1987-09-09

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in 1985 Environment Canada laid 18 charges for violations under Section 33 of the Fisheries Act. There were nine successful prosecutions for a total of $33,800 in fines. In 1986 there were 18 charges, 12 prosecutions and $93,950 in fines. The record of other federal Departments which administer environmental legislation is equally uninspiring. Fines are miniscule. Threat of prosecution is unlikely. Environmental charges are just seen by some as another way of doing business.
This trend must be reversed. Fines for violators of the law must be raised. In addition, the federal Government must make an effort to educate potential violators. It must provide funds for adequate inspectors, enforcers and field personnel, and demonstrate a will to prosecute offenders.
Environment Canada and the Minister have to move with strict enforcement and tougher laws to protect human health and our natural resources.

[ Translation]


THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mrs. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was World Literacy Day. Illiteracy is a serious problem, even here in Canada. In our society, one out of five adults has to face that problem.
In Canadian penitentiaries, half of the inmate population cannot read nor write, a problem to which Solicitor General Kelleher is giving very serious consideration. In an attempt to resolve the problem, he has launched a comprehensive literacy program in penitentiaries. By participating in this program,
inmates increase their chances of successfully reintegrating society. They take every available means to learn how to read employment offers, how to answer questionnaires, and how to meet such simple requirements as knowing how to read instructions concerning a job.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, allow me to emphasize the early success of Mr. Kelleher's initiative, as mentioned in last Friday's Globe and Mail', the number of inmates who were awarded a diploma during the first three months of 1987 exceeds the total number of those who graduated during the twelve months of 1986.
This excellent initiative of the Government deserves recognition, and I take this opportunity to commend the Solicitor General for his interest in this issue.


HORTICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to report that things have not been improving for the Canadian beekeeper. Last fall, Health and Welfare Canada introduced a standard of one part per million for the commonly used anti-biotic sulfathiazole. This applies to shipments within Canada and to Europe.
Meanwhile the Province of Quebec has its own limit of just 0.2 parts per million. In early July the standard for U.S. exports was changed to match that in Quebec.
Producers are confused by all these different tolerance levels. They are also confounded by the different laboratory reports coming out of Portage, Calgary, and Ottawa. Prairie beekeepers have been virtually shut out of the U.S. market because of American subsidies. Much of their 1986 honey crop remains unsold. Since it was produced under the old rules much of it cannot meet the new U.S. and Quebec standards. Saskatchewan beekeepers, particularly those in the Nipawin area, seem to be the hardest hit.
I call upon the Government to straighten things out in the industry, while reminding it of the industry's previous request for funding to offset American subsidies.

September 9, 1987


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced the Western Diversification Plan in Edmonton on August 4 of this year the effect was immediate and most welcome. A head office was established in Edmonton, with provincial offices in Winnipeg, Saskatoon, and Vancouver.
The main feature of the plan is that decisions regarding government programs will be made in the West, and Edmonton in particular.
Western Canadians were ecstatic and they responded immediately. In the first week the Edmonton office received 1,500 inquiries, and by today some 400 applications have been submitted. The doors to a federal ministry are open to westerners. My office in Edmonton East was also inundated with inquiries, as well as with applications.
The Minister in charge is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), himself a westerner committed to western diversification.
We in the West have a renewed spirit of optimism about the federal Government's commitment to growth and diversification, and about western Canadian participation in Confederation.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House yet another broken promise of the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). We all recall the words of the former Minister of Supply and Services, the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Mclnnes), on February 28, 1986, when he announced the Atlantic Opportunities Program designed to increase the amount of goods and services purchased by the federal Government from Atlantic Canadian firms.
Imagine our surprise to learn that recently three highly qualified Atlantic-based companies, namely, Points East Productions of Charlottetown, Skerrett Communications of Dartmouth, and Sight and Sound Productions of Halifax, were passed over in favour of a Toronto-based company in the awarding of a contract to videotape the Business Excellence Awards slated for Halifax on September 22, 1987.
To make matters even worse we also learned that the Atlantic companies had only three days to complete the proposals while the successful Toronto company apparently had prior knowledge of the contract's details. Not only does
this decision contradict the Government's own policy for Atlantic Canada, it also violates the basic rules of equality and fairness.
On behalf of these companies I demand that this competition be reopened now so that Atlantic companies are given an opportunity to meet Atlantic needs.


LITERACY
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multicultur-alism):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind Hon. Members that yesterday was World Literacy Day. On that occasion the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) made a statement in Toronto to highlight the measures taken by the federal Government to honour the Speech from the Throne commitment concerning literacy skills.
The Secretary of State has undertaken nation-wide consultations to secure the participation of all Canadians with a view to consolidating support in the fight against illiteracy in this country. The outcome of these consultations has been the establishment of an action plan which is now being implemented.
First, to ensure that illiteracy remains one of our national priorities, a national literacy secretariat has been set up within the Department of the Secretary of State, and a national literacy council will be appointed to advise the Government on major related issues. In addition, development funds will be earmarked for the main community groups and research grants will be available to these national organizations.
Second, federal, provincial and territorial participation is a prerequisite to achieving concrete results in the fight against illiteracy. In the coming weeks specific projects will be unveiled by the Secretary of State and his provincial colleagues.
Third, Canada must remain a world-wide leader in this field. This fall the General Assembly of the United Nations will consider a proposal aimed at designating 1990 as international literacy year. Canada will express full support for this endeavour.
Fourth, since we must rely on sustained support from governments, volunteer organizations, labour unions and private sector interests, the Secretary of State will sponsor a national literacy conference in 1988.
Mr. Speaker, all these initiatives stem from the commitment of the federal Government and the personal pledge of the Secretary of State concerning illiteracy in Canada-
September 9, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret, but the time of the Elon. Member has expired. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


WORLD LITERACY DAY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was World Literacy Day. The idea of designating such a day to highlight the problems of illiteracy was agreed to by an international conference which was held in Montreal in 1967.
Following 20 years of so-called efforts to deal with the millions of Canadians who are functionally illiterate, Canada still has one of the worst records of the industrialized countries of the world. Twenty per cent of all Canadians, 5 million people, are still functionally illiterate. Is it not time that the Government of Canada, including the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) stop making speeches and promises about illiteracy and put their money where their mouths are?
I call upon the federal Government to set aside the money that is required so that major efforts can be made to set up programs to be arranged by discussions between federal and provincial Governments, and voluntary groups that are working in that area, in order that over the next 10 years we may reduce sharply, if not completely eliminate, illiteracy in our country.


QUEBEC SUMMIT
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: The
Quebec Summit which was held last week has demonstrated once again that when Brian Mulroney and Robert Bourassa, together with their respective governments, decide to put together a large scale project, they succeed in a remarkable fashion.
Some who unfortunately knew very little about the Quebec Summit described it as a superfluous, meaningless and grandstanding exercise. Today, they are astounded with the quality of the organization, the seriousness of the discussions and the impact of the decisions arrived at.
The Quebec Summit has demonstrated that it is essential for an industrialized nation such as Canada to establish and
maintain ties with the rest of the world. Personally, I have always believed in the Quebec Summit, especially because of its economic benefits.
Beyond the rhetoric, I am now convinced that the Quebec Summit will benefit Canadian corporations which, as a result of this privileged contact, will be in a position to make deals with member countries.
Partisanship aside, Mr. Speaker, we should recognize that all member countries but Canada in particular will reap invaluable benefits from the Quebec Summit.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, during recent weeks and months dairy farmers have written to MPs on all sides of the House, and likely to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), expressing their concerns that the dairy industry in Canada could be wiped out under a free trade agreement with the United States.
We all know that the Ontario Tory Leader, Larry Grossman, is prepared to sacrifice anyone and anything in order to reach a free trade agreement. But now we want to know if the federal Government is also prepared to sell out dairy farmers. We need to receive a commitment here and now from the federal Government that the marketing boards, supply management, quotas, import restrictions, and all other components of Canada's national dairy policy will be kept. Dairy farmers need to know that today from the Government.


FRANCOPHONE SUMMIT
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the performance of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) in putting together the Second Francophone Summit in Quebec. It is thanks to his initiatives and his excellent relations, both internationally and with the provinces, that Canada's Ambassador to France, Lucien Bouchard, the Quebec Premier, Mr. Bourassa, and his Minister, Mr. Remillard, were able to achieve with Ottawa what the previous federal Government had denied Quebec.
Because of this summit, we have been able to achieve common positions on political and economical international issues, as well as to define priority lines of cooperation and intervention in areas such as agriculture, energy, culture and

September 9, 1987
communications. This summit has also facilitated commercial exchanges with other countries having the use of French in common. This is a priority for our international trade. We now realize that our Prime Minister can recognize the jurisdiction of the Canadian provinces in various areas, which is a major component of good relations, while the previous Liberal Government had failed miserably in this regard.
The architect of the Meech Lake Accord, our Prime Minister, has succeeded in bringing together people with different mentalities and from provinces or countries with diversified needs and interests. At the Francophone Summit in Quebec City, the Prime Minister of Canada was thus able to achieve a consensus on sensitive issues. 1 cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people would one day put their confidence in political parties which are totally divided and torn on crucial issues such as the Meech Lake Accord or free trade.


THE LATE PAUL H1EBERT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday the creator of the Sweet Songstress of Saskatchewan, Paul Hiebert, passed away at the age of 95.
Born in 1892, Paul Hiebert lived all but his student life in Manitoba. Although his first love was philosophy, Mr. Hiebert was a professor of chemistry at the University of Manitoba for 28 years. Paul was proud of his teaching. He often said that his teaching was very methodical, very well organized, and very prone to deal with some chemistry and a great deal of philosophy.
Throughout life, Paul was accompanied by Dorothea, his wife of over 60 years. They had no children, a conscious decision for the couple who worried about the uncertainty of the world they lived in. Paul Hiebert feared war and nuclear holocaust and believed that pacifism was the only solution to the confrontation between one nation and another.
His literary accomplishments were many, writing his much acclaimed Sarah Binks, in 1947 and subsequently being awarded the Stephen Leacock Medal for Humour in 1948. His last book, Not as the Scribes, was written only three years ago.
Hiebert once said that the real satisfaction in life is being one of the community, not standing aloof from it. Paul Hiebert lived this thought, and this week Canada has lost a very special teacher, philosopher, and humanitarian.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, how long have French-speaking nations around the world been striving to create a Francophone Summit? Who was the catalyst who finally made that happen? Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney).
How long have our provincial and federal Governments been striving to obtain unanimous agreement on a Canadian Constitution? Who was the catalyst who finally made that happen? Our Prime Minister.
We Canadians expect a great deal from our Prime Ministers. Most of us realize that no one person can possibly live up to all those expectations, because no one is perfect. However, above all, we do want a Prime Minister of Canada to be able to unite our country and to keep it working together.
Few if any Canadian Prime Ministers have done that quite as well as our present Prime Minister.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, a study released by the Canadian council of food distributors and wholesalers clearly indicates that if the Government maintains its intention to tax food the result will be a 12 to 13 per cent increase in food prices.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Welfare Council study also points directly to the failure of the Conservative Government with respect to the food tax: a family earning $10,000 will have to cope with a $353 tax increase imposed by this Government, and even though there will be a tax credit the net increase will amount to $203.
I urge Conservative Members to convince the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to cancel this option to tax bread, milk and butter.


NEW PAGE STAFF WELCOMED
Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing Question Period I should like to notify Hon. Members that today we have the pleasure of welcoming 42 new pages who join us from across Canada for the next year.
September 9, 1987



On behalf of the House and all Hon. Members I want to thank the pages who were with us this year and in previous years and who came to lend us their support since the House was recalled a few weeks ago.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the current page program, and I know all Hon. Members would join me in wishing these young men and women the very best and our thanks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On July 31 in The Citizen and on August 4 in the The Montreal Gazette the Prime Minister stated:
People jumping the queue unfairly, take other peoples rights and other peoples legitimate places. This breeds unfairness, and unfairness will destroy the system . . . The laws shall apply to all of us. Everyone must follow the procedures and the laws.
In light of these statements, and the serious allegations made by the president of the immigration union concerning the Mr. Grossmann case, this Prime Minister owes this House and the country a full explanation. If the Prime Minister wishes to be consistent with the statements that he made on queue jumping, will he agree to a full public inquiry into the Grossmann affair so that Canadians may assure themselves that the spirit and the immigration laws have not been violated and, if they have, that disciplinary action may be taken forcefully and immediately?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I categorically repudiate the allegations of that Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: There was no impropriety nor illegality in the handling of the application.
My office receives thousands of letters from Canadians across the country dealing with immigration matters and, in conformity with the Immigration Act, we act in certain few cases where there are criteria or conditions that warrant it. We have certainly published all correspondence dealing with the
Oral Questions
matter which should clarify it for that Member and all other Members in this House.


QUEUE JUMPING ALLEGATIONS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the Prime Minister calls an emergency session during the summer to deal with what he terms as queue jumpers, yet he does not have the courage-


Some Hon. Members:: Speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind Hon. Members that there are necessary courtesies extended to those who ask questions in this House. I would also remind Hon. Members that the Hon. Member for York West is taking the lead for the Official Opposition and I would expect that courtesy to be extended to the Hon. Member.


Sergio Marchi: It is not the fact, Mr. Speaker, that representations are illegal, the allegations are that queue jumping has been condoned and practised in the higher offices of this country, and they come from the union president, not from this Opposition.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: You are disowning them?


Sergio Marchi: Therefore, I would like to ask the Prime Minister again, if he doesn't want to agree to a public inquiry, can he explain to Canadians, who must wait six months and line up in Toronto at five o'clock in the morning, why the Immigration Department sent three separate orders to speed up the interview for Mr. Grossmann? What compelling humanitarian concerns existed to allow Mr. Grossmann to make an application in Canada rather than going the normal route for every other individual, namely, applying at our embassies abroad? Can he tell us that, at least?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I take particular issue with the sleazy, scurrilous manner in which the Member is raising the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked Hon. Members to extend the appropriate courtesies to questions that are being asked. I would also ask that in the reply the conventions of this place be considered. I know that the Hon. Minister understands them and I would ask him to continue his answer, perhaps with more careful language.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The accusations, Mr. Speaker, are totally unfounded. I received 7,000 letters and representations in the last year, some of which have come from Members of Parliament. Here is one from the Member for York West.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: It says "Could we talk on this one? It would be appreciated if we could get together to see if I can get a permit for one or two weeks".

September 9, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[DOT] <1425)


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The Hon. Member for York West wants favours which should not be available to any other Canadian.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the only sleaze is in not answering the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have indicated to both sides that appropriate use of language would probably be more in keeping with the traditions of this place. I know the Hon. Member for York West can put a very good question.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for making representations to the Government, but it is when there is a second law, when orders are executed to circumvent the law, that there is impropriety and sleaze. I challenge the Member to show where my impropriety was any day of this week.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: i would ask the Hon. Member for York West to put his question.


ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEPARTMENT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would return to the Prime Minister who is not answering questions. Pretending that the problems do not exist only breeds more problems. Given the fact that we have had the John Quigley affair, a petition signed by 7,000 employees against the Deputy Minister, people tampering with the mail from the Department-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Tobin:: If you guys would shut up, you would get a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West will complete his question.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what is happening with our Immigration Department. Will the Government take special measures to clean up the mess in order to restore the confidence of Canadians in an immigration policy and a Government that is losing the trust of the people who are not naive enough to believe that there is not a double standard here? The quicker it is before a public inquiry, the better it will be for the Government.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the accusations are unfair and untrue. There was never any involvement by the Prime Minister's Office in that particular dossier or in any dossier. What I have done has been recognized by other Hon. Members of the House. I have been
complimented in speeches made by members of the very same Party as the Hon. Member, and by members of the New Democratic Party, on the quality of service they have received, as have all Hon. Members.
We looked at the justification of the case. It took some four months from the time I examined the file of this individual and we realized that there was a basis for inland processing. Each year, 15,000 Minister's permits are issued, almost 25 per cent of the cases-


Sergio Marchi: What are the justifications? What is the basis?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has, fulfilling the wishes of this place, given the Hon. Member for York West every opportunity to put the question. I think that fairness demands that Hon. Members on the other side give the Minister every chance to answer it.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to table this correspondence if my hon. friend would agree to it so that all Hon. Members would be able to read what he said to me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Do you agree?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister may have some more comments to make in answer to the question. I would ask him to answer the question.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: What I do recognize is the manner in which our refugee determination process is being received across the country. I recognize that it has almost universal acclaim, that it puts forward a process that is fair, reasonable and just, and that that is now bothering the Opposition. They are trying to open another front. Where is your credibility? Where is your honesty?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO DECISION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. He said in one of his answers that he acts in these matters "where criteria and conditions warrant it". Exactly what were the conditions and criteria that warranted the action taken on the Grossmann case? Give us a complete and clear answer right now.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was here under a Canada/France exchange program. He had received employment authorization permits for six consecutive years. The current permit would have expired on September 30. He has a son who is apparently married to a Canadian and I guess could have sponsored him. Those looked like good long-term prospects for remaining in this country given the kind of contribution he would make. It just seemed to me there would be no reason to have him leave
September 9, 1987

the country when inland processing is a part of the way of doing business here.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker-


Charles Joseph Clark: How many times did you extend it, Herb?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -does the Minister not realize that every Member of Parliament has people coming to his or her office asking for permission to stay permanently because they can get a job? What real difference is there between those cases and the Grossman case? Is he saying it is now the policy of the Government that everyone here on a visitor's visa or work permit can apply for permanent landed immigrant status and be dealt with under ordinary immigrant criteria even if there are no true humanitarian or compassionate grounds? Is he not saying that people no longer have to apply at embassies? Is it not true that there is no real justification here, to use his word?


Mr. Mazankowski:: You extended it! What is the matter with you?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, three of those employment authorizations were issued by a Minister of the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part. We continued the process for an additional three years.
There are consistent criteria that allow the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who delegates that authority to the Minister of State for Immigration, to act in a humane and compassionate fashion when it is warranted. That is done in a very few cases. Members of Parliament and other Canadians would not want that compassion removed from the Immigration Department.


SPECIAL TREATMENT QUERY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question, unfortunately, is on the same topic.


Mr. Shields:: Get in the hole with the Liberals.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I would simply say that when the Prime Minister requested that Parliament be recalled he made the following comment: "People jumping the queue unfairly take other people's rights and other people's legitimate places. This breeds unfairness and unfairness will destroy the system.'' This is a very serious issue and 1 ask the Prime Minister to consider responding to the question.
At a time when tens of thousands of Canadians are seeking the opportunity to have their relatives come to Canada and obtain landed immigrant status, does he not think it unfair that Mr. Grossmann, who teaches the children of both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Minister of Immigration,
Oral Questions
would have received special treatment and became a landed immigrant by circumventing the usual immigration process?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, it is clear there has been no special treatment. As I indicated, 15,000 Minister's permits were issued, 99 per cent of the time by our officials in the regions or at head office, so that inland processing could advance. I have a suspicion the Hon. Member is mixing a regular immigrant program with a process of refugee determination which is chaotic, cumbersome and clogged. It is a non-functioning system left by the previous Government, and once and for all this Government has the guts and determination to clean it up.
We are bringing forward a refugee determination process which is just, fair, expeditious, will identify and welcome real refugees, and say no to illegal aliens and yes to real refugees.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has already agreed that the gentleman in question could have applied for landed immigrant status from France when he was there a few weeks ago. All of us have a long list of people who make that request and are regularly turned down because that is the law.


Charles Joseph Clark: This one has been approved six times.


Nelson Andrew Riis: At a time when we are debating legislation which was motivated by queue jumpers-


Some Hon. Members:: Refugees!


Mr. Bouchard:: Refugees.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Refugees, but nevertheless it is queue jumpers we are concerned about.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members are of course aware that in Question Period there is ample opportunity to answer a question. The Hon. Member has the floor and I would ask the usual courtesies be extended. The Hon. Member will put his question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on the evidence it seems clear that senior officials intervened to allow an individual to jump the normal queue.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you making that charge?


Nelson Andrew Riis: At a time when Canadians are very sensitive to that charge would he say that queue jumping did occur, that special treatment was given? If he has nothing to hide, why not refer it to the standing committee for a complete and thorough investigation?

September 9, 1987
Oral Questions


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, in January a letter was sent to my office from an assistant in the Prime Minister's Office asking us to have a look at a certain file. It took us four months to take a look at it. I would venture to say that was handled about the same way as we would when the Leader of the NDP said to me: "I would appreciate your expediting the process of this case application and your providing me with a status report". As for the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, does he want to forget the time he asked me for something this year?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Boy, oh, boy!


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the floor.


Mr. Forrestall:: Tell us all about it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I agree, I have indeed made interventions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have only asked that people be allowed to get into the line, not jump the line. That is what we are concerned about, jumping the line.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Your Leader asked for it.


Miss MacDonald:: Anyone is allowed into line, Nelson. That is stupid.


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members would want to be of assistance to the Chair. There are difficult questions to be dealt with in Question Period. I would ask Hon. Members asking the questions to stay as far away from argument as possible, and I would ask other Hon. Members, in the interests of expediting questions and answers, to keep their comments to themselves unless they are recognized.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is a very sensitive issue we are discussing in Question Period today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: For whom?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Prime Minister is well aware that not only must justice be done, it must appear to be done.
In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, if the case of Mr. Gross-mann is straightforward and there was no impropriety whatsoever, would he then refer it to the appropriate standing committee for a complete investigation in order to clear the air once and for ail?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Oshawa asked me to expedite a case that seemed like queue-jumping to me.
The letter which was referred to me by the Prime Minister's assistant simply asked that the case be given consideration, as all Members of Parliament would like it to be. I notice many of you are very quiet today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair might observe that not all Members have been quiet today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


APARTHEID
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The comments made by the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom during the recent meeting which he had with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs seemed to have had a profound effect upon them. It appears that there is now a dramatic shift in the policy of the Prime Minister on South Africa as previously announced at the United Nations.
Is Canada now backing away from trying to get a comprehensive agreement on sanctions from all Commonwealth states? Is Canada instead going to follow Britain's lead and change its policy in midstream just before the convening of the Commonwealth Conference?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. I think the Hon. Member would find it very difficult to find any suggestion to that effect in the words of Mr. Howe.
The position of the Government is very clear on the question of sanctions. We believe they are effective economically and, more important, psychologically. We naturally believe that they would be more effective if they were more universal. We also believe in and are committed to having the Vancouver Conference of the Commonwealth continue to exert pressure on the Government of South Africa to bring an end to the system of apartheid.
We are trying to establish the most effective possible consensus among participants at that conference in order to increase pressure and bring an end to apartheid.


CANADIAN POLICY
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is also reported to have
September 9, 1987

indicated that Canada no longer feels it is committed to seeking further sanctions. I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
In light of the comments by the Foreign Secretary and those of his own Secretary of State for External Affairs, if the Commonwealth countries do not agree on further sanctions, will Canada make it known at that time that, in accordance with the Prime Minister's commitments to the United Nations two years ago, Canada, if need be, will act on its own?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to quotations attributed to me. I do not know where they appeared, but they are false. I did not say or imply that, nor did the Prime Minister, and that is not our position.
I think it is important to reiterate the position of the Government of Canada which has been very consistent on this issue. We are prepared, if necessary, if other measures do not succeed, to disrupt, to end, economic and diplomatic relations with the Republic of South Africa.
It should be understood that to do that would take us out of influence on the pressures to try to bring an end to apartheid. We do not think it is yet the time for Canada to take itself out of influence on ending apartheid. Quite the contrary, we believe there is a very important role that we can play as we have, under the Prime Minister's leadership, already played in the Commonwealth and as we intend to play in the Commonwealth and elsewhere to hasten the end to the regime of apartheid.


CONDITIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he explain when is the time? Two years ago the Commonwealth Conference sent eminent persons to South Africa. Canada indicated at that time that it would sever all diplomatic and economic relations if other measures did not work.
The imprisonments continue in South Africa. Nelson Mandella is still in prison. There is continuing police brutality. Censorship has been gravely increased in South Africa over the course of the last year. There have been continuing attacks on the front line states.
When is the time for the Government to do what it said it would do, and stop acting like a patsy toward South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, several months ago some spokesmen of the New Democratic Party, albeit not the official spokesmen, suggested that we should then completely disrupt relations with South Africa. Had we done that we would not have been
Oral Questions
able to persuade the Commonwealth to take the series of sanctions which the Commonwealth agreed to take during the meeting in London last August. There is a price to pay for declaratory diplomacy of that kind. The price to pay is that you make your views known but you lose your influence.
It is not enough simply to condemn apartheid. We all condemn apartheid. We want to end apartheid. We believe that there are practical steps that Canada can continue to take to bring an end to apartheid.
I have noticed that on a range of questions the position of the New Democratic Party is to get out of the field. That is what they want to do with NATO. That is what one of their spokesmen wants to do with regard to economic summits. They are now saying that we should no longer seek to have influence upon bringing an end to apartheid in South Africa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in September, 1985, the Minister promised full disruption of economic and diplomatic relations to end apartheid if other measures did not work. This was repeated by the Prime Minister in June, 1986. This was repeated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as recently as August 28, 1987. If we keep on saying these things and not acting, they will be empty threats.
I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When the Government met with Mr. Tambo ten days ago, why did it focus on what it perceived as weaknesses in the African National Congress rather than talking about the real root of violence in South Africa, which is apartheid?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is again expressing the isolationism which informs its policy on NATO, which leads it to want to get out of the economic summit, and which informs its policy on other international questions.
It is now suggesting that Canada has had no influence in the actions that we have taken, in the long list of sanctions that we have introduced, and in the influence that we have been able to bring to bear upon the actions of the European Community, the United States, Japan and others. That is a false accusation by the New Democratic Party.
We are not making nearly enough progress against apartheid in South Africa. The situation is getting worse. The depth of fear separating the black and the white communities is devastatingly deep. We must find some ways to bridge that gap. We do not do it by quitting, which is what the Hon. Member is suggesting.

September 9, 1987
Oral Questions


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE COMMAND
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Could the Minister confirm that some 30 years ago the United States Air Force conducted experimental photoflash bombing in the Canadian Arctic without first advising the local inhabitants what was happening? Do we know whether or not there were any health hazards associated with these experiments?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that in the 1950s photoflash bombing was done by Strategic Air Command at a height of 15,000 feet over some isolated areas in the Northwest Territories. There should be no health hazards whatsoever associated with this as the photoflash explosions took place at 15,000 feet.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, one week before the Francophone Summit was to take place in Quebec City the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland was scheduled to make his annual courtesy trip to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. For the first time the Government of France informed the Government of Canada that the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland was not welcome on St. Pierre and Miquelon. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us what the Government of Canada did when it received this insult from the Government of France? And why did the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister not publicly protest this slap in the face to Canada and to the Queen? Did the Prime Minister even bring it up with Mr. Chirac?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in his allegation the Hon. Member is wrong on two of his facts, which isn't bad for him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is not an annual trip and there has not been. They did not say the Lieutenant Governor was not welcome in St. Pierre and Miquelon. What they said was that when he comes they would want him to come in a vessel other than a military vessel. They said that because this Government has taken the action of closing down our ports to French fishing vessels until such time as we are able to resolve a fishing dispute which is before us now because of the lack of foresight of Liberal Governments in the past.


CANADIAN POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, for the past 10 years the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland has visited the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon on a naval vessel similar to the one to which the Government of France is now objecting. We are being insulted by the Government of France while the Secretary of State for External Affairs bends over backwards to please them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order-


George Baker: Now 1 ask-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: -the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he would not agree that it is impossible to maintain a position of strength in the fishing negotiations while we allow the French Government to insult us like that? How does he expect the Lieutenant Governor to get to St. Pierre and Miquelon, by a dory, by a canoe, or is he looking for the "Good Ship Lollipop"?


Charles Joseph Clark: I might suggest, Mr. Speaker, we should take a very hard look at whether or not we can float him over on the hot air of the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I had thought that the Hon. Member was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party like everyone else in that Party, but it appears that what he really wants is to be Lieutenant Governor. I can give him this guarantee. If he becomes the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, he will be welcome as the present Lieutenant Governor is welcome to visit St. Pierre and Miquelon.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BELL CANADA RATE INCREASE APPLICATION
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications and it concerns the four groups which have protested very seriously the intervention of the Minister in a CRTC rate increase application on the part of Bell Canada. I wonder if the Minister would try to undo the damage she has done by prejudging the issue? I wonder if she will do what the groups have asked her to do, groups which themselves intend to intervene, feeling they are not going to get a hearing because she has prejudged the issue by asking and informing the CRTC that, if it does not come up with the decision she wants, there could be a reversal at Cabinet level?
September 9, 1987


Hon.   Flora@: Mr. Speaker, I think I would ask the Hon. Member to read my letter very carefully. In fact, if she does not have a copy of it, I would be glad to send her one.
That letter pointed out to the President of Bell Canada Enterprises that in fact the CRTC has an obligation to ensure that subscribers of Bell Canada do not subsidize the unregulated operations of Bell Canada Enterprises.
I want to make sure that subscribers do not have to pay extraordinary costs. In order to determine whether or not there is a subsidy of any kind, the CRTC has to have information. It has to have information about the direct and the indirect costs which are associated with it. Therefore, I urged Bell Canada Enterprises to submit those costs, validated, to the CRTC, substantive information it does not now have, so it can look at the ruling that has been made to see whether or not it is appropriate.


MINISTER'S LETTER TO COMMISSION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the letter says far more than this. I have the letter here. It suggests that the Minister would go to Cabinet over the decision if the CRTC did not do what she wanted it to do.
I ask her again if she will respond to the public interest and industry groups which want to see, as does our Party, the CRTC acting as an independent agency, able to judge the facts without a letter from the Minister saying she is going to go to Cabinet and see the decision is reversed if it does not come up with a decision she wants. That is inappropriate. Will she withdraw that letter?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of my withdrawing that letter. I would also like to point out to the Hon. Member that if any kind of decision is made by any agency where costs are imputed that do not relate to the direct and indirect costs which are a reality, then obviously the Government will question any such decision.
Costs have to be related to the direct and indirect costs that are the actuality in any situation.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure all Members of this House are enthused over the new unemployment figures which show a five-year low at 8.8 per cent.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: I do commend the Minister for this. However, there are still many shortfalls within the small business industry for skilled labour. What consideration is the Minister giving to an apprenticeship program that is so sadly lacking in this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Of course we are delighted about the unemployment rate. I think that is what we call an achievement when we consider that 8.8 per cent is the lowest rate of unemployment in this country since 1982. I think it is something of which Canadians are proud.
At the same time I think the Hon. Member is right in terms of particular regions of the country, London, for example, where we face problems in skills shortages and skills development. For that reason we have invested I think it is $297 million in the Canadian Jobs Strategy in 1987-88. That means that with this program we will be able to deal with those cases, particularly in southern Ontario.
It is obvious we will continue to work with the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program because 1 think it is the Government's best achievement in employment for three years.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BELL CANADA RATE INCREASE APPLICATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I also have here a copy of the letter which was signed by the Minister of Communications and sent to Mr. de Grandpre of Bell Canada. It clearly says that the Government would be prepared to overrule a decision that was not favourable. Given that the CRTC is a quasi-judicial body which should not be interfered with in that manner-granted appeals can be made to Cabinet later-does the Minister not feel that the action she took was improper? And will she not do the right thing and order that her letter be rescinded now?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member has quite understood what is being done here. What we are doing is separating monopoly services, and the cost of monopoly services, from unregulated services. That in fact is what Bill C-13 did when we passed it in this House earlier this year. It separated the costs of one kind of operation from the costs of another kind of operation. That is the same policy I stipulated in this letter.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister refuses to rescind her letter, I will now ask her boss, the Prime Minister, to get involved in this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER'S LETTER BE RESCINDED
[Stage Direction]
September 9, 1987
Don Boudria: Moments ago we heard of tampering with the immigration process-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Due to the hour, I am sure the Hon. Member will want to put his question.


Don Boudria: Now we hear of interference with the CRTC. I ask the Prime Minister if he will order his Minister of Communications here and now-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Don Boudria: -to rescind that kind of interference with a quasi-judicial body, the CRTC? Or is he going to allow this kind of abuse of power to continue? When will these Tories ever learn?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, during the passage of Bill C-13 1 was of the impression that members of the Liberal Party were against the subscribers of Bell Canada, that they really did not want to see the subscribers to a telephone system in this country get a fair break. What I am saying in that letter is that there can be no subsidy paid by Canadian subscribers, the telephone users, to an international operation of Bell Canada International. We will not stand for that. I wish that the Liberal Party would have the same concern about the subscribers to our Canadian telephone system.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. It is based on a report in The Daily News of Halifax which reports that the Ministry of Supply and Services and DRIE failed to give companies in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island a fair opportunity to bid on a contract to videotape the 1987 Canada Awards for Business Excellence which will be held in Halifax on September 22.
The Halifax and Charlottetown companies had three days to prepare a bid while Toronto-based Steve Shaw Productions had been working on it for a month. My further information is that other companies based in Newfoundland-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will know that preambles are to set the stage for a question. I am sure that the Hon. Member will put his question.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Government's stated interest in regional development can the Minister give the House an explanation of why Atlantic companies are being treated unfairly in this way by the Government? Can he tell the House what he will do to prevent this type of thing from happening again?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this question was brought to my attention last week. Having examined the situation and the various problems, I can assure my colleague that in this case all regular procedures were followed by the Department of Supply and Services.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW TENDERING PROCESS
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, if all regular procedures were followed in this case, can the Minister tell us what new procedures he will put in place to make things more fair for Atlantic companies?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, it must be recalled that this is a national event, five propositions were received and accepted. Of course, the best proposition was selected and awarded the contract.
I should also like to remind my colleague that this year's winner is the same as last year's. All instructions and provisions were adequately followed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that this will be the last set of questions. The Hon. Member for Trinity.


TAX REFORM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the assessment by a trade association that sales tax on food as described in the White Paper would push food prices up 12 per cent to 13 per cent. Will the Minister tell the House how he considers that low-income Canadians could handle such an increase without hardship?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that is speculation on the part of that industry association. It does not know the results of the consultations that we are going through regarding the composition of the tax base for a new sales tax, nor does it know the rate or the refundable sales tax credit which, as the Hon. Member knows, will be paid regularly in advance. It is a speculative comment.
September 9, 1987

1 encourage the association to wait until the end of the consultation process, as I encourage the Hon. Member, when those decisions will be taken.


REFUNDABLE SALES TAX CREDIT
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, a refundable sales tax credit is useful only if it is timely and if it is adequate. Can the Minister guarantee that in such a case a refundable sales tax credit would not be a matter whereby people starve for six months and then get an inadequate credit?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member absolute assurance. I have said time and time again that a refundable sales tax credit will be paid in advance of the needs of the individual receiving the credit. It will be paid regularly, and whether it is monthly or quarterly is something that is still subject to consultation. The sales tax credit will vary. The size will vary depending on what is in the sales tax base.
These are matters about which we will consult and about which we have been consulting. We also look forward to the conclusions to which the Finance Committee might come.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question by the Hon. Member for Skeena.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a serious one. It is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure that he is aware by now that the Senate Republican Leader, Bob Dole, has confirmed that he was serious about his remarks regarding a "little three-day invasion of Nicaragua and the assassination of the President of Nicaragua". Will the Right Hon. Minister take this opportunity to distance Canada firmly and formally from any such views regarding the assassination of any political leader in the western hemisphere?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will not get involved in a domestic debate in the United States. Our view on the question of Central America differs markedly from that of the United States. That difference is well known.
Point of Order-Mrs. Finestone POINT OF ORDER


ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF S. O. 99(2)
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am asking Your Honour for a ruling on the Government's response to the fifth and sixth reports of the House Standing Committee on Communications and Culture which I believe is in breach of Standing Order 99(2).
1 am a member of that committee. I first brought this issue to the attention of the House over one week ago, but I deferred to a request by the office of the Deputy House Leader and by Your Honour to await the presence of the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) before proceeding. I welcome the Minister here today. I will proceed as Your Honour requested.
By way of background, the fifth and sixth reports of the House Standing Committee on Communications and Culture were tabled in the House on April 28 and May 6, 1987, respectively. These two reports contain more than 150 pages of carefully analysed documents and 107 separate recommendations. These reports represent countless hours of preparation by our committee and by members of our staff. They reflect the many hours that we took to hear hundreds of witnesses and to read many hundreds of pages of briefs from various business organizations and public and private institutions, as well as many concerned citizens.
In response to these in-depth reports tabled in the House by the standing committee under our dedicated chairman, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards), the Minister of Communications provided the Government's response in the form of a simple four and one-half page reply-I would suggest a smoke-screen, cynical response to cover a lack of action.
There is nothing in the Standing Orders of the House which allow the Government to provide a partial response to the reports of a committee. Standing Order 99(2) states:
Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special
committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a
comprehensive response thereto.
Your Honour will note that that Standing Order is drafted in mandatory terms-"the Government shall-table a comprehensive response". The Government is obliged to do so as long as the committee has requested such a comprehensive response.
Our committee has specifically made such a request. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that on the final page of each of the committee's two reports in question there appears these words: "The Committee requests that the Government provide a comprehensive response to this report in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 99(2)".
It is apparent that in approving this particular Standing Order Parliament attached considerable weight to the mandatory nature of the Government's obligations and to the

September 9, 1987
Point of Order-Mrs. Finestone
duty to provide a comprehensive reply. The previous set of Standing Orders which were in effect on February 24, 1986, set forth the same duty but gave the Government only 120 days in which to respond to a committee report. The current version of this Standing Order came into effect in June of 1987 allowing the Government 150 days. I presume that it was felt that we needed that additional one month's time.
One would have thought, however, that that would have been ample time for the Minister to have prepared a detailed reply. If the Minister still was not ready to provide a full reply, then she should have come before the House to seek unanimous consent, which I think the committee would have been happy to grant, to extend that time to her under the rules so that she could have ample time. She has failed to do this.
The Government's response to our committee's report deals in vague terms with only some of the recommendations contained in part 2 of our fifth report. That is the part that dealt with the power of direction and civil remedies. The response dealt with none of the recommendations in part 1 of our fifth report on specialty services, the issue which is now before the CRTC, and none of the 86 recommendations contained in our sixth report on broadcasting legislation. Surely it is evident that the failure to respond to any of the 86 recommendations cannot comply with the Standing Order of the House, no matter how it is defined as comprehensive.
1 am not suggesting that the Minister was obliged to advise us what specific actions she intended to take on each of the 107 recommendations. Surely, at the very least, the Minister owed a duty to the House, to the Members, to the committee, and to individual Canadians who came, to indicate whether she agreed or disagreed with our recommendations. Her response does not even meet this minimum standard. She neither accepted nor rejected most of our recommendations, nor does her response provide any indication of which of the committee's 107 specific recommendations she feels that she cannot respond to, or why she cannot respond.
The Minister's failure to respond to our recommendations for a new Broadcasting Act seems strangely inconsistent with the Minister's assurance to the committee on May 4, 1987, and 1 quote what the Minister stated: "I believe we can all agree on the main thrust of new legislation". The Minister was correct. We did agree on the main thrust of this legislation. In fact, our committee recommendations were unanimous. Apparently the Minister has either changed her mind, or chosen to abrogate her responsibility of policy making to the CRTC at this critical juncture in the evolution of Canadian broadcasting. She has failed to provide leadership in the legislative area, a mandate she stated was of utmost urgency. Perhaps it was better that she did not, if she has no vision.
The inaction of the Minister at this critical time leaves a serious void in addressing the new technological changes, for example, satellite to cable speciality services, the very issues
which we addressed and the issues which will have a profound effect on the future of the Canadian broadcasting system. Many hearings have been scheduled and some direction is required.
It is important to note that last winter when our committee first embarked upon consideration of the broadcasting field, we had a choice of three issues or methods of procedure; start with broadcast policy, then look at the architecture of the system, and finally come up with some broadcasting legislation. That course seemed logical. The Minister of Communications urged us to begin with a fast-track study on broadcasting legislation in order that she would be able to produce a new Act. We, as a committee, would have preferred to follow the broadcasting policy route first.
The reference from the Minister of Communications to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture stated, as reported in Hansard on January 29, 1987, page 2855:
That the committee report its findings and recommendations on all matters relevant to the development of broadcasting legislation no later than April 15, 1987.
During a session of the committee on February 5, 1987, the chairman, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) stated, as reported in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 5, 1987, page 18:4:
We have a rigorous schedule. As the Minister indicated to us when she appeared in November, it is required for the Government to carry out its mission of bringing in a new Broadcasting Act. The reference from the House refers to recommendations leading to new Broadcasting Act.
In response to the remarks of Mr. Edwards, the Minister of Communications stated, as reported in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 5, 1987, page 18:5:
I was pleased to hear the Chairman stress the deadline date we have placed on the receipt of your report on the Caplan-Sauvageau Task Force. 1 should advise you now that 1 intend to hold you to that deadline. 1 am very keen to receive your views by then because I am determined to keep my deadline on seeking Cabinet approval for a broad policy framework on broadcasting after Easter, as well as authority to begin drafting a new Act over the summer.
Our committee rushed to meet the deadline imposed by the Minister, but the Minister did not rush to keep up with the committee's response. Now that the committee has complied with the request of the Minister to begin with broadcasting legislation, the Minister has the audacity to send us back to the drawing board with a new set of questions and objectives that are totally irrelevant. Some of the questions now posed by the Minister, for example, those questions relating to the CBC, are largely irrelevant to the formulation of broadcasting policy legislation, since the issues are operating and not legislative in nature.
With respect to the questions of the Minister on Telefilm and the National Film Board, these issues are outside the Broadcasting Act itself, and are therefore not germane to the issues addressed in our fifth and sixth reports.
With respect to the other questions of the Minister, written in bureaucratese, it is difficult to know if the Minister is contemplating deregulation of the CRTC, privatization, or
September 9, 1987

what new incentive measures the Minister feels should be found in the broadcasting legislation.
As an active member of this committee, and an individual Member of the House, I ask the Minister now what type of incentives and respect can we expect from the public at large for a new round of studies when the Minister has responded with a cavalier attitude to our fifth and sixth reports.
If you should think that the case of the Minister of Communications is an isolated one, Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that the failure of Ministers to provide comprehensive reports is a malady which is not confined to this Minister.


Mr. Lewis:: False.


Sheila Finestone: During the previous month you already had before you for consideration two other alleged cases that different Ministers had failed to comply with the same standing order. I recognize as you wave that around that we have received an answer to one.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Stick around.


Sheila Finestone: I did not know that you are the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that the Hon. Member's remarks which were directed at another Member in the House ought not to be taken as if they were directed to the Chair.


Sheila Finestone: Please do not misunderstand my representation.
In conclusion, I have made a fairly lengthy presentation because there is at stake a more fundamental issue than whether the Minister of Communications does or does not submit the long-awaited Broadcasting Act to Parliament. It is not for me to decide how many more crystal balls the Minister requires as well as the Caplan-Sauvageau report, and our committee's reports. The fundamental issue is the sanctity of the committee system. It is whether our much heralded reforms of the committee system are mere words, to be avoided at the whim of an individual Minister who wishes to thwart the will of the House, or whether these are true reforms in the interests of promoting the role of individual Members of the House and its committees, which will be given effect to by the Speaker of the House. The matter rests with you, and I know that we can count on your good judgment.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) on the same point of order.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: I rise on the point of order in my capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. On behalf of the committee, I would ask Your Honour to rule whether the response tabled in the House on August 26 by the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) constitutes a comprehensive response as required by the committee under Standing Order 99(2). It is the unanimous view of the committee that the Minister's
Point of Order-Mrs. Finestone
response is not comprehensive, and thus not in keeping with the spirit or the letter of the reforms of Parliament.
Specifically, the response fails to deal with the substance of Part 1 of the committee's fifth report of April 27 which dealt with specialty services, a new satellite delivered generation of television services. The response neither accepts nor rejects any of the nine recommendations the committee made on the subject, nor comments on any of the analyses and findings of the committee, nor offers any reason why neither the recommendations nor the views expressed by the committee have been dealt with. To be fair and to be complete, the Minister agreed in principle with three recommendations made in Part II of the fifth report.
Both our fifth report, tabled April 27, and our sixth report, made May 6, dealt with matters pertaining to broadcasting, based on the recommendations of the task force thereon, the so-called Caplan-Sauvageau task force. That task force report, dealing with broadcasting policy and legislation, was tabled in the House by the Minister on January 29 of this year. On that date the Minister sought and obtained an order of reference that directed our committee to "report its findings and recommendations in all matters relevant to the development of broadcasting legislation no later than April 15, 1987".
A brief extension of deadline having been granted, the committee reported in full on May 6, outlining with unanimity 86 legislative recommendations in a detailed report comprising 117 pages of reasoned argument and representing 12 weeks of members' work in 42 sessions totalling over 100 hours of deliberations. The Ministry had 120 days or 17 weeks in which to prepare a response. Not one of the 86 recommendations was responded to.
The Minister in her response of August 26 has instead charged the committee with a fourfold new mission-to explore new technologies, to encourage Canadian programming within the limits of available resources, how to strengthen the CBC, and how to maximize use of government resources in program production.
These questions are pertinent, general ones designed to focus the committee's attention beyond the limits of the task force recommendations. They recall for the committee the fact that it must deal with broadcasting policy matters in addition to legislative matters. We know that; we have been studying policy matters since May 7. In fact, had we proceeded in logical order, we would have dealt with policy first, then legislation. However, the Minister wanted a Bill, she gave us a reference, and we complied.
I am mindful, Mr. Speaker, of the rulings made by your distinguished predecessor and by yourself on the issue of government response to reports of standing committees. I am aware, Sir, of Speaker Bosley's ruling of April 26, 1986 in which he said that Hon. Members would understand the Chair would be in a very difficult position were it to be called upon to

September 9, 1987
Point of Order-Mrs. Finestone
rule on the quality of government responses as it is in similar difficulty ruling on the quality of questions or answers during Question Period.
Further, Sir, you yourself ruled on June 29 of this year on the question of whether the word "comprehensive" can be interpreted by the Chair. You found at that time that it was not for the Chair to determine what constituted a comprehensive response, as this would be tantamount to judging the acceptability of the response. You went on to say, Sir: "The nature of the response must be left to the discretion of the Government. If Hon. Members are dissatisfied, there are avenues available through which they can pursue the matter".
I defer to that judgment and I would ask, with all the respect I can summon, that you, Sir, reconsider that ruling. 1 would do so, not because of the specific issues before us, or because of the investment of work which has been made in this, or because I, as Chairman or as a Member of the House, have any issue to take with the Minister, but solely on the grounds that we have had reforms of the House, that those reforms are well known, that they are experimental, that they are tentative, and that they deserve to be nourished and encouraged. I would ask you, Sir, again with all respect, to consider whether the Chair might find, when 86 recommendations are made in response to a House reference and none of them is responded to in substance, that there has or has not been a comprehensive response.
In conclusion, if it is our duty to complete our task, may we see our duty through by our knowing, by an $8 billion industry knowing, and by the nation knowing whether a Minister, charged with responding in a comprehensive way to a committee report she herself ordered with urgency, is then obliged to respond in substance to the recommendations contained therein.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order regarding the failure of the Government to respond in any comprehensive way to the fifth and sixth reports of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. I want to support most heartily the points made by the two previous speakers and to add a few remarks of my own.
I find the Government's failure to respond most astonishing in the circumstances. Perhaps this is the most hard-working committee of the House in terms of number of meetings, in terms of effort, and in terms of all the work which has gone into these two reports.
These reports were delivered on time, with a very slight delay which was agreed upon by all. It was at the timing of the Minister that we deal first with the legislative questions and with the policy questions later. We did that because the Minister stated that it was her timetable and that she wanted to bring in a new Broadcasting Act. We divided up our work deliberately at her request to review legislative aspects first,
which was probably not the order we would have used otherwise. In short, we did what she asked us to do.
It seems most astonishing and indeed insulting to the committee that there should be a complete reversal. After all the work which has gone into it, and after the very detailed and carefully researched and investigative points which have been made, we have not even obtained an answer on the substance.
You have said, Mr. Speaker, that you do not consider it your role to determine what constitutes "comprehensive" in terms of government response and likened it to Question Period and judging the quality of questions and answers. I suggest that in very flagrant cases like this it is very clear that when 86 recommendations in a very lengthy and very carefully prepared report are not responded to, there cannot be any doubt. It is not a question of judging the wisdom of a particular point here and there, it is a question of whether or not there has been an adequate response, a remotely adequate response.
I point out further that, with the failure to respond on these very important points of substance, the Minister has also thrown in complete asides. There are red herrings in this response. There are suggestions that we ought to look at other questions, that we ought to look at a policy on Telefilm and on the National Film Board. These are very important institutions, but that was not part of our mandate. The suggestion that the Government cannot respond because we have failed to do our work is total nonsense. It was not in our reference in the first place. The idea that we should take up these particular questions is totally inappropriate.
There is even a suggestion in the Government's response that our committee might like to reconsider certain points. There is a suggestion that possibly we have been frivolous ourselves and that we might change our minds. There is also a suggestion that the Government's policy must be forward looking, the implication being that the committee is not forward looking, that the committee has not done its work, that the committee would then go out and do some further work, and that the committee would come back with different conclusions. This is simply to insult the committee, that it has not done its work. This committee worked very hard and, with a great deal of effort, came to unanimous recommendations. The committee has worked together very effectively and wants to continue by going on to the policy questions.
Further, we have received no reason for not obtaining answers. We have received no objections. There is no interplay between the Minister and the committee, such as the suggestion, "I don't like recommendation 17, but recommendation 18 is all right for the following reasons". We have been given absolutely no guidance for us to continue our work, none whatsoever.
As I suggest, frivolous questions have been raised at this point, questions which have nothing to do with the legislation but concern legislation in a different area, such as the National Film Board or Telefilm. Some questions that have been raised
September 9, 1987

in the Minister's response deal with the CBC Budget. That was not in our report. We might want to deal with the CBC Budget at a later date, but that was not part of it.
This is a very meagre four and a half pages. As well as not dealing with what it should be dealing with, it raises completely extraneous matters. The report has been padded to get to four and a half pages and made to look like it is addressing issues, in fact it is dealing with subjects that are not at issue right now, that are certainly not the business of the committee at the present time. They would take the committee off on a completely different tact.
This is an important subject, Mr. Speaker. The whole idea of parliamentary reform, committee reform and the idea of having the Government respond is to make meaningful the work of committees. We are not working in isolation to come up with reports that gather dust. The idea is that the committee's work would have relevance, and that the Government would study them.
We have a task force set up by the Government. We looked at that. We had hearings. We commissioned research. We came up with a report and the Government is supposed to carry on to the next step. It intended to, but now we have this complete about face. The Government does not want us to continue the work that way. It wants us to retract on certain suggestions. The Government wants us to investigate the CBC, the NFB or do other things that we were never asked to do, certainly not in connection with this order of reference. We have been left without any guidance whatsoever. Our time has been wasted and house time has been wasted.
In conclusion I would suggest that no doubt Standing Order 99 anticipates and requires the Government to make some sense of our work, to come back in a reasoned way with its response in order that the legislative process can proceed in a proper fashion and that people can work together in some kind of reasonable way. This is not what we have today.
We have a Minister who will intervene in particular cases, but is failing to give policy direction. These are extremely important matters, matters before the CRTC right now in which decisions will be made without any government input whatsoever. We very much regret this order of doing things. It is upside down. The Government should be giving policy direction at this stage before it is too late and not intervening in the process later, which is how this Minister wants to operate. This is a fundamental infringement of the process anticipated with these parliamentary committee reforms.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am pleased to see the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) in the House. She will know that I telephoned her the other day to commiserate with her on her recent accident. I am glad she is mobile and able to join us today.
Point of Order-Mrs. Finestone
I want to say at the outset that members of the committee have, indeed, worked hard and produced a number of reports, many of which I have already responded to, including reports on the status of artists, museums, CBC accountability et cetera. I want to deal today with comments that have been made about the fifth and sixth reports of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and the point raised that the Government's response has not been as comprehensive as it should be.
It is the Government's opinion that the response tabled at this time is as comprehensive as it can be under the circumstances and I would like to deal with those circumstances because some very good points have been raised.
The report submitted by the committee dealt with the legislative aspects of the report of the task force on broadcasting policy, namely, the Caplan-Sauvageau report. Now the Committee is studying, as I understand it, other aspects of the task force report, particularly certain policy aspects.
I have to admit, as was raised here earlier today, that this sequence was at my instigation. I believed at the time the reference was made that it would be feasible to begin drafting legislation before all the policy aspects had been studied and dealt with. But as I looked at the report of the committee, as I followed its work during the months of May and June, and as I studied the reports throughout the summer, it became very clear to me that it would not be possible to proceed in that manner. In fact, I think it was as a result of some of the committee hearings across the country when other issues began being raised that I realized there were certain fundamental policy issues that had not been met or discussed that would have to be dealt with before legislation could be drafted and before a new broadcasting act could be brought in. In other words, the comprehensive policy matters had to be studied, examined and dealt with before the whole Broadcasting Act could be determined in its final stages.
The hearings, I think, pointed to the fact that the task force report itself was rooted in certain assumptions. Those assumptions are such that I feel obliged to question them. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. The first of these assumptions is that regulation, as we presently know it, will be more effective in getting private broadcasters to carry their weight with respect to Canadian programming, and the one way to do that would be to make regulation tougher. I have read a great deal in the last number of months about the impact of regulation on the private broadcasters; there have been many articles and letters written on this subject. I can cite, for instance, Robert Fulford, who has analyzed this matter very carefully and who points out that even with the kind of regulatory methods that are now in effect we have not had the kind of Canadian programming that we all desire.
I have questioned whether or not regulation is the only approach to the private broadcasting system. I have raised the question whether or not methods or incentives could be used, or a combination of incentives or regulations which would

September 9, 1987
Point of Order-Mrs. Finestone
produce more and better Canadian programming. That question has not been answered. I look at that issue and ask myself, can I draft an act without that question being answered? I have asked the committee to look at that in its continuing study of policy.
The second assumption is that broadcasting will continue into the next century in the same way that most Canadians receive broadcasting and programming today. I have asked the committee to look at the way in which technologies are impacting our broadcasting system. Tremendous differences are taking place, whether through the carriage of programming or high definition television. In fact, I know that the committee has asked to meet with officials of the Department of Communications for further briefings on this issue.
The third assumption is that there are no better structures for the CBC within which to carry out its function as the cornerstone of Canadian cultural policy than the structure which exists today. We are looking at the CBC and at whether or not there can be some way in which more emphasis is put on programming, which is the goal of all of us, than on operations. I think there may be ways to do that, but that will have an impact on the mandate of the CBC which, of necessity, has to be built into legislation.
Since all of the Caplan-Sauvageau recommendations flow from these assumptions, I make no apology for wishing to look at what would happen under another set of assumptions. Revision of the Broadcasting Act is something which takes place, at most, once in a generation. The Broadcasting Act was overhauled 20 years ago. We are now looking at it and we know that it will have to carry us into the 21st century. Is the mandate of the CBC, developed some 50 years ago, relevant to the mandate of the CBC that must take it into the 21 century?
That having been said, there are certain legislative matters on which immediate action is advisable and I have responded to those measures. For instance, in its report of April 27 the committee urged prompt introduction of a power of direction over the CRTC. It recommended a limited review power as well as a private right of action under the Radio Act. Those were three major measures, particularly the power of direction, recommended by the committee.
The Government has agreed in principle with those recommendations. That in itself is a substantive response. The power of direction to the CRTC, which is an all-Party recommendation and had been recommended as well by the previous Government, will probably be one of the most profound moves that has ever been made in the field of broadcasting. We have dealt with that. We have said that we would accept that recommendation in principle.
We agreed earlier to another set of proposals made by the committee dealing with CBC accountability. The Government will be introducing legislation shortly to enact those changes.
There are some recommendations in the committee's report on which the Government does not now have the power to act. For example, the committee made a number of recommendations with regard to specialty services. The Government currently does not have a mechanism which would permit it to direct a quasi-judicial body like the CRTC to follow a particular course of action with regard to specialty services. There is, therefore, no concrete action that the Government can take on recommendations regarding these specialty services at the present time.
The response indicates to the CRTC that the Government expects the committee's recommendations to be taken into account. We have ensured that those recommendations were passed on to the CRTC, but we cannot direct it in its decision. Obviously, if decisions made on specialty services are appealed, the committee's recommendations would form an element of the Cabinet's review, but until there is a power of direction, the Government cannot act directly on these recommendations.
The Government has decided not to commit itself at this moment to the more than 100 detailed recommendations for changes to the Broadcasting Act but prefers to finalize the policy framework first. In other words, we do not want to put the cart before the horse. That indicates, I will agree, that there has been a rethinking of the appropriate order of the activity of the Government. I think that is a very appropriate approach to take on this very important issue. It does not indicate, and I want to assure Hon. Members of this, that the recommendations and the work of the committee will not be followed up in detail.
I may say that I am certainly as committed as members of the committee or any Member of the House to broadcasting reform. I have stated that before and I will state it again. I am committed to broadcasting reform based on the chief objective of the Government to ensure more and better Canadian programming in the system. It is for this reason that I have asked the committee to look more comprehensively at the assumptions that were contained in the Caplan-Sauvageau report. I feel that the Government's response was indeed perfectly consistent with a sincere effort to make its broadcasting review one that is truly directed to the future.
I hope that the committee would undertake, in its present and ongoing review, an analysis of these questions that I have posed. We are doing the same thing at this time. I have welcomed the work of the committee to date and I will welcome any comment it is able to make on these questions I have posed to it-questions which I think are so fundamental to the new broadcasting policy we are in the process of developing.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short intervention on the procedural aspects of this point of order. I think all Hon. Members of the House have made a contribution to the debate and it has been healthy for all sides.
September 9, 1987

The Government responded to the McGrath committee's report on parliamentary reform by expanding the mandate of parliamentary committees under Standing Order 96(2). This gave the standing committees of Parliament a much larger mandate than they had had in the past. In fact, it gave committees the opportunity to write their own mandates, as it were. They are now unfettered and unhindered and they have complete freedom to investigate whichever areas they wish. I think it is fair to say that this has been a benchmark in expanding the ability of the House as a whole and members from all Parties to hold the Government accountable.
Standing Order 99(2) requires the Government to respond to a standing committee report when the committee asks for a response. I point out that this was not part of the recommendations of the McGrath committee. This was something that was added by the Government to bolster that particular aspect of it.
1 apologize for heckling the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) at the point that I did. I wanted to mention that the Hon. Member quite rightly pointed out that there had been a previous point of order on this issue. In fact, I believe there have been three points of order raised about it. Since there have been points of order raised on the question of the word "comprehensive" before, I would like to point out in fairness that there have been some 17 responses by the Government to committee reports since September 1986. In only three cases the question of whether or not the response was comprehensive has come up for debate. I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards), referred to previous rulings. I would like to expand upon that reference.
I would point out the comments you made, Sir, on June 29. At that time, you said:
It is not for the Chair to determine what constitutes a comprehensive response as this would be tantamount to judging the acceptability of the response. Clearly the Chair could not examine every committee report and every government response in order to make this determination. The nature of the response must be left to the discretion of the Government and, if Hon. Members are dissatisfied, there are avenues available through which they can pursue the matter.
You then made reference to a similar point of order which was raised on April 18, 1986, and you indicated that Mr. Speaker Bosley said:
-"that the Chair would be in a very difficult position were it called upon to rule on the quality of government responses".
You went on to say, Mr. Speaker, the following:
Members are entitled to express dissatisfaction with government responses to committee reports-
I think it is fair to point out as well that a member of the Government and joined in the debate questioning the word "comprehensive", and I think that is an indication that we stand behind parliamentary reform. You went on to say, Mr. Speaker, the following:
-but such complaints can only be pursued through the political process.
Point of Order-Mrs. Finestone
I suggest that by allowing this debate to go on now, the matter has been aired through the political process. The Government is content that that should take place. All Members of the House have had an opportunity to participate in the debate. I submit that your ruling of June 29 was sound and that this point of order should be ruled upon using that as a basis for your decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) rises to speak and I think it would be appropriate to allow her to make a short reply.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that it is very difficult for you to determine whether or not a report is comprehensive in the political sense of the word. Yet if we just look at the numerical sense, in this particular instance we can see a flagrant abuse of that word. There were 85 recommendations, and not one single word. The Minister used the House just now to elaborate on her thinking. Whether or not I agree with that thinking is not the point. The point is, if she had used that avenue to tell the committee why she felt she required further time and that she made an error in judgment in asking us to go the legislative investigative route rather than the policy and then legislative route, fine, there would have been no argument. Yet with a sort of "the back of her hand" she completely disregards the effort and time put in by volunteers and staff. That is extremely disrespectful of the points just made by the Deputy House Leader.
The Minister also said she could not direct that regulatory body, but she is prepared to go with a patchwork quilt on the same broadcasting matter, and tells us she is going to bring in some CBC legislation. One should have a degree of coherence in the presentation of an argument for one's point of view. I suggest Bill C-20 was the first Bill I got when I came to this House over three years ago; two Ministers had that Bill for consideration, prior to my ever getting here, two other ministers had it, so she certainly had an option.
As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) specifically asked the Minister if she would split the Bill and bring in the power of direction under Bill C-20. I asked that of the Minister. She seemed to be interested but now in her report she indicates that the Government is confident that the Commission will take no action to foreclose fundamental options with respect to such important issues as the respective roles of specific industry sectors or the economic structure of the broadcasting environment. She goes on to say that the CRTC is well aware that the Government is engaged in a major review of broadcasting. If she has some concerns, bring in the power of direction. If she is worried about Canadian content, do something about it. Do not slough it off in this way and then pretend she cannot do anything.
The last point I would like to make is that when we are talking about a response the Minister said she wanted methods

September 9, 1987
Point of Order-Mrs. Finestone
of incentives which would indicate to her the kinds of programs. It seems to me we spent one full day in this House defending what the National Film Board does. The Minister's Parliamentary Secretary gave a rousing speech on the role of the NFB, and I defended that. Furthermore, she just brought in permanent funding for Telefilm. We gave an impression as to how we felt artists should be supported. We told the Minister to bring in the cinema Act and a film policy. We said do not cut out capital cost allowances. How the heck did you ever get involved in a White Paper reform that is going to kill the film industry and broadcasting?
I do not know what more the Minister wants by way of directives from this side of the House or from a committee which is dedicated to Canadian culture. Either the Minister has absolutely been bought or is having her arm twisted-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, wait a moment. You withdraw that.


Sheila Finestone: You are right. I am sorry, I do withdraw that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You ought to be ashamed.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sure the Hon. Member did not mean to cast aspersions on the character or integrity of the Minister and I thank her for immediately withdrawing that comment.
This may be of some help to the Flon. Member in concluding her remarks. The Chair has listened very carefully to this entire debate. As was pointed out by the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), it is not the first time it has been brought to the Chair's attention. I ask that the Hon. Member close off her remarks and stay exactly on the procedural point that I now have to decide.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, in no way did I intend that to be an attack on the Minister's credibility or integrity, for which she has a very fine reputation. If that is what it sounded like, I withdraw that and deeply apologize to the Minister.
My concern is that the Minister has constantly talked about the fact that we have 97 per cent of our screen time being used by non-Canadians, particularly Americans. She wants to do something about that. Then she came up with some ideas. The industry and the Canadian people were very excited about her cinema Act. They were pleased she was putting more money into a number of areas. Now they see this as a withdrawal of either interest or active participation in moving forward the cultural sector. We appreciate her very intense concern for the telecommunications sector but she has two mandates and the other one deals with broadcasting and other cultural issues.
I bring to your attention the fact that we have found this to be an inadequate report. The fundamental policy issues were not addressed. If the Minister felt she wanted it to be otherwise and she would now like us to deal with those policies, I suggest that would have been a more effective and efficient way to address the issue. To go about this in a patchwork way
is not good and I certainly do not expect to see another Bill for the CBC.


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to intervene in this discussion, but as a member of the committee I would like to add a couple of comments.
I guess the question centres around what is a comprehensive reply and this is what the discussion is about. The chairman of the committee already indicated that we did not feel it was a comprehensive reply. However, as the Minister indicated, does a reply have to be given immediately or can she do it later? I feel there is a possibility of getting the answers from the Minister other than during this debate or through messages being sent back and forth.
The Minister indicated today that our work will be followed up in detail, which I am very pleased to hear. In the past the Minister, one of the hardest working Ministers, has taken our advice, for example on the museums corporation. I see she is now acting on that. I have no doubt she is willing to listen to our recommendations and I am very pleased with what she has said today.
As the Minister pointed out, this is a very complicated subject. She indicated some of the things she cannot do because there is no legislation to permit her to do them. 1 only wish she had said that in her reply, but I am pleased that she has indicated that she is going to follow up on some of these things. As a member of the committee, 1 can say we are going to hold her to that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank all Hon. Members for their interventions on this important matter. I want to especially thank the Hon. Minister. We all know the demands on a Minister's time and she stayed throughout this entire debate. I am sure Hon. Members appreciate that. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) for so graciously accepting my invitation to adjourn this application some days ago in order to give the Minister an opportunity to be here. I think all Hon. Members are impressed that the chairman of the committee took part in these deliberations, as did the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell).
There is nothing particularly easy about these complaints which have been brought to the Speaker. The Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), in his succinct and I think apposite comments, noted the difficulty that the Chair could get into in trying to determine what is or is not comprehensive. However, we have a problem which has been brought to the Chair and the Chair will consider this matter, along with some others which are pending, and try and bring a comprehensive report to the House which will be of assistance to all Hon. Members.
September 9, 1987



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of petitions with regard to the Post Office. The first petition indicates that Canada Post is reducing delivery service in the City of Winnipeg for its business customers. The petitioners call upon the Government to stop this reduction of service and to restore the service that they have traditionally received from the Post Office. The second petition I have is also with regard to the Post Office and is from people across the country who indicate that the federal government proposal to seek financial self-sufficiency for the Canada Post corporation by 1988 will result in cutbacks and deterioration of service of the Post Office and will consequently be at the expense of service to Canadian consumers.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved service the highest priority of the Canada Post corporation and to instruct the Government to abandon this policy of closing rural post offices and cancelling rural routes.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Immigration Act, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, in rising to debate Bill C-84 I must register the strongest possible concerns with what the Government is doing on the issue of refugees. I am appalled at the legislation before us today. I am appalled by the hypocrisy of the Government in dealing with this issue. The legislation before us today will not deal with the genuine concerns people have about fraudulent refugees and the smuggling of people into the country for commercial purposes in order to make money from the misery of others. The Bill will not accomplish the objective of Canadians to distinguish between genuine refugees and those posing as refugees in order to jump the queue.
I happen to represent a riding which, like many ridings in this country, has a very large number of recent immigrants and people who are trying to get their own families in. There is a great deal of concern that it is unfair for people to use the refugee process to subvert the ordinary immigration process. I and my Party would heartily concur with legislation that would make it possible to make this kind of distinction, and that would provide fair procedures for immigrants and refugees, and would crack down on the fraudulent practices that exist.
This legislation will not help with those problems. It will leave people extremely frustrated in that it is still possible for crooks and smugglers to abuse the system. Genuine refugees will not get into Canada. People will be turned away and returned to unsafe countries. Bill C-55 is a mockery of our international and Charter obligations and Bill C-84 is even worse than that.
I want to raise a number of very specific concerns. So many of our ancestors came to Canada under difficult circumstances. I am appalled that a country built on the basis of immigrants and refugees is so unsympathetic and unable now to develop a policy that would make the wise distinctions we do want to make. 1 am appalled that Canada has had such a bad record for so many years on the issue of refugees. Only fairly recently did we begin to reverse those trends. Very recently, in 1986, Canada was awarded the United Nations Nansen award for its work on refugees, marking the reversal of our bad history.
Now in 1987, only a year after winning an award for our humanitarian work on refugees, the Government wants to turn the clock back to that earlier and very disgraceful period during which Canada treated would-be refugees abominably.



September 9, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
In 1939 Jewish refugees from Hitler's Germany came to South America, the United States of America, and finally to Canada. Canada turned away 907 Jewish refugees, many of whom died in death camps as a result. There was also the case of would-be East Indian immigrants; they were the wrong colour under our racist policies of the past, and those desperate people were turned away. We now have legislation which will ensure that people are turned away at the ports, the bus stations, the airports and the train stations. Genuine refugees whose lives are at stake in countries which torture, imprison and kill people, could be turned away under the provisions of this Bill.
Let me get into some specifics of what is wrong with this Bill. First of all, Bill C-84 would introduce a new security certificate system for procuring deportation of certain recent arrivals. It would deny these people the right to apply for refugee status. It would turn ships away from our territorial waters if they were considered to be bringing in undocumented passengers. And, of course, there would be punishment for anyone helping those people come to Canada without the usual travel documents, documents which are available only in official offices that people would likely not be able to get to.
With respect to the new security certificates, the proposed law will allow a Minister of Employment and Immigration and a Solicitor General to sign a certificate saying that someone is a security risk without saying what he did or what is the evidence against him. The charge and the evidence would be reviewed in camera by the Security Intelligence Review Committee which would then tell the accused as much of the accusation as it thinks would not harm national security. The accused would reply and the Security Intelligence Review Committee would recommend to the Minister whether or not to sustain the certificate. Therefore, there are now provisions which can ensure that someone who is a security risk will not be allowed to stay in the country.
There are provisions for the security of Canada but, nonetheless, there are provisions which ensure that a person is not to be deported back to the country of origin, and ensure that security considerations are treated along with the refugee application. If necessary, a third country is considered to which the person could go rather than back to the country where that person's life may be very much at risk.
Bill C-84 would separate permanent residents from nonpermanent arrivals and provide a different security certificate system for the non-permanent arrivals. They would be reviewed by the Federal Court and a judge would decide whether or not to quash the certificate. In terms of the substance of the matter, Federal Court judges do not have experience or expertise in this area. They will not be able to deal in an appropriate fashion with those applications. Their expertise and experience is on the legal reasoning, not on the substance of these cases. Therefore, we will see a procedure set up that is totally inappropriate for the question at hand.
With respect to denial of access to refugee status determination, Clause 5 of Bill C-84 would deprive people accused in the security certificate of eligibility to seek refugee status determination. They are not even going to get into the system whereby it would be decided whether or not they were genuine refugees. This, of course, is a callous way of saying that genuine refugees will not be turned away from the country because people who are genuine refugees will not even be considered. We will not even find out whether or not they are genuine refugees; they will be screened out right at the beginning.
Of course, this provision is contrary to international obligations that Canada has undertaken only fairly recently. Canada has signed the United Nations Convention. The United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees requires that the refugee status claim be heard first and the security risk be examined as part of that procedure. That has been the case, and still is the case until the law is changed. Of course, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees would assist where there is such a problem of a security risk in a genuine refugee case. The representative of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees raised objections to Clause 5, and other clauses, in representations to the committee, but the Government has ignored those recommendations for amendment.
With respect to turning ships away, Clause 8 of Bill C-84 empowers the Minister to order any ship to be turned away from Canada's territorial waters by whatever force is necessary if he considers it is carrying bogus refugee claimants. My Party and the United States representative are concerned that real refugees may be turned away at the same time and the ship captains may unload their passengers in a country where they will be in danger, or they may simply be sent back to sea. Until this year, Canada strongly opposed countries such as Malaysia doing this very thing. We have made representations against the kind of activity the Government itself is now contemplating. That is disgraceful. It should not be allowed. A civilized country would not do that. Canada, in signing the United Nations Convention undertook not to do that sort of thing.
We have asked for an amendment requiring such a ship to be escorted into a Canadian port where the captain could be punished if he had a load of bogus refugees. Certainly, the captain ought to pay for that. One of the ironies of this Bill is that it threatens and is tough on the victims, the people who are exploited, yet it would let extremely unscrupulous people who are trading in human misery, such as ship captains with bogus refugees, off the hook. We suggested that instead, the Government ought to throw the book at such a captain and any people involved in this kind of activity. By all means, bring them into port and punish them. That would be the deterrent.
The Government has talked about the need for a deterrent in view of these organized ship loads of people coming. But where is the deterrent if a ship captain can organize some kind of bogus deal, bring people in, make a lot of money on them, and then is simply turned away? There is no risk to the captain
September 9, 1987

in those circumstances. It would be far better to have the ship brought into port and have these captains face the music of a very heavy fine and prison sentence.
I might add that the inter-church groups which have appeared before the committee and have made representations on this subject were very clear on this point, as they were on other points. They say that what is necessary is to separate the real refugees from bogus refugees and to look very strenuously at measures to punish those who are using refugees for commercial purposes, to make money, by organizing these trips to Canada. By letting them off the hook, as the present legislation would, we are not going to solve that problem at all.
We also have the new provision, something we have never seen before in Canada, and something which is certainly startling to people who are helping refugees, that is, punishment for persons helping undocumented refugees to come to Canada. Under the present law, thousands of Canadians have advised and otherwise helped refugees to come to an immigration office at a Canadian port of entry, whether by land, sea or air. This has not been illegal. Bill C-84 would make it an offence, punishable by up to a $10,000 fine or five years in prison if the group is of 10 persons or more.
The Minister has promised never to prosecute humanitarian groups. Church groups have been told that in fact they are not going to be prosecuted, and they have not been prosecuted in the past. They have not been prosecuted in the past because they have not done anything against the law. Now we have the suggestion that there be a new offence simply for advising people of their right to apply for refugee status, people who do not have documents.
EIow does this happen? Many refugees do not have documents. They cannot get documents because in fact they are persecuted in their own countries. We should, therefore, not be surprised that we have refugees appearing in Canada who do not have appropriate documents. The Government should not be surprised by this. To say, however, that anyone who would help such a person must be helping someone who is an illegal refugee, not a genuine refugee, is to completely misunderstand the situation.
People who are really trying to get away from the system, to get around our rules, will probably be well able to get the necessary documents. This sort of thing is not going to help us deal with well financed terrorist groups, for example, who do not seem to have any trouble getting very good travel documents.
This type of legislation will not solve the problem of undesirables arriving on our shores with inadequate documentation. It will not do that at all. What it will do is punish people who in all good faith are serving to aid people for humanitarian reasons.
Immigration Act, 1976
Refugees are among the most miserable, exploited and oppressed people in any part of the world. I commend those who work to help them to find new homes. The idea that these people should now be criminalized is really a scandal. The church representatives themselves tell us that they do not want just to be let off the hook by a Minister who will be too generous to see that they are prosecuted and that they can rely on his goodwill to ensure that the letter of the law is in fact not enforced. These people have said that they do not want to feel or believe that they have committed an offence. They want to be proud of the laws of Canada. They do not want to think that they are breaking the law, that it is only because of the goodwill of the Minister who has made an exception that they are not being prosecuted. That is not good enough for them. They are decent citizens.
I say that a law such as that is not a law good enough for Canada. It is wrong to have a law that is so pernicious, so extravagant and so unnecessary that the Minister promises in advance that it will very seldom be implemented. What kind of a law is that? Of course, there could be any type of change and such a law could in fact be implemented.
We know that people who work with refugees in the United States, members of church groups, members of churches which are now sanctuaries for refugees, are breaking the law and are risking prison sentences. We can see that happening in Canada because our good friends are saying that they will defy any such law which is implemented and passed by Parliament. They will defy it and risk criminal sanctions as a result.
I commend these people for putting conscience at such a high level. 1 hope that we do not pass a law that will force people in good conscience, because of their humanitarian concerns, to break the law in order to help a very needy and exploited person, a refugee.
The NDP offered amendments to clarify this matter so that it would be an offence only in the case of someone who tries to evade immigration examination, or someone who organizes people to make deliberately false refugee claims. I note that the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), advocated this in his speech in the House. He recommended that the law be rephrased to state that every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet a person to come to Canada in this fashion be guilty of an offence. He recommended that that not be so in the case of advice given by church organizations, Amnesty International and all other types of organizations to help people. That recommendation was made and the Government has refused to accept it.
This clause has offended Canadians widely since it seems created for the purpose of intimidating those who are helping people who are fleeing persecution. I am sad to see that the Government is persisting with this. I hope that it will see the error of its ways and change its mind on this very significant part of the legislation.

September 9, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
There are other parts of the legislation to which we certainly object. I refer to the areas of search and seizure and wiretapping. We consider this a wholly scandalous piece of legislation. We have humanitarian obligations to refugees. I am proud of the church groups which are aiding them, and which see that as part of a civilized society we have obligations to people who are exploited, obligations beyond our own citizens. We are part of a world and we have strangers, refugees or exploited persons who come to our shores. We have obligations as fellow human beings living on this planet to aid them. We need wise legislation which will make a distinction between the genuine refugees and which will protect us from crooks who want to abuse the system. We do not have that with the present legislation. I urge Members to vote against Bill C-84 as it presently stands.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments?


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I have just one brief question for the Hon. Member. One of the clauses that people from British Columbia who have contacted me have found most offensive is Clause 9. In relation to that clause, the Minister promised that he would never prosecute humanitarian groups or persons who were bringing people into Canada, smuggled or not. He said that he and some bureaucrats would decide who would be selectively prosecuted.
Many church groups and individuals in my constituency have been in touch with me with respect to that proposal. They have said that they find it to be one of the most offensive concepts in the Bill. They object to this idea of a Minister deciding selectively who to prosecute. Will he prosecute a nun from St. Catharines who brings a couple of people across from Central America? To leave an area such as that open to the political whim of the Minister of the day, and perhaps to what the Minister might have eaten the day before or whether he likes someone or not in a certain area, I find to be one of the most horrific and un-Canadian parts of the Bill. Will the Hon. member take a moment to comment on this selective prosecution process that is provided for in Bill C-84?


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member has raised an extremely important point. Certainly organizations which have gotten in touch with me have raised this point as well. This is one of the most obnoxious parts of the legislation. There are several reasons why it is obnoxious.
One reason is that people do not want to be law-breakers, people who are doing good things out of conscience. These are church groups which are concerned. We have the Hebrew-Christian tradition which respects refugees. They are among the weakest and most oppressed members of any society. As a matter of conscience and religious belief they are obliged-it is not a matter of choice or ethics of deciding whether or not to go along with one rule or another-to aid refugees. Here, because of their religious convictions, they will do things that will make them law-breakers. It is outrageous in our society, our so-called Christian society, that we would have a law
which will make law-breakers out of some of our most outstanding members of society, people who are doing very good work. That is outrageous.
We are then given the answer that this law will not be enforced. A Minister will decide, and will simply not choose to prosecute these good people, people who are acting in good conscience. Who says? This is a very inappropriate way to word a law. The Minister should not be making these types of decisions. Do we want our Minister of Justice to be phoning up judges, telling them who to convict and who not to convict? Or do we want him phoning up prosecutors to say, "I want prosecution here and there"? It is a role of the Government to propose legislation and to propose policy, but not to decide on particular cases.
With regard to church groups, these are groups which are lobbying the Government for change in social issues. The same people came before the committee with respect to refugees, and they are also lobbying on all other kinds of social issues. They are lobbying with respect to poverty issues and issues of equality rights. They could be sent off to jail, which would certainly shut them up for a while. They are being placed in a very difficult situation and being ordered to keep on the right side of the law in order not to be prosecuted. Perhaps they will be pressed not to lobby on other issues. This will certainly put them in a very difficult situation, simply because they are acting in good conscience. That is a scandalous thing for the Canadian Parliament to do.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, my question to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) is a follow-up to the question on the church groups. I note that the Hon. Member was about to discuss the questions raised in this Bill on search and seizure. Most societies on this earth, regardless of their religion, society, or language, have viewed churches as a safe place, a sanctuary, and a refuge. Therefore, it is quite natural that refugees who are fleeing a regime for political reasons, or for their very lives tend to seek out churches when they come to Canada, or when they are on their way here.
1 notice that there are some radical changes to the manner in which we generally handle the question of search and seizure. The process of warrants and orders for a search and seizure seem to be bypassed in this particular Bill.
Would the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood give us her analysis of what this Bill does both to the principle of sanctuary and providing a refuge through church groups, which is something recognized by most societies, and to the apparent change in the law proposed by this particular Bill?


Lynn McDonald: These are two quite different issues. The sanctuary issue is an extremely interesting one. People do go to churches for sanctuary. Historically over the centuries, churches have played the role of rescuing people. Because of the churches' belief in the sanctity of human life, they rescue
September 9, 1987

people without asking questions and attempt to sort out the situation later. Churches have played that role, and increasingly they are playing that role.
The question of search and seizure raises many legal issues. Historically, Canada has had pretty Draconian laws on search and seizure. We then brought in the Charter of Rights which limited the state in its search and seizure ability and put constraints on it, and it did not happen soon enough. In the past we had been excessive on this subject. That has been reversed and some legal restraints have been brought in, and now in Bill C-84 there will be new search and seizure, and quite Draconian provisions.
Under Clause 11 of Bill C-84, the Immigration Commission may search and seize, even without a warrant, anything it considers related to the offences of smuggling 10 or more people, or disembarking them at sea. This could include lawyers' privileged solicitor-client documents, or a refugee's personal records. This could mean records that may be very dangerous if they fell into the wrong hands. In short, these provisions are excessive and could certainly pose serious dangers for the people involved.
I wish to add that these provisions will not do us any good because they are directed at the victims of exploitation. They are not directed in any constructive way to go after the culprits, the people who are organizing these refugee scams, which we know have happened. These provisions do not address that, they are excessive, and they will not accomplish any serious purpose we may wish to see accomplished with new refugee legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is one minute left. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: I wish to direct a question to my hon. colleague. Earlier today during Question Period the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) in reply to a question made the statement that there was wide support for this refugee Bill.
In my City of Winnipeg I find that there is almost universal opposition to the Bill on the part of spokespersons for the ethnic communities, particularly those ethnic groups where people have entered Canada in recent years, and from virtually all the church groups, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Mennonite to mention a few, who have been working to help refugees come to Canada. In this respect, what is the experience of my hon. colleague in her City of Toronto?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood on a very short answer, please.


Lynn McDonald: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of concern among families who are waiting for relatives to come to Canada, and who are extremely frustrated by the slowness of the procedures, and sometimes the unfairness and restrictions of the procedures. I think that the Government is playing on the fear of a flood of refugees and a
Immigration Act, 1976
quite proper resentment from immigrants who are waiting for members of their families, and that it is making a scapegoat of refugees in order to justify a policy which is totally wrong. I hope people are beginning to distinguish between the fact that we need a fair policy, one that will distinguish between genuine and bogus refugees, and one that will respect the immigrants who are waiting for their own families to come to Canada, and not play on their resentment that they have been kept waiting while they see other people being able to jump the queue.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-84, a Bill which is among the most repressive legislation that I have seen in a long time. I find it hard to believe that in a situation where we know that there has been abuse and a misuse of the hospitality which Canadians are used to giving, instead of acting in the correct time and under the proper circumstances, the Government has waited for more than three years. It disregarded many reports, for example, the Robinson and Plaut reports. It waited until Members were on holiday, and with the arrival of 174 people in a boat off the coast of Nova Scotia all of a sudden it seemingly woke up and cried, "Hey, something is going on out there. We must do something".
I would suggest that this issue has been before us for some time. People were dropped off on the shores of Newfoundland, this boat had arrived, and daily people arrived by air, car, bus, train, and yet nothing was done.
The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has raised the issue of illegal immigrants or illegal migrants coming into Canada. We have heard from him about the use or abuse of these people who found themselves in difficult circumstances, whether they were true refugees in the definition sense of the United Nations, or whether they were economic refugees who were looking for a better life-style. What happened to these people was the trafficking in their flesh and in their misery by unconscionable smugglers who were taking money and using their misfortune to bring them illegally into Canada.
There is no question that that is not the manner in which Canadians wish to see their laws used or addressed. Canadians are fair-minded and open-minded people. Canadians expect to see a decent way of life and respect for law and order.
The Government had before it these unconscionable people, and instead of addressing the issue two and a half years ago and issuing visas, it ignored what were the proper types of approaches and bringing in a piece of legislation that would be a reflection of Canadian values at the same time as stopping the illegal use of our borders by people who do not deserve or should not have access to or be hosted in this land.
Essentially, in Bill C-84 we are talking about a very sensitive area. We are talking about refugees, people who are fleeing from perceived persecution, who have practically nothing but the clothes on their backs, and who often do not have papers because they could not do what the ads for American Express state, "Do not leave home without it". They could not run

September 9, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
back home and pick up their identification papers. They could not apply at the door of the consulate. If they did that, there was no way they would come out of those countries alive.
We are looking at a situation where people who need and want to come to this country are mixed with people who have no business coming to this country and do not belong here, people whom we need not have to host. We have not found a fair and equitable system, a Canadian way, to address that issue.
What they have done is to put together an absolutely unconscionable Bill which reminds me of an unnecessary Draconian measure. They did not listen to Rabbi Plaut and his sensible approach to handling the situation or to the many church groups and human rights organizations that have a lot of experience, obviously much more than the Minister of Immigration and Employment (Mr. Bouchard) or his sidekick. Instead, we have a Bill which talks about a deportation certificate and turning back boats.
The hackles on the back of my neck go up when I hear the phrase, "turning back boats". There is not a Member of the House who is not reminded that this might be in the spirit of St. Louis and that we should have learned our lesson in 1939. Did we not turn back a boat with hundreds of innocent Jewish people who were merely seeking asylum? We turned our backs, we closed our eyes, we ignored the circumstances, and those people suffered very ugly consequences. Did we not learn from that incident that we should welcome people to our shores, that we should ask questions, and that those who do not deserve the good grace and the harbour of this land are sent away? That is the way we should handle it.
They say that if there is misrepresentation we have to use consultants; there is a whole procedure for that. There is also a procedure for smugglers. Instead of attacking only those people who are doing the smuggling, they are also attacking legitimate groups like churches. There is an application of responsibilities which are ministerial and governmental to transportation companies. Search and enter powers are suddenly being allowed in the interest of saving us from illegal refugees. We now have detention certificates and talk about a need for documentation and what happens if one does not have it. Many serious questions are raised by the proposed measures.
Do the proposals go too far? Of course they do. Are they specific enough to eliminate the real abusers and exploiters? No, they are not. Does it penalize those in the genuine assistance of refugees? Yes, it does-church groups, priests, nuns, volunteer groups, amnesty groups, and other kinds of such groups. Was the piece of legislation poorly drafted by a Department rushed into meeting the claim of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that it was an emergency situation and the need for special measures? Was it intentional?
I give the following proposition. Yes, it was intentional. It was a bogus issue used to inflame the population. It was a misrepresentation of the real issues. It was a way in which the Government could get the House to come back to address what it considered to be a major piece of legislation, that is, the drug Bill. It was used as a false premise. It played on the lowest and basest of our human instincts instead of rising to the traditional fineness in Canadian values.
Will the Bill encourage a series of court challenges if implemented? The United Nations has said that it will. Human rights groups have said that it will. People who are knowledgeable about the law have said that it will, such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and Amnesty International.
What more does the Minister need to tell him that he was on the wrong track? What more does he need to back up and say he made a mistake and that he will redraft it? What more does he need to say, "You were right and I made an error; I was poorly guided by the justice people in my Department"? Did he really discuss it with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Department of Justice? I doubt it. I am sure they are all red-faced to see a Minister abuse his Justice officials.
If the Government were genuinely interested in stopping real abuse, why did it wait until this summer to deal with it? Why did it not deal with this aspect under Bill C-55? It has certainly had plenty of time.
The Government cannot use the excuse any longer that it is a new government and does not know its way around, that it has to learn, and that it is entitled to its mistakes. It is entitled to nothing now. It should know how to use its legislative agenda. It should not have had to call us back on this kind of excuse. It should have put its house in order to meet what Canada considers to be fair.
Are refugee applicants being dealt with as human beings with human rights? I do not think so, Madam Speaker; wait until we look at the remedies and special detention measures designed for refugees. They are worse than what we do with our worst criminals right here in Canada.
Do you know, Madam Speaker, that there is a need for special detention certificates? Presently the law provides that if the Government or the Minister feels that there is a lack of identification or the possibility of a security risk-and that could be a case in point-there is the possibility of detaining the person for 48 hours. After 48 hours, there is a request to a special immigration adjudicator and a mechanism to request an additional seven-day period of detention. I think that is fair and that there are people in the world who would try to abuse our borders. I also think that we must have a mechanism to stop it.
However, to what point does one go? That procedure has worked well for years. Now the Government wants to move from 48 hours to seven days without any question. After seven days and after a special detention certificate, it would permit
September 9, 1987

the Minister to ask for a person to be detained for 21 days. The adjudicator has no discretion whatsoever to overrule that request. Madam Speaker, you realize that the Minister is taking unto himself or abrogating unto himself these special powers, powers which are outside the elected process. I think the Minister is making a serious and grave mistake. It will leave him open to unnecessary manipulation. I think it is wrong.
The Minister now calls the shots. It is dangerous. He has done that because we were faced with 174 immigrants off the shores of Nova Scotia where the people came out and welcomed them. I really think that is pushing it a little too far.
I think that those moves are un-Canadian. I also think that they run afoul of our human rights code. However, in respect of documentation, just what do they expect? Most refugees are suffering from the trauma of running away, the trauma of dislocation, and the trauma of leaving their families, their language, their culture, and their life-style. Who in his right mind wants to pick himself up and move, unless circumstances are detrimental to his daily living, to his future and to the future of his children? It is not a choice which people make lightly. Then, to be harassed in the way the Bill harasses them, goes beyond my ability to find credible anything the Minister has proposed.
Do they think refugees will fall outside our Charter provisions? Do we not believe that individual rights, once one is on Canadian land, belong to everybody and that they should be treated with cordial decency? If one needs to be sent away because one is an undesirable, there are ways to do it.
Will the Canadian public realize the full impact of these proposals, or will it assume that Bill C-84 is needed to deal with the abusers and the exploiters? I think there has been a lot of misinformation out there. There are people in my riding who are desperately looking to family rejoinder and have been thwarted in that desire. They see the family structure differently than we do. We think of the family in terms of the nuclear family, but the extended family is their perception. They want their brothers, their sisters, and their children who are over 18 years of age to be here. This is quite normal. These people have, for the most part, brought wealth, industry and have promoted business in Canada.
One-third of this country has been built by immigrants, many of whom came as refugees. I can only hearken to my experience in my own Jewish community in the City of Montreal. We were 45,000 Jews in Montreal prior to 1939. We more than tripled our numbers, and I think in Montreal itself we have brought economic prosperity, civility, culture and enrichment to it. I am proud of what the refugees from the camps of Europe brought to Canada. They came as refugees, and it was not easy for them to get in here because it was hard to get past the front door. They were true refugees. These are true refugees in Asia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan,
Immigration Act, 1976
Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, El Salvador and Chile. The people in my riding, no matter what colour, language or cultural persuasion, want us not only to treat refugees fairly and decently but to tell smugglers, "No". The people want us to link this whole thing into amendments that are sensible and fair.
I think as people have talked over the summer they have begun to realize that the true evil at the door is this Bill, not the refugees who are knocking at the door. If the Government receives parliamentary approval for this Bill, what will the Government do about Bill C-55? Will it die on the Order Paper? Again, what about family rejoinder, which we have been looking for, the promulgation of extension to older children, the extended family, which we have been awaiting?
There are all kinds of things that have been put on hold while we debate Bill C-84. I am not happy with it. I could go into great detail but there are others far more expert on this matter. Certainly the committee heard expert witnesses. I would suggest that the Minister and the Government would do well to hearken to the voice of reason and find ways to fine and penalize the smugglers, the abusers. I hope the Government will open its heart to the real refugees who need to come to our shores.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that in this country of ours, a country so large with such a small population and with material and human resources to provide a good life for all its people if it were planned with common sense, a country which in recent years, at least, has had a generous and humane approach to immigrants and refugees, would be at the point of enacting a Bill dealing with refugees and potential refugees that is so inhumane and mean-spirited that we will be despised by people of good faith all over the world.
This is a country which was established in the way we know it now by the coming of immigrants and refugees to this part of the continent. All of us, with the exception of the native people of Canada, are either immigrants ourselves or descendants of immigrants or refugees or descendants of refugees. I said a moment ago that in recent years we have had a relatively good record with regard to the entry into Canada of immigrants and refugees. But up to World War II and, indeed, for a number of years after World War II, our record was a very bad record because it was not until the late 1950s and the early 1960s that we adopted policies on immigration and refugees which were not discriminatory. Until the late 1950s, immigrants who were permitted and encouraged to come to this country were essentially from countries in northern and western Europe and were white. Through our laws and regulations and through the way in which senior employees in the Departments which controlled immigration dealt with immigration we discouraged and prohibited people from eastern and southern Europe and from Africa, Asia, Central and South America and India from coming here. Indeed, it was fair to say that it was almost impossible to permit the

September 9, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
coming to Canada before the late 1950s or the early 1960s of people who were non-white.
But we changed our approach in the late 1950s and early 1960s and permitted a large number of immigrants to come here from eastern and southern Europe, Africa, Asia, South and Central America. One has only to travel around any city in Canada to see the changes that have taken place because we permitted large numbers of refugees and a much broader group of immigrants to come here. After all, we reacted to events in Poland, Hungary, Uganda, Chile and more recently El Salvador and Guatemala in a relatively generous way.
On my way home from Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, 1 stopped to make a few purchases at a supermarket which happens to be located in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre. As I stood waiting at the cash register I could not help but notice that among others who were waiting to pay for their purchases were people who came originally from Asia, either Chinese or Vietnamese, from India, the Philippines, Africa and from Central or South America. Canada has changed in a major way and that change will continue and accelerate.
Why suddenly do we get this Bill and these very restrictive proposals that are contained it it? The Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) said earlier today that there was widespread support for Bill C-84. 1 do not know where he comes from but I know in my City of Winnipeg that this Bill has been met by universal opposition. I am certain that for every letter I have received indicating support for this Bill, I have received 25 expressing opposition.
Ethnic organizations, labour organizations and all of the major church organizations have expressed their opposition to what is contained in this Bill. I must ask why the Government brought this Bill forward. Is it based upon some kind of principles it has adopted? I cannot believe that. After all, just over a year ago when a boatload of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka who had apparently spent some time in Holland and Germany arrived on the East Coast, they were greeted and welcomed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who said that Canada would always welcome genuine refugees. A year later, there was a similar situation. The only difference was that instead of Tamils from Sri Lanka, there were some 150 refugees from India who arrived on the East Coast. This time the reaction of the Government was to bring in this very tough, regressive Bill.
What has changed? Nothing has changed except that the Government now perceives itself to be in a great deal of difficulty with the Canadian public. It has read the polls and has realized that after the people gave them the largest majority the country has ever seen, it is now and has been for some considerable time in third place according to the polls. That is why we have got this Bill.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Temporary insanity.


David Orlikow: The Hon. Member has said that it is temporary. If the Hon. Member wants to keep on whistling in the dark, he is welcome to it. When a Party has been in third place for almost 18 months, it will take some pretty drastic changes to get it back on top.
Let us look at some of the things for which this Bill provides. Let us remember that legislation dealing with refugees could have been brought in long ago. It could have been brought in a year ago or more. Let us remember that without changing the legislation, the regulations could have been changed.
A year or so ago, several thousand phoney refugee claimants came to Canada, not stealthily by boat but by plane from Portugal, Turkey and Brazil. Everyone who was interested in immigration and refugee problems knew that these were phoney claimants. Everyone knew that there are not thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses in Portugal, to take just one example of the people who came here claiming refugee status, and that Jehovah's Witnesses are not persecuted or prosecuted in Portugal. These people came here because they were told, probably by people who made a substantial amount of money for giving this advice and making the arrangements for them, that by coming to Canada to claim refugee status, they would probably be permitted to settle here and to stay as landed immigrants, whereas they would not be permitted to do so if they applied to come as immigrants in the normal and legal way.
The Government could have and should have dealt with that situation immediately by requiring people coming from those countries to get visas to come here. However, the Government dithered and delayed so several thousand, not 150 like the Sikhs or the Tamils, phoney claimants were permitted to come here and to stay, if not permanently, then certainly for some considerable time, because the Government could not get its act together.
That Bill gives public servants the power to turn back ships without permitting those on the ships who would like to claim that they should be permitted to stay in Canada because they are refugees to do so. I am certain that this power is a violation of our obligations under the agreements made by and through the United Nations. I think that this kind of provision is absolutely unacceptable. Even if it is legal, and I believe it is not, it is certainly morally inexcusable.
Let me deal with another clause which I find hard to understand. In fact, I cannot understand how any Government in this day and age would include in a Bill this kind of provision. I am talking about the provision in the Bill which makes it an offence punishable by fines and by prison if those found guilty refuse to pay fines for anyone to help a person to come into Canada without a visa, a passport or a travel document. I could understand that kind of clause if the people who would be liable to arrest, trial and conviction were only the people who did that sort of thing for financial gain. Undoubtedly there are unscrupulous, dishonest individuals, ships' captains, lawyers and immigration consultants-not
September 9, 1987

many but enough of them-who have done these things for financial gain.
This clause applies to the kind of people I have listed above, but it also applies to members of ethnic organizations and particularly of the newer ethnic organizations whose members still have family and friends who want to come to Canada, and this provision would apply to people in every city and town in Canada who are involved through church organizations in helping refugees who come to Canada establish themselves. I find the clause to be completely inexcusable and unacceptable. I am not satisfied, nor are the members of my Party and the people involved in this kind of work, with leaving it to the good will and good intentions of this Minister or any other Minister to decide that because they have done their work for humanitarian reasons, these people will not be prosecuted. That clause alone would convince me that 1 ought to vote, as I will, against this Bill.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about Bill C-84 because 1 think it is bad legislation. As Canadians come to hear more about it and the supposed emergency for which this House was recalled, they will have a better idea of why the Government is providing bad leadership and bad legislation.
This is an example of what 1 would describe as real low-road politics. The way the Government handled this matter was designed to prey on those irrational, hateful or racist feelings many people harbour. It was also designed to create the illusion that this approach would likely speed up family reunification for those who have waited many months or years for that to come about.
I want to talk for a moment about when the Government, in July, attempted to have the House recalled supposedly to deal with an emergency involving the drug legislation. The Speaker, properly interpreting the rules of this House, did not agree to a recall. Then the Government saw another opportunity when a ship entered Canadian waters with 174 refugee claimants on board and landed them in eastern Canada. It was an opportunity to whip up a reaction among Canadians and create the impression or, as we have now learned, the illusion that there was an emergency for which Members should be recalled.
Many Canadians wondered how great was this emergency. We learned the answer to that, of course, on the first vote on this legislation when only 84 government Members voted. Many Canadians wonder why, first, so few government Members voted on the Bill and more than half were away on business which they felt was more important, and, second, why those same government Members failed to speak on the Bill. That number included the Chairman of the committee, who has done so much good work in pointing out the flaws in this terribly Draconian Bill.
Canadians want legislation which provides law and order and goes after the real smugglers who benefit financially at the
Immigration Act, 1976
expense of the oppressed and persecuted. Canadians do support going after those who trade in human tragedy and create financial gain for themselves while doing it. However, one of the points raised time and again with me by church groups and others in my constituency is Clause 9 of this Bill which allows selective prosecution of those involved in bringing refugees into Canada. Many Canadians were shocked and continue to shudder at the Minister's promise that he would never prosecute humanitarian groups or persons. He was only intending to prosecute obvious scoundrels who might try and smuggle people in, for example, by landing them at night on a deserted coast.
It is quite contrary to Canadian law, British common law, and the traditions of this country for this House to draft and pass legislation which allows a Minister, without regulation or direction, to decide unilaterally who should or should not be prosecuted. As many of those groups said, they make their decisions on refugee matters based on conscience and will continue to do so whether or not they are branded by the Parliament of Canada as law-breakers and criminals. It is so wrong for that kind of selective use of power to remain in legislation that I would vote against this Bill on that basis alone.
Of course, the media created the story around the 174 mainly East Indians who arrived on the East Coast and created the illusion that there were security risks and a flood of refugees and so on. Most Canadians know now that the number of refugees we were talking about would add only one-half of 1 per cent to the existing backlog of refugees. In addition, not a single one of those 174 continue to be held because of any kind of security risk or security violation. We have to ask ourselves how good was the information the Government was operating on. Obviously it was not very good. The profound claims which were made and which created so much hysteria have not proven to be true.
One of the presentations made to the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-84 came from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. All Canadians interested in this matter would be well advised to have a look at the document. It is not that long and is available through the House. That group represents the following organizations: The Armenian National Federation, Byelorussians, the Canadian Arab Federation, Vietnamese associations, the Hispanic Congress, the Jewish Congress, the Polish Congress, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Council of Muslim Communities, Croatians, Cypriots, Czechoslovakians, Estonians, the Federation of Danish Associations, Koreans, Sikhs, Portuguese, Finns, Germans, Hellenics, Icelanders, Lithuanians, Latvians, Indians, Japanese Canadians, the National Black Coalition, Italian Canadians, Barbadian associations, Pakistani Canadians, Russian Canadians, Serbian National Shield Committee, Slovaks, Slovenians, Ukrainians and the United Council of Filipino Associations, to name just a few. They made some very important points. On the very first page they pointed out that 75 per cent of Canadians support entry for genuine refugees

September 9, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
and want to be assured that the new legislation complies with that desire. It clearly does not. Based on almost all the tests those drafting the legislation would use, it fails.
Not only is it wrong-headed and malicious, as I intend to point out, but it is unconstitutional and contravenes at least three sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights. It breaches our agreements with the UN. As other Members have pointed out, it also sends out a very dark signal to countries around the world about how Draconian they can be with refugees arriving on their shores.
If a ship is considered to be bringing undocumented passengers to Canada, it can be turned away from our territorial waters. We have heard both inside and outside this House that we will have someone from the Coast Guard board the ship and see whether or not these people should be allowed to land or whether the ship should be turned back. That does not answer some questions. What if the ocean is rough? What if the captain decides simply to discharge the passengers within Canada's 12-mile limit? What if, after being turned back, the ship comes in somewhere else? Why not take a sensible approach which Canadians expect and respect and accompany that ship either with a Fisheries vessel, a Coast Guard vessel or a military vessel into a Canadian port, hold the captain and crew and all passengers on board, and have someone who is trained in refugee determination policy go on board, review the documents, speak to the passengers and find out just exactly what is going on? If the captain and crew or some other group were surreptitiously involved in the smuggling of people who would not be eligible, those now known as queue jumpers, then the ship could be impounded, fines or jail sentence imposed, and so on.
I must say I was saddened to hear the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) say that turning them back is perhaps what we should have done with the 174 refugees. That sent shock waves throughout his own Party and through other Canadians. Certainly it was a popular comment to make. It made a good 30-second clip and hummed through the newspapers for a few days. Yet it certainly sent the wrong signal to many caring Canadians. Other than Canada's first citizens, the Inuit and the aboriginal people who lived here for thousands if not tens of thousands of years before us, all Canadians are immigrants from the United States, Europe or other parts of the world. Most Canadians would do well to take a closer look at this piece of legislation which is so wrong-headed and Draconian.
One of the other key intentions of this Bill is to punish, in various ways, those who come to Canada without documents to claim refugee status. They can be held without any kind of hearing for up to 28 days. They can be turned back, and in some cases not even to a safe third country. Many Members in this House, including members of the government side, in particular the Chairman of the Government's immigration committee, disagree with this legislation and have made the
point that many bona fide refugees dare not try to get official documents from the country they intend to leave because they might just disappear, as happens in many Central and South American countries and other areas of the world.
Those who are already being persecuted for religious, political, economic or other reasons cannot simply go into the local motor vehicle branch and ask for a driver's licence then drop down to the passport office and say, "I am taking off for Canada, I am going to be a refugee, give me my passport". Any government that is sound, enlightened and intelligent knows that those who are really being persecuted are the last ones who can possibly get bona fide documents. On any test, whether constitutional, in terms of our agreements with the United Nations, or even in terms of our own history, that clause fails miserably for many refugees who come to Canada.
One of the few clauses that has any justification at all is that which provides for an increase in the punishment for ship captains and crews for disembarking passengers at sea or attempting to do so. It is obviously wise to provide for that, although there are all kinds of international laws prohibiting captains and ship owners from doing that. However, in terms of Canada's territorial waters that may well be one of the few useful clauses within Bill C-84.
The new search and seizure powers are worth looking at as well. Other Members have pointed out that the search and seizure powers provided by this legislation go far beyond those provided in almost any other country in the world. There is provision for search and seizure, even without warrant, of anything considered to be related to the offence of smuggling 10 or more people or disembarking at sea.
It has been pointed out by many lawyers that that could include the search and seizure of lawyers' privileged solicitor-client documents or even a refugee's personal records, which, we have sadly learned, often endangers the family and friends of refugees in the countries from which they have fled. Often the names and addresses of the people who have assisted them in escaping from persecution are carried in those documents.
The legislation provides for more wire-tapping. One must wonder why, after passing the Charter as we did in 1982 with provision in relation to search and seizure, the Government is jamming in that which is, of course, unconstitutional. Would it not be appropriate to include a standard clause providing that immigration or police officials who believed that there was some kind of surreptitious smuggling activity going on would provide that information to a judge as is required under the common law in almost every other circumstance to obtain a warrant to wire-tap? In my view the extent of the wire-tapping powers are clearly excessive.
The intention of the Bill, as the Minister originally tried to explain it in those early days of August when we were recalled here, Madam Speaker, was "to deter the smuggling of persons into Canada and thereby minimize the exploitation of and risks to persons seeking to come to Canada". That sounded
September 9, 1987

very good and I know some government Members attempted to sell the Bill on that premise.
Speaking about the incident which occurred on the East Coast early in the summer and that which was happening in other areas of the world where boat people were arriving by the tens of thousands, the Government created the impression that there was an exodus of refugees from various parts of the globe heading to Canada by any possible means of transportation. They said that there was a national emergency for which Parliament must be recalled, that we must pass laws to stop these hordes of refugees heading toward Canada.
It is worth recalling the number of refugees which Canada accepted during the late 1970s and early 1980s from Southeast Asia, the boat people. Over 40,000 of those refugees were happily taken into the homes and communities of Canadians from coast to coast. Every province participated in giving assistance to the boat people. In many communities in my own constituency it turned out to be a very happy and progressive opportunity for us to learn more about what was going on in various areas of the world.
With regard to rescue at sea, the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:
It is recalled that there is a fundamental obligation under international law for ships' masters to rescue any persons in distress at sea, including asylum seekers, and to render them all necessary assistance. Seafaring States should take all appropriate measures to ensure that masters of vessels observe this obligation strictly.
Why would the Government propose to do completely the opposite of what has been agreed by the UN? As we all know, most countries of the world participate in the UN and it is only through the collective pressure of nations around the world that we can maintain the often bruised and abused fabric of the UN and its agreements.
The Executive Committee said also:
In accordance with established international practice, supported by the relevant international instruments, persons rescued at sea should normally be disembarked at the next port of call. This practice should also be applied in the case of asylum seekers rescued at sea. In cases of large-scale influx, asylum seekers rescued at sea should always be admitted, at least on a temporary basis. States should assist in facilitating their disembarkation by acting in accordance with the principles of international solidarity and burden-sharing in granting resettlement opportunities.
Once again, this piece of legislation proposed by the Conservative Government of Canada runs completely contrary to the requests and suggestions of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
With regard to safe third counties and countries of origin, we found that in Bill C-55, which has not yet been passed by this House, there are some safeguards for people returned to a safe third country. However, Bill C-84 contains none. There is no functional opportunity, no legislative or real mechanism to assist in that. If a ship which sailed from a so-called safe third country is turned around, there is no way of knowing whether its passengers will be permitted to enter that country should they return there. It is possible that they would not. If they are
Immigration Act, 1976
permitted to enter, there is no assurance that they will have an opportunity to present their refugee claim and no protection against return to their country of origin.
We must ask ourselves what exactly is going on. The United States produced and passed somewhat similar, although nowhere near as Draconian, legislation a few years ago. The Minister says, for example, that humanitarian groups will not be prosecuted. We have found that that was precisely the intention of the legislation in the United States. The same arguments were used. They said they would not prosecute the churches and so on. However, in order to assist certain totalitarian regimes in Central and South America the United States has prosecuted and made criminals of church people and groups which, for reasons of conscience, have attempted for many decades to assist those who are persecuted around the world.
In conclusion, I did not believe at the time and certainly do not believe now that there was an emergency which required the recall of Parliament. Bill C-84 certainly does not address the real concerns of Canadians with regard to queue jumping, the real smugglers and so on. It acts in a malicious, vicious and wrong-headed way against those people who require the compassion which Canada has shown for so many decades to refugees from around the world.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I note that at the beginning of his speech the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) discussed the 174 people of East Indian descent, mostly Sikhs, who, coming to our shores, appeared to have precipitated this so-called emergency. After their initial welcome by Nova Scotians and after they were fed, these people were held with no access to lawyers. They were processed thoroughly over a period of several weeks, given security checks, and, from my observations, were given the most thorough testing, to the point of almost being harassed, of any group of people who have come to our country seeking refugee status. It is now a bit over a month and a half from that date and 1 note with some surprise, given the hysteria emanating from the government benches and from some of the press, that all of the 174 persons have now gained conditional access to Canada as refugees.
I am a little curious and I wonder if my hon. friend could tell me, what would protect us more from refugees coming into this country, if that is what the Government is proposing to do under Bill C-84? It seems to me that the same procedures would still be in place, with more difficulty for the refugees. The ship's captain, in this case, was tried, fined and jailed. The fines for a ship captain, I understand, would be higher. But would not these genuine refugees still be in the country? Would they not still be allowed in? Is not the difficulty the Government faces in deciding who will be a refugee? And does this particular Bill make that any more clearer?


James Ross Fulton: Well, Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's question is right to the point. There are really two

September 9, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
queues being formed under the legislation brought forward by the Conservative Government since it came to office. There is the queue for the rich. If one has $250,000, one can apply through various operations in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal and simply come in as a business landed immigrant.
The other queue, as the Hon. Member pointed out, is somewhat different. The fact is that with the passage of Bill C-84, should it happen today or in a few days, the situation will not in fact change enormously other than the situation for the refugees themselves. What they will find after this Bill is passed is that their condition will be worse. They can be held for up to 28 days without counsel, without any kind of adjudication hearing, no question about their documents or where they come from or anything else.
I would like to read one short paragraph from an evaluation done recently by the Library of Parliament on the 174 East Indian refugees. It reads:
Events in Nova Scotia with the East Indians may well illustrate the importance of having a detention review at an early stage. Initially, a very high percentage of the arrivals were claimed by immigration officials to be security risks. Yet ultimately not one was detained beyond two detention reviews by the adjudicators, officials who have been sometimes criticized for favouring the Immigration Department. An adjudicator was quoted in the press as saying that there was insufficient evidence to justify the continued detention of the six individuals detained beyond the initial review. This episode illustrates the importance of prompt and regular review of all detention cases.
In fact, quite the opposite is going to occur in terms of this legislation. The refugees will be held even longer. There are Canadians who thought for one brief moment that perhaps the period within which refugees would come and stay in Canada would be shortened to perhaps a couple of months, from what has grown to be three, four, five, eight, or ten years. Many Canadians have objected, and in many cases quite properly so, to that process which has dragged out for decades, certainly for years. But the Government completely fails to address that.
In terms of the history of the ship issue, which is directly related of course to the 174 refugees, a situation which supposedly stimulated this legislation, I do not think any British Columbian can forget the turning back of the Komagata Maru from Vancouver in 1914 when a boatload of 376 Sikhs were expelled from Canadian waters, 26 of whom went to their deaths. I think many Hon. Members, including the Hon. Member who spoke earlier from Montreal, remembers the boatload of 907 Jewish refugees on the St. Louis who were refused entry in June, 1939 and were all returned to the Nazi gas chambers. Why would a government want to bring in a clause in a Bill in relation to turning back vessels where a Coast Guard official or someone else might or might not even go on board, but the vessel is simply turned back without to any of the refugee claimants, being talked to, without ever any of their documents, being seen, or without any information about them? How can Canadians forget the St. Louis and the Komagata Marul In terms of solving anything, again, it simply creates a more horrific problem.
I think the Government is trying to sell Canadians a real bill of goods, first, the emergency for which this House is still
sitting today, a month after the recall, with no attempt by government Members to participate seriously in the debate, or even to turn up for the votes. Only 84 government Members even bothered to turn up on the first vote. This is a fine emergency. Where were the other 110 Members?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I know the House and all Canadians, especially those in the Atlantic Provinces, have been amazed at the new policy of the New Democratic Party. I wonder if the Hon. Member would elaborate on his comment of September 1, 1987, wherein he indicated that some of the bona fide refugees that came from Central and South America, sister countries, "are in fact closer to my constituency and my Province of British Columbia, if you think particularly of Central America, than it is Nova Scotia or other parts of our country".


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member a very simple geography lesson. The cost of travel from Vancouver to Mexico, or to Guatemala or Nicaragua, is considerably cheaper. I would encourage the Hon. Member at some point to fly to the Queen Charlotte Islands or to Whitehorse and to come into my constituency. He would find out that in fact from some parts of my constituency, taking the Polar route, it would be easier for me to sit in the Japanese Diet in Tokyo than it would be to sit in Ottawa, in terms of geography.


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


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the House that Parliament was called back as a result of a growing concern in the country about the abuse of Canada's traditional hospitality to refugees, and that there was great concern about a illegal immigrants who were jumping the queue. There has been ample debate of Bill C-84 at second reading and in committee. We have endeavoured to move the debate along. However, unfortunately, we have not been able to move the debate on third reading to a close.
Therefore, I wish to indicate that since an agreement could not be reached, under the provisions of Standing Order 115 and Standing order 116 with respect to an allocation of time to the third reading of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, under the provisions of Standing Order 117, I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allocating a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage of the Bill.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Government House Leader read out a motion-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A notice of motion.
September 9, 1987


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -a notice of motion-which has as its premise the fact that there was consultation with the other Parties in the House and that they were unable to agree on a time allocation order. I regret to say that I took part in no such consultation for that purpose.
I have consulted with my colleagues, the Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition and the Whip of the Official Opposition, who say that they did not take part in any such consultation. That being the case, I have to tell Your Honour that I think that the notice is defective. I suggest that if the Deputy Government House Leader wants to avoid some embarrassment in this matter he may want to consider withdrawing his notice.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Not at all, Madam Speaker. 1 am prepared to advise the House that I discussed this matter with the Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition. He indicated to me that the Official Opposition had no further speakers. I then discussed the matter with the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, who indicated to me that we would not have a vote on the Bill by six o'clock this evening. The discussions took place under those circumstances. I understand the position of the opposition Parties and I am sure that they understand the position of the Government.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, 1 cannot let this go as it is. There was no official consultation on this matter. If the Minister believes that he can go around in the House and ask whether or not there are speakers and so on and believe that that is a bona fide House Leaders' meeting, then I think that he is wrong. I cannot say that I have been officially consulted on this matter. We gave him signals that we had not many speakers to go. As a matter of fact, after what I told him I am surprised that he has come forward with this notice of motion which states that at a formal House Leaders' meeting there was no possibility of an agreement between the Parties. To my knowledge that has not occurred. Therefore, the motion is defective.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Oh, oh!


Jacques Guilbault: When I want to speak in the House of Commons, with all due respect to the Minister, I can state my position by myself without his help.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, this is a rather unfortunate turn of events at a crucial point in this very important debate. 1 think Your Honour will find that in fact the motion is defective in that in its introductory comment it states that agreement could not be reached. As previous speakers have already indicated, there was no attempt to reach an agreement.
To be fair to my colleague, the following questions were put to us: "Do you have speakers? Can we expect a vote on this Bill today?" My response was that as far as I knew we had enough speakers interested in participating in the debate that we would not likely be voting before six o'clock. However, that
Immigration Act, 1976
is not my idea of a discussion with respect to whether or not we could come to an agreement, and perhaps we could, depending on what the Government had to offer.
I think it is important for Your Honour's purposes in ruling on the admissibility and advisability of this motion, since it states that an agreement could not be reached, to say that there was no discussion regarding an agreement. There was no attempt made to come to an agreement. Simply put, the question we were asked was: "Are there speakers to speak on this particular Bill or are there not?" There are obviously sufficient reasons to rule the motion out of order in that it was introduced inappropriately, in that it contains wording that is simply not accurate and which is in fact quite false.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I submit that there were discussions. No agreement was reached. In fact, the Standing Order simply requires that notice be given. Notice has been given. The notice states that the House Leaders were not able to reach an agreement. I submit that the notice is in order and that debate should continue, even if Your Honour wishes to reserve. If my colleagues wish to tell me how many more days or hours they need, then we will take that into account when we set the timetable with respect to how much more time is required.
The debate has carried on for some time. It is about time that we reached a decision in this place, a decision which the Canadian people are awaiting with great anticipation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the rules clearly intend that, if the Government is going to move a motion for time allocation, there has to be consultation with the other Parties. Consultation does not mean that the Government House Leader or his deputy go around asking whether or not the Parties have other speakers. Surely, that has not been the practice over the two and a half years that I have had this job.
I think it has been the case as well, since the rule has been in the rule book, that the Government House Leader, or the Deputy House Leader, meets with his opposite numbers and specifically asks them: "Can we reach an agreement on an allocation of time?" The rule does not intend, and as far as I am aware has never been used in the way that the Deputy Government House Leader has used it, that he skulk around and say one thing while intending another. If he wants to find out whether or not it is possible to reach an agreement or not as the basis for moving a time allocation motion, then he should have the guts to get together with his colleagues face to face and say to them: "I am asking you formally whether we can reach an understanding for the purpose of seeing whether there can be an order agreed to for the allocation of time. If not, I will take my responsibilities". He did not do that, and he has admitted that.
I want to say that it is obvious that the Deputy House Leader is under a great deal of stress already. I can tell him that it will get worse for him if he continues to act like this.

September 9, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
I wish to say on the basis of what the rules state and on the basis of the practice followed in the past and what is intended by the rules that it is clear that the Deputy Government House Leader has not followed the rules or the practice on which the rules are based. Clearly, his notice is out of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I believe we are at a very important juncture. The Minister of State was recently appointed to his new position. I think that it is in the best interests of everyone concerned that we very quickly develop a good working relationship. We will be in the House of Commons for many months, perhaps for as long as another two years. It is important that, while the opposition Parties and the Government fulfil their responsibilities and obligations in terms of the parliamentary tradition, there be an understanding that we will facilitate the business of the House as much as we can.
The motion before you, Madam Speaker, states that an agreement could not be reached. I know that my hon. friend knows that we had no discussions with respect to whether or not an agreement could be reached. As a matter of fact, he should have suggested that there be a House Leaders' meeting to discuss whether or not we could agree on some allotment of time to facilitate the completion of this stage of Bill C-84. If that is impossible then I think it is fair to say that an agreement could not be reached and the Government could then take whatever steps it feels appropriate under the circumstances.
1 ask you, Madam Speaker, in your position as a person who is obviously interested in facilitating the business of the House in the most positive and creative way to rule that this particular motion is out of order and, in terms of carrying out the future business of the House to the best of pur ability, that we in fact have a House Leaders' meeting to discuss whether or not an agreement can be reached.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Obviously the Chair wishes to facilitate the proceedings of the House. At this time it is a rather difficult decision to make. The Standing Order does not state exactly what consultation or discussion should imply. The Chair would also like a little more time to examine the notice itself. The manner in which the notice is written, the actual form of it, is causing some difficulty.
With the approval of the House, I would like to reserve on this and discuss it with Mr. Speaker.
Continuing debate with the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, 1 did not intend to take part in the debate, and this is true, I have no notes but-

In order to assist in your deliberations, and in order to assist the new Deputy House Leader who seems to be agonizing with
our House Leader, and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, I will try to be helpful and make a few comments in order that tomorrow they may meet and, therefore, of course, the question on the Bill will not be put today.
It is true that almost everything has been said, but I wish to make some personal comments on the Bill.
For the past 25 years I have been involved in matters relating to immigration and refugees. Publicly, I would state today that a recent book published in New York told those who wished to read it of my involvement a long time ago with the American deserters and draft dodgers. It is true that I was highly involved. I must have helped a few thousand, most likely without knowing, to come to Canada who are now extraordinarily good Canadians.
Recently I attended some of the meetings run by my distinguished colleague, the official critic for immigration. Something that fascinated me one morning was that 10 Conservative Members were present when the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) was present. That Minister had voted for the abolition of the death penalty. But when I started looking around at those who were attending the meeting I suddenly thought it was strange that this gentleman had made a very vigorous speech, which is true to democracy, for the death penalty.
I called my office and asked them to send me the list of those who voted for the death penalty and those who voted against the death penalty. Coincidentally, the 10 Conservative Members present, with not one exception, from the very distinguished Chairman, who is a good colleague of mine, to the Vice-Chairman of the Management and Members' Services Committee, and to every other Member present, were all Members who had voted for the death penalty. That is only a coincidence, but it does indicate a feeling that not one Member out of ten who was present that morning to question the Minister had voted for the abolition of the death penalty. What is the link? The link is that a Member who voted against the death penalty may have had more understanding of what a refugee has to go through.
In my evaluation, we in my Party are no fools. There is abuse and there are people who abuse the good laws of Canada. Those people should be punished. There are people who come to this country in the most illegal fashion. They may not even be refugees. They should be punished. But it is the manner in which it was done. This type of urgency reminds me of the role of a Minister. When I was the critic, I remember stating to the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse) when he was the Minister of Communications that he had a duty not only to be a good administrator, but also to be a good communicator. He had to be a good educator and explain to Canadians the importance of the artist, the importance of CBC, our national symbol, and not only attend in Cabinet and
September 9, 1987

be the echo of Cabinet outside, but take his responsibility as a Minister and return to Cabinet and explain the worries of all the people of Canada.
Today I see the same difficulty. Sometimes we deal with things that are very unpopular among Canadians. I dare say to you, Madam Speaker, that we know that in the short run this Bill has every aspect of being popular, but in the long run when Canadians recover from their first feeling, they will see that this is a bad Bill. Of course, it is obvious that the Minister has to be a good administrator.
[ Translation]
As Minister responsible the Minister must be a good administrator. But the Minister, particularly the Minister of Immigration, has a heavy responsibility, and that is to explain to all Canadians and all Quebecers, men and women alike, the importance of immigration, the importance of refugees, and of course to say: We will punish those who abuse the system.
I am looking at one of our colleagues here, the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), and 1 am very sincere in what I am about to say, is he not an extraordinary example of what my Canada is all about? Now there is a Member who was not born in this country and who sits in the House of Commons. I have colleagues here, the Hon. Member, my immigration critic, he was not born in Canada. Our justice critic was not born in Canada. The former Minister of the Environment was not born in Canada. Then our champion of small businesses, he was not born in Canada. 1 singled out five Members of Italian origin, five, six, none of them was born in Canada.
So we must know how to explain to Canadians and Quebecers what immigration means, what the refugee programs means, and not confuse everything because a boat landed on our shores, an incident which got everybody excited and stirred passions, and led some to say: We will take action, we will show you we will control that because it is uncontrollable. When a major country like Canada gets excited because there was a boat last year and another one this year, quite frankly this is not the Canada we know. It is not the Canada my
Immigration Act, 1976
Quebec colleague knows well. Canada is an open country, a generous country, a country which must build its future every day. That is what must be appreciated in the immigration field. That is what must be understood in the refugee program.
Monday morning, on a television program at Telemedia, I spent one hour telling Mathias Rioux, an interviewer who does not share my political views, that we have to explain to Canadians and Quebecers the importance of immigration and the refugee program. Our conscience must tell us what this program means and our future interests must make us aware of the importance of immigration.
If I may Madam Speaker, I shall use the last 30 seconds to conclude logically. We know that Canada has an aging population. We know that its declining birth rate problem is comparable to, or even worse than those of all other Western countries. It is therefore in the interests of Canadians and Quebecers to understand the importance of immigration, the importance of their obligations to refugees, and how well off we are in Canada, while saying that abuses should not be tolerated.
This Bill has been passed incredibly quickly.
I attended a few of the committee meetings, and because we received representations quite quickly, we could quite easily spend a few days more discussing this issue, and this is what we shall do tomorrow to explain further what we would like to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: With the priceless assistance of the House of Commons staff, we were able to check certain aspects of the notice given by the Hon. Minister of State which were causing some concern to the Chair.
We now conclude that the notice is in order. We have therefore received it officially, which should not prevent the three Parties from discussing the matter further to reach an agreement acceptable to everyone.
It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, September 10, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers