order was being raised by my good friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Modesty prevents me from indicating that this is such a popular position that the applicants are lined up and are all being considered. I am sure that before too long the vacancy will be filled.
This also gives me an opportunity to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Grise) who has just spoken on this very important initiative. I owe a debt of gratitude to him for his work and the assistance he has given to me in fulfilment of my responsibility as Minister of Justice in this initiative. He has been particularly helpful in that he has brought a perspective from his own region and province to this initiative. I know that there is enthusiasm in the Province of Quebec. I want to preface my question to him by acknowledging his contribution in this legislation.
Has he had an opportunity to gauge the response in the Province of Quebec on this legislation? Has the Minister of Justice of the Province of Quebec indicated any position with respect to this legislation?
[ Translation]


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for his kind words.
As concerns the interest for Bill C-89 in Quebec, I have to emphasize the importance of the coordination and cooperation between the federal Minister of Justice and the Quebec Minister, Mr. Marx, in preparing this Bill, which cooperation the Minister may have underplayed in his own comments earlier. I believe that it is extremely important to emphasize the interest there is in this Bill in Quebec.
I recently had the opportunity to meet Mr. Marx. He asked me when this Bill would be introduced in second reading in the House and when it would come into effect. This is extremely important for Quebec. It is essential for the victims of crime that this Bill come into effect as soon as possible, and this is why, Madam Speaker, at the end of my comments-

-I was expressing my hope that opposition Parties will work with the Government to make this Bill law and help ensure
November 19, 1987

that it is implemented very shortly thereafter in the provinces because it falls under provincial jurisdiction.
This is a very important measure in the Province of Quebec.

-Mr. Marx strongly emphasized the fact that, as there has been a federal-provincial agreement, the two Governments should do their best to have this Bill come into effect as quickly as possible.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood that during the period for questions and comments there was alternation between government and Opposition Members. There has not yet been an opportunity for a question or comment from the Opposition. I would like, at some point, to have that opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member would make such a remark at this time. There is still time for questions and comments and I can assure the Hon. Member that when the time comes he will be recognized.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to mention that I got involved in Victims of Violence with Don Sullivan with whom the Hon. Member was also involved. That was way back in the early 1980s when we worked to make people aware. I just want to commend Don Sullivan for the work he did and for his dedication in helping many families of victims. He himself was the father of a child who was killed. A book was written about him by Jerry Amernic which brought his case to the attention of many people. I thought this would be a good opportunity to mention the good work done by the people who originally created Victims of Violence in Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I want to agree with the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) and note as well the work that he has done. We have worked together for many years on the issue of aid for victims of crime. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Ontario introduced a Private Members' Bill on this subject some time ago. I want to acknowledge, in addition to the contribution made by Don Sullivan, the contribution made by the Hon. Member. He has played a role in the development of this legislation.
My question to the Acting Parliamentary Secretary is with regard to a point which I raised during the course of my remarks on this legislation, that is, the great concern which was expressed by the national group, Victims of Violence-the group which was founded by Don Sullivan-with regard to the cancellation of all federal programs in Canada aimed at improving the mental health response to violent crime victims.
Why has the Government cancelled funding to these programs to assist victims of violent crimes in Canada? These people have, in some cases, been emotionally and psychologically traumatized by crime. On the one hand the Government
Criminal Code
suggests that it supports the concerns of victims of crime. Yet, the same Government has callously cut off all funding. To quote the words of Gary Rosenfeldt, the President of Victims of Violence:
We were horrified to learn that your Ministry has cancelled all efforts at improving the mental health response to violent crime victims in this country . . . .We ask that you reconsider this issue and that efforts be made to re-establish programs to educate mental health professionals on the needs of violent crime victims.
Will the Acting Parliamentary Secretary agree to urge his Cabinet colleagues to reconsider the cancellation of this very important program and to restore funding for victims of violent crime? Will he at least agree to make the appropriate and necessary representations on this important matter?


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I should like to repeat again to my friend the hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that, under Bill C-89, the Federal Government will contribute $27.2 million to provincial and territorial criminal injury compensation schemes over the next three years. Of this amount, $16.2 million will be earmarked for the crime victim compensation programm irrespective of the type of crime. But for all victims of crime, $16.2 million and a additional $8 million will be made available to the provinces and territories under a victims' assistance fund to meet the needs of all categories of victims and enhance the services and programs available.
When he rose to speak in this House, Madam Speaker, the hon. Member for Burnaby indicated that he had been the victim of a crime. 1 should like to say that the hon. Member for Burnaby is not alone in this House to have been victimized by a criminal act. Unfortunately, I must admit that I was myself victimized on several occasions while the owner of a business through breaking and entering.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, with this Bill which of course is not perfect, our Government is essentially trying to help the victims of criminal acts, and this is only the beginning. We shall go forward in this direction.


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.
Motion agreed, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

November 19, 1987
Post-secondary education


PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS-BILLS   CANADIAN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Bill Rompkey: that Bill C-228, an Act to provide for a Canadian Post-Secondary Education Council, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing the presence in the gallery of a large and encouraging delegation from the Canadian Federation of Students who are here this week in Ottawa conducting what I consider to be a very effective lobby. At the beginning of my remarks, I want to say thank you to this delegation, not only for its interest but for the very effective way in which it has conducted itself on this topic and on other topics dealing with education this week. Those students know better than anyone else the situation about which we are speaking today. Their presence here is more eloquent than any words. What they are saying by their presence is that there is a situation in this country that must be addressed. Those of us who are politicians, whether federal or provincial, had better wake up and listen. We had better look at the situation and decide what we are going to do about it. That is what we are talking about today.
These students know that across this country today only the rich will be able to get into our colleges and universities. If you are disabled and rich, you can go to university. If you are native and rich you can go to university. If you are a woman and rich you can go to university. But there are far too many people who are kept out because tuition fees are high, and federal and provincial money for post-secondary institutions is going down. Professors are escaping to the United States. Students are coming out of college with a B.A. and a debt load of $20,000. That situation is not acceptable. That is what the students are saying by their presence here today. That is the background against which we have to look at the idea we are discussing here today.
The idea is not new. The idea is to create a national advisory council on post-secondary education. It is an idea that was put forward by the AUCC, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. It was an idea put forward by the CAUT, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and it was an idea supported by the Canadian Community Colleges Association and by the Canadian Federation of Students. It is an idea supported by the Canadian Teachers Federation, and it is supported by many Ministers of Education. I would like to read what Lome Hepworth said at the national forum on postsecondary education in Saskatoon. He said he would welcome an increased role for the federal Government in post-secondary education. I quote the following from the Leader Post in Saskatchewan:
Speaking at the National Forum on Post-Secondary Education, Hepworth
endorsed what a number of groups present at the forum had earlier said they
supported-the development of a national post-secondary education strategy.
There are Ministers of Education who believe in what we are speaking about today. There are businessmen who believe. The Canadian Manufacturers Association in its latest brief said that "No step is more critical in keeping Canada competitive than improving our post-secondary educational system. Canada will succeed in today's competitive world markets only if Canadians make full use of our most valuable natural resource, that is, our people. Realizing our country's full potential demands we must strengthen our universities and community colleges". In Part I of its brief it "urges that Canada establish a national strategy", not a federal or provincial strategy, for "post-secondary education", and the Canadian Manufacturers Association expresses the wishes of a lot of large and small businessmen all across this country.
It was an idea which came up at the national forum on postsecondary education in Saskatoon recently. Dr. Ronald Watts, both in his speech at the beginning and in his summary, pressed for a national strategy on post-secondary education. He urged Canada to join nations such as Japan and West Germany in treating post-secondary education as an investment in the nation's adaptability and competitiveness, not a burden on the public purse. From this perspective, the cost of supporting education in colleges and universities is not so much a problem as it is an essential part of the solution.
This idea has widespread support in the country. It is an idea whose time has come. As we move as a country into the information society, it is essential that we move on this issue. Without education we are not going to be able to compete. There is no question about that.
Our competitors are doing exactly what we are talking about today. Japan not only has an industrial strategy and economic strategy, it has an education strategy. West Germany, which is a federal state much like our own, has an economic strategy, an industrial strategy and also an education strategy. There is a commission in West Germany which involves the equivalent of the provinces in this country and the national Government in a joint effort as partners in attacking what they know is a crucial problem if they are going to compete in the world today.
There are many people who will say: "Yes, but in 1867, provincial responsibility was given to education". That is true. No one is saying that that jurisdiction should be taken away from the provinces. What we are saying, I believe, is that in numbers there is strength. If two heads are better than one, twelve or fourteen or sixteen heads are better than two. Everyone wants to preserve provincial jurisdiction. I know, coming as I do from my province, that we guard that jurisdiction jealously. In fact, in my province, not only do we have provincial jurisdiction in education but the churches still have a historic right entrenched in the Constitution. No one wants to change that. All we are saying is that the players in the game, a very important game, should come together around
November 19, 1987

the table as they did in Saskatoon, and collectively come up with a national strategy for post-secondary education.
The reality, of course, is that while education is a provincial responsibility, 70 per cent of all the funds which support that education in Canada come from the federal Government. Why should it not then be at the table when national education policy is discussed? Why should teachers and students and college administrators not be at the table when national postsecondary education is discussed? That is what we are talking about here today.
I think that it is all the more necessary today that we involve business and industry in that dialogue. More and more there is a necessity to increase the association between the world of work and the world of learning. Never before was that linkage so important. As we move into the information society, it is extremely important that we have the people who are giving the jobs and the people who are doing the teaching talking together about what kind of education we need to do the jobs which are going to be available. That is what CMA is talking about. That is what the Canadian Advanced Technology Association had a conference about in Toronto recently. It called for a national education strategy and a closer dialogue between the world of work and the world of learning.
Businessmen are realizing that if they are going to have employees, they want them well educated, or we will not be able to compete. We talk about free trade, tax reform and supporting high technology. But if we do not have a labour force that is educated, not just once but continuously throughout the life of the labourer, then we will not have a competitive society. Thus the linkage between the world of work and the world of learning is far more important today than it ever was before. That is what Canada has to wake up to. That is what Canada has to do something about.
What we are saying is that all of those groups should come together. The people who are doing the hiring and the teaching, the students, the teachers, the administrators and the two levels of Government should come together. Why can they not? They did it in Saskatoon. They came together for three days. Is three days all we get? How long do we talk about economic policy? How long do we talk about industrial policy? What do we get for education? Three days. Is that what this nation will contribute to the discussion on education? If we can come together for three days, why can we not come together for three months, three years or 30 years? It is possible. That is what we are asking. That is what we are saying has to happen.
It should not stop in Saskatoon. The spirit of Saskatoon has to be kept alive. I wish to point out to my colleagues that we have advisory councils in Canada on the following topics. We have a National Advisory Council on Health. We have a National Advisory Council on Welfare. We have a National Advisory Council on Economics. We have a National Advisory
Post-secondary education
Council on Small Business. We have a National Advisory Council on Mining. I could go on. The list is interminable.
Recently, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) set up his own National Advisory Council on Science and Technology. I give him full marks for that. He is a man of vision. That is something that should be done. He should call those people together. They should tell him what the policy should be in terms of science and technology. But how can one talk about a national policy on science and technology without talking about a national policy on education? How could it be done? It cannot be done. One of the essential things people are saying is that what we have to give attention to in Canada today is the teaching of science and technology. That is an essential ingredient that we have to include and give emphasis and priority to in the national curriculum. How can there be a National Advisory Council on Science and Technology, recognizing the importance of that, and there not be a national advisory council on education? It is unthinkable.
Is education any less important than mining, small business, women, economics or industrial strategy? Is it any less important than those matters? If we have national advisory councils without in any way injuring or detracting from provincial jurisdiction, why can we not have a national advisory council on post-secondary education? I do not understand that. It seems to me that that is of paramount importance.
The OECD said this to Canada. It said that the lack of educational policies for the future is striking. It pointed out that there is a need to define goals for education to fit a vision of national interest. There is an array of exceptionally active programs derived from no explicitly stated over-all national conception of the country's interests. Decisions have to be taken now concerning the destination of the Canadian school system within an ordered view of the Canadian nation.
In effect, the OECD is saying to Canada, "Get your act together. If you are going to be one of the top seven, if you are going to compete with Japan, Korea, the United States and West Germany, get your act together and do something about it". That is what this Bill calls for. It simply calls for a dialogue. It is not a threatening Bill. It does not involve child abuse or environmental deterioration. It does not deal in any way with heinous crimes. It calls for a national advisory council on post-secondary education. It does not say, "We will take over the systems". It does not say, "We will throw out the provinces". It does not say, "We will fire the Ministers of Education". It simply says, "We want to give some advice". We are not talking about a massive bureaucracy that will suddenly take over policy.
The Bill calls for a 16-member committee made up of the two levels of Government that would advise both levels of Government and that would encourage research and study education questions in Canada. None of these issues are threatening. The 500 or 600 people who came together in Saskatoon recently very clearly said, "Yes, that is a good idea.

November 19, 1987
Post-secondary education
Preserve provincial jurisdiction but let us get our act together nationally and let us consolidate our efforts". This Bill is not perfect, not by any means. It should be amended. I had hoped that we could do that in committee. The Canadian Federation of Students is saying, "We believe that there should be students on this national advisory committee". I agree with that. But the students are saying that they think there should be two students out of the 16. It need not be a 16-member committee. We could create a 20-member committee, if that is what is wanted. There is some flexibility here. There is the possibility of amendment. Yes, there should be students on the committee.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers is saying that it feels that teachers should be represented on the national advisory committee. I agree with that. I think that such a provision should be made in the Bill for that.
The Association of Universities and Colleges and the community colleges will want to have representation on the national advisory committee, and so they should. Such amendments can be put forward. What I did was to draw up a Bill which recognized the two levels of Government and provincial jurisdiction. I drew up provisions for a 16-member council that preserved provincial jurisdiction since it would give the majority of members on the national advisory committee to the provinces. They have a majority, as they should, because education is their responsibility. But there are amendments that can be made, and should be made. 1 hope that if we ever get the Bill to committee they will be made. These things can be done.
I see that my time is coming to a close. I simply want to say again that I believe this is an extremely important idea. I believe it is something that must be done. It is an idea whose time has come. If we are going to call Canada a democracy and if we are going to be representatives within that democracy, we have to listen to the people, to the outstanding people who came together in Saskatoon recently. I give the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) credit for doing just that. It was an initiative that I say quite candidly was not taken by my Government. However, it was taken by the Government in power.
The Secretary of State did what no other Secretary of State was able to do. He was able to call together people of stature in Canada to discuss an issue of national importance. I give him full marks for that. I would give him even more marks if we could go further than that and if we could listen to the very clear voice that came out of Saskatoon from 500 or 600 eminent people who said that it is time in Canada now to have a national focus and a national strategy for post-secondary education. That was the message. That was the call. That was the challenge coming out of Saskatoon. Any politician in Canada today worth his salt would listen to that and would have to take some action on it.
Thus I call on the Government and on my colleagues in the House to recognize the importance of this issue. Let us send
this Bill to committee where we can examine it and where we can let people from all across the country say what is good and what is bad about it. Let them say what changes should be made and what kind of structure we should have. We cannot go from where we are now to where we want to be unless we have a vehicle.
There are those who say, "Let us go at these problems one by one". But which are the most important and which are the least important? Which will be put on the front-burner and which will be put on the back? I submit we can do none of those things unless we have a national vehicle. That is what we want to create here today.
1 know that I have tested your patience, Madam Speaker, and I know that I have been long. Let me just conclude by saying this. We are resource-rich in Canada, but the greatest resource of all is our people, especially our young people. Are we to be one of the top five countries in the world with growing influence? Are we coming of age internationally and discovering what we are, who we are, and throwing off our sense of inferiority and competing head to head with world leaders? If we are, then it is time to make education a number one priority. We have to aim at a national strategy. 1 think that that is the greatest challenge facing Canada. If we fail to deal with it, it seems to me that we will be putting this nation at risk.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) made a very convincing argument, and I commend him on an excellent address to the House on a most important subject. 1 am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the subject of the Hon. Member's Bill. I wish to commence by giving three reasons for my address.
I am sorry that, unlike the Hon. Member, I was unable to attend the conference in Saskatoon on post-secondary education. I know that some of our Members were able to attend that conference, and 1 believe that they will be speaking on this Bill. I do care deeply about the future of our universities and colleges. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to bring to the attention of Canadians some important matters that were raised at that conference. I sympathize fully with the sentiments which are underlined by the Bill. Like most who are interested in post-secondary education, I believe that it has a crucial national dimension that we must find better ways to express here in the national House because we do contribute significantly to post-secondary education. As was stated by the Hon. Member, I understand that this view was echoed by those who were in attendance at the forum, including the Hon. Roland Penner who is Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada. Consequently, I understand why the many organizations, as well as the Members of this House have called for some type of national council on post-secondary education.
November 19, 1987

I am pleased to speak today on this motion because there is something very important to be said about the reason for which the House should sincerely consider whether now is the time to move on the Bill that the Hon. Member has presented, no matter how sympathetic we may be to its intentions.
Let me explain my concern by first commenting on the significance of the national forum and the opportunity that it has given us. This opportunity must not be allowed to slip away. For anyone who is aware of the recent history of federal-provincial relations in the area of higher education, the Government's announcement last fall of its proposal for a national forum must have seemed to have been doomed. I know that when the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) proposed such a meeting in Saskatoon, he felt that it was probably a "mission impossible". For the federal Government to suggest such a conference in this delicate field of obvious provincial jurisdiction would have been daring, but to feel or even hope that the provinces would co-sponsor it seemed to be quite out of the question.
Yet the forum happened. The Council of Ministers of Education did co-sponsor it. The Secretary of State and the provincial Ministers were able to look beyond past disagreements and find common purpose in exploring the challenges and the opportunities confronting higher education in Canada today. Moreover, they were able to agree at this forum that, if it were to make a genuine contribution to our national sense of direction for post-secondary education, it could not be dominated by Governments.
The Hon. Member made the point regarding others who should be involved in this discussion. Rather, it would have to bring together people with all types of interest and point of view on a large dimension. Together the Governments created the national forum committee and gave it their trust and support. Through the leadership of Brian Segal, President of Ryerson Polytechnic, the committee proved equal to the task and organized what was by all accounts a remarkable, effective event which confronted all the major issues in this complex field.
Earlier this week when Brian Segal spoke to the Standing Committee on Secretary of State, he stated that the first achievement of the forum was to demonstrate that federal and provincial Governments can work together in partnership on an issue of such national importance.
The challenge now facing the Secretary of State and the Council of Ministers of Education is to build on the spirit of co-operation and turn it into concrete action that will benefit higher education in a tangible manner. The Ministers will meet early in 1988 to tackle the challenge. We in this House should assist them in any way that we can for their success is crucial to Canada's future.
One way in which we can help them is by refraining from imposing our will on the federal-provincial relationship. We should not impose mechanisms which may not be appropriate or helpful at this time. That does not mean that this one would not be helpful, and I am referring to the national council which
Post-secondary education
is proposed. While I have already stated that it is admirable in its intentions, this may not be the time for the House to endorse it. Other Members may also wish to give advice on this. It may complicate sensitive discussions that we were very pleased got off the ground.
To return for a moment to the achievements of the forum, the event clearly made a major contribution to raising public awareness and interest in the key issues of post-secondary education in this country. Through the Standing Committee on Secretary of State the House has begun to review this field and it is listening to Dr. Segal. His view of the situation was that creating a new structure at this time would do nothing to achieve the necessary federal-provincial partnership. On the contrary, he suggested that it is important to proceed step by step in developing co-operation.
It would be an entirely appropriate positive step were the standing committee to consider some of the issues raised by this Bill today. We need full public discussion on all aspects of higher education. We in the House can help to emphasize that national perspective. Indeed, it might be appropriate for the committee to hear provincial views on some of those matters. I do not think it would be helpful to federal-provincial relations, or to post-secondary education, for us to endorse this Bill immediately, no matter how well intentioned I believe it to be.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, for this chance to comment on the future of post-secondary education in this country. This level of education becomes increasingly important if Canada is to be fully competitive in the world and realize its potential for social, cultural, and scientific development. We owe it to our country to give every possible support to developments which can encourage the two orders of Government to co-operate more closely, an achievement that the Government has fostered a great deal in the last few years.
In the Throne Speech last fall the Government committed itself to promoting with the provinces and the territories a system of post-secondary education based on the principles of excellence and equality of opportunity. The national forum has taken an important step toward that laudable goal, but it is only a beginning. All of us must help to maintain the momentum which was established at the Saskatoon Conference.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, you will recognize that this afternoon we are dealing with a topic which you and 1 had an opportunity to discuss in the past. It is an issue that was raised in the New Democratic task force on youth. In that forum it was a reflection of the considered view of students, faculty, administrators, and universities that there should be some kind of structure to establish policies and goals for post-secondary education.
It is because I am so favourably disposed toward the Bill that I want to congratulate my colleague for having brought it before the House. I congratulate him as well for the excellent way in which he has presented his case. He should have been

November 19, 1987
Post-secondary education
convincing to all Members of the House. His arguments were to the point, his arguments reflected the reality, and his arguments should have determined an action on the part of the Government to respond in a positive way.
Yesterday I was somewhat saddened, when I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) whether the Government would support this Bill to find that there was a good deal of equivocation. Ultimately we find that the Government, it appears, will oppose this Private Member's Bill. I hope it will reconsider.
In addition to congratulations for Hon. Members from both sides of the House, there has been a good deal of self-congratulation over the accomplishments of the national post-secondary forum held in Saskatoon. I must confess that I was not one of those who considered it the best way to approach the issue of post-secondary education. At the time when the Secretary of State made his announcement, 1 predicted that this forum would treat nothing that had not already been treated before and would not treat anything about which there had not already arisen a consensus, not only in the universities but among all those who have had an opportunity to consider the problems in post-secondary education in Canada and the need to have some national policy direction in respect of it.
1 would have to admit in retrospect, as one of those who attended the conference, that it was an exciting event as forums go. It was well organized and generated a degree of focus for the public in respect of post-secondary education and the contribution of colleges and universities to Canada, socially, economically, and otherwise.
One interesting thing about the forum is that there was, as I had predicted, a strong consensus on any number of issues and how those issues should be addressed. Perhaps the most important of these issues, on which virtually unanimous agreement was reached, which was expressed by the rapporteurs from all the workshops, was the need for some kind of national structure to advise Governments on policies and goals for post-secondary education. Therefore, it was a considerable shock to me to find the Chairman of the forum subsequently summarizing the results of those deliberations by equivocating about, if not rejecting, the notion of a national advisory council on post-secondary education.
Subsequently in a press conference the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the conference both seemed quite unequivocally at that time to reject the notion. We heard pretty much then, as we are hearing now, some proposal that we would take the variety of problems which exist and have been identified in post-secondary education and treat them one by one through the Council of Ministers of Education.
In that respect I share the point of view of the author of this legislation that that is insufficient, just as does everyone else. As was suggested earlier, it was not just a question of those involved in Canada having identified that there is something wrong. The OECD identified that something was wrong quite some time ago. If Canadians do not recognize that there is
something wrong by now, then they have their eyes closed. Most Canadians who have looked at the problem know how it must be addressed. Indeed, the Government seems to be moving more closely to an appropriate response to the great plea across the country that something be done.
I am sure that no one who supports the proposal in principle for a national advisory council on post-secondary education would consider the Bill before us as adequate in any respect. However, it addresses the principle. The author has identified a number of groups that I would have assumed would have been included in any recommendations on who should serve on such a national advisory council. Of course all the provinces should be represented, but certainly it is also clear that those who serve the colleges and universities, and those who benefit from those institutions, should be represented in respect of the nature and quality of education. As well, as was mentioned earlier, there is a great deal of significance in the mission of the university in respect of research and development and industrial growth. It is elementary that students should be represented, that faculty should be represented, that the Government should be represented, that labour should be represented, and that business and industry should be represented somehow.
It was kind of interesting that in the committee meeting the other day we were told that the forum was so effective that we might have another forum a year and a half from now. My God, it was imagined that we might have a forum practically every month. I began to recognize that what was coming out of these utterances by Mr. Segal was not an avoidance but a merging with the proposal before us. If a forum every year or every half a year is appropriate and can bring all these people together, surely it is possible to have something less episodic and something more permanent and more useful-a group which would consist of people who are better informed. It would be better to have something like an advisory council- people of the same representative group as exists in the forum-than to have repeated forums.
We can talk all we want about jurisdictional disputes, but we can no longer have the post-secondary system, which is to benefit the country and is necessary for our destiny, being laid aside forever on the basis of the excuse that nothing can be done because we are in a quarrel with the provinces or because the provinces are jealous of their jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with jurisdiction. We should use our imagination and come up with something that would accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
If the President of the United States can have a commission which has led to considerable reform of post-secondary education in that country without entering into the area of jurisdictional disputes, then Canada ought to be able to do it as well, and we should do it now.
There is no difference in my mind between voting on second reading of this Bill, allowing it to go to committee, and
November 19, 1987

defeating it, and having the same matter come before the committee in another fashion.
It is necessary for the Government to show a commitment to this great necessity and to do it now, before it is too late. We can no longer compromise the future of the country, of our students, of our industry, and of our destiny by failing to address the needs of post-secondary education.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform to the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concur in the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments 13(a), (b), (c) and (d), 14(a), (b), (c) and (d) and 16(a) and that the Senate do not insist on its amendments 4(b), 11, 12, 15(a), (b) and (c), 16(b), (c), (d) and (e), 17(a) and (b) and 18(a) concerning Bill C-22, an Act to amend the patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto.
A message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to amend various other acts in consequence thereof, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Order, please.']
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
November 19, 1987 Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Judge Puisne of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 19th day of November, 1987, at 5.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General
Post-secondary education



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Rompkey that Bill C-228, an Act to provide for a Canadian Post-Secondary Education Council, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If the Hon. Member would allow me, with no hard feelings, I would like to alternate as usual and recognize his colleague from the Opposition. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I want to rise today to speak on this Bill which provides for a Canadian post-secondary educational council. I want to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), for introducing this Bill. He has a good background in educational experience himself and he did present this Bill very effectively to the House. He is addressing an issue that is all important to the future of Canada today.
I want to say to the others who have spoken that I appreciate the tone of this debate. They have taken the time to compliment the Member in bringing his Bill forward and put forth their own cases most effectively. As a person who had the opportunity in my earlier years to teach all grades from Grade 1 to Grade 13 with several years spent both at the elementary and secondary level, I think that the time is long overdue when some leadership should take place in a field such as this at the national level.
As we all know, education is very much a provincial matter. It is in the interest of all Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada, that education be tackled both on behalf of the young but also on behalf of those who are upwards to middle age and are still wage earners in the families of this country. Modern science, technology and developments are such that people not only have to be trained when they are young but also as time goes on. That is why it is very important to have an educational council such as the one recommended in this Bill.
If we set up such a council it is important that we have serving on that council people with vision, foresight and some good basic intelligence who are interested in the future of Canada and its people. It cannot become a board for hangers-on wanting political plums. I note that my hon. colleague from

November 19, 1987
Royal Assent
Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has looked after that part very early in the stages of this Bill. I note too that there is no remuneration for the people who sit on the council. In setting up a council such as the one proposed, you will get the kind of dedication, foresight and in-depth interest required to tackle a problem that is really a human oriented one and an economic one.
Given the structure of our Canadian Constitution, Madam Speaker, it is extremely important that you have both regional, provincial and territorial representation on that council as well as representation at the national level in this country. The Hon. Member in his Bill has provided for 10 appointees from the provinces of Canada and appointees from the federal Government. I would suggest to him-I know he is well inclined to these things-that that might even be brought a little further to include the territories specifically in Canada.
I think the nuts and bolts of this whole thing are well laid out in the suggestion that a national forum on education be created to establish national goals and objectives for education as a resource of the nation-note, as a resource of the nation- to oversee the development of policy and mechanisms, to implement these goals and objectives and to consult and cooperate with provincial jurisdictions in order to seek to achieve the following objectives: (a) participation of the community at large, including Government, business, labour and the academic community; (b) curriculum development.
If there is anything more crucial that this council would deal with, I would think it would be the making of recommendations and curriculum development at the youth level and right across the spectrum when you are retraining people later in life. It has to include the definition of entrepreneurial and technological understanding, the necessity of excellence, and the requirement for continuing education, which I have mentioned a couple of times thus far. Then it has to have structures for delivery, commencing with teacher training and retraining.
You can have the greatest policies on earth and the greatest plans and recommendations-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please.



[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, the Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne) with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
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-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation therto-Chapter No. 41.
Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to amend various other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 41.
Bill S-10, an Act to revive Yellowknife Electric Ltd. and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, could we know which bills have received Royal Assent? To reassure people, I would like to know whether Bill C-22 is among them.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As 1 told the House when the message was received, Bill C-22 and C-53 have received Royal Assent.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
TRADE-UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM-REPORTED SALE OF WHEAT TO ALGERIA/ POSITION OF UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, on November 2, I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) concerning the Government's position with regard to the United States export enhancement program. You will recall that program provides one bushel of wheat out of government stockpiles for every three bushels sold through private sales to consumer countries around the world. This program has had a devastating impact on Canadian producers in that it has driven down the international price of wheat and other grains. All this comes on top of the U.S. Farm Bill which also affects the world price of wheat. Those two programs have had a devastating impact on the Canadian grain industry and that is why we hope the Government of Canada will provide a special grain program this year worth at least $1.6 billion. The damage to Canadian farmers is worse than that and more is needed, but that is another subject.
November 19, 1987

The free trade agreement initialled by our Government on October 3 said that the U.S. would take Canada's needs and concerns into account when using its Export Enhancement Program and other farm commodity export subsidy programs. Clearly the U.S. is abrogating that part of the treaty. The Minister acknowledged that in this House on several occasions. He said he would take up the matter with Secretary Shultz. He did so apparently in late October. Obviously Mr. Shultz paid no attention whatsoever because the Minister hardly even commented on what Mr. Shultz had to say.
Even worse than that, at just about the same time a Reuters report of October 20 indicated that the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture said that the U.S. will continue its policy of subsidizing farm exports in order to regain lost markets until there is a global agreement to end such subsidies. Clearly this statement, almost three weeks after the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was initialled, indicates that the U.S. is not backing off and will continue to use this program against us in violation of the agreement. Obviously the U.S. is not treating Canada with any consideration at all. This is very harmful and makes people question whether the free trade agreement is worth the paper it is written on.
In addition, the continued use by the U.S. of its Export Enhancement Program with customers like Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India, and others, is not only driving down the price of grain for our producers, it is stealing away valuable Canadian markets and it should be stopped. If the Americans really believe in that free trade agreement, then it should stop this harassment of Canadian grain producers in our traditional grain markets and stop hurting Canadian cash crop producers.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question as it allows the Government of Canada to clear up a number of misconceptions which, quite frankly, have been created by Members opposite.
I should like to make two points in particular. First, the Export Enhancement Program is not new. Second, while we are dead set against the Americans using this program, it is not a violation of the free trade agreement signed between Canada and the U.S.
The Export Enhancement Program, or EEP, has, through its predecessor, the Bonus Incentive Commodity Export Program, or BICEP, been a part of American agriculture policy since it was first introduced in May of 1985. Under the program, the U.S. targets a market it intends to sell into and offers quantities of a commodity at cut rate prices. In this case we are talking 300,000 tonnes of durum wheat being offered to Algeria under the EEP.
Canada is against this provision of the U.S. Farm Bill. We have been voicing our opposition to it since it was first introduced as BICEP. We have not been dissuaded from
Adjournment Debate
voicing our opposition to and distaste of a measure which inflames trade distortions in grains and oilseeds. We have complained against the EEP in the same way we have complained about similar policies of the European community. However, our complaining will not stop this practice. Consensus at GATT to do away with such trade distorting measures is where real change will occur. We are confident that this consensus is growing and change will occur.
I should also like to point out that, in the face of the EEP and other such policies of other countries, Canada has still increased sales and market share. For example, according to the International Wheat Council, Canada has shown the largest increase in market share of all the major wheat exporters. The IWC reported earlier this year that the largest net increase among wheat exporters over the last seven years was recorded by Canada, whose share rose from 18.1 per cent to 23.9 per cent.
When it comes to the free trade agreement signed between Canada and the U.S. just recently, our two nations are showing to the world just how barriers to trade can be lowered, if not reduced entirely. When the two countries which are responsible for the largest flow of two-way trade in the world can work out a deal of this magnitude, think of the example we have provided and the impetus we have given to the other signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to accomplish the same thing on a multilateral basis.
The Americans have placed the EEP on the table at GATT. Other nations have placed similar trade distorting programs on the table, too. A consensus is forming that all nations must break down the barriers and adhere to fairer trading rules. Canada will not rest until such policies as the Export Enhancement Program are done away with.
IMMIGRATION-AMNESTY FOR REFUGEE CLAIMANTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION/STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CHAIRMAN-DESIGNATE OF REFUGEE BOARD


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) if a statement made by the chairman designate of the new immigration and refugee board in a national paper was true. That statement, as seen on the front page, was that the Government had every intention of granting amnesty to the 40,000 backlogged refugee cases already in Canada. The Minister's reply clearly pointed out that there is "absolutely no question of giving amnesty to anybody". It is my belief that we must be able to maintain control of our borders.
The reason I requested an opportunity to speak further is that the topic of abuse of our refugee policy has been a major issue in my riding of Fraser Valley East and in other areas of Canada throughout the year. Canadians are well known internationally for their humanitarian manner, but even our patience has been tried by obvious abuses of this quality.

November 19, 1987
Adjournment Debate
When the boatload of Sikhs landed in Nova Scotia late in July, I received several hundred phone calls and many petitions telling the Government to tighten our laws. When this article came out in the paper in October, the same people were asking themselves why the Government would tighten the laws while at the same time giving amnesty to all those already here. I have spoken to the Ministers responsible for immigration several times and knew that there could not be any truth to the allegations we were reading in the papers.
Bills C-55 and C-84 have been passed by this House. Bill C-55 was passed on October 21 and C-84 earlier, on September 14. These two pieces of legislation will guarantee that bogus refugees, or those people who try to make money from smuggling human cargo by offering passage to Canada, will be dealt with by law.
As I have already said, we want to make sure that we maintain control of our borders and do not just throw open the doors for every person claiming refugee status. Many of the supposed refugee claimants come to Canada strictly for economic reasons and should not be considered bona fide refugees. When they abuse the system, fewer genuine claimants can come here.
The Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) recently tabled the immigration levels for 1988. Government assisted refugees will be up 1,000 to 13,000 and this will target refugees from Latin America, up by 200; eastern Europe, up by 300; and West Asia/the Middle East, up by 900. As well, there is an estimate of 6,000 privately sponsored refugees but there is not a limit for this group and we encourage the voluntary sector to sponsor such refugees.
The Government has, I believe, been working very responsibly to get a handle on the entire scheme of immigration, but particularly on refugees. Earlier this year the media was reporting that we were granting amnesty to refugees. This was all so misleading because an administrative, case-by-case review of each of the backlog claims was being done.
Changes that have been made throughout the year by the Government, including introducing and passing Bills C-55 and C-84, have increased Canada's ability to help genuine refugees and will continue to help deter the abuses of our system. I urge the other House to get on with the passage of these two Bills.
It is unfortunate that statements such as that made by the chairman designate of the review board led Canadians to false assumptions, but as the Minister said in reply to my supplementary question, this board will be independent and is, therefore, entitled to make its own responses separate from the Government.
In closing, I would like to thank the Minister for his forthright reply to my question and to reiterate what he said on October 29 that "there is absolutely no question of giving amnesty to anybody". The Government is aware that we must be able to maintain the control at our borders.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand upon the reply of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) on October 29 of this year. I would like to commend the Member for Fraser Valley East for his interest in the subject of immigration.
The Minister has clearly stated that there will be no amnesty for refugee claimants caught up in the current backlog. I am pleased to hear from the Member tonight that he has expressed that position also.
The idea of periodic amnesty destroys the very concept of an orderly immigration program. We are not saying to the world's would-be migrants, including refugees, that Canada does not take its own law seriously. We are not saying to these people that if they reach these shores, they will automatically be accepted as residents after spending a year or so in a processing backlog. Quite the contrary, we are saying that order and fairness will be applied to all persons seeking admission to this country. We are saying that refugee claimants, and anyone else for that matter, will have their cases determined on their merits, and that there will be no advantage granted to any person who misrepresents their true intentions.
The Government's intentions have already been expressed in Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 which have recently been passed in this House. At the moment we are continuing to process the refugee claimants case-loads efficiently and effectively. By early October 1987, the Refugee Status Advisory Committee had dealt with nearly 6,700 claims and the Immigration Appeal Board had dealt with nearly 900 claimants. Efforts to improve productivity are ongoing and commission officials expect to increase the number of final refugee claim decisions.
Furthermore, Hon. Members should recall that Bill C-55 contained transitional provisions by which the remaining case load under the old process could be dealt with upon proclamation of the new law. There may continue to be speculation about the manner in which immigration matters should be resolved but the Government's intentions are already recorded in the two Bills which have passed this Parliament.
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE-ALLEGED INFILTRATION OF LABOUR UNIONS/ALLEGATION OF INTERFERENCE IN LEGAL PROSECUTION


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, on September 24 last I addressed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) concerning very serious allegations about the abuse of the sweeping powers of Canada's security service, CSIS. The allegations with respect to abuse of those powers which were granted by Parliament in 1984, following a very vigorous debate, are very serious indeed. There is clear evidence that CSIS in its fundamental inability to distinguish between subversion and dissent has in fact massively violated
November 19, 1987

the fundamental civil liberties and privacy of many, many Canadians.
Indeed, I have produced documentary evidence in this House demonstrating clearly that CSIS had penetrated, and infiltrated democratic organizations in Canada including the labour movement, the peace movement and legal political parties. Canadians remember all too well the litany of horrors of illegality and violations of civil liberties by the RCMP security service, particularly in the 1970s, as revealed by the Macdonald Commission, and the institutional contempt for the law which it displayed at that time. It was precisely because of that that Parliament decided to create a new civilian security service. At the time we in the New Democratic Party warned that the mandate of the new service was so sweeping, so dangerously broad, as to permit very grave abuses of the civil liberties of Canadians. The Conservative Party when it was in opposition in 1984, joined in those criticisms. I remember well at the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and in the House Conservative after Conservative standing and attacking the CSIS legislation as being far too broad and dangerous. They joined in my call for parliamentary oversight of the actions of CSIS.
But, Madam Speaker, things have changed. The Conservatives have now been the Government for three years. Even if, when in opposition, they vividly condemned the CSIS, since they came to power they did nothing to change this dangerous legislation, they did not instruct the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency not to target the union movement in Quebec for example. We know very well that the CSIS infiltrated the CSN as well as the CEQ. We know full well that a delator, an informer, Mr. Marc Boivin, encouraged other members of the CSN to commit illegal acts, violent acts against property.

We have seen the abuses. Yet, the Conservative Government stands idly by while CSIS attacks the fundamental civil liberties of Canadians, Canadians who are active in the peace movement and the labour movement. It attacks those who have chosen to join a political party which may not be popular and which may be small but which, nevertheless, is legal. Surely, the test of our commitment to civil liberties is our commitment not to harass, to intimidate and to infiltrate those small unpopular political parties, such as the Communist Party of Canada, le Parti communiste du Quebec, the Communist Party of Canada, Marxist-Leninist.
We have a security service which is out of control, which in itself constitutes a serious threat to the security of Canadians. I call upon the Minister to make public the report of the Osbaldeston committee which he has appointed. I call on the Minister to assure the House that CSIS will stop its targeting of legal dissent and stop its sweeping investigations of the Sikh
Adjournment Debate
community, tarring the name of a community which is by and large law-abiding and upstanding.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary in responding today will make a commitment to the House and to Canadians to a public report by the Osbaldeston committee to bring forward at a very early date amendments to the CSIS legislation to finally bringing under control a security agency which is clearly dangerously out of control.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, it has been alleged in the House and the media that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has infiltrated labour organizations. I want to assure the House that labour unions are not investigated by the service simply because they are labour unions.
Hon. Members should appreciate that organizations or individuals may be the subject of an investigation by the service only if they are suspected on reasonable grounds of being involved in activities constituting a threat to the security of Canada under Section 2 of the CSIS Act. Specifically, in this regard the service can investigate to the extent strictly necessary, and I quote:
Espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of this espionage or sabotage;
Foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and, are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person;
Activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state; and
Activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of Government in Canada.

Activities that constitute lawful advocacy, protest or dissent may not be investigated unless those activities are carried on in conjunction with the activities that I have mentioned.
Members should note that the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" does not include labour unions or the legitimate activities of the labour movement.
Members can be confident that any investigation initiated by CSIS has not only been examined to ensure that it falls within the mandate established by this House, but has been subject to careful scrutiny to determine the appropriate level of investigation that appears to be required.
Members should also note that there are a number of review mechanisms established by the CSIS Act which are external to the service. Within the ministry of the Solicitor General there is the Office of the Inspector General. Part of his responsibility is to monitor the compliance by the service with the Act, its operational policies, and to review the operational activities of the service. This is being done on a continuous basis and nothing in the way of information held by the service in

November 19, 1987
Adjournment Debate
relation to its duties and functions can be withheld from the Inspector General save confidences of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada.
At this point I would like to add that the Solicitor General has asked the Inspector General to look into the allegations relative to the labour unions. The Security Intelligence Review Committee has also requested that the Inspector General undertake a similar investigation on its behalf.
I am sure that Members are aware that the CSIS Act established an independent Security Intelligence Review Committee made up of Privy Councillors. Its responsibilities are to review the operational activities of CSIS, and to ensure that the service is carrying out its duties and functions according to law and in compliance with all directions issued by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher). It reports annually to Parliament.
Members should also note that the review committee has authority under Section 41 of the CSIS Act to investigate
complaints made by individuals with respect to any "act or thing done by the service". Therefore, union officials have a specific channel provided by the legislation to raise the types of concerns that have been raised recently.
In summary, I would like to remind the House that there are extensive safeguards in place under the Act to detect abuses of the type Members are concerned about and to ensure that they are brought to light. I would encourage Members to take confidence in these provisions and to let the Act work in the manner that it was intended.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Same Liberal hogwash.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, November 20, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers