1987-09-18

Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, as reported (without amendments) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House will know, this matter was sent to committee last week. The committee moved very expeditiously and reported the Bill yesterday without amendment. After discussions with the opposition Parties, it is our understanding that it would be possible to seek consent to have the Bill proceed today and send it over to the other place.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Hockin: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank all my colleagues on the legislative committee that studied this Bill for their willingness to deal so expeditiously with it. I thank them for their co-operation in moving it through the House so quickly. Because of this co-operation Canada will have ratified the convention creating MIGA, the political risk insurance organization, by October 11 and will therefore participate in the first meetings at which time the rules and regulations for the institution will be established.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) for probably one of the shortest ministerial speeches
on record. I beg the indulgence of the House if I do not quite follow his standard because I believe third reading of this Bill is an opportunity to comment and deal with issues arising out of the Act and the present state of the international financial system. I believe this House should spend a few minutes in contemplation and examination of where we stand as a country and where the system itself stands.
As some Members of the House will know, both I and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) returned yesterday from a quite extensive trip to Central America, Nicaragua in particular. We had an opportunity to view first hand a Third World country struggling with enormous economic problems, to say nothing of the war which is viciously exacerbating those problems. We saw the importance of the international economic system to a small country like that and how poorly the system is working for those countries at this time.
We had an opportunity to speak with the Minister of Economic Development who said that coffee, the major export commodity of that country, had suffered a price decline in the last several months. As a result, that country will be facing an additional shortfall of some $250 million in its current accounts. Such a drop in national income goes beyond the abstract statistics for a country of three million people with a GNP of $3 billion. It means that people there can no longer have the foreign exchange to buy replacement machinery parts for their tractors. It means that consumer goods such as toothpaste and shampoo which must be imported can no longer be afforded except with the use of American dollars.
In other words, the shortfalls in the system create the kinds of pressures in a country like that which not only result in major inconvenience in the daily lives of its people, but also eviscerate the economic capacity of that country.
It is not that there is a lack of effort, because the will and the expectation to rebuild the economy is foremost in everyone's mind. One cannot be anything but full of admiration for a poor country that is making every possible effort for land reform, to transfer land into the hands of the peasants of that country so they can, for the first time, have the responsibility to be independent and responsible for their self-sufficiency. But how can they do so when they do not have tractors or irrigation pumps?
First, there is an embargo by the U.S., which we implicitly accept, and second, the international economic system no longer affords them the ability to sell their commodities at a

September 18, 1987
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
fair rate in order to achieve the kind of economic revenue that is required to maintain a minimum of growth.
When considering this Bill, the purpose of which is to set up a new credit system, we must ask whether we are lecturing on navigation while the ship is going down. Are we tinkering with minor repairs to the system when the system itself has some very basic flaws?
It is time for a new Bretton Woods Agreement. It is time to rethink the agreement, rather than simply tinker around the margins of the system.
When the major countries of the world came together at Bretton Woods to sign a new economic agreement on trade and international finance in 1944, conditions were very different from what they are now. The United States not only had a generosity of spirit and a belief and commitment to multilateralism, the American dollar stood as the primary and unassailable world currency. Both those conditions have changed. Certainly, the attitude of the present U.S. administration does not reflect that same commitment to multilateralism and generosity of spirit. Rather, we see an attempt to play Rambo-like politics on the economic frontiers.
In addition, the United States no longer has the economic dominance it had 30 or 40 years ago. One need only look at their own situation. They have gone from being the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world, running the largest trade deficit of any country. The only way the United States is able to support that huge deficit is by borrowing from abroad, primarily from the Japanese who now hold some $55 billion of equity and holdings in the United States economy alone.
The obvious result is that there is no longer a world currency that can stabilize and facilitate the operation of the international economy. The dollar is subject to pressures and instabilities, as evidenced by the insecurity on the world stock markets. We are seeing a curious situation in which we are trying to evade the issue of incredible problems in Third World countries. We have been trying to manage these situations on a case-by-case basis, yet knowing that every major international bank, including Canadian banks, have outstanding debts. If a bank decided to pull a card from the deck representing these outstanding debts, the whole deck would fall.
Recently, major Canadian banks had to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars, which only represent approximately one-quarter of those outstanding debts. The debt problem is being managed in a way that is designed almost to put a Draconian discipline on the debtor nations, and to serve the banking interests more than to encourage economic growth in these countries.
These countries are in a Catch 22 situation. They cannot stimulate growth in their economies because of the restrictive measures imposed upon them. All their export earnings must go to servicing the debt, so there is nothing left to reinvest into those countries to stimulate further development.
At the same time, economic aid is being pulled back by the wealthy nations in the world and commodity prices are falling. One would have to refer to the Book of Job for a text on the international economic system, where it states: "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
This deluge of incredible problems requires a reorganization of the system by the major players in the world. They must recognize that the U.S. currency is no longer the foundation of the international system and certainly cannot be in the future. There must be a different arrangement on our exchange rates. We must find a better solution to the debt problem than the case-by-case approach which has been adopted thus far. We must find a way of dealing with the commodity problems in the world economy, recognizing that the so-called market system we have adopted has only resulted in driving prices down and creating more instability, of which we are partly victim, and from which there is no result. The longer we simply try to tinker with the system, the worse the problem will get.
This brings me to the matter of political management. I believe the problems of the world economy have far superseded the capacity to manage them. Once again, it is a case where economics is far ahead of politics. We have not yet combined our ideas and resources to find ways to manage the system. In fact, looking at recent events, we would have to conclude that we are going in reverse. We may be running the risk of falling back even further, with ruptures in the system and a retreat back into the era of the 1930s where we had country pitted against country and regional block against regional block.
I suppose what I regret most is that that is a reflection also of what seems to be happening in our own country. Clearly, the case we tried to make over the past two and one-half years is that the present Government of Canada has fallen into a basic fallacy, that is, that our economic interests could be best served through bilateral relationships. Most obvious, was the attempt to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States. Instead of using our efforts, energies and imagination to try to provide leadership in the international economic system, we were also part of that retreat into protectionism, into the North America fortress. We were pulling our commitments back and that was a tragedy because at the original Bretton Woods Agreement, our own country was one of the major advocates of a new international economic order. We were one of the architects of that system. We provided much of the intelligence and recommendations which helped build Bretton Woods at the outset.
It has been of great regret to my Party, and we have said this right from the beginning that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced that the economic priority of Canada was a free trade deal with the United States. We asked if this meant we were abandoning our multilateral commitment? Are we retreating from the international priority we once had? The answer, of course, is yes. The people who have won out in the
September 18, 1987

decision-making councils of Ottawa have been the bilateralists, the Simon Reismans and the Derek Burneys, the Brian Mulroneys and the others-and I use the name in a generic sense, Mr. Speaker, in referring to the Prime Minister-the North Americans, the continentalists who have dominated our economic thinking; not the internationalists not the multilater-alists, not those who saw in this country the opportunity and responsibility to try to reforge, remake, redefine and help reform the international economic system.
We have made a fundamental mistake. We have taken the wrong course and we have applied our energies in the wrong direction. As a result, we are now paying the price. We do not know what kind of strange combination arrangement will emerge on October 5, but we know now that the promises and expectations that were raised for that North American trade deal have been shot through with holes. It is not going to be the great economic cornucopia, and resolution to all the problems. It will not have a dispute settling mechanism. It is not going to provide for that open access. It is not going to provide for all those promises that were made. The fact is that we have allowed three years to go by and have won nothing as a result.
In the meantime, we have had to face a growing cloud and shadow in the international economic environment. We have abandoned many of our allies and friends. We have pulled back on our economic interests. One example is the trade performance of Canada last year. In every single region of the world, with the exception of the United States, our trade fell drastically, sometimes as much as 30 per cent and 40 per cent. At the same time, the Department of External Affairs was cutting back 30 per cent on our Export Development Fund, closing embassies, and consulates, and cutting back on export promotion everywhere except the United States of America. As a result, the dependency we have on that one country for our own trade was even more severe and extreme.
We have been abandoning our international commitments. We have gone asleep at the switch in terms of opening up new trade opportunities. The fastest growing economic region of the world has been in the Pacific Rim. The OECD country which has the lowest rate of trade in the Pacific Rim is our own country. We are making very little effort to try to recapture that area. The drops are severe.
At the same time, we have been facing, along with many Third World countries, major declines in the prices for our commodities. In certain respects we have a lot more in common with Malaysia, Latin America and Asia than we do with the United States, because our major exports are still earned through our commodities sales-our grain, forest products and minerals. Those are the commodities which have been suffering the ravages of an international economic system which is out of order.
Instead of applying ourselves and trying to come to grips with the need to get new commodity agreements, to provide stability of prices, to secure access to markets internationally,
Brelton Woods and Related Agreements Act
we have been spending all our time negotiating with the United States. Our eye has been on the wrong spiral. We have substantially missed the target. As a result, I think the world has lost a country which has in the past provided economic leadership in these matters, one which has reached out to establish a commitment and understanding and belief in international economic order.
Perhaps the primary missing ingredient is that voice in international councils trying to bring together a new meaning to a Bretton Woods type agreement. Obviously, it would be more complicated and more difficult than it was in 1944. Obviously, it is one that would have to include a much broader range of participants, with a much broader and more varied range of economic interests.
The world is not the oyster of the western hemisphere. We in the western hemisphere and Europe can no longer set the pace and dominate the world as we once could. There are many more increasingly influential economic players in the economic game, so of course the rules will have to be changed. The rules will not always be our own way. It is time we faced up to that reality. It is time we stopped hiding from that reality and began to apply ourselves in an effort to reorganize and reform the international system to meet that reality.
The Bill before us is acceptable. No one is arguing with it. There is some modest repair of the system. But it does not tackle the fact that presently there is an obvious and clear discrimination in the international banking system towards Third World countries, particularly if they are politically unacceptable to the United States. If the United States does not like the policies of a Third World country, it is not going to get loans from the International Development Bank. That is very clear. We cannot tolerate that. That is not the way an international rule of law should operate. It should not have ideological overtones. That is not the new international economic reality we must face. But we say nothing about that.
We know that the incredible weakness of the commodity markets is forcing many of those Third World countries into positions of utter desperation. Again, the voice of Canada has been stilled on that matter. We are not arguing, as we should be, in world council for effective commodity agreements. We buy once again a position from our ideological friend to the south, and everything has to be the open-market system. It is not working for us and it is not working for them. It is time we began to look at the need for forms of agreements which would provide that stability.
The international banking system is no longer dealing effectively with the debt problems of the Third World. We are simply putting off the accounting to a future date, perhaps for another generation. It is interesting when we talk about domestic orders, from time to time to hear Conservative Members of Parliament saying we have to control the debt here domestically because we do not want future generations to pay the bill.

September 18, 1987
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
Should we not raise the same question internationally? Should we not be asking the same type of questions with respect to how we propose to do that in the world market which, in many ways, has far more impact on us? Should we not also be asking what currency will make the world go round? What will be the medium of exchange if the U.S. dollar falls and falters as it has been for the last few years? It has been devalued by almost 20 per cent against the Japanese yen.
I suppose my regret is that those were not the kinds of issues or questions I heard or saw addressed by the Minister of State for Finance or by the Government in bringing this Bill before us.
1 pay my compliments to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade who is in the Chamber. Elis committee will study this issue in the fall. It is an important issue. I pay my compliments to the Chairman for giving leadership in this area. However, we now have a Bill before us on this matter. It is here in the House today at third reading stage. I thought that the opportunity to raise these matters would have been before us. As I say, I know the reason why it was not. 1 know the preoccupation and obsession that has so dominated the thinking of the Government in terms of the North American economic trade system. Its relationships only with the United States has pushed out consideration of all other matters. It has blinded us to the wider perspectives of those international responsibilities.
I hope that as we approach the denouement of that particular preoccupation and members of the Conservative caucus realize just what a tortured road they have been following and what kind of false expectations and hopes they have been creating we can get back to reality and get back to what I believe is the Canadian stewardship and task; that is to say, to provide leadership on the multilateral international economic front where we can do some good, where we can try to reorganize the rules as well as try to reformulate the Bretton Woods Agreements in trade and finance. We can try to use the capacity of our leadership to mobilize other countries to bring about that type of commitment to reform. I believe that is an honourable, useful and important calling for Canada. It is one that I hope we will soon adopt.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks on third reading of Bill C-68, which introduces changes to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act which will give Canada authority to participate in the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, or MIGA as it is known.
MIGA will be able to provide insurance for foreign investors in Third World countries against non-commercial risks. The annual report of the World Bank for 1986 states that there are four categories of non-commercial risk which will be covered in particular. They are: the transfer risk resulting from host
government restrictions on conversion and transfer; the risk of loss resulting from legislative or administrative action or omission of the host government which has the effect of depriving the investor of ownership, control, or substantial benefit from his investment; the risk resulting from the repudiation of a contract by the host government when the investor has no access to a competent forum, faces unreasonable delays in such a forum, or is unable to enforce a final judgment; and, finally, the risk of war and civil disturbances.
The establishment of MIGA is in general accord with the recommendations of the Brandt Commission on north-south relations. Certainly, there are advantages to seeing this type of an insurance scheme that we hope will promote increased investment in the Third World. That kind of investment flow is very important. On the face of it there are advantages both to developing and developed countries in this type of process. There are advantages to Canadian business in establishing MIGA.
MIGA has particular advantages in view of the problems that have developed in terms of loans to Third World countries over the last few years. These loans have crippled the economies of Third World countries. We have the debt crisis where countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Peru face astronomical debt servicing charges that no one expects they will be able to meet in any reasonable way. The countries of Africa, which have been crippled by famine and drought, have also been crippled by the debt loads that they have upon them. At the same time this debt structure threatens the stability of the financial system in the developed world because if some of these debtors default, that can cause a major problem with the banking systems of North America and Europe.
There are a great many advantages, on the face of it, to a system that instead of providing loans to Third World countries looks to equity investment. This means that developing countries would see only an out-flow of dollars when a venture had become profitable instead of payments having to be made whether the venture is profitable or not, as with a loan. From the point of view of the developed countries that we hope will be doing the investing, the investors would realize that a profit was required. They would invest only after they had looked twice. There would be a more realistic assessment of the risk, something that did not happen in the heady days of making some of the loans that took place in the late 1970s.
Equity investment can also create major long-term problems for the countries that receive the immediate stimulus of the investment. There can be the loss of control over key economic sectors, which is something that the present Conservative Government does not seem to recognize, or does not care about, when it comes to Canada's own economy. However, it is something that is of concern to several Third World countries. They find themselves between a rock and hard place. They know that on the one hand they need the in-flow of capital, while on the other they are very concerned that equity investment can result in a permanent loss of any control over their own economies.
September 18, 1987

This is the crux of the whole international economic situation. Are countries in the Third World going to have some control over their own economies or will those economies be managed out of New York, London, Tokyo and West Germany?
The major situation that we need to face in terms of the developing countries is that while there are increasing costs for inputs they face declining commodity prices. I would just like to quote from the World Bank annual report which discusses non-oil commodity prices:
The dollar price of nonoil commodity exports from the developing countries declined by about 10 percent in 1985.
A decline of 10 per cent in commodity prices for countries that are already poor means that these countries have to cut back their standard of living by at least 10 per cent and more when we consider that the inputs they require in terms of oil and machinery have all gone up in price. The report goes on:
This drop was caused both by slow demand growth since early 1985 in industrial countries and, in the case of grains, cotton, and oilseeds, by excess supply resulting from exceptionally bountiful crops or shifts in the price-support and export policies of major suppliers.
When prices drop for Third World countries they often respond by producing more. Our whole economic system is based on the fact that in order to compete people have to produce more. When everybody produces more it creates a glut in the market and, as a result, commodity prices fall further.
The report also stated:
Producing countries, in need of export earnings to finance imports and debt service, have given few signs of restraining production in the face of falling prices. The average dollar price of metals and minerals fell by 5 per cent and has declined by about 30 per cent since 1980.
Tin prices fell dramatically, and trading in tin was suspended at the London Metal Exchange in late October when the International Tin Council ran into financial difficulties and could no longer support the price of tin.
Food prices in dollar terms declined by an average of 12 per cent, after a 6 per cent increase in 1984. The price of beverages, however, picked up substantially during the fourth quarter of 1985, influenced strongly by the coffee boom, the result of a severe drought that is expected to reduce Brazil's 1986/87 coffee crop by between 30 per cent and 50 per cent.
Bad news in Brazil where there was a drought meant good news for coffee producers in other parts of the world. That was the only possibility of good news. Since then the price of coffee has gone down. The report further states:
The price of tea, however, declined to about half its 1984 level by the end of 1985, following large increases in production in tea producing countries. The prices of cereals and fats and oils dropped by 66 per cent and 24 per cent, respectively.
Imagine a drop of 24 per cent in the price of basic commodity exports. The report further states:
World cotton acreage increased by 11 per cent in 1984/85 in response to favourable prices the year before; world prices for cotton then fell 21 per cent in the 1984/85 season. Since then, however, the United States and China, both major cotton producers, have taken measures to reduce cotton production.
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
That report is from The World Bank, a conservative organization that is not given to making extravagant claims.
The drop in commodity prices and the effect on Third World countries is the primary problem that we face. While we pat ourselves on the back for passing this law which will make it easier for investors to move into Third World countries, we must ask if it would have made any difference if the inflow of funds in the late 1970s to Third World countries had been in the form of equity investment, as this law provides for and gives some assurance for, or if it had been in the form of loans, as happened.
When commodity prices drop and input prices increase, it does not matter what the situation is. The economies of those countries are in serious difficulty. Sooner or later we will have to confront that situation. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have an international trading structure that robs developing countries of a fair price for their commodities, and at the same time hope to have a stable investment and loan climate in those same countries.
I wish to turn to the analogy of the prairie farm in the late 1930s. My father lost a farm in Saskatchewan at that time. I do not think it would have mattered a great deal if he had had someone else who had invested and taken a share of the farm profits, rather than having a mortgage that he was unable to pay because of poor crops and prices. It would have meant that he was a sharecropper instead of a bankrupt farmer. I do not think there is a great deal of difference in the economic status of those two.
The Bretton Woods agreements were reached at the end of the Second World War in order to attempt to stabilize the international economic situation. It would be interesting to look at some of the expectations that we had at that time.
In July, 1943, Henry Morgenthau, the then Secretary of the Treasury in the United States, produced a preliminary draft outline of a proposal for an international stabilization fund of the United Associated Nations. At that time he stated that "monetary stabilization, commercial policy, the provision of long-term international credit, promotion of stability in the prices of primary products, and arrangements for relief and rehabilitation are problems that join at innumerable points", and that they had to be dealt with separately and then integrated.
He also stated that there were, "three inseparable monetary tasks: to prevent the disruption of foreign exchanges, to avoid the collapse of monetary systems, and to facilitate the restoration and balanced growth of international trade", which all required international action.
He pointed to the need to avoid the "repetition of exchange instability and monetary collapse that followed the last war", that is, the 1914-1918 war. He called for an international stabilization fund. He pointed out that while some people wished to have one agency look after all the different concerns, the United States wished to have separate agencies. He also

September 18, 1987
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
stated that for the fund to work needs co-operation "to reduce trade barriers and to terminate discriminatory practices that have in the past hampered the balanced growth of international trade. The nations of the world can be prosperous only if they are good neighbours in their economic as well as their political relations".
He also stated, "world prosperity like world peace is indivisible". We need to learn that lesson, yet we have a system where we are attempting to defend and develop a fortress-like mentality that allows some people in some nations of the world to exist in a degree of prosperity, and even in our own nation, there are huge gaps of poor people, while other nations live in total and absolute poverty with very little hope of getting out of the morass of debt and underdevelopment. As long as we have a system that perpetuates unjust commodity prices compared with high input costs, this situation will continue.
Like the previous speaker, I had a chance to visit Nicaragua last week with the Canadian Mission for Peace. One of the things that impressed me most, apart from the spirit of the people and their commitment to the revolution and the hope for peace, was the inflation. We had to carry a small bag of money in order to purchase lunch or supper.
That country is suffering from a United States embargo designed to cripple its economy, it is suffering a surrogate war with the United States paying the mercenary Contras to fight against and destroy development.
We visited a small co-operative in the hills of Nicaragua far from anywhere where a group of some 11 families were attempting to develop self-sufficiency and an economy where they could look after themselves. This was not a strategic economic unit in Nicaragua, except from the point of view that it was enabling those people to feed themselves. This place, where 11 families were living, was the target of a Contra attack, financed by the United States. The Contras came down in the middle of the night, attacked these people, destroyed their homes, burnt their tractors, and forced them to flee. Then those families returned and tried to rebuild.
This is the reality of what is happening in Nicaragua where the Government is trying to work with its people to develop a decent economy and where the United States is doing everything it can to destabilize that economy. The result is the kind of inflation about which I was speaking, inflation which is making it very difficult for that country to survive and for ordinary people to survive.
This is very germane to the topic which we are discussing. We hope that there will be increased investment in Third World countries, and we hope that it will result in improvements in the living standards of those countries. I emphasize that we must address the fundamental problems of peace and the fundamental problems of an unjust economic structure. Unless we are prepared to do that, the proposals for increased
investment and for providing insurance for that investment will not amount to very much.
While we support the proposal, we urge the Government to make its voice heard on the international scene and to speak out in favour of peace for countries like Nicaragua, which means no more funding for the Contras who are waging war on the people of Nicaragua. Also our country must speak out for a just economic policy which will provide fair commodity prices.
As well our country must realize the commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the last election, the commitment which was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) when he spoke before the United Nations in 1984, that is, to move toward .7 per cent of our Gross National Product being provided for official development assistance. That commitment was made in good faith before the United Nations, but they have done nothing but welsh and back away from it. Other nations are doing the same thing, but that does not make it any better for Canada to be doing it.
Developing nations need an infusion of development assistance to develop their own economies. I urge the Government not to pat itself on the back for providing this insurance system for private investment in Third World countries. 1 think that is important, but even more important is tackling the question of commodity prices and reducing the threat of war and military expenditures in Third World countries.


Mr. Heap:: Madam Speaker, I was very glad to hear both previous speakers on this subject, but 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) to explain further his concern about trading debt for equity, having Canadian, American, or other lending countries buy up local industries or utilities with the debt that the country owes us where those industries and utilities exist. I assume the reason it would be worth while acquiring that equity is that the owners of the money in our country would expect to make money; they do not expect to lose money.
Does the Hon. Member envisage that when those countries give up the equity in their factories, their railways, or whatever it may be in exchange for their foreign debt, it will mean that they have less income in the country, lower wages perhaps, and less dividend? Second, will it have any effect in reducing inflation? Third, will there still be more debt? Will it stop the debt process, or will the debt arise again? Finally, what will happen when there is no more equity to sell off?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I think this is an extremely important situation.
Given the very high debts of a number of countries, there is a process by which other people are purchasing those in exchange for equity. What we need to realize is that Third World countries are not poor countries when it comes to resources. Third World countries are often extremely rich in
September 18, 1987

resources. What they do not have is control over the development of their own resources and control over the prices for which those resources are being sold on the international market.
When some of the oil producing countries got control back in the 1970s and OPEC became a very powerful cartel, we saw how the price of oil immediately went up very significantly, which resulted in some very severe shocks to all parts of the world.
If developing countries had more control over their own resources, we would be in a completely different situation. However, when people purchase equity, they are really purchasing control over resources. We have seen it in Canada in the past where our resources ended up being in the hands of foreign multinationals. This means that we as a nation have not had the capacity or ability to mould our own economic future in the way we would have liked.
I think the purchase of loans for equity will result in less control and will result in a continuing outflow of money from Third World countries, because the people who are making the purchases are still looking to get a good return. There will be a continuing outflow of money and, in addition, there will be a loss of control.


Mr. Kindy:: Madam Speaker, I have just a short question for the Hon. Member. When the Hon. Member travelled to Nicaragua, did he visit the jails and the people who were incarcerated?
Why does he not talk about free elections in Nicaragua so that people can really choose the Government they deserve instead of having a dictatorship? Why does he not talk about Guatemala, a democratic country of which he should be supportive?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the people of Nicaragua have had a free election. They have not had a blood bath following their revolution.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Douglas Manly: I would advise more members of the Conservative caucus to visit Nicaragua and see for themselves.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 21.
[DOT] (U00)



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, 22 per cent of homeless Canadians are women-older women, single mothers, sick women. Before a national conference on accommodation for the homeless, National Action Committee on the Status of Women President Louise Dulude and Mrs. Claudette Godley, co-ordinator of Montreal's "Chez Doris" home for women, both stated that poverty is the main reason why women are homeless or living in substandard housing. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. McDougall) issued a press release full of pious wishes in which she concludes by expressing hope that the conference will go a long way towards improving housing conditions for women.
Mr. Speaker, knowing as we do that the Minister responsible for housing did not announce anything new at the conference, that the Minister responsible for the Status of Women paid lip service to the cause, and that this Government did not even bother to address the 600 demonstrators of the Front d'action populaire en reamenagement urbain who marched on Parliament Hill last Tuesday, we can only conclude that this Government simply does not have the political will to solve the homeless problem.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the people of Abitibi were shocked when they heard about the fatal accident which took the lives of three men working 2,000 feet underground on a drilling platform at Matagami's Norita Mine, a subsidiary of Noranda.
The victims are Marco Turcotte, a 22-year old married man, and two single men, Gilles Laplante and Henri Widz, aged 32 and 30 respectively. All three were Val-d'Or residents working for R.M. Limited, a drilling firm.
One third of the work had been completed when the accident occurred. The team had finished its shift and the platform was halfway up level 11-50 feet from ground level-when one of the walls of the hole collapsed above them, dragging them down their fatal fall.
The drilling company has been operating in Val-d'Or for six years and this is the first such accident.

September 18, 1987
5. Q. 21
As a former miner I can appreciate how these families feel and I offer them my condolences in their great hardshsip.



MULTICULTURALISM


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, in a Globe and Mail ad of September 17, Mr. Abbott, former director of the Canadian Immigration Service, downgrades those Canadians who are not Anglophones or Francophones of the professional class. Even though his poll contained many questions biased against immigrants, the multiculturalism answer nevertheless showed a clear majority of Canadians who want Canada to be made up of a diversity of people. In spite of that, Mr. Abbott and his wealthy friends want to shut out those coming from what he dismisses as the Third World.
By implication they ignore and insult Canada's Amerindians and Inuit whose land we continue to steal, they ignore and insult Canadians from China who put Canada's railway through the Rockies, Canadians from Japan who made the West Coast bloom till our Government imprisoned and robbed them, Canadians from northern, central and eastern Europe who ploughed and populated our Prairies, Canadians from Italy, Portugal, Greece and the Middle East who built and service our post-war cities, and Canadians from the Caribbean, Latin America and Asia who now do so many of our lowest paid jobs.
I call on the Government to repudiate this destructive action by a former director of the Canadian Immigration Service.



CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the new frontier of space is upon us all, and as we as a nation take a quantum leap into the future we must make sure that we land with our collective feet on terra firma.
The proposed Canadian Space Agency will play the vital role in co-ordinating, managing and administering all of Canada's efforts in this exciting new challenge. The location of this agency is, therefore, vital.
Close, continuous co-operative efforts with many federal Departments, foreign countries, such as the U.S.A., Japan, the Soviet Union and members of the European Space Agency, are essential. Immediate access to the critical mass of scientists, scientific knowledge and many of Canada's leading research organizations, such as the National Research Council, the
Department of Communications and many high technology firms, is essential.
My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), and myself agree that the logical, rational, neutral and least expensive option for Canada's Space Agency is within our National Capital Region.



ILLITERACY


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, recent studies show that one in five Canadians are illiterate. More than four million people cannot read or write well enough to function adequately in our society and one million more cannot read or write at all.
The problem of illiteracy spreads across all groups in society, regardless of age, economics or region. Some 60 per cent of the Canadian illiterate population are unemployed and are not looking for work. Most do not even qualify for government training programs because they have not accumulated enough years in school.
All Canadians can help solve the problem of illiteracy, but the federal Government has an especially critical role to play. The federal Government has the influence and resources necessary to begin a national war against illiteracy. The Government of Canada should begin by developing a national advertising campaign on illiteracy. Then the Government should follow it up with concrete, specific programs to assist those countless thousands of Canadians.



NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENCE COMMAND


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating the birthday of an organization, an organization dedicated to preserving peace and security for the people of the North American continent.
This year we observe the thirtieth anniversary of the inauguration of the North American Aerospace Defence Command. I am pleased that our Government's defence White Paper commits Canada to continuing our partnership in NORAD. Like any good partnership, NORAD is an experience in sharing, sharing the duties, sharing information, sharing the risks, and sharing the satisfaction of contributing to a strong and vigilant North America. NORAD is a successful, vibrant, binational commitment.
September 18, 1987

On this thirtieth anniversary I congratulate all those who have contributed to this success, to the future benefits to which we look forward, and to the way in which NORAD enhances our prospects for peace and security.



VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians have received four strong messages regarding hockey violence.
Yesterday the NHL, finally succumbing to public pressure, has moved to try to end bench-clearing brawls by instituting hefty fines and suspensions. Unfortunately, the NHL has not chosen to deal directly with individual fighting. Yesterday as well the federal Government's Commission on Fair Play unveiled its media campaign aimed at reducing violence in minor hockey through a series of shock-value ads that show it as repulsive. It is a good start, Mr. Speaker.
We also received bad news. In Estevan, Saskatchewan, this week a junior hockey player from North Dakota received a fractured vertebra during an exhibition game Wednesday night. There have been 107 spinal cord injuries in the past 13 years. Half of these hockey players have become paraplegics or quadriplegics.
Finally, Canada and the world saw that you can play hockey hard and Fight-free of violence and draw millions of viewers. The Canada Cup showed us that if hockey is good, fast, clean, and most of all competitive, we do not need the goons at any level to attract the crowds.
Let us continue the campaign to remove violence and injury from our ice rinks.

[DOT] (UIO)



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN FASHION

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, will the House of Commons become the proper setting for a fashion show? Until recently the very original socialist Members had always taken positions contrary to what is normal, and the way they used to dress had an eccentric touch. Opportunist as they are and ever prepared to shift with the winds-Aquilon or Zephir-they went to see their haidresser, their make-up artist, and their tailor.
Such is the new look of the socialists, Mr. Speaker. Henceforth they will hide their pins, their stickers, and their original colour.
In short, Mr. Speaker, they will now betray the dissident minority of society which they were trying to represent. Their new American advisor said so: You have to do this!
Anyone who refuses to toe the line will have to leave the front benches of this ever more chameleon-coloured Party.



THE HOMELESS


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, a good many newspaper articles recently drew our attention to the plight of homeless men and women who are denied access to temporary shelter. In a number of cases these are psychiatric patients who are not sick enough to be given a bed in an institution, but who are unable to live alone. In other cases they are individuals suffering from chronic alcoholism or drug abuse. In all cases, Mr. Speaker, they create a major problem: they are very likely to disturb other tranquility-seeking homeless people.
The Ottawa Citizen related the case of six women who were denied access to temporary shelter. Last week, 49-year-old Kenneth Ryan of Halifax, a vagrant well known to the police and suffering from particular problems, was killed.
This week, Mr. Speaker, in Montreal's Jeanne-Mance Park, a seriously injured older woman was found lying in a sleeping bag next to a suitcase containing all her personal belongings.
Can such destitute people be abandoned on the streets? I urge the Government to show leadership and provide community homes before winter for these homeless people who are suffering from problems which prevent them from using the same facilities as other homeless people.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the mining exploration depletion allowance is a critical component of the tax rules which make flow-through shares attractive to investors. On December 16 last, in considering Bill C-23, the NDP finance critic denounced the flow-through shares. He said:
I decided that where you have a measure which should fundamentally be
rethought, we should simply tell the Government to stop it, take the measure
away, start all over again and strike out the loophole.

September 18, 1987
Last night during finance hearings on tax reform and the specific proposal to phase out the mining exploration depletion allowance, the same NDP finance critic was heard to endorse flow-through shares, the same flow-through shares he asked the Government to strike out nine short months earlier.
Why this flip-flop? The NDP finance critic answered the question himself last night when he said that it had been brought to his attention that there are 25 or 30 ridings across northern Canada in which this is an important issue.
Let no one think members of the NDP are prepared to let principles stand in the way of political expediency. Just watch them change their policies as often as they change their clothes.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, following our visit to Nicaragua last week, the Mission for Peace is convinced that Canada can play a key role both in persuading the United States that a peaceful solution in that area is possible, and in reinforcing international momentum for peace.
Specifically, the mission recommends that Canada take a stronger, more clear position against any further funding of the Contras.
Second, it recommends that Canada should offer to participate directly in the verification process through multilateral channels, including the United Nations, and to provide financial resources to the process in addition to the offer of technical expertise.
Third, it recommends that Canada take the lead in forming a special emergency reconstruction fund as recommended by the Caracas, meeting and fourth, establish a diplomatic presence in Managua.
Fifth, it recommends that Canada increase bilateral aid to Nicaragua based on Nicaragua's proven ability to administer and effectively deliver aid and the urgent needs which exist in the country, and that Canada examine ways to improve export-import relationships in Central America.
Sixth, the committee recommended that Canada urge the United States to lift the trade embargo as a sign of good faith in the peace process, and examine ways of improving the means of transportation between Nicaragua and Canada.
Seventh, Canada should offer aid for transitional measures such as the reconciliation commissions and the resettlement and integration of those granted amnesty, and eighth, develop a comprehensive Central American policy. I urge the Government to follow these recommendations.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will now be offered two types of news services, one bulletin that deals with the truth and the other which should be called the "Tainted News Network". The "Tainted News Network", or TNN as it should be referred to henceforth, will report facts the way the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) likes them. That will probably save a lot of money considering he will not have to kick in his television set quite so often.
Here are a few examples of "Tainted" news coverage. The true version: The Prime Minister's ship is sinking fast. The TNN version: There was a slight drizzle on the deck of the SS Tory.
The true version: Minister forced to resign after wife obtains a $2 million interest-free loan. The TNN version: Minister takes sabbatical to study wife's creative financing skills.
True version: Prime Minister spends $350,000 of Tory funds to renovate house and build closet for Gucci shoes. TNN version: Prime Minister creates jobs, jobs, jobs for European shoe manufacturer.
The day after the next election the true version will be: Scandal-ridden Tory Government takes a beating at the polls. The TNN version will say: Inaccurate news coverage has led Canadians to believe that that there was a slight decrease in Tory popularity.
Claire Hoy's book will come out shortly as well. It will lambaste the Prime Minister for patronage and lifestyle-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.



INDUSTRY


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, almost two weeks have elapsed since a valid offer was presented for the purchase of Firestone Canada Inc. and almost 1,300 workers are waiting to hear whether that offer will be accepted. In light of the fact that Firestone has not given an indication one way or the other, what action has the federal Government taken to ensure that Firestone is operating in good faith?
I have suggested on numerous occasions that rather than have the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) send civil servants to Akron, Ohio, in order to get the message to Firestone that the company had better bargain in good faith and be prepared to do everything possible to save those 1,300 jobs, he should carry that message himself to
September 18, 1987

Akron, Ohio. It is not enough to leave 1,300 jobs up to civil servants. The Minister and the Government must show some leadership. I urge the Minister to book a flight to Akron this weekend to ensure that Firestone is bargaining in good faith in order to save those 1,300 Hamilton jobs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Sulphuric gas pollution in the United States is affecting our health and our economy, our lakes, our rivers and our forests, and our buildings and agriculture. Last April President Reagan made a statement in this Chamber which led the Prime Minister to conclude that there had been a tremendous breakthrough for Canada on acid rain.
Given those facts, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the Prime Minister wrongly led Canadians to believe that progress had taken place by saying that an agreement with the United States was a realistic possibility? Does he admit that, in substance, the bottom line is that no progress has been made on acid rain with the United States as indicated by the publication today of this study and scientific report by NAPAP?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, those accusations are absolutely false, but what is perhaps even more disquieting is that when we are faced again with a major challenge on the acid rain question, a question which is vital to the future of Canada, the official spokesman for the Official Opposition, instead of trying to join with the Government of Canada in pressing the case for alleviation of the acid rain problem, chooses to try to make petty, partisan points out of an issue that is too important for petty politics.
My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, who is unavoidably out of the House today because of a long-standing engagement with the Liberal Premier of Prince Edward Island, issued a strong press release and statement this morning. We are challenging on a scientific basis the scientific evidence put forward by NAPAP. We understand it is not the position of the President of the United States. We intend to carry Canada's case and to protect Canada's interest. I would invite the co-operation of other Hon. Members of the House.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I would join in supporting the Government if its policies on acid rain had been credible so far, but they have been just a sequence of public relation stunts and nothing more than that.
Oral Questions CANADIAN POSITION


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs seems to believe, the NAPAP report is a report that was paid for by the U.S. administration, not by the scientific community of the U.S. Therefore, it is a political report.
I must ask the Secretary of State why he and the Prime Minister have been silent for the past week since John Campbell, an assistant administrator in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, appeared before a U.S. congressional committee in opposition to an acid rain Bill that is being proposed there. What kind of attitude is that considering the promises made in this Chamber by President Reagan and the enthusiastic demonstrations of success the Prime Minister seemed to convey to the Canadian public? He made a big deal out of it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the highly partisan spokesman for the Official Opposition and I are in agreement on one thing-the NAPAP report is a political report, not a scientific report. It pretends to be a scientific report. We are challenging its scientific basis.
I should make clear how that report came to be. It was not mandated by the administration, it was the result of an act of Congress. It is not yet the position of the U.S. administration. We trust it will not become so. However, if we are to ensure that Canada's interest in fighting acid rain is advanced, we have to continue the fight vigorously and not walk away from the table as the Hon. Member did when he was Minister of the Environment.


Charles L. Caccia: We always laugh at these desperate attempts of the Progressive Conservative Party to rewrite history. The Minister should know that the NAPAP report was written by 12 federal agencies, four national laboratories, and four presidential appointees. If that is not a statement by the administration I do not know what it is.


PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED BY GOVERNMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I now have to raise with the Minister this sudden decision to spend money on a U.S. publicity campaign. In what is almost a deathbed repentance the Government decides in its fourth year to launch a publicity campaign on acid rain. Why did it not do it in its first year? As well, why not enlarge the budget to carry the campaign to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia where the Tory Governments have not yet signed the agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I hope historians, when they read Hansard, will take a careful look at that question because it began by accusing the Government of doing nothing but public relations on acid rain throughout our first three years, and

September 18, 1987
Oral Questions
ended by asking why we did not mount a public relations campaign earlier in our mandate rather than now. The Elon. Member is answered by his own absurdity. However, 1 am not interested in exchanging partisan remarks with him.
Tie talks about rewriting history. Unhappily, he has no history to rewrite. What we are trying to do is protect not the history of Canada but the future of Canada against a very real threat from acid rain.
A report was brought down in the U.S. which purports to have a scientific basis. We believe it is scientifically incomplete and wrong. We intend to challenge it and spend money doing so. We intend to be present in the U.S. challenging it. I invite the Elon. Member to lift himself above petty partisan politics and join us in trying to protect the future of Canada.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-BINDING DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. While we are on the topic of rewriting history, we have heard continuously from the Prime Minister and other members of the regime that the bottom line of any trade agreement with the U.S. will be a binding mechanism for settling trade disputes. This morning the Prime Minister, in one of his musing interviews, said it may not be the right interpretation that we would have a binding mechanism-that may not be the way it appears when it is put down on paper.
Is the Prime Minister shifting ground once again on what our demands are in the negotiations? Have we changed our position? Are we now saying we do not necessarily want a binding mechanism for trade disputes?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: No,
Mr. Speaker, we have not shifted ground. The only thing that has shifted is the view of the Opposition on free trade.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister may want to consult with her Prime Minister who seems to be shifting his ground quite substantially.


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Ontario, after being briefed by the trade negotiators, has clearly indicated that matters of government procurement are no longer part of the negotiation package accepted by the Americans. They are not even on the table. Given that, is what the Government is negotiating now really a sectoral trade arrangement? Has it abandoned the notion of a comprehensive free trade agreement? Have we now
once again shifted our ground from the expectations put forward to the Canadian people?


Pat Carney: No,
Mr. Speaker, we have not shifted and we are not confused. As far as Premier Peterson is concerned, he knows very well that the bulk of the new jobs created by the free trade agreement, estimated by the Economic Council at 40 per cent, would be in Ontario. It is in Ontario's interest to have a free trade agreement.


Lloyd Axworthy: But you do not have a comprehensive free trade agreement.


Pat Carney: It will be comprehensive.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, yes!


Pat Carney: It will not be sectoral. It will meet the needs of Canadians across the country.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have before me a letter of February 12, 1987, from the Prime Minister where he promised continuous and unbroken participation by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in the talks between Canada and France over the fishery dispute. What is the point of continuous and unbroken participation if the Government of Canada consistently ignores the position of the Government and people of Newfoundland and Labrador?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we do not consistently ignore the advice and representations of the Government and people and industry of Newfoundland. We have made arrangements, which I think are unparalleled in Canadian history, to involve the Government of Newfoundland, the fishermen of Newfoundland, and the industry of Newfoundland in the negotiations. They have been present for the last several months. They were in Paris for the negotiations which took place last weekend. The Premier of Newfoundland decided to withdraw, I hope temporarily, from those negotiations.
The Government of Canada has an obligation to proceed to try to establish an arrangement that will serve the interests of the fishing industry and the fishermen of Newfoundland, whatever the attitude of the Premier of Newfoundland regarding participation. I invite him back. The negotiations are going on and they would be better with his presence than with his absence.
September 18, 1987


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT HALT TALKS
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, how can these talks continue without the Government breaking its promise of continuous and full participation? Why does the Government not halt the talks, sit down with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and come up with an acceptable position before it goes back to the negotiations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the letter quoted was an undertaking by the Prime Minister of Canada to do everything we can to ensure continuous participation by the Government of Newfoundland and others concerned. We are doing everything we can. We have involved them fully in briefings prior to the negotiations. We took them with us to Paris. They are welcome to be with us at the negotiations which will continue later on in Ottawa. Our commitment to having Newfoundland involved is continuous.
I repeat: This is going to be a very important decision if we achieve a negotiated settlement. It is in the interests of the Government of Newfoundland to have its Premier there. We hope he will accept the outstanding invitation of the Government of Canada to continue to play his part. We hope he will not follow the NDP line which is always to walk away.


STATEMENT MADE BY MINISTER OF FISHERIES
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries said in this House on January 28 that:
Our commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is that any
price which is too high for Newfoundland and Labrador is too high for
Canada.
By its actions the Government has now taken the position that it knows what is best for Newfoundland and not the Government and people of Newfoundland. Is that not the highest form of unbelievable arrogance by the Government of this country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, neither the description of the facts nor the characterization is correct. For the first time in history, to my knowledge, in a negotiation of this kind, which is clearly within federal jurisdiction but which has an immediate and dramatic impact upon not just the Government of Newfoundland headed by Mr. Peckford but also the fishermen with their representatives, the fishing industry with their representatives, and other interests in Atlantic Canada, we have brought them in. We want to keep them in because we want this to be a negotiation that will serve the interests of all of Atlantic Canada and all of Canada. That is why we have taken this historic action of reaching out. For the time being, the Premier of Newfoundland, in answer to our reaching out, has walked out. We hope he will come back.
Oral Questions


INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE-FRENCH NOMINEE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of record that the Government wants the entire boundary dispute on the East Coast of Canada to go to a third party, the International Court of Justice in the Hague, as soon as possible. That is according to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why did Canada go along, without a murmur of protest, when this week in the United Nations France nominated its own chief negotiator in the Canada-France fishing talks to sit as a judge on this very same International Court of Justice? Is that not a little like inviting the hangman to sit on the jury?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, once again the answer, known to everyone interested in facts rather than rhetoric, is no, that is not at all the situation.
I am not sure, but perhaps the Hon. Member can tell us when he rises, why the Liberal Party, with its presumed interest in this question, did not lead on the question of the fishery in Newfoundland, as the walk-away New Democratic Party led on the question-


Mr. Murphy:: We just walk away in the polls.


Charles Joseph Clark: Excuse me, the walk-away violently NDP.
The answer with respect to the court is that Mr. Guillaume, if he is chosen to the court, will be prohibited by well known practices to sit on any case in which he has been in any way involved.


POOR FISH CATCH
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, Canada's new strategy is to negotiate with the French so they can fish for codfish even outside the disputed zone on the East Coast of Canada while the entire boundary dispute is sent to the International Court where the chief French negotiator sits as a judge. Boy, do we have the French on the ropes now!
Does the Minister not realize that the fishery this year is very poor and there is not enough for our own fishermen and their families, let alone negotiating the French fleet to enter our territory? How does he rationalize doing that, when his own Government has appointed a commission of inquiry that is investigating why the cod resource is so depleted on the east coast of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is a melange of accusation, as well as the assertion of a couple of rather unique Liberal Party principles. One is that any negotiation should be carried out here on the floor of the House of Commons, telegraphing

September 18, 1987
Oral Questions
everything we are doing to the people with whom we are negotiating, rather than carrying it out so that it might come to a successful conclusion within the negotiating concept.
The second idea is even more breathtaking. It is that nations should not make appointments to international judiciary bodies because some issue involving those nations might sometime arise before those bodies. The way most sensible people deal with that question is to say that a person nominated to the bench cannot judge on a question in which he was involved.
The Hon. Member is suggesting on behalf of the Liberal Party that in effect Canada should no longer make nominations to international judicial agencies because some case respecting Canada might come up. That is absurd.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Minister has now had an opportunity to review the transcripts of wiretap conversations which demonstrate clearly that CSIS was well aware of the presence in Canada of a Punjabi cabinet Minister several days ahead of time and yet took no action whatsoever to protect that Minister from possible attack.
Will the Minister now explain clearly to the House and the people of Canada why those who are responsible for this dangerous bungling which led to serious injury continue to work within CSIS?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the House yesterday, I think the actions of the Hon. Member in releasing transcripts was completely irresponsible and could very well affect the success of the ongoing investigation in this matter. I do not intend to do anything that is going to impede that investigation. I think it is important that it proceed.
We must remember that four of the nine people involved here have already been convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 20 years. I am not going to engage in debate on anything that might in any way impede the success of that investigation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister obviously refuses to accept his responsibility and answer the question.
[ Translation]


UNION INFILTRATION BY CSIS AGENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has admitted that Marc Boivin was a paid CSIS
agent with the CNTU in Quebec. Given the strong criticisms expressed by CNTU, QFL and CEQ officials concerning this dangerous infiltration of labour unions in Quebec, can the Minister assure the House that there is no source or agent of CSIS in Quebec unions or elsewhere, and especially that they never did act as agents provocateurs in the Quebec labour movement?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have already advised the House, first, CSIS does not target labour unions because they are labour unions. That is not within our mandate. Second, anyone who is a security threat to Canada has the right to be targeted. I have admitted to the House that Mr. Boivin was a source, because he admitted that in court.
Upon learning of this, I went to the Act and called upon the Inspector General, as he is available under the Act, to conduct an investigation into these activities of Boivin. In addition to that, I asked the Osbaldeston committee-you will see it quite clearly in their mandate-to look at this whole matter of targeting and the whole matter of recruiting sources, and the whole matter of defining more clearly the roles between counter-subversion and lawful dissent. I believe I am carrying out my duties as Solicitor General under the Act in a careful and prudent way.


DISARMAMENT
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of External Affairs. I think we all agree that the historic announcement this morning by President Reagan and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze on behalf of Secretary General Gorbachev on arms control, arms reduction, and nuclear testing is a significant turning point for our civilization.
Considering that Canada is upgrading its seismic verification capability in Yellowknife to world-class standards, coupled with our potential satellite capabilities, does the Minister see Canada playing a verification role in this vital arms reduction progress?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might respond to that question with three very brief observations.
The first is that the announcement from Washington today is accepted and welcomed by all of us in the House of Commons as a very important step forward, and I am sure that Members of the House of Commons would want to endorse and be associated with the congratulations that the Prime
September 18, 1987

Minister is conveying to both President Reagan and Secretary General Gorbachev.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Second, as the Hon. Member so astutely pointed out, one of the surprising and important developments is that there has been an agreement, after an eight-year hiatus, to resume discussions on nuclear testing. That brings directly to the fore the importance of verification in which Canada has some very real expertise. That expertise will be available fully if it can be put into service.
Finally, I know that Members of the House will want to be brought up to date as fully as possible with what in fact has been discussed and decided in Washington, and what the next steps might be. I have, consequently, spoken this morning to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to propose that, as a first step in ensuring that Parliament is fully informed, I would be prepared to make my senior officials available for a full in camera briefing relating to all of the information we have with regard to the nature of the agreement and subsequent steps. I think that briefing will occur on Tuesday morning.


DISASTERS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns Air-India 182. The Minister will know that various officials of the federal Government, and the federal Government, are being sued by Air-India for $120 million. Air-India alleges in its Statement of Claim that the destruction of its aircraft with the consequent loss of life was due to the negligence of the defendants some of whom were federal government officials.
In paragraph 30 of its Statement of Claim Air-India indicates: "In the months of May and June 1985, the existence of circumstances posing a threat to Air-India's operations was brought to the knowledge of all the defendants in the form of letters and verbal communications from the plaintiff'. Air-India is making a very serious allegation. It is suggesting that the federal Government is somehow negligent and responsible for the destruction of Air-India 182 because it prewarned the Government of Canada, or officials of the Government of Canada, by way of letters and verbal communications.
In view of the very serious allegations made in the Statement of Claim filed in the Supreme Court of Ontario and with the Federal Court of Canada, will the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, now initiate a full and
Oral Questions
complete judicial enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the destruction of Air-India 182?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has already said, this case is before the courts. There are very extensive civil litigation proceedings presently being carried on which go to the very heart of the defence of this Government. While the Hon. Member may have a different opinion from this Minister, it is our opinion, and that of the Department of Justice, that we cannot discuss the case because it is before the courts.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Mazankowski-


An Hon. Member:: Order.


James Francis Kelleher: -the then Minister of Transport, on June 25, 1985, said in the House as recorded in Hansard at page 6138:
-in this particular case Transport Canada was not apprised of any specific threat against Flight 182. Therefore, the basic normal Air-India precautions and surveillance that they conduct were conducted in their usual manner. I repeat that we did have the additional RCMP security officers deployed as requested.


REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION INQUIRY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as you know we have had a Royal Commission inquiry into the Hinton rail disaster, another into the Ocean Ranger disaster. We had a Royal Commission inquiry into the conduct of a Minister of the Crown. There were lawsuits launched in two of those situations. Those lawsuits did not preclude a Royal Commission inquiry.
1 would like to put the question again to the Deputy Prime Minister, as we in the Opposition have done for a great number of months now. In view of the tragic loss of life-329 people were murdered in the Air-India tragedy-in view of the allegations that there were advance warnings to the federal Government, and in view of the allegations that the federal Government may in fact have been in some way responsible, does the Deputy Prime Minister not believe it is time now to have a Royal Commission inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the destruction of Air-India 182, and to look also into the conduct of various federal Government officials and the conduct of various Ministers of the Crown at the time?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Solicitor General, I think, has outlined the position of the Government quite clearly. I would simply like to remind the Hon. Member that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board did in fact conduct a full investigation into this very horrible accident and perhaps the Hon. Member might want to revisit that report and look at its findings. I think he will find that the conclusions and findings very fairly comprehensive. Perhaps, upon reflection, the Hon. Member may very well consider that the report of the Canadian

September 18, 1987
Oral Questions
Aviation Safety Board was in fact a very full and comprehensive review.


ACID RAIN
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
What will the Government be doing, apart from buying American advertising, on the matter on acid rain? And what does the Government intend to do to convince the U.S. President of the need for a drastic reduction in acid-rain-causing emissions? What effective measures will he take to convince the President?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 very much appreciate the subject and the tone of the question!
We have already taken a major step because we have here in this House a statement from the President of the United States on the matter of acid rain. It is the first time we get such a position and we now have an obligation and a duty to make sure that the President and not a scientific group is speaking on behalf of the United States.
Secondly, the report that has just come out in the United States purports to be based on scientific evidence. Canadian scientists are absolutely not in agreement with the conclusions, and on a scientific basis we intend to question the findings of the American panel.
Of course there will be many other measures, and hopefully we can count on the co-operation of the Hon. Member and her party as well as other parties in this House, in order to be sure that Canada is protected against the threat of acid rain.


CANADIAN MESSAGE
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, while I welcome the statement as far as it goes, I would ask the Minister if he does not admit that perhaps the Canadian Government itself has been sending out a mixed message, for example, in accepting the joint envoys' report, which was a very complacent one? Of course, it has been getting a mixed message in reply from the American President. What is the Government going to do to ensure that we have a consistent message on acid rain getting out there, and that it gets right to the top?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have brought the message right to
the top on several occasions. We have done it more effectively and assiduously than it had ever been done before. We also have an undertaking, what we consider to be an undertaking, from the President of the United States himself. We believe it is the President who speaks for the United States, not some groups of scientists which might be put together as a result of an act of Congress.
That is not to say that we do not have a problem. We have a very major problem regarding the commitment of the United States to accept the scientific evidence and to get on with the fight against acid rain. We are going to continue to press them at the highest levels. I will raise it with Secretary Shultz. The Prime Minister will continue to raise it with President Reagan. The Minister of the Environment has already been in touch, after the so-called report which was issued the other day, with his counterpart in the United States. We look forward to extensive co-operation, Member of Parliament to Congressmen, Senator-if I may use that word-to Senator, to try to ensure that Canada's message is received as effectively and pervasively as possible.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 1987, the Prime Minister, with respect to the Canada-France negotiations, said in the House: "We hope that the ultimate negotiations will meet with the complete satisfaction of the Newfoundland fishermen whose interests we are deeply committed to protecting". The Minister of Fisheries said on January 28: "If in the process, the demands of France exceed that which Canadian fishermen and Atlantic Governments can support, there will be no agreement".
The last time I checked, Newfoundland was an Atlantic Province, her Government an Atlantic Government. It has said no to the position put forward by Canada in Paris last weekend. In light of the commitments of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries, stated fully and openly in this House, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs how the Government can continue with negotiations as scheduled in October when the Canadian negotiating team, that is, the federal Government and all of the Atlantic Provinces, have not reached a consensus on a Canadian position to be put before the French in the October negotiations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite helpful that the Hon. Member has read into the record those statements made by my Prime Minister and by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries. They do represent the position of the Government of Canada. They are the reason why we broke all precedent and went ahead and established for the first time, I believe, in history,
September 18, 1987

this kind of full participation in an international negotiation that rests technically and legally within the domain of the Government of Canada.
Newfoundland has been present, up until Saturday night when, on instructions from its Premier, its representative left a portion of the discussions. We regret that decision. We hope that Newfoundland will come back.
Newfoundland has been kept fully advised of what the Canadian position was going to be.


Brian Vincent Tobin: For how long?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member asks me for how long. I would have to verify for how long, but certainly, to speak of the events that have given rise to recent developments, certainly since the counsel, Mr. Fortier, carried out his consultations preparatory to the negotiations in France.
We have been trying to bring the provinces in. We brought the industry in. We brought the fishermen in. We brought them into a matter, into a negotiation which, strictly speaking, is our business. We know it is too important to hide behind jurisdictions. We want to have the best possible solution for all Canadians. We hope that the Government of Newfoundland will want the best possible solution, too. It can guarantee that much more by being present than it can by walking away.


CANADIAN POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that, strictly speaking, these negotiations are the business of every Atlantic Government and the business of every fisherman who makes his living from the sea in the Atlantic and not just the business of the Government of Canada.


Mrs. Mailly:: He just finished saying that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I remind the Secretary of State that the Government entered into a process in which it committed itself to the principle that, if a position was put and a demand was made by France that exceeded the agreement of the provinces and if any province disagreed with the demand put and the negotiating position of the federal Government, no deal would be made.
Is the Secretary of State telling us that the Government of Canada, having done a mea culpa and having given an apology in the House of Commons last January for its early behind-the-back-door agreement, has now changed its position and is prepared to make a treaty with France notwithstanding the views of Newfoundland or any other Atlantic province? Is he telling us that there has been a change on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have two comments, if I might. The
Oral Questions
first is that the Hon. Member quite properly drew attention to the fact that there is a brand new process here. We are not hiding behind jurisdiction. It is a process that was not in place under Liberal Governments. When Liberal Governments negotiated they shut everybody out. We are not shutting people out because that results in bad agreements. We have plenty of proof of that. We are trying to get a good agreement that will last, which is why we have brought the Government of Newfoundland, the industry of Newfoundland, and the fishermen of Newfoundland into the process.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is the new process still in place, yes or no?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member asks whether or not a position has changed. Our position has not changed. The position of the Government of Newfoundland has changed for the moment in that the Premier has decided to absent himself from these discussions. We hope he comes back.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday I asked the Minister a question in which I referred to the Canada Labour Relations Board decision against Canada Post. On Wednesday I revealed the preliminary findings of the Post Office with regard to how workers felt intimidated in the letter carriers' dispute. I indicated to the Minister earlier this morning that I had talked with female workers who felt that they were threatened with dismissal unless they carried on the work that was normally done by the letter carriers.
Prior to any future Canada Post strike will the Minister ensure that his officials issue a clear statement explaining that workers do have a right to refuse work, as is the case under the Canada Labour Code?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday and as I indicated to my colleague this morning, I am looking into the situation and will get back to him next week.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill on a short supplemental.


OBSERVANCE OF CODE BY CANADA POST CORPORATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister assure us that he will live up to Section 184 of the Canada Labour Code and ensure that those provisions of the Code which have been reaffirmed by a Canada Labour Board decision this week that grant the individual the right to refuse to do struck work will be upheld and that he, as the Minister of Labour, will ensure that Canada Post lives up to the law?

September 18, 1987
Oral Questions


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think that everybody, all parties and every Canadian, have to live up to the law, in particular those concerned with Section 184 of the Code.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capiiano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On September 1 of this year 1 asked the Minister whether he would consider imposing a visa requirement on Honduras considering the increasing number of Hondurans coming to Canada; particularly to Vancouver, claiming refugee status. It has become clear over the past two weeks that some of those Hondurans have been counselled by travel agents in Honduras to use the refugee system to claim entry to Canada rather than the regular immigration system. Indeed, they have been given false expectations about what would happen when they come to Canada.
Two weeks have passed. Can the Minister advise the House if he is prepared to proceed with imposing a visa requirement on Honduras, first to protect Hondurans from being taken advantage of and, most important, to ensure that our refugee system in Canada is not compromised or unduly burdened?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago we told the Hon. Member that we will consider the case of some countries from which we face problems in terms of refugee claimants. We have considered two particular cases in this regard, Honduras and Bolivia. Over the last nine months we have received 1,000 migrants from Honduras claiming refugee status and 300 from Bolivia. Accordingly, we decided as of midnight last night that visa requirements will be imposed on Honduras and Bolivia.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PARLIAMENTARY NEWSSERVICE-POLITICAL BROADCAST REGULATIONS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications or to the person designated to answer in her absence. It concerns the so-called Parliamentary News Service which should be called more appropriately the "Tory News Network" or TNN for "Tainted News Network".
As the Minister knows, in a few weeks from now the CRTC will invite public comment on the development of a proposed new policy on political broadcasting in Canada. Given the emergence of this new satellite service being undertaken by the Progressive Conservative Party, will the Minister ask the CRTC to extend its review of political broadcast regulations to include periods between elections and not just political campaigns? It is quite obvious that we need new regulations because of this type of abuse.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, considering that my hon. colleague, the Minister of Communications, is away on government business today, I will take notice of the question. I am sure that she will get back to the Hon. Member as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a short supplemental. [Translation]


HOLDING OF INQUIRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State or, in his absence, to the Deputy Prime Minister, and deals with the TNM, the Tory or Tainted News Network.
The National Trademark and True Labelling Act prohibits the use of words or symbols aimed at misleading the public into believing that a service is under the patronage or control of the Government.
Is the Minister prepared to launch an inquiry to determine whether this Tory service violates the law by calling itself a Parliamentary news service?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to figure out why the Hon. Member is so upset about a new information service. I have to tell him that we certainly appreciate and thank him for highlighting this new service. It is receiving a great deal of attention.
What we are really looking at is that individual Members of Parliament and, indeed, political Parties in Canada, as a matter of routine issue press releases literally on a daily basis. The Hon. Member talks about confusion. I have just read through a few Liberal and NDP press releases and I have not seen so much confusion in many a year. The fact of the matter is that the Hon. Member should get with it. We now live in an electronic age. This is really an electronic form of a news release. If the Hon. Member wants to sit down with members of our Party perhaps we can update his Party's communications program and advance it into the new electronic age.
September 18, 1987


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and it concerns Damir Durekovic, who was originally from Yugoslavia. He was a real political refugee who came to Canada in 1984. Tragically, his body was found last week in Calgary.
I wish to quote from his refugee examination hearing held on June 28, 1984: "The basis of his application was that he feared for his life as his father, also a refugee in West Germany, was murdered in July, 1983. Mr. Durekovic claimed that the murder was politically motivated due to the fact that his father had authored five books which were critical of the Yugoslav regime". The Croation community in Canada is very upset.
I wish to ask the Solicitor General if he will order a full and complete investigation into this tragic death.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member was good enough to bring this to my attention by way of a letter, part of which he has quoted today. I was glad to be able to assist him in some small way. I asked my officials to look into this matter immediately and see what was happening.
I have now been advised by my officials that the Calgary police force are conducting an investigation, that it is a continuing investigation, and at this time it is under the purview and jurisdiction of the Solicitor General of Alberta.
If the Hon. Member has further facts to give me which may not be known to them, I will be happy to receive those facts and pass them on to the appropriate authorities.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He will know that last winter Agriculture Canada allotted $30 million to aid tobacco producers in the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island, in order that they could exit the industry or switch to alternate crops.
I wish to ask the Minister why the arrangement that was negotiated with the Government of Prince Edward Island which changed its targets is more flexible than that drawn up with Ontario where the rules and bureaucracy have added to the tobacco growers' frustrations instead of helping them to address the surplus problem.
Oral Questions


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: I appreciate the question of the Hon. Member. He must realize that in the tobacco reduction program, like many other areas, the Government has had to break new ground.
We sat down with the various provinces and the producer groups within each province and signed specific agreements that were unique and peculiar to situations.
The agreement with Ontario requires revision. The take-up is not as high as I would like it to be. Last week I met with representatives of the tobacco marketing board. I have requested that my provincial counterpart meet with the tobacco board, possibly as early as next week, for the purpose of reviewing the progress to date with the thought of relaxing the requirements in order that there can be a greater take-up in the Ontario program.


REQUEST FOR THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION TO ESTABLISH FAIR COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Since the passage of time indicates that the Minister and his Government have decided to ignore the report of the tobacco subcommittee to the Standing Committee on Agriculture filed some four months ago, is the Minister still considering the requests made by the local governments in the various tobacco counties of southern Ontario for third party intervention with power to establish a fair compensation program to resolve the dispute between producers and the various governments as to what is a fair and equitable payment program, or has the Minister also rejected that suggestion?


John Wise: The Government has not rejected any recommendations from Members of Parliament, or recommendations from producers or marketing boards, regardless of what commodity they represent. The record will show that we have been extremely responsive.
The tobacco reduction program is a very responsible program. I believe it is a responsible action on our part that, as early as next week, we plan to sit down with the provincial Governments that are partners, and, of course, the third and most important partner, the producers themselves, and the marketing board, with the thought of revising the criteria in order that the take-up will be more sufficient.


Mr. Speaker:: The last question will be from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


INDUSTRY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion I wish to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister.

September 18, 1987
Tabling of Documents
Given the fact that 1,300 jobs are at stake in the riding of Hamilton East, and the fact that it has been almost two weeks since a bona fide offer was placed on the table for the purchase of Firestone Canada Inc., I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action the Prime Minister, the Minister involved, or the Deputy Prime Minister has taken to discuss directly with the president of Firestone in the United States in Akron, Ohio, how important it is that a deal be consummated in the Firestone situation? Has he simply left the question to be dealt with by civil servants because, in Parliament, Hamilton East does not count? Perhaps the Conservatives have written it off because in the last provincial election they were barely ahead of the Communists.
Why are the Minister and his Government not doing something to save those 1,300 jobs? Has he written off the people of Hamilton?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking what steps have been taken by the Government. She is well aware that under the direction of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, some Departmental Officials are working with the company involved to bring the whole thing to a conclusion. The Hon. Member will certainly recognize that this is a private sector transaction and that all the Government can do and does indeed is to reply to the requests of interested parties. As in the case of all private sector transactions, its particulars cannot be discussed in public.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and I are pleased to table in both official languages the Government's response to the report tabled by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade on Canada's Official Development Assistance policies and programs.


PETITIONS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the City of Toronto who object to Bill C-55. The petitioners feel that it will have the effect of preventing refugees from reaching our borders, or if they reach our borders, they will be turned away without their claim being properly heard.
They also object to the concept of a safe country which has no foundation in law. They point out that a better system was proposed nearly two years ago by the standing committee of Parliament.
Therefore, they pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament will withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute the sort of legislation for which the standing committee asked two years ago, and in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is both an honour and a privilege for me to present a petition signed by 200 residents of my Glengarry-Prescott-Russell riding who are strongly urging the Federal Government and this Parliament to make sure that the CN Rail service between Ottawa and Montreal, and also between Ottawa and Sudbury continue to operate and does not disappear as provided in an internal document of CN Rail.
Wherefore the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to persuade the Government to take the necessary steps.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by a number of Canadian citizens from St. John's, Newfoundland and Vancouver and Surrey, British Columbia. They humbly petition the House to show that Bill C-55 will result in many, and perhaps most, refugees who reach our borders being turned away without having their claim heard on the merits of their case.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every
September 18, 1987

applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition signed by residents of Brantford (Ontario), Lethbridge (Alberta), Lindsay (Ontario), Aylmer (Quebec) and Ottawa.
The petitioners are asking for changes to be made to the highway safety regulation. They believe that rear seatbelts are now inadequate and that the sufferings of highway collision victims could be greatly reduced or avoided. They believe also that the costs of medical care could be also reduced and eliminated.
For these reasons and many others, Mr. Speaker, they are asking Parliament to agree to make compulsory the installation of three-point adjustable safety belts for rear seat passengers, and also the installation of inflatable bags at the front of cars.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a second petition signed by residents of the City of Victoria, British Columbia. The petitioners believe that delay in introducing new programs for funding co-operative housing projects and the Government's half-hearted support of its programs have meant increased hardship for those Canadians who have to resort to sleeping in tents and on park benches.
For these reasons and many more, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to increase assistance immediately for emergency shelter and co-operative housing.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Canada from Ottawa to Vancouver. The petition asks Parliament to consider the effects of Bill C-55 and expresses concern about the refugee status determination process.
It states that while the standing committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer, the current legislation, Bill C-55, be withdrawn and new legislation be considered.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to written notice under the provisions of Standing Order 29, to move that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public concern, that being the Canada-France fisheries negotiations.
Given the fact that these negotiations are now continuing and the federal Government appears to have every intention of concluding an agreement without Newfoundland's involvement, and given that such an agreement would not be placed before the House for debate, I believe that an emergency debate is required now to permit Members of Parliament an opportunity to persuade the Government to reconsider its decision to continue these talks with France.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair received notice of the application of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) who has raised a matter which is of very great concern to him, to other Hon. Members from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to all Canadians.
The House will remember that some time ago there was an emergency debate on this issue. The Hon. Member of course would urge that there has been a recent event, as a consequence of which certain persons representing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador apparently are not, at least for the moment, with the Canadian negotiating team. The Hon. Member is concerned about that, as I am sure are all Hon. Members, and has urged upon the Chair that the House be adjourned to debate this matter on an urgent basis this afternoon.
I want to assure the Hon. Member for St. John's East that the Chair has given it very careful consideration. I feel that under the circumstances perhaps it is not necessary to go ahead with an emergency debate this afternoon.
However, I want the Hon. Member to know that the entire issue is taken seriously by the Chair, as I know it is by other Hon. Members.

September 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: It is my obligation to make a ruling in the House in respect of amendments to Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
I think I should begin by pointing out to the House and to the listening and watching public that there are 77 motions on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-55. I have examined these motions and will allow debate to proceed on the motions which are acceptable at this time.
I want Hon. Members to know that the majority of these amendments were received late yesterday, and I want to congratulate the staff of the Journals and the Public Bills Offices for the long hours they put in in preparing the motions and the material to brief me this morning. I know that some of our officials were working until 5 a.m. this day in order to give me the briefing I need so that the convenience of all Hon. Members is properly met.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be debated and voted on separately-
Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are attempts to amend Clause 14 of the Bill. They will be grouped together for debate, with a vote on Motion No. 13 first. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 obviates the necessity for a vote on the remainder of the group. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 13 requires separate votes on Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14.
Motions Nos. 15, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35 and 36 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately. All of these motions deal with the concept of a credible basis for refugee claims.
Motions Nos. 18 and 21 will be debated together with an affirmative vote on Motion No. 18 obviating the question being put on Motion No. 21. A negative vote on Motion No. 18 will require the question to be put on Motion No. 21. Motions Nos. 27, 29 and 34 will be debated together but voted upon separately.
I want to advise Hon. Members that the Chair will return to the House with a more definitive ruling as soon as possible.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking to your ruling, but I just want to make a point and indicate a position in the event that I may not be in the House when it comes up.
It is my understanding that there are amendments on the Order Paper presented by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) who is unavoidably detained today. There has been a request from the Official Opposition that the amendments in his name be moved by another Member. We have considered this matter; we have considered it in the light of Standing Order 114(10) which points out that report stage is there to provide Members who are not Members of the committee with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose. It also goes on to say that it is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage of the Bill.
I point out that the amendments that are on the Order Paper were tabled in committee, but only one was moved by the Hon. Member at clause by clause stage. I impute no motives in this but the Government is content to have these motions moved by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), I believe.
I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 114(10) which in part reads:
NOTE: The Speaker will not normally select for consideration by the
House any motion previously ruled out of order in committee and will
normally only select. motions which were not or could not be presented in
committee.
I make that point and indicate in the spirit of having debate on the amendments that-we are naturally prepared to have any amendments which the Chair finds to hp in order moved by the Hon. Member ipr Davenport rather thap the Hon. Member for York West.
I do ask the Chair to consider the spirit of parliamentary reform, the spirit of the legislative committee, the spirit of the discussion, of the hearing of witnesses and the clause by clause consideration in committee where the whole purpose of clause by clause discussion is to have ample time to discuss it, and ease the work of this House, since we do have several committees sitting at one time, by placing amendments at committee and endeavouring to have them either talked out, passed or not. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider that in your ruling.
I indicate formally that the Government is prepared to allow those amendments that you find to be in order standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for York West moved by the Hon. Member for Davenport.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Hawkes) on the same point of order?


Mr. Hawkes:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is a follow-up in the same vein. Seldom have I been on a legislative committee that spent so many hours hearing public testimony or that made so many amendments to a Bill. I think it speaks to the complexity of this Bill. We also chose in that committee to group items, I think in a way similar to the way you have grouped them for us today, but we took things out of sequence.

September 18, 1987

I would like to bring to your attention that at about five o'clock on Friday, September 11, we negatived two amendments in committee known as N-4-17 and N-4-27. I think you will find that they are identical to Motion No. 2 which is before us this afternoon. Perhaps you would like to have a little more time to examine the record and those two particular amendments, Mr. Speaker, and that it might be wiser for us to begin the debate this afternoon on Motion No. 3.
I would also suggest that throughout the course of dealing with the 77 amendments, from time to time some input from Members of the House who were actually in committee could be helpful in organizing ourselves as we proceed.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the fact that in the same session of Parliament, Parliament should not pronounce upon the same issues. My distinct impression is that many of the issues dealt with in Bill C-84 are being dealt with in Bill C-55. Is my understanding of that situation correct? Should we be pronouncing upon a number of issues which appear to many people to have been touched upon in an earlier Bill passed in the same session of Parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Two points of order have been raised in the last few minutes, one by the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), and one by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). As I indicated to the House, the ruling that I have made is the first ruling; I will be returning to the House as soon as possible with respect to the remainder of the matters that must be decided.
It would be possible to go ahead at this time with Motion No. 3, while perhaps I have some time to consider the matter raised with respect to Motion No. 2. That might be the easiest way to approach things. If that met with the approval of the House I would suggest that that is how we proceed for now.
The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has a point of order. I have not been ignoring him. I now have a chance to recognize him and give him the floor.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my point relates to what was said by the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), and the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Hawkes) about the work done in committee.
First, I wish very sincerely to congratulate the staff of Journals, the Clerks and the Speaker on their hard and speedy work. I wish to thank the staff of Journals and the Clerks for their assistance in recent days and weeks. Their work has been vital.
I wish to comment on the point which the Minister rightly raised, that our plan is to give people ample time, as the Minister puts it, in committee to consider all these matters. Well, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't ample time. I wish to draw the attention of the Speaker and the Members to a problem, in that cases like this may warrant some administrative action or possibly a reconsideration of some parts of our rules of order, particularly the one that provides that debate on the report
Immigration Act, 1976
shall begin within 48 hours of it being tabled. If it does not require it, it seems to provide for that. Although that measure was relaxed for a day this time, the situation this week has brought to a head rather extraordinary circumstances.
The committee's work was extraordinarily heavy. It worked for 55 hours in six days and dealt with 30 groups of witnesses, sometimes as many as four in a group, and as many as 10 witnesses in one day. Then for three days it did the clause-byclause work on all the clauses in a Bill that is 62 pages long. The report of the committee was also fairly lengthy.
A few interim copies of the Bill as amended were available on Wednesday. The regular copies of the amended Bill were not available until after 10 a.m. Thursday. That was when debate would supposedly have begun. There were differences in line and page numbering between the interim and regular copies of the Bill which caused a good many extra hours of work in my office and I believe also in the Clerk's and Journals offices as well.
The fact is that this Bill was unusually long, unusually complex and unusually controversial. It required many carefully worked out amendments, not all of which could have been put in committee, even if there had been more time, because some amendments are consequent upon other amendments moved by other Parties in the committee. Even the Government, I believe, with all its extra staff, needed this extra day.
I am grateful for the extra day that was allowed but I would draw the attention of the House to this problem which does not occur with a Bill that has only two or three clauses or is only two or three pages long, but can occur in a case like this. I think these cases are not provided for well enough by the rules, and I would hope that it may be possible to speed up the production of the Bill as amended by committee or that the Standing Orders may give a wider discretion to allow for more time between the depositing of the report and the beginning of the debate. There has not been ample time and I regret that very much. When a very controversial, large and complex Bill is to be debated in future, I hope more time will be given both in committee and between the committee finishing and the report being debated.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) who has been ably watching this Bill go through committee, I would also like to express our appreciation for what has been done by the staff and by everyone involved. I would suggestion that Motion No. 2, which happens to have been proposed by the Chairman of the committee, is one that ought to stand on its own merits and ought to be debated at report stage. It is a complex motion and it deserves to be dealt with by way of normal proceedings, as other motions will be debated, motions which are already printed along with Motion No. 2 on the notice paper.

September 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
As far as we are concerned, we could start by debating Motion No. 3 as you have already ruled and we are prepared to do so.


Mr. Jourdenais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 see that there is some disagreement to start the debate with Motion No. 2.
This motion stands in my name. In passing, I would like to thank the Journals Branch staff for spending last night, until five in the morning, preparing these 77 amendment motions. A lot of these motions arrived late yesterday, at five or six o'clock.
One thing that I would like to point out to my collegues in this House is that I have had no opportunity to speak on Bill C-55. I have been democratically elected to represent my constituents, and I believe that I should be allowed to explain why I have introduced certain amendments. 1 believe that this is my right and privilege. All of the amendments which I introduced are for the good of Bill C-55, the good of the Canadian people and the good of my constituency.


Mr. Speaker:: l want to thank Hon. Members for their consideration while 1 consider the matters raised by the various points of order including the comments about Motion No. 2. I might indicate to the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) that the Chair of course will carefully consider his intervention and his remarks. In the meantime, 1 take it that it is the disposition of the House to accept my suggestion that we proceed with debate on Motion No. 3.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 9
(a)	by striking out lines 46 and 47 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"two weeks after the making of the order; or"
(b)	by striking out line 2 at page 8 and substituting the following therefore: "required to leave Canada, and in any case not less than two weeks after the
notice is received."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with one of the many little points in this Bill which make it not so much a means of admitting refugees as a means of keeping people out of Canada, some of whom may be refugees. It is a complex system that has been constructed. It reflects the work of some public servants over a period of half a dozen years and the earnest desire of some senior public servants in the Immigration Department.
Clause 9 concerns one of limitations to be placed upon a person who has arrived in Canada and is claiming refugee status. The clause provides that while a person is to have legal representation, he is limited in getting it. He can have a lawyer but only within some limitations. The preferred system is that he have a lawyer who is paid by the Minister.
I think the Supreme Court would look in a rather strange way at having a person who is in a contest with the Minister, a
person who has been told that he has no right to be in Canada unless he can prove that he is a refugee, prove that he met the safe-country test, prove that he met the credibility test and go on to prove his claim, if he is lucky enough to get that far doing so with the help of a lawyer hired by the Minister in charge of putting him out of the country if he cannot prove it. That is not a very equal system. It is not a very good introduction for a person who, like many refugee claimants, might some day become a very fine citizen of Canada, as Rabbi Plaut keeps reminding us happened in his own case.
The Bill does allow that a person may get his or her own lawyer at his or her own expense, but the Bill wants to limit the time allowed for doing that. This particular provision appears at the bottom of page 7 of the Bill. It says he will have a lawyer appointed by the Minister unless he is represented by a barrister or solicitor who is available to take instructions with respect to such an application, in the case of a person against whom a removal order is made within 24 hours after making the order, or, in the case of a person to whom a departure notice is issued prior to the date on or before which the person is required to leave Canada.
In the normal experience in Canada getting a lawyer within 24 hours is often next to impossible. Getting through with a phone call to a lawyer may be next to impossible. There are competent lawyers. Most of them are not unemployed. Most of them do not regularly work, for example, on weekends, or they are not necessarily in their offices available on statutory holidays when these things may happen. If they are reachable by telephone they cannot necessarily drop whatever they are doing and that very day go out to interview a client. If they have an appearance in court scheduled for that day, it is a very grave matter not to appear. If they have an appointment with a client scheduled for that day, it may be a very grave matter to the client if it is cancelled. In fact, we have had complaints from the immigration department about lawyers who cancel their appearances for one reason or another.
What is envisaged here is that the only lawyer who might be available to this person as his lawyer of choice would have to be one who is in effect unemployed that day. It is very unreasonable. The Supreme Court has said that even a nonCanadian, someone who has come to Canada and said he is a refugee and needs the protection of Canada from the country persecuting him, is entitled to due process. That includes reasonable access to legal counsel. This is not reasonable access. It takes time to contact the lawyer. It takes time for the lawyer to act within his schedule or refer a person to another lawyer who might have time more immediately.
When the lawyer does arrive, it takes time to prepare a case on which the future of that person may depend. If the person fails at the coming inquiry for which he is to be prepared, he will not get any hearing of his refugee claim. If he is told that
September 18, 1987

he came from a safe country, that is a country considered safe in terms of this law, even if he feels the decision is mistaken in his case and that it is not safe for him, he may be sent back there.
If he passes that test but does not convince two people in that preliminary screening that he has what they call a credible basis for his claim, mainly based not on his evidence but, as the Act lays it out, on evidence they have, prior to meeting with him, in other words a preconceived opinion depending on which country it is he says was persecuting him, he has to make that case. He has to instruct his lawyer and that is not necessarily quickly and easily done, particularly in the case of a genuine refugee.
If he is a phoney, perhaps he will have a case already made, a lawyer already arranged, et cetera, and things will go smoothly. If he is a genuine refugee on the run for his life, perhaps having had to run through more than one country to find safety, he will be nervous, and afraid of officialdom. He may not know the details of our law.
The details of this law extend to 62 pages. Very few Canadians have even read the Bill, let alone claim to understand it. I suspect few Members of Parliament have read it, let alone claim to understand it. Yet this person has to face all the details of this Bill and he is supposed to get his lawyer within a day. That is in the case of a person against whom a removal order has been made or in the case of a person to whom a departure notice is issued. He has to do it on or before the day on which he is required to leave Canada. It is unnecessary and unreasonable to require such haste when we recognize that we may be dealing with a person who is in genuine danger of his life or liberty and is having some difficulty in speaking out.
We heard an excellent brief from the Women and Law Group who reminded us that not all refugees are men. Women refugees are subject to rather specialized forms of trouble to which men refugees are not. Women refugees have often experienced rape and other forms of sexual harassment by the people from whom they fled, border guards through whom they passed, security guards or jail guards where they were detained in different countries, and so on. It is not, so they told us and I take their word for it, easy for a woman in such a case to blurt out those facts to the first person in Canada who says, tell me all about it. It is the experience of competent lawyers who have years of experience dealing with cases of genuine refugees and who are respected by the courts of this country, that it may take some hours or even days of careful and skilled and sympathetic interviewing to bring out the essential facts of the story.
The present chairman of the Immigration Appeal Board gave us a case in point where a person went all the way through the process and only at the last, and because of a question from the chairman, said the reason he came on the run is because his father was killed in his home country. That was verified and that made the case, but he had not said it
Immigration Act, 1976
before because it is not easy to tell those things in all cases the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 am sorry, I must interrupt the Hon. Member because his time has expired.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, we encountered this amendment in committee with one different word. I think the amendment then was that the period of time be extended for seven days. It now is for 14 days.
I think it is important to understand just how great an improvement this proposed system is with respect to protecting the rights of legitimate refugees compared to what is in place today. If the House were to adopt none of the report stage amendments, we would still have a system that would be the finest in the world. With some of the report stage amendments, I think it would be better still.
Members have to realize that what is happening to the administrative side is that humanitarian and compassionate concerns which are permissible in the Immigration Act will be considered prior to the commencement of an inquiry. If they are relevant, the person will be landed, and if they want to make a claim for refugee status, they can do it in what is called "in-status", inside the country.
When we talk about a removal order or departure notice, we are dealing with a brand new system under Bill C-55 that provides a barrister or solicitor to a refugee claimant, at taxpayers' expense, from the moment they indicate to the inquiry officer that they intend to make a claim. When a claimant formally makes a claim at an inquiry, it is adjourned immediately in order to provide that claimant with counsel. The Bill requires that when the decision is made for a removal or departure notice, reasons must be given and the lawyer must be present with the claimant.
A removal or departure order means that the claim to refugee status has been rejected. This provision of the Bill does not deal with people who still have a claim to refugee status, and certainly not with people who are determined to be refugees. It deals primarily with those thousands of people who have come to this country in the last couple of years to abuse our generosity and were found to be ineligible as refugees. This Bill allows an appeal on leave to a higher court and permits the claimant to ask for a stay of execution of that removal order for a minimum of 24 hours. They are provided with a lawyer of their choice, and that 24 hours or longer can be used to instruct counsel to prepare a legal document for the higher court within 15 days.
I suggest to the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) that there are probably 24,000 people in the backlog who, under this system, would receive removal orders or departure notices. I ask the Member why we would want people who are determined not to be refugees to stay in the country two weeks longer at taxpayers' expense.

September 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
We have a well deserved reputation for humanity and generosity toward legitimate refugee claimants. But this part of the legislation provides some of our generosity to people who we decide are not refugees. They are provided with counsel and can stay the removal order for 24 hours. There is no good legal reason why those 24,000 people should be given two weeks when most of them had no claim in the first instance. Surely we have gone the extra mile with a 24-hour stay of execution of the order and the provision of counsel at taxpayers' expense. That is going a long way for people who try to abuse our system. I believe we should use the expense that would be incurred by that two weeks for legitimate refugees rather than the abusers of the system.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, it is really difficult to deal with any particular provision of this Bill in isolation. I believe one has to view any particular section of the Bill within the context of the over-all thrust of the legislation.
It would be appropriate to comment on this motion by referring to some testimony that was given before the legislative committee. I have the testimony of Professor Angus from Osgoode Hall, who I understand is an expert in administrative law and procedure. He concluded his comments about the Bill by saying:
I think it is fatally flawed in a number of respects. It reflects a bill drafted by an administration task force which has taken an extreme position on one side: it has been opposed with extreme positions on the other side, and we have failed to define the middle ground. That troubles me very much, and 1 think it should trouble your committee.
He went on to say:
Reasonable compromise has worked well in the past in this nation of ours so that we do not reach the extremes. I think the consequences may be very substantial.
He also said:
There are individuals who feel genuinely betrayed by these provisions in terms of their participation leading up to Bill C-55.
A number of individuals most surely will, as a matter of conscience, pursue civil disobedience against the provisions of these two statutes. We are going to see an elevation of conflict in society as a result of these two Bills. There will be Charter challenges.
I think there is a very substantial prospect that many of these Charter challenges will proceed. It grieves me deeply that we are at this point of Bill C-55. It is a one-sided view of a very serious matter of international and national concern.
Again, an expert in the area of administrative law predicts that there will be Charter challenges to a Bill which he views as very extreme. He states that we must really study this provision.
I suggest that it is a travesty of justice when one requires a person who is subject to a removal order or departure notice to come up with a lawyer within 24 hours, when it may be a matter of life and death. It is a travesty of the fundamental principles that all Canadians believe in.
As well, the statement by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) about dealing with humanitarian considerations prior to the process defies logic. One knows that
humanitarian considerations are those things that are raised in the last resort. They are matters that are brought up on an appeal to a Minister, on an appeal to the kind of group that has been charged with that responsibility, the special review committee. It involves people who go beyond the strict limits of the law and the strict procedures that are set down in our law to determine whether there may be any extenuating circumstances which justify giving a person an extra opportunity to be heard, or giving a person the benefit of the doubt.
Again, this question was dealt with in the hearings before the committee. The very distinguished lawyer, with many years of experience in immigration law and refugee law, Miss Barbara Jackman, appeared on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association and pointed out that senior immigration officers are enforcement officials. They are enforcement minded and their concern is removing people from Canada, not facilitating entry.
I support this amendment. I think it is an entirely reasonable amendment. This particular section of the Bill, the way it is currently drafted, will be subject to challenge. I really, quite frankly, cannot understand why the Government is proceeding with many of the provisions of this Bill. I do not understand why it is not willing to entertain amendments. As was mentioned by Professor Angus, if we have a Bill which is a response to an extreme position and which will be subject to Charter challenges from day one, we will not be getting the kind of process wanted by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner), all Members of this House and all Canadians. We will end up with a system that will become bogged down from day one. This is the overwhelming consensus expressed by many of the witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee.
I do support the amendment and I would hope the Minister of State for Immigration and his colleagues in this House would support this amendment as well, if they are indeed interested in arriving at a Bill which will improve the situation and give us a process that will work, not one which will not work.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam
Speaker, I too would like ask the House to support this amendment for the simple reason that I think it is really crucial as we look at what this Bill does. There has been a good intent on all sides of the House to try to resolve a very serious problem. However, I do think this Bill is too reactionary and too rigid. This particular amendment to the Bill will add a little fairness to the whole system.
What we are looking for is something that can expedite the whole process from a humane as well as from an efficient point of view. I think it is really important to recognize something the Hon. Member from Calgary was discussing, that is, the fact that these people had already been designated as not being credible refugees. I do not think that is right. This whole
September 18, 1987

process is in place so that it is part of the refugee designation process. It seems to me that because of the state of anxiety these people are in when entering a country under the conditions in which many refugees enter the country, it is really important that they be given the amount of time necessary for them to seek a solicitor. It seems to me that two weeks is not an over-extended amount of time when we know how slow the process has been in the past and when we know how difficult it has been, and that there are probably going to be challenges with respect to the Charter which will certainly cause all kinds of bottle-necks.
In the first instance, we recognize the fact that these people have not been designated as non-refugees or refugees at this point. That is why that process is in place. Surely we must give them full and adequate hearing. That cannot happen if they have to get a lawyer within 24 hours. Just imagine how we would feel, Madam Speaker, if we were in that state of anxiety, entering into a strange country, probably fleeing for our life and the lives of our family, and being told at that point that within 24 hours we must have a lawyer or face deportation. That is not fair or just and it is totally unreasonable.
If the amendment could be accepted, it would give a little more fairness to the Bill than what is there at the moment. I think it is a very unpalatable Bill because it certainly, as the previous speaker has said, puts the most extreme position forward. Certainly, the legislation is trying to kill a mosquito with a sledge-hammer.
Over and above that, I think we must always recognize the fact that we are in the process of refugee designation and at the first hearing the decision on refugee designation is not made. To be able to have a full and complete hearing with the solicitor is very important as one goes through that process. Expecting a potential refugee to be able to get a lawyer within 24 hours is very unreasonable.
I would urge Members on both sides of the House to support this amendment. It is a very small amendment but it certainly does add to the Bill a touch of humaneness and fairness. I think that is the kind of thing we are looking for. If we get the challenges with respect to the Charter as has been predicted, we know that huge bottle-necks will form in the system. If we can help the system to work expeditiously and be able to move people through whose lives are really threatened we should do so. In fact, I would suggest that the people who are under the deepest pressure, who probably are the real refugees, are the ones who are going to suffer the most without this amendment because they are the ones who will be incapable of finding a lawyer within 24 hours.
I think it is really important that we give these people a fair hearing, but we are not going to be able to do that if we expect them to appear themselves without counsel, or with counsel who is designated by the Government of Canada, within 24 hours, and that is about the only way they can proceed. I think
Immigration Act, 1976
it is really important that this type of amendment be supported. I would urge Members on both sides of the House to do so. We will certainly be supporting it.


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam
Speaker, I will begin my remarks by doing something that is not done very often in this Chamber, that is, to compliment a member of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), who, during the committee process, of which I was part, showed day by day, hour by hour, during all 55 hours, his diligence, sincerity and, indeed, his good humour as we muddled through a very complicated and lengthy process.
The Member from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), had he been there, or had the Liberal critic been there on a regular basis, he would have been aware that during that process we moved the humanitarian aspects from the end of the process up towards the beginning. Therefore, it is indeed a much more humanitarian Bill. Counsel is, in most cases, already there, so the provision for the 24 hours very often is not required. The person can just turn to the counsel already provided.
We heard during the committee hearings from witness after witness that choice of counsel is very often used as a delaying tactic, mostly by those who have no respect for the system as it now stands. Indeed, those who may be considered most fraudulent or bogus among the refugee class are the ones who played with the system the most and who are still playing with the present system. Switching lawyers was often the way they did it. They would select a very prominent immigration lawyer who may or may not be available at the time of the hearing, and then when he was not available, there would be another delay. This would go on for months, if not years.
I also think there is a very important distinction to be made between counsel being paid by the Minister and being responsible to the Minister. Counsel is, indeed, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. If I may be so bold, let me say that counsel is responsible to the taxpayers of Canada to ensure that justice is done under the laws of the land.
For these reasons, and the reasons brought forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), I would urge that Motion No. 3 be defeated.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to take a moment in commending and thanking those members of the committee who worked so diligently through those 55 hours. We deeply appreciate, as do all Canadians, their efforts and, indeed, the quality of their work.
In response to the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) I would say that the committee represents a compromise between the views of many interveners at the committee and the concerns of the Government which gave rise to the Bill.

September 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Professor Angus viewed a Bill that did not ensure that duty counsel would be a lawyer, and that did not provide the right, at inquiry, to represent himself or herself. The committee has responded to those areas of weakness in the Bill and the compromise would, in my view, satisfy Professor Angus, if not a number of other interveners.
The concerns of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr.Heap), and others, that many competent lawyers are not readily available is the reason that the Bill provides for duty counsel. The Government undertakes to ensure a maximum availability of competent lawyers, and the cost of those counsel will be borne by the Government.
The Government and the Minister have no interest in finding that a given claimant is not a refugee. If an error has been made, the Government has a public interest in correcting that error. When the error is not to the benefit of the claimant, the Minister would not want that error overlooked. Duty counsel, competent members of the bar, readily available at the expense of the Government, will ensure that the claimants can have the opportunity to correct that error.
This motion extends the period that a person ordered removed after inquiry has to instruct counsel from 24 hours to two weeks. There is a technical problem with the amendment because it does not provide an equivalent stay of the removal order beyond 24 hours. In any event, two weeks is unreasonably and unrealistically long. All the person concerned needs to do in 24 hours is to decide whether he wishes to seek judicial review or not and sign an affidavit authorizing counsel to act on behalf of the person concerned.
Therefore we oppose the motion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114 the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14.
Motion No. 4 stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Laprairie (Mr. Jourdenais)-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it was the Speaker's intention in his ruling earlier that we begin this group with Motion No. 13 which amounts to a deletion of several clauses. If that motion is passed we do not need to debate Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In his ruling the Speaker said that these motions would be grouped together for debate but with a vote on Motion No. 13 first. All the motions must be debated together. Therefore, I need to put all the motions to the House.
In the absence of the Hon. Member for Laprairie we will not proceed with Motion No. 4.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 30 to 34 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"inquiry shall be continued."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Motion No. 6 is in
the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). There was an understanding that the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) would move the motion. He is not in the House at the moment. Is there unanimous consent to have the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Berger: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 39 to 45 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion refugee, the person shall, as soon as is practicable, have the claim referred to the Board for a determination."


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 29 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"claim by notifying an immigration officer who shall refer the claim to the Refugee Division."


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 30 to 45 at page 12.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by deleting proposed Sections 48, 48.01,48.02, 48.03, 48.04, 48.05, 48.06 and 48.07 at page 13 to 23 inclusive.
Do I have unanimous consent for the the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) to move Motion No. 14?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Berger: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14
(a)	by striking out lines 15 to 19 at page 13
(b)	by striking out lines 21 to 23 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall determine whether the claimant should be permitted to come into Canada or to remain therein and whether the claimant is eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division; and"


Fernand Jourdenais: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


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


Fernand Jourdenais: Madam Speaker, when the Chair gave its ruling earlier, it was my understanding that, for the Motions which have been grouped, that is Nos. 4 to 13, the debate would be on Motion No. 13, and that if the vote were in the affirmative, there would be no debate on Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and so on, and if it were in the negative, there would be a debate. I was not here earlier when you called for the Hon. Member for Laprairie.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: With leave of the House, I shall now repeat in French my answer to the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), who asked me exactly the same question a few moments ago. The interpretation given by the Chair was that Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 would be debated together, but that there would first be a vote on Motion No. 13, as an affirmative vote on this motion would cancel the need for the other votes. That was the question and the answer is still the same.
Immigration Act, 1976


Fernand Jourdenais: Madam Speaker, may I have the consent of the House to debate my motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Motion No. 4 was in the name of the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais). As the Hon. Member was not present, it was set aside without proceeding.
Is there unanimous consent that we return and include Motion No. 4 in this grouping?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fernand Jourdenais: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 20 to 37 at
page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"45.(1) Subject to subsection (5), where a person who is sub-
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to thank Hon. Members for this opportunity to take part in the debate on my amendment No. 4.
Madam Speaker, I am in duty bound and even compelled by my conscience to rise in debates concerning certain amendments.
First, having been elected in 1984 and being a Member of the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, since the beginning, I have attended many meetings, where a number of persons have appeared, stating that what we need in Canada is a system with a refugee status that is more precise, more clear cut, easier, more understandable than the one we now have, that is before Bill C-55 was put forward.
Many people are wondering and asking me: How is it that Fernand Jourdenais, Chairman of the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, is the only one in his group willing to defend Bill C-55? The reason why I insist indeed on introducing certain amendments is that when the Bill was introduced in May, Members of the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration had very strong reactions, and some even said: We worked for two and a half years and nothing, almost nothing of what we decided in report No. 5 is written down in the Bill.
There is something in the Bill, there is certainly the basic principle of having a clearer, more open and speedier system. But out of 62 pages of proposals, we have quite a problem understanding actually, when one is outside the law profession, is not a lawyer or a judge, and you know as well as I do, Madam Speaker, that one must be cautious with the so-called "small print"!
If we look at page 11 of the Bill, Clause 45, we find something which is contrary to the principle and the aim of Bill C-55.

September 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
We are saying it will be fair, but we can already see from this clause that it will not be fair. It will not be fair because when we have refugees entering Canada, when they first meet an immigration official or somebody who represents the law these people get nervous, they are tired, they are afraid precisely because they have just fled a country where they had problems, where authority was represented by an individual who would not think twice before throwing them behind bars and torturing them if they dared utter a single word in his presence.
According to this clause, if during the interview the adjudicator asks the refugee or the person applying for refugee status: "are you applying for refugee status?", and if that person happens to be nervous or fails to understand because there is an interpreter, and for all sorts of reasons, because he feels cornered by the authorities and because in his country he has experienced difficulties with officials and was scared, if he does not answer right away even before they begin to question him, the kind of questions which, according to the legislation, are very important, like whether or not he should be transferred to the next stage so his case can be reviewed, if he does not ask for it he will not have the right during the interview to say: I want refugee status.
This is a lengthy clause, and any ordinary man who takes a close look at it will find it hard to understand that if he fails to ask for refugee status right from the start he will be turned down later on. A man can indeed be a genuine refugee, and those who will have applied will be genuine refugees, but they will be afraid to say they want refugee status because in their country anyone making such a request is likely to be mistreated.
Witnesses gave evidence before the legislative committee; unfortunately I was not qualified to sit on that committee, but some people said, and I quote:
"The principle of immediate claim may not be compatible with the claimant's emotional state upon arrival."

Others said:

"Newly arrived refugees may be afraid to make a claim". [Translation]
This is exactly what I said earlier. Those people are so nervous-I could tell you how we had a witness one evening in committee, someone who came from Guyana; it took an hour and a half before he could speak by himself and give us answers, although ours was not the type of questioning that could have sent him to prison. All we wanted to know was what had happened when he landed in Canada, in Toronto. Finally, after an hour and a half, at 11 p.m., he started telling us what had happened during the first interview he had when
he came to Canada, with the first person he met. And he was not a fellow from the woods back in his country, he was the principal of two CEGEPS, a well-educated man, well-mannered, very knowledgeable; but he was nervous indeed because he had a wife and a four-year-old child and he was afraid he would be sent to prison, as had been done in his own country.
And if Bill C-55 was written in such a way as to be fair, the Government should accept the fact that the -majority of Canadians want a refugee determination formula that will allow indentification of genuine refugees as against the others, in order to offer them long-lasting protection in Canada. The Government should recognize that the refugee determination process should both protect genuine refugees and deter those who abuse it. Those two goals should not be considered as necessarily opposite, and the implementation of the four following criteria, which 1 hope I have time to indicate, will help us reach that goal.
First, the formula must guarantee as much as possible that legitimate refugees can be identified and protected, which Section 45 does not do. Second, the formula must be effective, which means that it must be accompanied by a fast determination process which is both economical and practical, as this is the very basis of the Bill. Third, the formula must comply with the constitutional guarantees for equity and meet the basic requirements of legal administrative tribunals. Fourth, the formula must be in tune with the international legal commitments of Canada as signatory to the United Nations Convention on Refugees, and by not allowing the claimant from saying at any time during the hearing that he claims refugee status, we are going against this Convention.
Naturally, there will be a lot of debate on this point. There has already been a lot of discussion and there will be more. However, I believe that the Government should amend Section 45 along the lines that 1 mention in Motion No. 4:

That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 20 to 37 at
page 11 and substituting the following therefor:

Here it is:
"45.(1) Subject to subsection (5), where a person who is the sub-".
Therefore, Madam Speaker, when you realize all the good these people do in Canada after they settle down, I think it is necessary that this Section 45 be amended using the words I have just mentioned.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to support the amendment of the Hon. Member for Fa Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais).
September 18, 1987



I commend him for the courage and generosity he has shown while defending the cause of refugees during the couple of years he was in our Committee.

1 want to emphasize a point which has been made, that it is not reasonable to expect that a genuine refugee will always make his claim at the first moment. We have plenty of experience of bogus refugees making their claims at the first moment. That is the point; they have been coached.
I am told that there were 3,600 people who came from one country in Europe saying, "I am a Jehovah's Witness; if I go back there, I will be persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church". They would have no trouble with this clause. They would shoot right ahead and make their claim at the right time, because they paid somebody several thousands of dollars to coach them on how to do it.
Those are not the people I am concerned for. Those are not the people who will be caught by this clause if we do not amend it. They will not be caught by the clause if we amend it, but there will be people who will be unfairly caught by this clause if we do not amend it. Those will be the people, as the Hon. Member for La Prairie said, who come here nervous because of what they have gone through. In all or most cases they are in fact refugees, and what they have gone through to make them refugees in many cases also makes them nervous.
To tell them in effect, to borrow the words from another context, "speak now or forever hold your peace" is unreasonable. To marry people in our church, banns are called. We are notified that so and so will be married on such a day. When the day comes, everybody in the community has had that notice. When the officiant at the marriage is about to proceed with the act of making two people husband and wife, he says: "This is the end of the time for any objection or intervention. If anybody knows why they should not be husband and wife, speak now or forever hold your peace; don't interfere later if you don't interfere now".
Somehow or other that notion, which is quite reasonable in our marriage service, has been brought in here and turned upside down. This is not the end of a long inquiry and study. This is only the beginning of it, and it is the beginning of it only if the person knows what to say at that time. For some people there may even be a language problem. Not many refugee claimants come here speaking English as their first language. Of those few who do, many of them we suspect of not being genuine refugees.
These are the people who may have a language difficulty. These are the people who may have what we could call, in a very mild sense with great understatement, a culture gap.
Recently I met a group of refugees from a Latin American district. They were refugees from a country in which, in very recent months, the military has shot people demonstrating in the streets. Unarmed people, labour groups, or other groups
Immigration Act, 1976
demonstrating in the streets for what we would consider to be normal human rights have been shot, very often beaten, and often arrested, for doing what we take for granted as normal action by citizens who wish to get together to make their point publicly.
They sought the help of my friend who made some of the arrangements which in our culture are the appropriate things to do, and who spoke their language-Spanish. When these people, newly in the country, refugees, for the purpose of this demonstration, asked my friend, "Will the police shoot at us?", she was more than a little startled by the question. When she assured them that they would not, they said: "Well, will they beat us or will they arrest us?" My friend assured them that they would not, and they asked: "How do you know they won't?" My friend brought out the police permit.
They had asked for help from people who know the ways in our country. One way is that if you are going to use the public streets for demonstration, you talk it over with the police to make sure that it will not cause undue disruption of traffic or perhaps a collision with another demonstration. That sometimes happens in Toronto streets. My friend had a police permit and showed it to these people. They were satisfied, and they came out for the demonstration.
I think those people at that point learned something about Canada, but I am glad they learned, and I believe every Member of this House is glad they learned, that in Canada demonstrators are not normally shot at, beaten or arrested by police. There may be incidents involving such things, especially arrest from time to time, but it is not the normal way that demonstrators, the police and the public conduct affairs in Canada. That illustrates the baggage that a refugee may carry with him when he comes to Canada. If I stick my neck out against authority, if I question or challenge authority, can I be shot, beaten or jailed?
I grew up in Canada. The only year I was out of town was when I was in Chicago. Sometimes Chicago has a reputation for violence, but I did not notice it because I was at the university. I have been fortunate to live in a very peaceful country. I was shocked, as my young friend was, to hear stories like that of the expectations or fears of people when they come here.
We are told by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) that a humanitarian element is in the Bill through a recent amendment, which was proposed in the last few hours of the committee hearings, that is supposed to help the process. I am sure the Hon. Member thinks that that will be understood in the way he intends it by all concerned. What it amounts to is another prescreening. It seems that the Government, as far as possible, is adamantly opposed to letting people state their refugee claims. The Government has now introduced prescreening. It is on page 16-at least that is what I

September 18, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
assume the Hon. Member for Calgary West refers to. Subclause (7) on page 16 reads:
If the Minister is of the opinion that the claimant has a credible basis for the claim and informs the adjudicator and the Member of the Refugee Division of that opinion, the adjudicator and the member shall determine that the claimant has a credible basis for the claim.
This is another prescreening. We will have an occasion to speak about that later, Madam Speaker, but 1 want to point out now that the Government is protecting itself massively against a person who may be a genuine refugee who wants to state his case in the place where the decision will be made. He has to pass through a series of areas. The inquiry is the main barrier, but now we are told there will be another screening before the inquiry. The Government has all these chances to stop a refugee, but it gives him only one chance to say the word that could be a matter of life and death, freedom or imprisonment if he is a genuine refugee.
We have heard a lot of nonsense about how many people are not genuine refugees. I call it nonsense because the figures have been inflated and distorted, sometimes by those who know better. Our committee found two years ago that a majority of the people who had been examined turned out to be either bona fide refugees or worthy of having the humanitarian programs of our Government and country applied on their behalf. That was a system unfair to the refugee claimant, according to the decision of our Supreme Court, because most of the claimants had not had an oral hearing before those who would make the decision about them. Even by an unfair test, over half of the claimants had been found to be either bona fide refugees or to be worthy of humanitarian protection even though they were not exactly refugees. We should not be so hasty to cut them off. We should not be so hasty to cut them off at the very first chance they have to make their case.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, it is quite a trick to deal with nine amendments in 10 minutes, which is the consequence of the grouping. I would like to commend the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) for his diligence on the committee over many months. I think the committee report was presented in November, 1985. Perhaps it is time that he reread it. I think some of the things he said earlier this day about that report are not accurate. Bill C-55 is absolutely remarkable in the degree to which it is a faithful reproduction of committee recommendations.
Regarding the whole issue of review, the committee recommended a two-person oral hearing with the benefit of the claim going to the claimant with leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Canada. That is exactly what Bill C-55 does. The basic principle of benefit to the claimant runs throughout the Bill. Provision of counsel which the committee recommended runs throughout the Bill. The presence of a refugee board member at every stage of the proceedings, not just the refugee claim, but the issue of removal and departure, is guaranteed by the Bill. The notion of a safe Third Country was deliberately included, not with that language, in our committee report and approved by all three Parties.
It is a little disturbing to listen to statements in this House and statements made in the press about how discrepant this Bill is from what the committee recommended. It is not, and the Bill goes beyond what the committee recommended in its fairness to legitimate refugees. It goes beyond any sense of speed for removal of abusers. There is absolutely no disagreement in Canada that maximum speed for the removal of abusers is not only justified but desirable. I commend the drafters for finding something faster, a series of ways dealing with the situation, than committee members could find. The Bill is very faithful to the principles of the committee report.
I have tried to look at these nine amendments and ask myself, how do we deal with them in what probably now is seven minutes instead of 10? There are absurdities. The motion from the Hon. Member for La Prairie and the motion from the Liberal Party of Canada create the following absurdities which exist in the current law. There is no end for the abuser. There has to be a point at which a claim is made and when that point is passed the person has the opportunity to claim to be a refugee so one can get on to other things. When opposition Members ask us to accept an amendment in this Chamber that provides no such point, an absurdity is created. It becomes impossible to remove someone from this country.
There are about 1,000 people a month who are discovered by immigration enforcement officers to have broken the Immigration Act, to be living and working here illegally, or whatever. The current system has no such point. Three-quarters of these people, 750 a month, are already inside this country legally or illegally, and the minute they face the inquiry for removal they claim to be refugees and five years later maybe we can kick them out. That has to stop, Madam Speaker. When an inquiry for removal begins, every single human being appearing before that inquiry has the right to a taxpayer-paid barrister and solicitor. They have counsel. The question is very simple. Are you a refugee? Yes or no. Counsel can act for the claimant and say yes. That is how simple it is.
We hear of all sorts of examples of frightened human beings. That becomes apparent during an inquiry. The inquiries are not simply an hour and a half long. Seldom will an inquiry on the issue of a removal be anything short of three days. Very commonly they will last at least a week and in some cases three or four weeks.
Bill C-84 allows for detention for 28 days without review by adjudicators for undocumented arrivals. Some 10,000 of them had to be referred to the RCMP for help this year. After all, an inquiry cannot be started until the identity of the person involved is known.
These fears are false. It is true that frightened people arrive in Canada. It is true that frightened people may arrive in Canada from Guyana. This law requires the past history of nationals of a particular country and its refugee claimants to be taken into consideration by the adjudicator and the refugee
September 18, 1987

board member. Guyana is a country that produces refugees. That is an evidentiary fact which must be entered on the record and must be taken into account by the adjudicator and the refugee board member. When it is evident that people are coming from a refugee-producing country, their cases must go before the board. That is what the Bill provides.
It is time we stopped dealing with the mythology surrounding this Bill and started dealing with its reality. As a group, these amendments eliminate the possibility for fast determination of bogus claimants. There is not a church group, human rights activist or any Canadian with any credibility who appeared before the committee who did not urge fast removal of bogus claimants. We will eat up all of our resources and all of the good will that exists in Canada toward bogus claimants if we cannot remove them quickly. Removing them quickly is the only way to stop others from arriving.
Some of these amendments try to get rid of the notion of eligibility. Eligibility is determined by an adjudicator and a refugee board member. What are the criteria of eligibility?
First is the question of whether or not the refugee needs the protection of Canada. Those who are already Convention refugees or who have come from a safe third country are not eligible. No one can guarantee absolute safety for every individual in every country we will put on that list, but there will not be many countries that will be unsafe. I suggest that most of the countries on the list will be European, and I suggest that people are as safe there as they would be here.
We do not want to see the constant movement of claimants from country to country. Some claimants have claims existing in three or four western countries all at the same time. The resources of three or four countries are going to a single individual. Are these people, the ones who are already in western European countries like Sweden, Denmark, Holland, France and Britain the most likely to be in need of Canada's protection? No, they are a low priority. The person from Guyana, from El Salvador, from the Middle East or from Asia is the person who needs our help. Therefore, the first eligibility criterion is whether or not the claimants need our help. If they are from a country on the list or if their cases have been determined, they do not need our help.
The next criterion relates to repeat claims or to going past the time when a claim ought to be made. That is a Canadian determination. Those who have already been found not to be refugees or chose not to claim are not eligible. Can we have an endless chain as proposed by these amendments? Should we let a claimant make another claim every time we try to remove him? There would be 10 hearings, 20 hearings, 40 hearings, an infinite number of hearings. That is absolutely absurd and is unfair to legitimate claimants. There must be a moment when the claim is made, the determination is made and removal follows. Failure to remove would be an absolute catastrophe for the system.
What is the third criterion? The Standing Committee report of a year ago June said that it had grave doubts about the
Immigration Act, 1976
protection offered to Canada by the Immigration Act and its processes. Therefore, the third eligibility criterion is security. In a case where there are security questions, instead of going to the board, it would go directly to a federal court judge who would determine whether or not the person is a danger to Canada.
We cannot be the patsies of the world. It is time we toughened the immigration laws and took away the loophole that creates a wide-open door to potential terrorism in Canada. I commend the Government for moving on this matter.
There is not one amendment in this grouping of nine that does not do serious damage to our ability to remove abusers. There is nothing in these provisions that does serious damage in any way, shape or form to legitimate refugee claimants. I believe that the parts of the Bill covered by these amendments should stay as they are.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to maintain one's composure when one hears the kind of comments made by the Hon. Member. Either he does not understand what has been said by all of the groups representing refugees and by all of the distinguished lawyers who appeared before the committee or he is purposely twisting the views of those groups.
He said that all of these groups are in favour of fast removal of abusers. Sure, they are in favour of that, but they are not in favour of a prescreening process which will not allow claimants full hearings on the merits, and he knows that. He knows about the flaws of this Bill. Nonetheless, he is trying to wrap himself in the flag.
Earlier today, the Hon. Member said that this is the most humanitarian and the best kind of refugee determination process in the world and that it will tell us who all the refugees are. I would like to refer the Hon. Member to the comments of Mr. Arthur Helton of the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights. Mr. Helton is no slouch. He is an adjunct professor teaching immigration and asylum law at New York University School of Law, the North American co-ordinator of an exchange of legal practitioners under the auspices of the European Consultation on Refugees and Exiles, a practitioner in the United States and a student of other systems. He said that in other countries in Europe where the concept of a safe Third Country has been introduced, the determination is made on an individual basis. It is part and parcel of the process of determining whether a person is in need of protection. It is not an arbitrary decision made on the basis of whether or not a person comes from a country which is on a list prepared by Cabinet, a list subject to all the political considerations about which the standing committee has been warned.
Mr. Helton, when appearing before the committee, said the following:
Virtually all the countries that utilize the first asylum principle regard it on
an individual basis, and in making a determination decide whether or not to
assess the intent or wishes of the individual. I would particularly cite Austria,
France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

September 18, 1987
Yellowknife Electric Ltd.
The Elon. Member has said that this law is equivalent to practice which is acceptable in other countries. Ele has said that it will provide safeguards and that individual refugees will always be given the benefit of the doubt, the favourite expression of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). What he has said is totally at variance with the facts and totally at variance with everything that was said before the legislative committee which studied this Bill. It is totally at variance with ail knowledgeable opinions expressed by editorial and opinion comments in the newspapers over the course of the past several months.
There are many more things I could say about the extraordinary contentions being made by members of the Government, but I see it is past two o'clock and we will get another crack at this next week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The clock has saved you from yourself.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair noticed the Hon. Member's comment about the time, both before he was given the floor and as he was completing his remarks. I would like him to know that, yes, there is a big clock in the House, but there are some other clocks on the Table and in front of the Chair, and these are the ones we work on. The Hon. Member did not go over his time and we did not go past two o'clock.
It now being 2 p.m, the House will proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to Private Members' Business on Monday. I understand the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) is unable to be in attendance, and it is my further understanding that if you sought unanimous consent for her item to be dropped to the bottom of the list, the House would consent to that motion.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, we concur with what the Hon. Minister has said and agree with his suggestion.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, we agree to this perfectly sensible suggestion from the future leadership candidate of the Ontario Conservative Party.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I don't agree with that. I already have a bank loan.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It would help the Chair if the Hon. Minister could also provide us with a decision as to which of the motions will be heard on Monday. Do we go now to Motion No. 31, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No, it is my understanding that we would continue with government business that day, and the Hon. Member for Bow River's motion would come up on Tuesday and be dealt with in the normal course of events during Private Members' Hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair thanks the Hon. Member for his clarification.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PRIVATE BILLS   YELLOWKNIFE ELECTRIC LTD.
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South) moved: that Bill S-10, an Act to revive Yellowknife Electric Ltd. and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to this particular Bill which, in summary, is the situation of a corporation in all innocence ceasing to exist under the laws of Canada and seeking to have new life breathed into it so it can effectively wind down its affairs and continue on. The Bill was sponsored in the other place by the Hon. Senator Nathan Nurgitz. It is an Act to revive Yellowknife Electric Ltd. and provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act. The Bill was passed by the Senate on June 16th of this year, by unanimous consent, and I hope we might have unanimous consent to pass it through all stages today, depending upon the disposition of other Parties.
Yellowknife Electric Ltd. was incorporated on March 21, 1955, by letters patent issued under the Companies Act. The company's principal place of business is in the City of Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. Subsection 125(1) of the Companies Act requires that the company file with the Department of the Secretary of State an annual summary. Yellowknife Electric Ltd. failed to file those summaries for three consecutive years. As is required under the law, notice of the company's failure to file the prescribed annual summary was published in The Canada Gazette on June 11 and June 20, 1966, stating that Yellowknife Electric Ltd. would be dissolved unless within one year of the publication the company filed the summaries for the three years in respect of which it was in default. Those prescribed summaries were not filed. As a consequence, Yellowknife Electric Ltd. was dissolved pursuant to Subsection 125(12) of the Canada Corporations Act.
When we examine the facts of the case, the directors of the company did not see, nor did they have any knowledge of, the default in filing annual summaries. It may be the duty of all of us to read prodigiously and religiously all the contents of The Canada Gazette, but some of us are remiss in that regard. Apparently the notices to file were sent to the registered office
September 18, 1987

of the company, a lawyer's office, and the solicitors for the company omitted to file same. The directors of the company simply did not know why the annual summaries were not filed. The solicitors for the company did not have any record of the notices, nor do they recollect the circumstances of the default in filing the summaries.
1 and my staff have gone to some pains to determine these facts are accurate because even though this may seem like a small matter, we are proposing to occupy some time of Hon. Members and of this House in making a determination of this particular Bill. So I can speak with some conviction when I say that these facts are accurate as stated.
The company, unaware of the order published in The Canada Gazette on June 24, 1967, dissolving Yellowknife Electric Ltd., continued to carry on business as if it had not been dissolved. It will not be possible for the company to continue to carry on business unless it is revived. Assets are trapped inside the company and cannot be dealt with by the company as Yellowknife Electric Ltd. is technically not a legal entity. For example, the directors have no capacity to transfer land owned by the company, nor would the Land Titles Office register a transfer without a certificate of good standing of the corporation. The certificate is of course impossible to obtain because without revival there is no company. The company has complied with required publication requirements. The company has no liabilities whatsoever.
To address the question of why the Bill is in the House today, the Companies Act as amended, Revised Statutes of Canada 1952, Chapter 53, had no revival provisions for a company dissolved in circumstances such as applied in the case of Yellowknife Electric Ltd. This, with respect, could be described as a legislative oversight. Rare as those may be, this appears to be one. However, today's legislation allows revival of the dissolved corporation as an administrative matter. One simply files articles of revival with the director of corporations and the director shall issue a certificate of revival. That appears under the terms of the Canada Business Corporations Act, Statutes of Canada, 1984, 1985, 1986, Chapter 33.
Since the company was a corporation to which Part I of the Canada Corporations Act applied, and since there is no provision in this Act for revival of a company that has been dissolved, the company cannot be revived except by a special Act of the Parliament of Canada.
With respect to the matter of continuance, if the company had not been dissolved it would have been required to apply on or before December 15, 1980, for a certificate of continuance pursuant to the Canada Business Corporations Act.
Let me give some background on the company. The company has its objects set out in the letters patent. They provide that the Yellowknife Electric Ltd. is in the business of electrical and plumbing contracting. At this moment, it is winding down its affairs in Yellowknife. I am informed that it
Yellowknife Electric Ltd.
is the intention of the company to relocate and carry on business in Vancouver, British Columbia. It owns substantial assets, including a block of realty in Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories.
The company has no liabilities. It made an attempt to sell the realty and, in fact, accepted an interim agreement for sale and purchase, when they were made aware that the company had been struck in 1967.
The registrar of land titles in the Northwest Territories would not accept the transfer without a certificate of good standing of the corporation and this was, of course, impossible to provide as the company was dissolved.
I believe it was at this stage that it was discovered that this Bill would be necessary and that it would be necessary for the Parliament of Canada to become active in the case.
As I said at the outset, I hope the House might be disposed to deal with this matter today. I hoped that would be the case, but I am given to understand that it may not be.
In any event, I hope the facts as I have been able to outline them will be of some benefit to Hon. Members in determining the fate of this company. There was innocence, perhaps some neglect, if not negligence on the part of certain individuals in positions of trust. 1 am given to understand that at least one of them may have been rather elderly at the time that the responsibility was on his shoulders. I hope Members might consider the circumstances and give some consideration to the affairs of the company so that it could be restored to person-hood, one might say, and continue the objects of the directors of the company.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, on behalf of our Party I want to indicate to the Hon. Member that we would be happy to deal with this Bill immediately. In saying so, I find it remarkable that no summaries or annual returns were filed from the year 1963 to the present. It is quite astonishing that that period of time could go by without anyone being aware that no returns were filed, including 20 years elapsed from the time the company was dissolved pursuant to a notice that appeared in The Canada Gazette on June 14, 1967.
I understand that the company paid property tax and income tax throughout that period and that no person or corporation would be adversely affected by the passage of this Bill. I see the Hon. Member nodding in the affirmative.
I also note that this Bill has been passed in the Senate, but was referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the other place. The solicitor on behalf of the company appeared before the Senate, as well as an official of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who assured members of the other place that indeed this is a pro forma matter and that no person will be affected adversely by the passage of this Bill. Therefore, on that basis, we would be pleased to proceed with the passage of this Bill.

September 18, 1987
Yellowknife Electric Ltd.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my Party, we support the motion to refer this Bill to committee. I certainly appreciate the Elon. Member's point about it being largely an administrative matter, and we do not intend to be obstructionist, but there are several points that 1 believe are worthy of committee consideration, both for the protection of the petitioner as well as to give credibility to the decisions that this Elouse makes.
It has already been stated that this involves a duly registered company which failed to file the required summaries and was dissolved. That dissolution is listed in The Canada Gazette.
I recognize that many small companies perhaps do not even have the resources to be monitoring such things, but when such a company comes before the House of Commons for discussion I think it is a more serious matter. Given that the company did not recognize that it was dissolved and continued to operate for close to another 20 years, one assumes that it did not submit the required summaries during that time, as it had not done before dissolution. Therefore, while not suggesting that there was a deliberate intent to mislead, certainly the company displayed poor management practices. Furthermore, while we are not discussing the assets which the company washes to recover, we are not aware of their dollar value.
Given that there have been some rather unorthodox practices by this company which continued to operate for 20 years in which it presumably did not even submit the required summaries, we are supporting the motion that the Bill go to committee.
However, being from the north myself, 1 realize that these companies often work with very small resources and may overlook such things. Therefore, I hope the committee could expedite this as quickly as possible so that the matter can be redressed in the best manner possible.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I can assure you that I will be brief. The reason I am speaking is that the company is located in the area that I represent.
Today we are dealing with a very simple administrative, pro forma type of matter. It is almost unbelievable that the NDP would be so obstructionist as not to allow all three stages of the
Bill to be dealt with this afternoon. There is absolutely no reason why we should debate it, at considerable expense to the taxpayers of Canada and to the company officials involved. However, if that is the way they like to operate, I guess we must live with them.
What I do want to do, Madam Speaker, is to pay tribute to the Yellowknife Electric Company, which has not operated now for several years but at one time was a force to be reckoned with in the electrical contracting field, and to pay tribute to the principles of that company, in particular Mr. A1 Marceau, who has done much for the City of Yellowknife over many years. I promised to be brief, Madam Speaker, and I was brief.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I think you would find a disposition in the House to call it three o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to call it three o'clock on this beautiful Friday afternoon?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being three o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, September 21, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers