1987-06-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-1980, 332-2283, 332-2424, 332-2441 to 332-2444 inclusive, 332-2496, and 332-2573.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101,1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association.



PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF CANADIAN BRANCH OF COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which participated in the annual Commonwealth parliamentary visit to Britain from May 6, 1987 to May 22, 1987.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling the twenty-second and twenty-third reports of the Striking Committee.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CONCURRENCE IN TWENTY-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Agreed.', '\nNational Transportation Act, 1986']
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by Mr. Lewis, that the twenty-third report of the Striking Committee tabled earlier today be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by residents of Moncton, New Brunswick, who are asking for changes in our road safety regulations.
The petitioners believe that rear seat-belts in passenger cars are inadequate and that the suffering of crash victims could be reduced or avoided through improved seat-belts.
They also believe that the cost of medical care can be reduced or eliminated.


Petitions
For these reasons, your petitioners call upon Parliament to institute mandatory installation of three-point adjustable lap/shoulder seat-belts for rear-seat passengers. As well, petitioners request the mandaroty installation of front seat airbags.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of the citizens of the Province of Ontario and indeed Canadians from all across Canada 2,318 signatures calling upon Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment in Canada. These signatures which now total 8,320 represent the strong will of the Canadian people on this very important issue.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of the citizens of Erie riding in the Province of Ontario 1,980 signatures calling upon Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment. These signatures represent the strong will of the Canadian people on what we believe to be a very important issue.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to present on behalf of 1,971 citizens of Canada, from eastern Canada right through to the West Coast, who feel that Canadians have consistently supported the reinstatement of capital punishment in principle and in practice and they are calling upon all Members of Parliament to vote in favour of the motion that calls for the return of capital punishment.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present on behalf of the citizens of Alberta and Canadians from all across the country over 2,000 signatures calling on Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment in Canada. These signatures represent the strong will of the Canadian people on this very important issue.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, through the co-operation of the Ontario Police Association, the Canadian National Police Association and the Coalition for the Return of Capital Punishment in Canada, I am pleased to present 1,913 signatures from people in the Peterborough federal riding and from right across this nation. This brings the total number of signatures as of today to 10,233 and it is the intent to honour these petitions as long as they keep arriving at the House of Commons.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present on behalf of over 400 residents of my constituency a petition as follows. Whereas troubles in many parts of the world are causing people to seek safety from persecution by coming to Canada; whereas
Canada has established standards of refugee status determination but our existing procedures have broken down under unexpected strains; whereas the Standing Committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force; whereas this proposal has support among all Parties in Parliament as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and other groups and individuals; whereas procedures recently adopted are turning away refugee-status claimants from ports of entry and putting real refugees at risk, therefore we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present on behalf of a number of residents of the southern part of Winnipeg, and this should be of some interest to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assini-boine (Mr. McKenzie) since it includes many of his constituents, this petition. Whereas we the undersigned feel that as taxpaying Canadians and supporters of the postal system, through stamps and other services, it is our right to receive mail delivery to our own door, and whereas we as yet do not have postal delivery to our door, and we do not have any intention of accepting supermailboxes as an alternative to door-to-door delivery, and whereas approximately 80 to 90 per cent of our development has door-to-door delivery, we feel that that courtesy and right should be extended to the rest of us, therefore, we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instigate door-to-door postal service to the remaining few homes in the area of Vista South in Winnipeg, Manitoba.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition on a different topic. This petition contains the signatures of several hundred employees of the airlines resident in the Winnipeg, Montreal and Toronto areas. The petitioners say that the experience of airline deregulation in the United States has resulted in a diminution of safety standards and practices and an over-all reduction in services to many communities and cheaper fares but these effects are already apparent in Canada in the form of airline mergers and the deterioration of labour relations within the industry. The social fabric of Canada is based on an accessible transport system which is jeopardized by deregulation. Wherefore, the undersigned your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to defeat this legislation and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, and residents of Nakusp, Beaton, Revelstoke and Trout Lake and the communities of Hinton, Jasper and Grande Cache in Alberta.
These petitioners are calling upon Parliament to initiate a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration and regulation of the use of pesticides and the examination of alternative ways of controlling pests such as biological control and plant-derived pesticides because the petitioners are of the opinion that increasing numbers of chemicals used as herbicides and insecticides are being proven to have harmful effects on human health.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a large number of residents of my constituency of Burnaby who note the very high level of unemployment in western Canada and particularly in the Province of British Columbia and urge the Government to reject any proposed legislation designed to eliminate federal contributions to the unemployment program, to weaken that program in any way or to reduce UI benefits for unemployed Canadians.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that Question No. 136 will be answered today.


Mr. Kaplan: Since September 4, 1984, by month, were any domestic applicants denied refugee status in Canada and, if so, of these, how many (a) remained in Canada (b) left Canada, and on what basis?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: the term "domestic applicants" means household domestics or people who receive permission to enter and remain in Canada as maids, nannies, handymen or butlers, there is no cross referencing between that category of person and those who claim refugee status.
Order Paper Questions
If, on the other hand it means how many people were denied refugee status after making a claim to refugee status in Canada, the following data is relevant:
1984		1985			
Sept.	102	Jan.	245	July	333Oct.	194	Feb.	227	Aug.	349Nov.	188	Mar.	243	Sept.	196Dec.	213	Apr.	167	Oct.	195May	187	Nov.	203June	247	Dec.	2951986	1987	Jan.	303	Jan.	490Feb.	290	Feb.	563Mar.	188	Mar.	627Apr.	332	Apr.	458May	150	May	N/A
July	104		
Aug.	195		
Sept.	180		
Oct.	257		
Nov.	297		
Dec.	535		
(a) and (b) It is not possible to report on how many of these people left or remained in Canada, because the majority were eligible for consideration under the administrative review of the backlog which was commenced on July 15, 1986; almost 85 per cent of the 25,000 persons in the process will be granted permanent residence.
Those who have been refused under the administrative review remain at various stages of the current claim process. Those who cannot substantiate a claim to refugee status will be moved as expeditiously as possible into the immigration enforcement stream.
* Determinations made by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


National Transportation Act, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, An Act respecting national transportation, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 16, 1987, the House will now proceed with the deferred recorded division on third reading of Bill C-18, and Act respecting national transportation.
Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Crosbie), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 217)
++YEAS
Members
Tardif
(Charlesbourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec- Est) Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Allmand
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy
Baker
Benjamin
Berger
Blackburn
(Brant) Broadbent Copps dc Corneille Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Foster
Frith
Fulton
[DOT] (N40)
Valcourt
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
++NAYS
Members
Garneau Gauthier Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Johnston (Saint-Henri- Westmount) Kaplan Keeper Killens MacLellan Manly Marchi McCurdy Murphy
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-137
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Ouellet
Penner
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud Robinson Tobin Young-42
Andre	Ferland	ManthaAttewell	Fontaine	MasseBeatty	Forrestall	MayerBelsher	Fraleigh	MazankowskiBernier	Fretz	McCainBlais	Friesen	McCrossanBlenkarn	Gagnon	McCuishBouchard	Gass	McDougallBourgault	Gottselig	(St. Paul's)Boyer	Gray	MclnnesBradley	(Bonaventure-lles-de-	McKenzieBrightwell	la-Madeleine)	McKinnonBrowes	Greenaway	McKnightCadieux	Grise	McMillanCardiff	Guilbault	MerrithewChampagne	(Drummond)	Minaker(Champlain)	Gustafson	MitgesCharest	Hamilton	NickersonClark	Harvey	Nowlan(Brandon-Souris)	Hawkes	OberleClifford	Hees	OostromClinch	Hnatyshyn	PaproskiCollins	Holtmann	PennockComeau	Horner	PetersonCorbett	Howie	PietzCossitt	James	PlourdeCote	Jelinek	Porter(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Jepson	RavisCote	Joncas	Redway(Langelier)	Jourdenais	ReidCrofton	Kempling	ReimerCrombie	Kindy	St-JulienCrosbie	King	Schellenberger(St. John's West)	Lanthier	(Wetaskiwin)Crosby	Lawrence	Scott(Halifax West)	Layton	(Victoria-Haliburton)Dantzer	Lesick	ScowenDarling	Lewis	Shieldsde Cotret	MacDonald	SiddonDella Noce	(Kingston and	SparrowDick	the Islands)	SpeyerDomm	MacDougall	StackhouseDorin	(Timiskaming)	StewartEllis	MacKay	SulukFennell	Mailly


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON REINSTATEMENT The House resumed from Friday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a)	which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what
circumstances;
(b)	which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of
death, and in what circumstances;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), this special committee be hereby appointed as a committee to prepare and bring in a bill no later than three months following the adoption of this motion, founded on the committee's recommendations on (a) and (b) above; such a bill shall be the object of a separate and distinct report of the special committee, and such a report shall be its final report;
That such bill, when reported from such special committee to the House, be deemed pursuant to Standing Order 107(1) to have been introduced and stand on the Order Paper, in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business"; and that, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a Legislative Committee;
[Stage Direction]

That the Striking Committee be empowered to name the Members of the special committee, provided that once the Striking Committee report is laid upon the Table, it shall be deemed concurred in;
That the special committee have the power to sit while the House is sitting and during periods when the House stands adjourned;
That the special committee be empowered to report from time to time and send for persons and papers, and to print such papers and evidence from time to time as may be ordered by the committee and to retain the services of expert, technical, professional and clerical staff;
That the special committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place inside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the appropriate staff accompany the committee;
That a quorum of the special committee be eight (8) members for any vote, resolution or other decision; and that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof whenever six (6) members are present;
That any substitution of membership on the special committee be made pursuant to Standing Order 94(4); and That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the special committee is ready to issue its final report and the said bill, the special committee shall present its report and the bill to the House by filing them with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and the bill shall then be deemed, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), to have been introduced at the first sitting of the House thereafter and to stand on the Order Paper in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business".
Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate today-


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 move:
That the Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) be now heard.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I was speaking.


Mr. Speaker:: On Orders of the Day, resuming debate was called and the Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who, in the opinion of the Chair, was clearly speaking.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has risen and moved a traditional motion that another Member be now heard.
It is important that all Hon. Members and the public that is watching understand exactly what this procedure is, because it is a very difficult one for the Chair.
I am going to refer to what the procedural law is in this matter so that there is no misunderstanding. I am referring to a ruling of Speaker Sauve on October 27, 1983. It is as follows:
-Members may on a point of order ask that an Hon. Member be now heard as long as no other Member has the floor legitimately. Beauchesne states that a motion that a Member be now heard must be moved before the Member recognized has begun speaking. If the Member recognized has simply said "Madam Speaker," that is enough to be in possession of the House and, therefore, under those circumstances a motion that another Member be now heard is not in order.
Capital Punishment
There is always a difficulty for the Chair in these cases, because there is what amounts to a physical contest for the floor. However, in this case, clearly the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) had begun to speak, and 1 must advise the Hon. Member that he is out of order. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with today is a very important decision about the future of our country. Our decision will tell us how civilized our country is and what kind of country it will be for our kids.
Many Canadians have said there should be capital punishment. They say that because there is a lot of crime. They see violence on television and hear about it all the time. For these reasons I want to ask the Canadian people and my fellow Members of Parliament about 12 questions today with respect to whether or not we should reinstate capital punishment.
The most important question, of course, is if capital punishment is a deterrent, is it going to protect our society? Even those who believe in capital punishment have never been able to prove that it is a deterrent. They have not been able to prove it is a deterrent in this country, or in any other country. Therefore, if it is not a deterrent, why do people want to bring back capital punishment? If capital punishment is not a deterrent, then why bring it back?
I suggest the only reason for bringing back capital punishment is pure and simple revenge. It is vengeance. It is a belief that we must have an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is a belief that if someone robs you, you have the right to rob them. It is a belief that if someone were to punch you in the eye, you have the right to punch them in the eye. It is pure revenge. It is a vengeful vendetta. I suggest that basing the argument for capital punishment on revenge and retribution is not right.
My third question asks, if we bring back capital punishment, what kind of society will we have in this great country of ours called Canada? What kind of society will we be if we give the state the legal right to take a life, the right to kill someone? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that would not be a very nice society.
Bringing back capital punishment may indeed provoke even more murders, even more violence and killing. In his speech the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) outlined in detail some statistics on what we call the brutalization effect, that is, when a state legally kills someone it can provoke someone who is sick and demented to go out and kill someone or commit an act of violence.
The Hon. Member in his speech before the House cited some studies made in New York State and in South Carolina where indeed when the state did murder someone, there was concrete evidence that it provoked more killings and violence in those particular states. That evidence proves that there is a strong chance that if we bring back killing by the state, capital punishment, all we will do is create more violence and murder.


Capital Punishment
We have seen evidence time and time again that violent acts on television may provoke some violence of one kind or another. I remember when I was a young boy that a cousin of mine was always watching westerns on television. He saw how they kept hanging the bad man, and that in the next show the bad man came back. This little cousin of mine, who was about four-years old, went out to the barn, took his favourite cat and he hung the cat. This is the kind of message he was receiving from the television set.
I suggest that Canadians should be influenced by the fact that by executing people, we in turn may be provoking more violence and killings by sick and demented people.
My fourth question asks, are we going to get as many convictions for first-degree murder if we have capital punishment? Are juries going to convict people as readily of first-degree murder if we have capital punishment? I suggest that is highly unlikely. We will have more convictions for second-degree murder and murderers will be running around our streets a lot sooner if we have capital punishment rather than a 25 minimum first-degree sentence.
I refer again to studies which show that out of some 30 juries, at least 29 would have been affected by the fact that capital punishment was the law of this land. There are many Canadians in Canada who would never convict someone of first-degree murder if they knew that the conviction would result in someone being executed. As a result there would be more convictions for second-degree murders and murderers would be out on the street in a position to do more harm and violence to our society. I ask Members of Parliament to think a lot about that.
In my Province of Saskatchewan a couple of years ago JoAnn Wilson was murdered. We had the conviction of Colin Thatcher, a very prominent citizen of Saskatchewan. It was a very difficult case. The jury, if I remember correctly, took some five days to make a decision. I wonder whether Colin Thatcher would have been convicted of first-degree murder, which he was, if capital punishment was in force. I rather doubt it. The decision was difficult enough without the issue of capital punishment. With capital punishment, it would have been made a lot more difficult.
I believe if we had capital punishment, there would be millions of Canadians sitting on juries who would never knowingly send someone to the gallows and have blood on their conscience for the rest of their lives. That is an absolute fact. There are a lot of Canadians who would not convict someone if they knew that person had to face the executioner.
A Conservative friend of mine back here is laughing. 1 suggest it is no laughing matter. We are talking about something very serious.
My fifth question asks, can an innocent person be executed if we had capital punishment? I think the answer is very clearly yes. Again, the Conservative Member of Parliament from Ottawa West put some statistics on the record which proved that where they have capital punishment, over history,
many, many innocent people have been executed. I do not want this to happen in this country. I could not have that on my conscience. So I ask Members of Parliament to think very seriously about the possibility of an innocent person being executed.
Along that line, I would like to refer to a letter in the Prairie Messenger, which is a newspaper of the Roman Catholic Church in the Province of Saskatchewan. It was a letter written recently by Mr. Robert Eisler of Regina. I wish Members of Parliament who are leaning towards capital punishment would listen to Mr. Eisler's arguments. He says in part:
As long as we are human there is always the danger of putting an innocent person to death. So long as that possibility exists it completely destroys all arguments in favor of the death penalty.
How can I in all conscience vote for a return of the noose? In so doing, and should an innocent person be put to death, I would be compelled to spend the rest of my life with blood on my hands.
That is what Mr. Eisler wrote in the Catholic newspaper in Saskatchewan.
With the return of capital punishment, it is only a matter of time before an innocent person is put to death, and once someone is put to death there is no way of making amends or issuing apologies. Once that person is dead, that person is dead, and it is much too late. So I ask Members of Parliament to think very carefully about that issue before they rise in this House and ask that people be put to death in this country.
I refer to the Donald Marshall case recently in Nova Scotia. He was convicted of murder and after a number of years it was proven that Mr. Marshall was innocent. This was second-degree murder, but it is only a matter of time before someone is convicted of first-degree murder and put to death. As the Hon. Member for Ottawa West said, this has happened hundreds of times throughout history in countries and states which have capital punishment. Again I ask Members who want to vote for capital punishment, for hanging, to think twice before they do so.
My sixth question asks, if we bring back capital punishment, who is going to be executed? There was a study done of all the executions in Canada since we became a country back in 1867. It was found in this study that in the main it was the poor people who were executed; it was the disadvantaged who were executed; it was the native Indians who were executed in great numbers; it was the eastern Europeans, people of Ukrainian descent who, historically, were more likely to be executed than Anglo-Saxons. In the United States it is blacks who go to the gallows much more often then white Americans. That is so because they do not have the money to hire the best lawyers. They do not have the privileges that the wealthy have in our society.
Once again I say to Hon. Members, if we bring back capital punishment we will be bringing in a law from which the rich will once again be protected to a greater degree than the poor,


the deprived and the disadvantaged. I ask some of my wealthy friends in the House who are intending to vote for capital punishment to think very carefully about who, in the main, they will be sending to the gallows.
My seventh question is this. Will we save money by bringing back capital punishment? I have heard some people say, "Hang them, execute them, you will save money. Look at how much it costs to keep someone in jail. It costs thousands of dollars to keep someone in jail". Once again I say that that is a wrong argument. It is wrong to even base this type of argument on financial matters.
However, even if it is based on financial matters, I argue that it would cost the state more to bring in capital punishment than it would to keep someone in jail. There would be appeal after appeal, and millions and millions of dollars would be spent in the appeal process which would, once again, cost the Canadian people a great deal of money.
The next question I want to ask my fellow MPs who are thinking seriously about voting in favour of the return of capital punishment is this. Even if we bring back capital punishment, even if we bring back the hangman, will people be executed anyway? My answer to that is probably not. I cannot foresee any Prime Minister of Canada in the next number of years who will want to have on his conscience the fact that he had not commuted the death sentence for some Canadian. When we pass a Bill on capital punishment I assume that the power to commute a death sentence would rest with the Cabinet.
I cannot see the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ever agreeing because he believes in abolition. He does not believe in vengeance. He does not believe in capital punishment. In my opinion the present Prime Minister would never in effect, sign a death warrant, to have blood on his hands by agreeing to have someone sent to the gallows. That would not happen if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) were Prime Minister. It would not happen if the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) were Prime Minister. It did not happen with the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau. It did not happen with the Prime Minister before that, the current Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).
I am also proud to say that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has strongly hinted to the people of Canada that he would have to reconsider staying in his post as Minister of Justice if capital punishment were brought back and if he was faced with the possibility of having to send someone to the gallows.
Again, if we pass a resolution to establish a Bill to bring back capital punishment we will be setting up a process whereby legally we will have capital punishment but the final result will be that we will not send people to the gallows.
I ask another question of Hon. Members. Supposing someone in the family of an Hon. Member was convicted of murder, what would they do? I suspect there is not a single
Capital Punishment
person in the House who would not fight as hard as possible and use all the money they had to try to free that particular person. I want once again to quote Mr. Eisler's letter as it appeared in the Catholic Church's Prairie Messenger.
I have one question for those favouring a return of the death penalty. God forbid, but if some member of their family were charged with murder, would they still be in favour of capital punishment? Or would they be willing to spend their last dollar to prevent the ultimate? If not, I would hesitate to refer to them as caring and loving parents.
How can 1 promote capital punishment for someone else's son or daughter when I refuse to accept it for one of my own?
I think that is a very strong and compelling argument. There are a great many other arguments. There are a great many churches and a great many people who want to make those arguments. Because of that I want to move an amendment to the motion before the House, an amendment that will give the churches and the people of Canada more time to present their cases. My amendment is seconded by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and it reads as follows:
That the word "three" in lines 5 and 14 be deleted and that the word "six" be substituted therefor.
This amendment would mean that instead of having three months to study the issue of capital punishment the committee would take six months to study it. The people of Canada, namely, the churches, which have shown tremendous leadership on this issue, would have more time to talk to Canadians about how wrong it is in a decent and civilized society to bring back capital punishment, to provide the same laws in our country as exit in the Soviet Union, China, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Chile, and other countries in South America. Surely to goodness we can strive for higher ideals and higher moral values than there are in some of the countries I have just named. I appeal to my friends in the House not adopt the same mentality as those in the Soviet Union, Chile, South Africa, Iraq or Iran. For God's sake, we are a more decent, democratic and civilized society than some of those countries.
I say that it is not morally right to have capital punishment in Canada. It is not morally right, and the churches have said that to us. The Catholic Church has said time and time again that it is not right, as has the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, the United Church, the Mennonites and other churches. Representing the moral leadership of the country they have said no, no, no to capital punishment on moral terms. This House should be saying no, no, no to capital punishment as well.
I want to conclude by asking a few more questions. Can I ever vote for a Bill on capital punishment? Obviously, my answer is no, for the nine or ten reasons I have already given. If I cannot vote for capital punishment, then how can I pass a law which will state that another Canadian must make the decision to kill? If I cannot kill myself, if I cannot be the hangman myself or the executioner, how can I pass a law that will make it mandatory for another Canadian to do that job? How can I pass a law that states that a jury must make a decision on life or death? I cannot pass such a law.


Capital Punishment
How could I pass a law which would state that a judge must make a decision on life or death? I cannot morally do that. I do not know why I should then pass that decision on to a judge or a jury.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it fair to expect, if capital punishment is returned, to have a medical doctor stand and verify that somebody has been hung by the neck until dead and then pronounce that person dead? Should we expect a medical doctor to do that whether the method of execution is by hanging, electric chair or lethal injection? Is it fair to force the people in the medical community to go through that type of uncivilized act? It is not fair. I would not do it. How can I pass a law saying that we expect doctors to do it?
Is it fair to expect a minister of the cloth, a reverend or a priest, or what have you, to be there when someone is executed and to give them their last rites, to be with them and try to comfort them? That is not fair.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it morally right to leave someone who is condemned on death row year after year after year while the appeals go on and on, while the date of execution is pushed back and back? Do Members of the House really believe in that kind of torture? I ask them if they believe in that type of torture for someone who is condemned?
I also ask if Members of the House really believe that it is fair to the family of the condemned woman or man, to see their brother, sister, father, mother, cousin or loved one on death row waiting week after week and month after month and year after year while appeals are being exhausted and retried and exhausted once again?
Finally, I ask whether any Member of this House of Commons would volunteer to be the hangman? Someone has to pull the trigger, someone has to push the button. I suggest that there is no one in the House of Commons who would do that.


Mr. Gagnon:: Yes, there is, right here.


Mr. Holtmann:: Yes, I would.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon) would do it, and so would the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann). They are exceptions. They would volunteer to be the hangman, to push the button.


Paul Gagnon: We had a million people go serve in the war who do not want to fight against crime.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Almost no one in the House would do it. If we would not do it or they would not do it, how can they vote for a Bill that forces someone else to do it?


Felix Holtmann: As long as you were standing there we would do it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have had hangmen in this country who have committed suicide because of the job they had to do. These are people who lived a life of sheer hell because of the job they had to do.
Mr. Speaker, if we would not do it ourselves, how can we pass a law that obligates another member of our society to be the executioner, to be the hangman?
We live in a civilized society. We have a great country. I believe we now have to reach for higher morals, for a higher standard in society. History will judge us on how we vote on this issue. Years down the road, when I am asked where I stood on this very historical debate, I will be able to say with pride that I stood on the side of decency, that I stood on the side of higher morals in our society, that I stood on the side of a democratic society, a just society; that I did not stand on the side of those who want to bring back the noose, taking us closer to the kind of society we see in the Soviet Union, or China, or Iraq, or Turkey, or Iran, or Chile, and other countries of South America, or South Africa. 1 do not believe in the kind of society that exists in those places. I believe that Canadian people reflecting on this issue will overwhelmingly come down on the side that capital punishment is morally wrong and dangerous for Canada as a country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of Mr. Nystrom's amendment. The Chair finds the motion for amendment in order.
Questions or comments?
The Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson), on debate.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House today to speak on the issue of capital punishment, an issue on which there are deeply held convictions on both sides. It is wrong for those on either side of the issue to claim the high moral ground. Those on both sides of the question have deep convictions. It is wrong to impute that one side has the high moral ground and the other not.
In the debates that I have had with the former Solicitor General, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and Mr. Edward Greenspan, it was generally agreed that the statistics will not conclusively prove either side of the issue.
I am in favour of capital punishment for first degree murder, or premeditated murder. I believe the courts must have the capital punishment option. The Government must make it clear that society will not tolerate the premeditated taking of a life. The clear message must be that the sanctity of life is foremost in our considerations.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we see a focus on the rights of the accused as an individual. But, what about the collective rights


and the protection of society as a whole? Are those rights not deserving of consideration and protection?
We hear that the guilty party is a product of his or her environment and is therefore not responsible for his or her actions. I believe that we are all ultimately responsible for our actions, and must be held accountable. When are we going to see a focus on individual responsibility and accountability in our society?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that responsibility fosters a just society; an undue focus on individual rights fosters rebellion. Our criminal laws must be based on justice, and under those laws a person must be responsible for his or her actions.
The 1978-79 statistics show that the average time served in prison for attempted murder before being granted parole was four years and nine months; for manslaughter, two years and nine months; for kidnapping, two years and six months; for rape, two years. What kind of a message do those statistics send to society about the sanctity and value of life, about justice in our society.
In looking at the issue of capital punishment, it is important that we look at the over-all justice system. And in looking at the plea bargaining system, at the parole system, at the bail laws, and all other aspects of justice, we see that there has to be a tightening up, there has to be more accountability. We must send a stronger message to society. It must be made clear that we will not tolerate blatant abuse of the laws of our land, blatant abuse of the protection and rights of all Canadians.
The abolitionists in this debate have a concern about error, about the possibility of an innocent person being executed. Since Confederation, there has not been one person executed who was later found to be innocent. Yet, since 1920 there have been eight murderers released, with the resultant loss of 11 more innocent lives. Many of those victims had a full life ahead of them, with expectations and dreams. They were simply snuffed out.
We speculate about the margin of error in the court system, with no concrete evidence that in fact it works against the innocent. We do, however, have concrete evidence to support the fact that 11 innocent lives have been snuffed out by repeat offenders, by murderers who had been released.
I have faith in our judicial system. I have faith in the men and women of Canada who are involved in the judicial system. I have faith in the due process of law, with the exhaustive appeal system that is in place.
Those on the other side of this issue are constantly throwing out this red herring about the possibility of an innocent person being executed. They cite the Donald Marshall case as an example of a situation where an innocent man could have been taken to the execution chamber. We know better than that. Donald Marshall was charged with, and convicted of, second
Capital Punishment
degree murder, not first degree murder. What I stand for is capital punishment for first degree, premeditated murder.
We hear the Biblical quotation "an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth" as justification for vengeance.
Mr. Speaker, what that scripture is saying to us is that we must have sentences that are commensurate with the crime committed. It is not that the punishment for cutting a person's arm off is to cut off the arm of the perpetrator of that act; that the punishment for killing a person is necessarily that the perpetrator of that act should be killed.
What we are saying is that we must have punishments commensurate with the crime committed, and I do not believe we are seeing that in the operation of our judicial system today. I repeat the statistics cited earlier. For attempted murder the average prison sentence is four years and nine months; for manslaughter, where a life has actually been taken, the average time in prison is two years and nine months.
1 find such sentences hard to comprehend in our society today.
We also hear those on the opposite side of this question quoting scripture, "Thou shalt not kill". What the scripture says is, "Thou shalt not murder". It cannot be said that the state, in carrying out an execution, is murdering or killing; what the state is doing is executing judgment.
Romans 13.1.6 tells us that God places Governments in authority over the people, to provide for the protection of society. Those who commit no wrongdoing or evil have nothing to fear; but those who do break the law, those who do commit crimes of violence, have to fear the "execution of the sword", as it is quoted in scripture. In other words, they have to stand fully accountable under the law.
Furthermore, Genesis 9.6 says, "Who so sheddeth a man's blood by man shall blood be shed."
I believe scripture very clearly states that capital punishment is in order for first degree premeditated murder.
We heard the New Democratic Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) talk about the stands of the various churches. There is no question that the executives of the United and Anglican Churches, as well as the Conference of Catholic Bishops, have stated that they are against capital punishment. There is no question about that. However, they are not speaking for their memberships. If they were speaking for their memberships, it would be clearly reflected in the polls, yet we see that for a number of years the percentage of Canadians in favour of capital punishment has hovered between 60 per cent and 70 per cent. It is quite obvious that they are not speaking for their memberships; they are speaking as executives of the respective churches.
Turning to the question of deterrence, I agree with my friend from Saskatchewan who spoke before me that it cannot be conclusively proven that capital punishment is a deterrent.


Capital Punishment
However, it cannot be proven conclusively that there is not a deterrent factor.
If capital punishment does not deter crime, why do criminals fear it more than any other penalty? Why does almost every criminal sentenced to death appeal for life imprisonment? Life is irrefutably the murderer's most valuable possession.
According to J. Edgar Hoover, a Director of the FBI, professional law enforcement officers are convinced from experience that hardened criminals have been and are deterred from killing based on the prospect of the death penalty.
If we reflect back to 1971 and the Kingston Prison riots, at that time capital punishment was in effect for the killing of prison guards. Although 12 lives were lost in that sad event, not one prison guard was killed. In fact, the prisoners murdered two inmates and dressed them up as prison guards, hoping to fool the media and those with whom they were negotiating to try to bring it to an end which was to their satisfaction.
I find it ironic that we live in a day and age when we see 66,000 unborn babies murdered each year. Yet, we see a Party like the NDP to my right, which is kind of ironic, standing for abortion on demand, to continue the wanton killing of innocent lives. At the same time, as a bloc, as a Party, it stands against capital punishment.
In conclusion, may I say that I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the debate be now adjourned.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
(Division No. 218)

Members
Attewell	Grise	PorterBelsher	Gurbin	RavisBernier	Hamilton	RedwayBlais	Harvey	ReimerBouchard	Hawkes	St-JulienBourgault	Holtmann	SchellenbergBoyer	Horner	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Bradley	Howie	SchellenbergerBrightwell	Jelinek	(Wetaskiwin)Brisco	Jepson	ScottBrowes	Joncas	(Victoria-Haliburton)Cardiff	Jourdenais	ScottChampagne	Kempling	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Champlain)	Kindy	ScowenClifford	King	SparrowClinch	Lanthier	SpeyerCollins	Lawrence	StewartComeau	Lesick	SulukCorbett	Lewis	TardifCossitt	MacDougall	(Charlesbourg)Cote	(Timiskaming)	Taylor(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Malone	ThackerDantzer	Mayer	TowersDarling	Mazankowski	TremblayDomm	McCain	(Quebec-Est)Fennell	McCrossan	Van De WalleFontaine	McCuish	VankoughnetForrestall	McKinnon	WarnerFraleigh	McKnight	WhiteFriesen	Nickerson	WilsonGagnon	Nowlan	(Swift CurrentGottselig	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)Gray	Pennock	Winegard-92(Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway	Peterson Pietz Plourde	
++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Hopkins	NunziataAngus	Johnston	NystromBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	OuelletBerger	Westmount)	Pennerde Corneille	Kaplan	Prud'hommeEpp	Keeper	Riis(Thunder Bay-	Lapierre	RobichaudNipigon)	Malepart	RobinsonFoster	Manly	Young-29Gauthier	Marchi	Grondin	McCurdy	Heap	Murphy


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]


Mr. Grondin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) on a point of order.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Jepson), which was agreed to on the following division:


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to say that I would have voted against the motion, like my Party colleagues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, your vote will be recorded. [English]
It being 1.05 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.05 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p. m.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, following the failure of the most recent First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal rights, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said: "That was not the end of it... I deeply regret we did not succeed but-we shall try again to make sure that justice comes about for the native peoples of Canada".
All Hon. Members can applaud, approve and wholeheartedly support that affirmation of the Prime Minister of Canada. That being so, I ask this House if it is not curious, therefore, that the Government is terminating its constitutional funding to the national native organizations for aboriginal rights research and negotiation, with special reference to the right of self-government?
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has no reply except to say that funding will end as of June 30. I ask him and I ask the Prime Minister is it not really the case that aboriginal issues have been pushed off the agenda of the Government and the hope is that a few good words and nice sentiments from time to time will suffice as those unresolved rights are permitted to disappear from our sight?



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the death penalty for people who deliberately plan and then murder a human being is a deterrent. However, whether it is or not, I support the execution of such murderers. Why? Primarily because Biblical evidence in both the Old and New Testaments supports capital punishment.
"Whoso sheddith man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ... ''(Genesis 9:5,6). No later statements in the Holy Book cancel this principle of civil government.
Again, Paul the Apostle endorsed capital punishment when he said: "If I be an offender or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die: (Acts 25:11). And when
God gave us the Ten Commandments to guide our behaviour in life, the verse says: "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). But if we disobey this commandment then we are punished, and for premeditated murder under the Mosaic Law the punishment was death.
When Christ was on the cross he forgave the sins of the thief, but He did not stop the execution and He could have, had He chosen to do so.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Secretary of State has recommended that the budget of the Women's Program be at least maintained at current levels, indexed to the cost of living and, if possible, be increased to meet the needs of new groups and address emerging priorities. The Women's Program gives the Government excellent value for its money in terms of volunteer hours and staff dedication.
Additional funds are required for projects aimed specifically at improving the status of women who are doubly disadvantaged, such as women who live in remote regions, those who are disabled or are members of a visible minority. Government must not pit established groups against new groups in a futile battle to divide up a pie which isn't large enough to go around. Instead, we must recognize that until economic, social and political barriers to equality have been removed, the Women's Program will require government support.
I would ask that the budget for the Secretary of State's Women's Program be increased so that women's advancement toward equality may continue.



DRUMMONDVILLE SIXTH WORLD FOLKLORE FESTIVAL


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to a special event which will take place in my riding, the sixth edition of the World Folklore Festival. I extend an invitation to all my colleagues and to all Canadians to attend the festivities. During the July 3-13 period we will be welcoming groups from every corner of the world: Africa, Asia, Europe and North America. Spend 10 days with us and discover the popular traditions and culture of various nations through songs, music, dances, and a wide variety of most enlightening activities.

In five years Drummondville's World Folklore Festival had become the most important folkloric event in North America. More than 600,000 visitors attended last year's festivities. We have various activities, including craft exhibits, more than 400 dance shows, religious events, public events, and day and night parades.
I should like to commend the Mackinaw folkloric ensemble for their outstanding contribution in first hosting this festival. I expect to see you at the World Folklore Festival between July 3 and July 13, for this is a unique event.



CHILDREN


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Defence for Children International, a Swiss based organization dedicated to children's issues, has just released a report "Children under Apartheid'' detailing incidences of child abuse in South Africa. This report outlines massive evidence that members of the South African Government's security forces are abusing the powers granted them under the state of emergency in effect since last June, and children are being arrested and detained without cause.
The South African Government has admitted it is guilty of these allegations. Since 1985, police have shot and killed more than 300 children and wounded more than 950 children with gun-fire.
The report also alleges that an estimated 10,000 children under the age of 18 years are held in custody without trial in South Africa.
The Canadian Government has known for a long time of the brutal treatment of innocent black South African children. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has been reluctant up until this point to impose full economic sanctions against South Africa. But his other avenues of recourse are not stopping the cruel and oppressive treatment of South African blacks.
It is good that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has condemned the treatment of blacks by the Botha Government. Will he now commit his Government to helping innocent children? These children deserve a future, not one that is marred with a loss of dignity, torture, and even brutal slaughter.



MULTICULTURALISM

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-FOUNDATION OF MULTICULTURAL IDENTITY
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to address the House with respect to the provisions for Canada's multicultural community in our constitutional Accord.
It is with honour that I allay misgivings expressed in this Chamber and in the media that the large number of Canadians of neither French nor English background may be overlooked in the Accord. In both spirit and actual wording our rich cultural language of ancestral traditions and heritage languages is portrayed and assured of protection.
Canada's respect for its multicultural roots has always been government policy and it will be further entrenched next autumn when the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) tables Canada's first ever multiculturalism Act. More than ever, our unique multicultural identity will be seen as a fact of law, not just as a fact of life.
Our constitutional Accord serves as a firm foundation by which the Government upholds its cherished multicultural character. The new Act will further affirm this symbol of Canadian ancestral pride.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Saskatchewan the Conservative Government of Grant Devine brought in a Budget. In this Budget the Government increased the flat tax, increased the sales tax from 5 per cent to 7 per cent, brought back the gas tax, and brought in all types of other taxes. During the campaign members of the Conservative Party promised not to increase taxes. They have now brought in tax after tax after tax.
Once again this action shows us that Tory times are taxing times; that Tory times are tough times.
In addition, medical care services have been cut back, as have dental care services, nursing homes, and services to ordinary people.
The present Government of Saskatchewan is similar to the Government of R. B. Bennett of the 1930s. That was the Government that brought us the Great Depression. I learned as a little child that Tory times are tough times. After R. B. Bennett the Conservative Party disappeared in the West for about 35 years. It was not until Diefenbaker revived it that it reappeared.
With this latest Budget of Grant Devine and with the help of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), once again


the Conservative Party will become extinct in the West and the legacy of John Diefenbaker will disappear.
Tory times are tough times.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, as official spokesman for the socialist Party in matters of defence, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) should clarify his position concerning Canada's NATO participation in the defence of the interests of western communities.
We know that all Members of his Party, including their leader, are systematically opposed to Canada's participation in NATO, and we know that the resolutions which have been in force since the 1985 socialist convention confirm the policy concerning Canada's withdrawal fron NATO and other military alliances, as evidenced by Resolution 43 of the Convention of 85.
At their latest convention in March of this year the delegates and the leader of the socialist Party were not honest enough to include this question and explain their position to Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians support the western world's common defence system.
This bunch of leftists and Kremlin sympathizers must forthwith state their official position on our defence policy.
The leader of the socialist Party should listen to me. Is he going to throw out the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)? Is he going to ignore the resolutions of his delegates? One way or another, Mr. Speaker, as usual he will have to flip and flop.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, as most of us already know, the fire earlier this week at the Reynolds plant at Cap-de-la-Madeleine has caused serious damage.
This is very unfortunate for our region, and although long term lay-offs do not seem likely, the tragedy will have an impact on the region's economy, at least for some time.
That is why I hope the Government will do everything it can to help that industry overcome the adverse effects of the fire as soon as possible.
I want to ask all departments concerned to take action immediately and offer government assistance to Reynolds' management.
Since many people in my riding work at the plant, I want to take this opportunity to say they have my full support.



IN REMEMBRANCE OF RABBI DAVID FEUERWERKER

Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians commemorate this week the passing of Grand Rabbi Dr. David Feuerwerker, Z.T.L., on June 20, 1980.
This Lamed Vav was more than a builder of our communities. He was the guide and master of many generations.
We cannot omit some reference to the work of Grand Rabbi David Feuerwerker who saved thousands of human lives from the horrors of the death camps.
Chamir, FF1 Captain, co-founder of the Combat movement, Rabbi of Tournelles, director of the Cercle d'Etudes du Marais, General Chaplain, professor at the Sorbonne and at the University of Montreal, author of L'emancipation des Juifs, Grand Rabbi of the Canadian Jewish Cultural Association, he rests in peace beside the judges of the Sanhedrin at the foot of the Temple in Jerusalem.
With his wife, Antoinette Gluck, we publicly sanctify the name of God and declare that the chain of tradition is intact, and we shall recite, with all God's peoples, a fervent Kaddish in memory of Grand Rabbi Dr. David Feuerwerker, Zichon Tzadik Livrocho.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in St. John's, fishermen and processors could not reach an agreement on the capelin fishery. In a press release issued yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries stated:
-it appears unlikely that production of capelin product in excess of 15.000 tonnes would be of benefit to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador. Given the current unsold inventory of capelin in the Japanese market, and the increase of production in Iceland in 1987, the previously established harvesting quota of 69,000 tonnes seems far in excess of market demand for this year.
Since the Minister can clearly identify the problem, one wonders why he has failed the fishermen of Newfoundland


miserably by not having the courage to come through with a solution. He has rejected any form of price supports-"the free market must prevail at all costs."
He has failed to create any form of marketing boards or use existing infrastructures to help this ailing fishery and, finally, he has refused to move quickly on the industry's call for a reduction in the capelin quota to more appropriate levels.
No wonder Newfoundlanders call this a 100 per cent failure.



THE CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-ABORIGINAL AND MULTICULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians whose origins are other than French or English have serious concerns over their status within the present constitutional Accord.
When I raised this issue on Tuesday with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), rather than dealing with the issue with the sensitivity and seriousness that the matter deserves, he preferred, instead, to suggest, very falsely, that I was at odds with my Leader and with my Party by raising these concerns.
It should be made very clear to the Prime Minister that at our policy conference last November, unlike the present Accord, in the preamble of our constitutional resolution, a resolution that was adopted very enthusiastically, we suggested that Canada is defined by its French, English, aboriginal, and multicultural dimensions.
Furthermore, on May 11, my Leader in the House of Commons, three times in the body of his speech, repeated the concerns about the lack of any "multicultural" reference in the Accord. Moreover, in his national address on CBC to the country, he voiced regret that the Premiers and the Prime Minister did not go further and recognize, fundamentally, the contributions and aspirations of our indigenous and multicultural community in Canada.
The Prime Minister has not given good reasons for rejecting, in Clause 1, the addition of a very integral part of Canadian society.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, almost two months ago a parliamentary committee recommended that the major department stores reduce their charge card rates to the level of the bank-issued credit cards. Almost two months later, with the banks having lowered their
rates significantly, store chains like The Bay, Canadian Tire, Eatons, Sears, Simpson's and Woolco are still charging 28.8 per cent on outstanding balances.
I ask those companies the following questions. Are they saying "the Parliament of Canada be damned"? What do we need? What are they waiting for? Do we have to take a legislative club and beat them over their corporate heads?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE HONOURABLE STANLEY KNOWLES


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon to mark an important occasion. Today, a very special former parliamentarian is celebrating his seventy-ninth birthday. I refer of course to the Hon. Stanley Knowles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, Stanley Knowles likes to tell the story of how goat's milk saved his life when he was a child. He grew up to be a man whose kindness and strength of character are legendary, and we hope to celebrate many more anniversaries with him.

When Stanley was 21 years old, his father wrote to him and said the following in his letter:
I note how your soul is burning with the vision and zeal of youth to carry the message of good news to the peoples of the earth that will make this earth more heavenly and certainly a better place to live in.
Well, Stanley followed that up.

The wisdom that comes with age has in no way diminished Stanley's vision of a fairer and more compassionate world. He has worked very hard to realize this vision for Canadian men and women. Ever since he was elected Member for the riding of Winnipeg North Centre in 1942, he has led the fight to improve living conditions for the poor and the needy. And he keeps reminding us that the fight is not over yet.

Over 60 years ago when Stanley first visited Ottawa in 1924, the Peace Tower had not yet been completed. Today, the image of Stanley personifies Parliament as indelibly as the Peace Tower for Canadians from coast to coast.
I should like to ask all Members of the House to join with me in wishing Stanley a most happy birthday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) concerning the principle of secrecy as it relates to fiscal matters. Yesterday I allowed extensive argument on this matter because I recognized that it was one of overriding importance. Because it affects a major fiscal issue which is to be brought before the House later today, I have decided that I should not delay my ruling.
The question of privilege of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was based to some extent on a report in yesterday's Globe and Mail. The right hon. gentleman supplied the Chair with a copy of that report, and I have read it very carefully. There is no doubt that the report gives the impression that the 20 experts engaged by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to study the final text of his White Paper are a privileged group who will be able to provide advice to their clients with the benefit of advantages that others working in their field will not have.
The facts, as I understand them, and which are not disputed, are as follows. Twenty experts have been engaged by the Hon. Minister of Finance to give technical advice on the White Paper which is to be presented to this House tonight. They have been involved in the process for a matter of months but have been given a preview of the final text, or parts of the final text, of the White Paper prior to its tabling in the House this evening. These 20 people have all been sworn to secrecy and have taken the same oath as that administered to members of the Public Service.
The complaint of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, which was supported by a number of Hon. Members who participated in the discussion, is that these 20 individuals have been given a special privilege of which they could take advantage. I emphasize the word "could", the conditional tense, because it was not suggested by any Hon. Member that any of these people had in fact breached their oaths of secrecy or were likely to do so. The integrity of these individuals is not in question, and Hon. Members will remember that I intervened several times during the discussion to establish this point. I want it to be clearly understood.
The question of privilege is based exclusively on the suggestion that the privileges of Hon. Members of this House have been breached because 20 individuals have been given access to the final text of the White Paper before it has been made available to Members of the House. The Hon. Minister of Finance made the point that the White Paper was not a
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
budget, that it is nothing more than a proposal and that it does not even represent budgetary policy. While I appreciate the distinction, I feel that the White Paper nevertheless has very important budgetary implications.
The Hon. Minister of Finance also made the point that there was nothing new in the Government hiring experts to advise it on budgetary matters. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and those who supported him saw a distinction between the hiring of experts during the formulation process and giving those same experts access to a final document before its presentation to the House.
I have examined the precedents available and have come to the following conclusions. Budgetary secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention. Its purpose is to prevent anybody from gaining a private advantage by reason of obtaining advance budgetary information. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to two British cases which involved the resignations of Ministers, in one case a Chancellor of the Exchequer because of a budget leak. However, the issues were never raised as matters of parliamentary privilege.
In this House, issues of this nature have in the past been raised as questions of privilege. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) referred to two such cases. In a ruling relating to one of them given on April 17, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome expressed serious doubts as to whether the convention of budgetary secrecy fell within the area of privilege at all. I must inform the House that in these circumstances I have arrived at the same conclusion.
I do not believe that this issue was one of privilege because Hon. Members of this House, and this is very important when one considers what is privilege, have not in any way been obstructed in the fulfilment of their duties by the fact that these 20 experts were given a preview of the White Paper. 1 must emphasize, however, that I am not ruling on the issue of propriety. The limits of parliamentary privilege are very narrow and it is not a responsibility of the Chair to rule as to whether or not a parliamentary convention is justified or whether or not the matter complained of is a breach of that convention. That is a matter of political debate and not one in which the Chair would wish to become involved.
I draw to Hon. Members notice of the fact that during argument yesterday, Hon. Members rose to say that they were not rising against the principle of a Government consulting with people in the private sector. I must therefore rule that on the evidence presented to me, I cannot accord this matter precedence over all other business. I stress, however, that I am ruling on this matter only as it relates to parliamentary privilege.
I would also emphasize that nothing which has been said in this House implies any reflection on the integrity of the 20 individuals to whom reference has been made. In that regard, I am indebted to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who made that point abundantly clear toward the end of argument


Oral Questions
yesterday and was supported by other Hon. Members, keeping in mind my admonition that I have I asked Hon. Members to remember that we must always guard the reputations of those outside this Chamber and respect their integrity and innocence in these matters.
I thank Hon. Members for their interventions yesterday, interventions which were lengthy but which I believe were important.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we of course accept your ruling on the question of privilege on the basis of our knowledge and your knowledge of the facts as they are now available to us. We note that you left the question of propriety open, so my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
As a result of a letter written today by the Minister of Finance to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, who is currently quarantined, we know 31 specially privileged lawyers and accountants were given advance information on tax policy. I suggest in the strongest terms that was wrong, unfair, and unethical. It is as simple and clear as that. What is not clear is whether the Government knows the difference between right and wrong and, if it does, whether it really cares.
Did the Prime Minister know that 31 leading specialists in tax law and accounting were to be given privileged access to the White Paper in advance of Members of Parliament and other Canadians, and did he personally approve?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend of course knows it is not wrong, not unfair, and the conduct was not unethical. Surely he just heard the Speaker purport to speak in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition where, as I understand it, he, the Right Hon. Member, did not suggest there was anything improper or unethical regarding the conduct of those people who participated. The question then becomes is this kind of consultation conventional? I think it is.
The tradition for some considerable period of time has been that, given the progressive complexity of tax legislation on the social policy, labour and legal sides, Ministers of Finance reach out to various experts from all walks of life to seek guidance and counsel in the application of tax policy. That is what was done by the Minister of Finance and the Government, and I think it is entirely proper and helpful.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not understand or is not willing to understand. The Speaker left open the question of propriety. He left it open to debate and to the judgment of the Canadian people. His Honour dispensed with the question of privilege but left open the question of propriety.


Jack Wendele Shields: He said it was political debate, John.


John Napier Turner: We are not questioning the ethics of those who accepted the invitation from the Minister of Finance. We are questioning the ethics of the Minister in giving an unfair advantage to experts at the expense of the Canadian people.

Mr. Speaker, how unfortunate that the Prime Minister should be unable to understand this question.


INQUIRY WHY 31 PRIVILEGED PERSONS WERE ENABLED TO EXAMINE DETAILS IN ADVANCE
John Napier Turner: The
question is this: Why did the Prime Minister allow these 31 privileged persons to gain advance knowledge of some of the details of the tax reform, ahead of Hon. Members and ahead of other Canadians? Can the Prime Minister tell us why he did not chastise the Minister of Finance for inviting these experts and giving them preferential treatment, thus completely ignoring all other Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that nobody was given preferential treatment, that it was a perfectly normal practice, followed by other Ministers of Finance, to consult experts in this field in an attempt to come up with a tax policy which is consistent with the interests of all Canadians. This process dates back to a few years. The Leader of the Opposition is asking me why the Prime Minister allowed ... Yes, but as far as I know many Prime Ministers before me not only allowed but even urged their Ministers of Finance to consult even more, and I would suggest that is precisely what the Minister of Finance did under perfectly normal circumstances.


NATURE OF OBJECTION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we did not say the Minister of Finance had no right to consult experts. No. We do object to the fact that the Minister gave these experts an advantage after making his final decision. That is the difference which the Prime Minister fails to understand.
The books were closed and these gentlemen had a cosy advantage over the rest of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Napier Turner: The Government sinks into more disrepute with every answer.


Mr. Crosbie:: Question.


John Napier Turner: A small dose of frankness would do wonders.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not recognize that his Minister of Finance has breached a centuries-old tradition of tax secrecy which ensures that all the citizens of the realm are treated equally? If he does, why is his Minister of Finance still the Minister of Finance today?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend says that he is not questioning the integrity of the outside advisers and then proceeds to do precisely that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He proceeds to imply very categorically that they had a "cosy advantage" which they were going to abuse notwithstanding their oath of secrecy and position of trust which this Government and other Governments have used with regard to-


John Napier Turner: Give me a precedent for this particular situation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will give a precedent on giving out tax information. When Marc Lalonde was Minister of Finance the Budget was put out to all Canadian people. When they were caught they changed it, which cost Canadians $200 million. That is a fundamental violation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHOICE OF MEMBERS OF SPECIALISTS GROUP
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is on the same subject. The Prime Minister says that the chosen few, the group of 31, were not given an unfair advantage. Canadians do not believe that and the facts suggest otherwise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Question.


John V. Nunziata: How were the chosen few in fact chosen? How was this elite group of 31 put together? Can he explain why, for example, the major firms of Laventhol & Horwath,
Oral Questions
Peat Marwick, and Samson Belair were not invited to participate in this elite group? Can he explain how the others were chosen?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell my hon. friend that which has been conveyed publicly, that is, that the officials of the Department of Finance who have dealt with tax matters over the years under successive Governments have consulted with people from the private sector. I was not aware of who was being consulted. If some people have been left off the list, I am sure we would be happy to correct it.


Ms. Copps:: I bet you would.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, perhaps when the Prime Minister is correcting the list he might want to invite the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, the poverty organizations, and all the other major groups in the country who have an interest in the White Paper.


CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING GROUP MEMBERS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, is it mere coincidence or pure happenstance that the firms of Ernst & Whinney and Thorne Riddell contributed over $164,000 to the Conservative Party between 1984 and 1985? Was it mere coincidence that they contributed this amount of money and were subsequently invited to select two people to participate in this elite group?


B. Keith Penner: Now we know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members will of course understand that that question does not go to the administration of the Government or any particular Department thereof. It is, of course, in the hands of Ministers whether they wish to answer the question.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps I can rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Gauthier:: How were they chosen?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has indicated that he is prepared to accept my admonishment and rephrase the question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we in the Opposition and indeed all Canadians would like to know how this list was put together. I will direct the question to the Minister of Finance.
What criteria were used to choose the major firms invited to participate in this elite group? Can he explain why certain major accounting firms and certain major law firms were not invited to participate? Would he not agree that those invited to participate would have an unfair advantage in the situation?


Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear why these people were invited to participate. They were invited by the officials of the Department of Finance on the basis of their professional qualifications. These people are seen by the tax community as the best tax experts in the country. If the Hon. Member wants to ask around about the qualifications of these people in their community, I think he would find that that is exactly the basis on which they are regarded by their peers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about Peat Marwick?


CHANGE MADE TO BUDGET BY FORMER MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I preface it with the observation that the Speaker has said that he ruled the question of privilege out of order because privilege is defined in very narrow and strict terms. However, he went on to say that the White Paper "has very important budgetary implications".
With regard to the Prime Minister's answer about Marc Lalonde, I suggest that the conclusion is the opposite to the one he reached. Is it not the case that Marc Lalonde changed the Budget precisely because it was discovered that he had done something wrong?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that British parliamentary practice calls for the Minister's resignation when information with regard to a Budget is made public. As I understand it, with regard to the case of Mr. Lalonde that information was made public. The Minister did not resign, in violation of British parliamentary practice. He changed the Budget and then came back into the House and said he did not have to resign because the information was different from that in the document which had been filmed.
I think my hon. friend would agree that that is a complete violation of British parliamentary practice while the present Minister of Finance is in total conformity with British parliamentary practice.


MINISTER'S ACTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say with respect that I think the Prime Minister has drawn the wrong conclusion again. As I understand the case, the Hon. Marc Lalonde would have had to do one of two things-either change the budget document in respect of the information that was revealed to the public, or resign. He changed the document. In this case a Minister gave privileged access to budgetary information-


An Hon. Member:: It is not budgetary.


John Edward Broadbent: -information that has direct budgetary implications, as the Speaker has said. The Minister in question
neither changed the document afterwards nor submitted his resignation. When will he do the right thing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that Mr. Lalonde had to do one of two things. That is where we part company. Mr. Lalonde should have done one thing, that is, resign. He made that Budget public and the photographic evidence was obtained. There is a fundamental difference. He did not have two options. Pursuant to parliamentary practice that is cited so well by a former Minister of Finance, who is presently the Leader of the Opposition, there was one inevitable conclusion which Mr. Lalonde ought to have made. He chose not to, and changed the practice, and changed his Budget.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are doing neither.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The White Paper is not a Budget. It is something entirely different from a Budget, as White Papers have traditionally been since this country was founded. My hon. friend knows that.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, those were not my words, they were the words of the Speaker who said that this White Paper is not merely a discussion document of some kind. He said it "has very important budgetary implications".
Perhaps a difference between the Marc Lalonde situation and the present one is that at least all the people in Canada had access to the particular point that Mr. Lalonde incorrectly revealed, whereas this Minister just gave it to a handful of people.


Miss MacDonald:: They are under oath.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the Prime Minister not agree that there is an important distinction to be made between consulting people before preparing a document, whether it is a White Paper or a Budget, and giving them the information after the document has been prepared, which is this case? If he agrees that they should not have privileged access, why were the documents not taken back and held for at least 24 hours to make complete changes, or why did the Minister not do the correct thing, which is indeed to resign under the circumstances?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will agree that he has asked a number of questions. Let us deal with the fundamental issue.
A White Paper is not something that is truly exceptional. We are considering one tonight and there was one some two weeks ago on the question of national defence. It is the same kind of instrument that is used in a parliamentary democracy for a Government to put forward plans and invite debate and consideration of a great national issue. It sets forth the general thrust of government thinking, but it is not a Budget in the


sense that it does not, per se, take effect the very same day pursuant to a Ways and Means Motion.
I think my hon. friend would agree that there is a world of difference between the White Paper on national defence or a White Paper on tax reform, and a formal Budget which has its own conventions and has acquired its own traditions and requirements over the decades and centuries.
1 am asked for a view in regard to what took place with Mr. Lalonde who was presenting a Budget. There was clearly no option. That required the Minister's resignation because that was an impropriety of the highest parliamentary order.
What has taken place here is consultation pursuant to the publication of a White Paper, as happened with the White Paper on defence two weeks ago. Surely my hon. friend would agree that there was nothing improper two weeks ago, and there is really nothing improper today.


CONSULTANTS' ADVANCE ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I do not see how the Government can get away from the characterization of this White Paper as a document in the nature of a Budget. That is clear from answers given by the Prime Minister today and from answers that the Minister of Finance gave yesterday.
Consultation is fine until the preparation of the final document. However, what precedent is there for giving privileged access of final documents to members of the public before the document is revealed here to Members of Parliament?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this particular question has been answered. It was referred to in the Speaker's ruling. These people have taken an oath under the Official Secrets Act in the course of their work advising on the preparation of the White Paper. That is the substance of the position they have taken.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Parliamentary tradition is clear that members of the public not be given that type of access whether or not they take oaths.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister claim to rest on long established precedent, what precedent is there for giving members of the public under any circumstances-oath or no oath-privileged access to the contents of the document before the revelation of a Budget here?


An Hon. Member:: It is not a Budget.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the former Prime Minister and former Ministers of the Crown would know that in any Government there are
Oral Questions
dozens of consultations going on that involve highly sensitive information about which Canadians are invited to assist the Government, pursuant to the Official Secrets Act. There is nothing new in this.
It took place most recently in regard to the White Paper on national defence which was designed to put forward a position paper that Canadians could then debate more fully in public. There were intimate consultations involved in that before.
There is nothing new in this, and the Minister's conduct in this regard has been consistent with tradition and perfectly proper, as one would expect from this Minister of Finance.


QUERY CONCERNING PRECEDENTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. 1 think we all agree that proper consultation on matters such as tax reform is very appropriate. However, I want to indicate to the Prime Minister that this is a White Paper which is government policy by definition, and our information is that it will be accompanied by the tabling of a Ways and Means Motion. It goes far beyond a simple statement of intent by the Government.
The Prime Minister indicated in his response to my Leader that there were all sorts of precedents regarding this matter, where public individuals had access to the final document, whether it was a Budget or a White Paper on taxation to which people from the private sector, not on the payroll of the Department of Finance, had access the day before its tabling in the House of Commons. To what precedent was he referring?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member must realize that there is a wide range of precedents of people being involved in the process leading up to a White Paper. I think this has been the case with previous Governments and certainly has been the case with this Government. That is the basis on which these people have been invited, as part of an ongoing process of advice which started last November and will continue until the completion of the process.


ACCESS TO WHITE PAPER CONTENTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister because it was the Prime Minister who indicated that there were many precedents for this particular action by the Government.
We have no quarrel with advice being received leading up to the drafting of a White Paper. The point concerns private sector individuals having access to the White Paper in its final form. The Minister of Finance said no changes would be made.
The Prime Minister indicated that there were many precedents of people seeing the final draft. Will he name one


Oral Questions
precedent in Canadian history where individuals in the private sector had access to this kind of draft?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the question that was dealt with by the Chair.


John Edward Broadbent: No, it isn't.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, it was. In his response the Speaker said that, in regard to the question of propriety, it is a matter of political debate.


John Edward Broadbent: That is what it is.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As a matter of political debate you can have your opinion and I can have mine, and I disagree with you.


John Edward Broadbent: What an answer.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Government has consistently denied the role that it has played in bringing about the postal strike. However, a certain Harold Dunstan, General Manager of Labour Relations for Canada Post, sees it differently. He said this morning, and I quote:
The agency is still looking for the flexibility it needs to implement a sweeping restraint program ordered by the Conservative Government.
He also said he is getting fed up with the unions' refusal to accept at least some of the concessions the agency needs to wipe out Post Office deficits by next March as the Government wants.
Will the Prime Minister recognize now that his Government has in fact caused the strike? And will he do the proper thing, which is to remove the handcuffs and shackles the Government has imposed on Canada Post and allow it to make reasonable offers which would bring the strike and the violence to an end? This is what we want to know.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when the Crown corporation was created in 1981, it stated right in the Bill the object was for it to operate on a fiscally break-even basis. The then Government set that for 1982-83. It was extended to 1984-85. Our Government extended it to 1985-86 and then there was an extension to 1987-88. The fact is there have been a lot of extensions to that corporate plan, but more fundamental is the question of whether these negotiations, as they are going on, are restrained by the fiscal or corporate plan or whether in fact it is a matter of the usual kinds of conflicts one sees in many collective
bargaining situations in the search for power between the union and management. We have here, in my view, that normal situation.
The corporation made an offer at ten o'clock this morning, or at noon. There has been an indication by the union that it will make a counter offer this evening. The process is proceeding as envisaged by the collective bargaining process. I think that we should let that proceed and ought not to interfere in those talks by continually raising these issues on the floor of the House of Commons.


SERIOUSNESS OF SITUATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says the situation is normal, while television has shown us some incredibly violent scenes where people got hurt. I suppose someone will have to die before the Government decides to intervene.
Is the Government going to wait until the social climate further deteriorates in this country before it takes the only reasonable action it should take, which is to take away the constraints it has imposed on Canada Post-constraints the Corporation admits do exist-and let the Corporation make reasonable offers and thus put an end to a dispute that is getting dangerous, that may lead more violence and even totally paralyse our postal services?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, 1 agree with the Hon. Member. There is no place for violence. I have asked Canada Post and, indeed, before I made the request, it had already instructed its managers across the country to avoid situations which have the potential for violence. I hope Mr. McGarry, if he has not yet, will ask his members to avoid violence and I hope we in this Chamber will all counsel that violence be avoided. It is unnecessary.
As I just indicated, negotiations are going on as envisaged by normal collective bargaining. An offer has been made and there is an indication that a counter offer will be made. The Hon. Member is not serving the process well, or the country, by implying that in fact all the blame is on one side and there are distortions in the process.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's on your side.


Jacques Guilbault: It's the government strike breakers.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member may consider that to his partisan advantage but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


AGRICULTURE
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, compared to most of the questions from the Opposition this afternoon, my question-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -my question to the Minister of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Napier Turner: Next?


Mr. Speaker:: The Members cannot compare the Hon. Member's question with other questions until we have at least heard it. Would the Hon. Member put his question?


Gordon Edward Taylor: In view of the fact that subsidies paid for the production of barley and greenfeed enable the producers to sell these products to the feeders at a price which undercuts the price of hay, and since the subsidies paid to U.S. farmers for the exportation of compressed hay to Japan stops Canadian hay producers from selling to that market, will the Minister qualify Canadian hay producers for assistance under the Special Canadian Grains Program?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I appreciate the Hon. Member's continuing interest in the problems of Canadian agriculture. However, the Hon. Member will know that the rules, guidelines and criteria were established by ourselves in close cooperation and concert with 35 or 40 farm leaders across the country.
The Hon. Member will know as well that to be eligible for the Special Canadian Grains Program market prices must have been directly and detrimentally affected by the U.S. Farm Bill and the Export Enhancement Program. It was the decision of the farm leaders that, of course, hay would not meet the criteria. The Hon. Member will know as well that we established advisory groups in both eastern and western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Wise: They have considered and, indeed, reconsidered, and have decided that it would not meet the guidelines.
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. He assured me yesterday that security of the mail would be taken care of and that replacement workers would have to meet the same kinds of standards as regular post people. We find now that in fact a member of the CBC was able to get a job as an alternative worker with just a telephone number and an insurance number, whereas the regular workers have to be bondable, finger printed, and checked out before they actually touch the mail.
Will the Minister now admit that he is playing fast and loose with the security of the mail and is giving out keys to people who have not been properly checked?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I checked with Canada Post Corporation and was informed this is standard practice and that permanent employees, when they are hired, start on salary and the security check by the RCMP, in terms of criminal record, is subsequently undertaken as quickly as possible. If it is found they are unsuitable for employment in the Post Office, they are dismissed. That is the same procedure that applies in this case.


James Douglas Manly: Just like Roch LaSalle's office.


Harvie Andre: Obviously, in this circumstance, where we are talking about a lot of people in short order, there is not a guarantee that 100 per cent were done within first half hour they started work. Every precaution has been taken and anyone who steals from the mail will be committing a criminal offence and will be taken care of.


TRAINING OF PERSONNEL AND SECURITY CHECKS
Cyril Keeper: Obviously the Minister and the Post Office should not be hiring these replacement workers anyway because of the provocation that presents. But I must point out to the Minister that when a regular post person is hired, they are trained for a couple of weeks-


Some Hon. Members:: order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair always tries to accommodate Members with preambles but I think the Hon. Member has laid the foundation for the question and I would ask that the question be put.


Cyril Keeper: Is the Minister not aware that a regular post person when hired has a training period during which the security check can take place before the person actually goes out and delivers the mail, not the way it is happening now with these casual employees where someone can just walk in off the street, is given the mail, and there is no basic security for the mail?


Oral Questions
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, responding to the preamble of the Hon. Member, he is quoted in a Canadian Press article that he hesitated when asked if an NDP Government would move to ban the use of non-union labour during a legal strike. He said: Frankly, 1 really don't know. It's difficult for me to know what we would do if we were in office".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact the Chair had to make a ruling at the beginning of Question Period, I would ask the cooperation of all Hon. Members to continue for another five minutes. I say this, realizing that some Members and perhaps some Ministers may have to leave. I would ask for as much cooperation as we can get.


TAX REFORM
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the matter of the privileged access of the 31 big-name accountants and lawyers to the White Paper on taxation.
The Minister of Finance said earlier in Question Period that the people on that committee were the best qualified to serve. Will he tell us and the country what is wrong with the qualifications of firms such as Laventhol & Horwath, Peat Marwick and Samson Belair? Why are they less qualified? What is wrong with them?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Guy Lord of Samson Belair is a member of this group.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Norman Guerin, also of Samson Belair, is a member of this group.
I would like to qualify what I have said, if I might. I do not want to say that these are the only good lawyers and accountants in the country. They are among the best. They are understood to be among the best. There is some rotation among members of the group depending on their specific technical qualifications. That has resulted in some firms not being represented because, maybe, their top person is not particularly qualified for a particular function for which he is required. But these are clearly among the best in the country.


ACCESS TO CONTENTS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister said that the consultation involving this group of 31 was just part of the normal process of consultation that goes on all the time with White Papers and other similar documents. I wish to ask the Minister this.
Were there representatives of workers, low-income Canadians, senior citizens, farmers and fishermen sworn and shown the White Paper in the Department of Finance yesterday in exactly the same way as this group of 31 was shown it? If that is not the case, if they were not given exactly the same access yesterday, then is this a form of privileged access on the part of this group of 31 ?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have had full consultations with representatives of social groups, labour groups, business umbrella groups, sectoral groups, the provinces, and farm associations. This is probably the widest range of consultations that we have had with respect to any document in the Department of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I can assure the Hon. Member that the views of these groups have been very carefully taken into account in the production of this White Paper.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Two weeks ago, a union advisor with the CNTU in Quebec, Mr. Marc Boivin, was arrested by the Quebec Provincial Police.
Could the Prime Minister confirm to the House that Mr. Boivin was an informer or a secret agent for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service since 1984, and if so, how can the Prime Minister justify this shocking infiltration of a democratic organization in Quebec, the CNTU, considering that this action was criticized yesterday by Mrs. Paule Gauthier, a member of the committee monitoring the CSIS?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member, obviously criminal charges have been laid with respect to this matter. I think it would be improper for any comment to take place at this time. I certainly recommend to


the Hon. Member that he be very, very careful in making allegations on the floor of the House of Commons, under its protection, with respect to a matter that is before the courts.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, curiously, no charges have been laid against Mr. Boivin arising out of this incident.


POLICY OF CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that CSIS can plant informers in any democratic organization in Canada without even obtaining a judicial warrant, and given the history of abuses by the security service in the past in failing to distinguish between subversion and dissent, I wish to ask the Prime Minister this. Will he not instruct the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review urgently CSIS policy with respect to planting informers? Meanwhile, will he tell CSIS to stop spying on the labour movement in Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is not our practice, my practice or the practice of the Solicitor General to comment with respect to any particular set of circumstances under investigation which is before the courts.
I would only say to the Hon. Member that in general terms CSIS operates under legislative mandate approved by Parliament. There is a very exhaustive set of scrutiny processes involved in that legislation which involves the observation of its activities to ensure that it does in fact operate within the law. In this particular case I think that the Hon. Member would agree that there is a very, very good set of safeguards available to ensure that Canadian interests are protected.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise Hon. Members that there will be one question only from the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie and also one from question from the Hon. Member for Drummond. The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie.


EXPORTATION OF ELECTRICITY BY QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Today we heard that unfortunately the National Energy Board turned down an application by Hydro-Quebec to export electric power to New England. Because of the time, I have only one question, Mr. Speaker, so I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he intends to ask the National Energy Board to review its decision, to support the application by Hydro-Quebec and
Members of Parliament
accelerate the process. I would like to know what explanation the Minister has for the decision to turn down the application, supposedly because there was no evidence the power was surplus to the needs of the other provinces, who, in fact, are themselves exporting power to the United States.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is up to Hydro-Quebec to lodge a complaint.


TAX REFORM
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and has to do with the White Paper on tax reform which he will make public this evening. Can the Minister assure the House and the Canadian people that tax revenues after this reform will not exceed current taxes, that it is not a trick which will yield more revenues for the public treasury to reduce the deficit, something which would put a heavier tax burden on small wage earners?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can comment on that in a general way and repeat for the benefit of the Hon. Member one of the key objectives that we established for ourselves last October in tax reform, that is to say, that it would not be a revenue grab. We would take the same amount of revenue as a percentage of the total size of our economy after tax reform as before.
I have also indicated that I think that it is important that corporations as a whole pay a greater share of our revenues than would individuals. These are two objectives that I think the Hon. Member will see fulfilled later on this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that there may be some representations from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to two of our colleagues who have given some considerable service to this place. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have occasion again this week as Your Honour has so generously suggested to recognize two Members of the


Members of Parliament
House for dedicated and long service to the people of Canada and to this Chamber. I rise to pay particular tribute to my seat-mate and friend, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), and the opposition House Leader for celebrating today the twenty-fifth anniversary of his first election to the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I use the same privilege you have accorded to me to extend the same good wishes and admiration to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who has served this House with distinction in a very historic seat in a great tradition from that city, in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are in a happy mood, and you ought to take advantage of it. I hope the Clerk of the House will transmit to Stanley Knowles our best wishes, from this quarter of the House, on his seventy-ninth birthday.
I want to say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees), whose seventy-seventh birthday it was yesterday, that he is looking better than ever; that he is sounding better than ever.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Beatty:: It is his first seventy-seventh, too!


John Napier Turner: As a matter of fact, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has a younger approach to life than does the current Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty).


An Hon. Member:: He is not nearly as stuffy.


John Napier Turner: I am sure the House will allow me a personal remark or two in tribute to my friend from Windsor West (Mr. Gray). He has served this House and Canada as Minister of National Revenue, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and President of the Treasury Board. In all of those capacities, and in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, he has fought assiduously for his constituents in Windsor West and for the rights of individual Canadians.
The cause that the Hon. Member is most noted for is his passionate dedication to a strong independent Canada. I reckon that no one in the House can question his unequalled record as a defender of the independent sovereignty of this country over the period of his public life.
I shall have the honour tomorrow evening to attend a dinner in tribute to the Hon. Member for Windsor West, attended by a few hundred, or perhaps a thousand, of his closest and
intimate friends, and I am privileged to count myself among those.
While there may be some disagreement around the House about this, the House Leader and I think we make a great team: he does all of the work and I get all of the publicity. Recent events have prompted me to say, why don't we exchange roles?
Let me be personal for a moment.

-I had the honour to introduce the Hon. Member, when he was first elected to the House, to his wife Sharon, and we are very glad and privileged to have the Grays among our best friends.

He has served in this House under six Prime Ministers, seven Opposition Leaders, nine Speakers and, because of the nature of things, countless Ministers of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I point that out, Mr. Speaker, only to reveal the depth of understanding and appreciation that the Hon. Member has for this institution and the love he has for Parliament.
We in this House, and indeed the people of Canada, owe him a great debt for his unstinting service to the traditions, to the honour, to the privileges of this House, and particularly to the people of Windsor, whom he has served now for 25 years. Lest there be any doubt about his current intentions, he told me privately, before I rose in my place today, that he has every intention of serving another 25 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join with the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to two quite distinguished colleagues, the New Democratic Party Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and the Liberal Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), both of whom have served their constituents and this country for a quarter of a century.
A few words first about my colleague. Many Members here will know that the Member for Winnipeg North has worked hard as a Member of Parliament. I have had the pleasure to serve with him for some 19 of his 25 years here. But, what many Members will not know is that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North was in municipal politics, in a variety of capacities, for some 14 years before becoming a Member of Parliament.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have here a man who has truly served the community in which he grew up with incredibly fine and durable distinction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish to make two particular points about the Member for Winnipeg North. First, he is one who knows what some of us don't learn-and I think perhaps it may be why some are eventually defeated as Members of this House- that we must always remember those who vote for us. The men and women in his particular constituency are the people who elected him here, and their concerns are front and centre when it comes to his participation in this place.
One does not normally talk about what goes on in caucus, but I can tell Hon. Members that when there are matters that may affect the City of Winnipeg, those matters are brought to the attention of our caucus and this House by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North. He remembers those who vote for him.
I should like to pay particular tribute to David Orlikow, if I may so refer to him in these formal procedures, for his commitment to the principles of social democracy. There have been few men and women in this interesting historical period of our country who have more passionately devoted themselves to that philosophic framework, that commitment to improving the human condition by achieving a better mix of liberty and equality in our country, and beyond. The Hon. Member has reached beyond his commitment to the people of Winnipeg to include Canada, and beyond Canada, the people of the world, in terms of his very serious commitment to the improvement of the global family, if I may put it that way.
1 thank him from the bottom of my heart for the work that he has done for the New Democratic Party and for the work that he has done here in the House of Commons on behalf of all of the people of Canada.
Let me turn now to the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). Given that he is a distinguished opponent, I of course cannot say something that is too positive, and particularly since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has just assured us that he plans to be a Member for another 25 years. So, I shall choose my words with care and will perhaps be less fulsome than the circumstances warrant.
In all sincerity, there is no Member who has devoted himself to the cause of an independent Canada, a sovereign Canada, and for a working out of economic and social arrangements that are of a higher and more just order, according to his principles, as the Hon. Member for Windsor West.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: He has held many Cabinet portfolios, with a wide variety of obligations, and he has carried out his duties with a great dedication to work.
Both Hon. Members are known readers-and that is a refreshing aspect to their respective natures. Most Canadians, I am sure, would probably appreciate it if more Members of Parliament spent more time reading the type of material that is reflected in what these two Members have to say in the House. That is something that the two have in common.
Members of Parliament
Let me conclude with a personal wish for the Hon. Member for Windsor West, and that is that he succeed abundantly in all of his personal endeavours.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister and my colleagues on the government side of the House, it truly is a pleasure to join with Members opposite in paying tribute to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of their election to this great institution.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that these two men have been returned to this place in each election since 1962 speaks volumes for their integrity and abilities as parliamentarians and the high regard in which they are held by their constituents.
Of course, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the New Democratic Party in the tribute that he paid to the Member for Winnipeg North. I can attest to the fact that in the 19 years that I have been a Member of this House, he has always served his constituents well. He has stood for the interests of Winnipeg, for Manitoba. Indeed, he represented himself as an outstanding Canadian and an outstanding fighter for the issues which affect western Canada.
In offering my congratulations, I also want to say that in the 19 years I have been here I can truthfully say that 1 have never witnessed, on any occasion, either of these gentlemen not acting in the best traditions of this institution. Clearly they are men of integrity, and clearly they act in the best traditions of the House. They are men of integrity and honour who have always placed the nation's welfare and interest high above partisan gain.
To the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)-and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party have already referred to his very distinguished career as a parliamentarian-may I say on a personal note and as one who negotiates with him on a week-to-week basis with regard to the legislative program of the House, that he is certainly a man of integrity. He is a man of his word. He is a good and fair negotiator. He has always worked toward facilitating the business of the House in the best parliamentary tradition. I want to thank him and assure him that indeed that kind of co-operation is appreciated by the Government and, I am sure, by all Members of the House.
Parliament and Canada are indeed fortunate to have men of such calibre and dedication. 1 am sure they will continue to retain the confidence of their constituents and return to this place for many years to come.
In conclusion, I want to join with other Members of the House in congratulating the Hon. Stanley Knowles on the occasion of his seventy-ninth birthday. I do not think we could


Members of Parliament
itemize all the tremendous contributions which this gentleman has made to Parliament and to Canada. It is always a pleasure to have him in our midst. We always sense that he is a sort of guardian angel that presides over this institution and one who sort of provokes us into doing those things which are clearly right and clearly in the best interest of the parliamentary tradition.
To my great friend and colleague, a truly great Canadian, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees), who celebrated his seventy-seventh birthday on Wednesday, let me say that I agree with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that he is getting younger and better looking every day. I am sure he will be around for a long time to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who must rise on this day each week to ask the usual question of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). I know, after all the marvellous things which have been said about him, that today's exchange will be an absolute model of civility.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to postpone asking the customary weekly question about the business the Government intends to call, so that I may have a minute or two to respond to the comments of my Leader, the Government House Leader, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
First, I want to join with the good wishes extended already to the Hon. Stanley Knowles and to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) on the occasion of their birthdays. May they go on for many years to come.
Using the precedent of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, may I say in a personal sense, in respect of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who entered the House in the same election as myself in 1962, that frankly it does not seem all that long ago that I first arrived here. Perhaps it is because-and I think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North would agree with me-1 have had the marvellous privilege of being able to serve in the House of Commons and the marvellous privilege of being able to serve the people of my community, of the City of Windsor, and the people of Canada as a Member of Parliament and also as a Minister. Very few people have had that kind of opportunity. I am deeply grateful to all those who have helped me achieve what I have been able to achieve, no matter how little it may be.
I express my thanks to my own family. I express my thanks as well to the thousands of people in my own community who have worked with me and have supported me over past years to enable me to have the privilege of serving in the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament and, from time to time, the privilege of working as a Minister.
I think I can say that whatever I have done and whatever I hope to do in the House of Commons, the people of my
community share with me in these efforts and, hopefully from time to time, in some achievements. In a sense they are here with me, because I feel very much that I am here working with and for them.
Certainly I have been privileged to be able to work for and speak out on behalf of individual Canadians, ordinary Canadians and their families, as workers, consumers, and small business people. I have been privileged to be able to speak out and work for the preservation of Canada as a strong, sovereign, and independent country.
I am grateful for the words of my Leader in that regard, but I want to say to him that I am not sure I am even ready to consider rushing in to accept the offer he made a few minutes ago. I think I would like to see the present situation continue, hopefully crowned with even greater achievement and success in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much I appreciate the great privilege of being a Member of the House and representing thousands of electors, thousands of constituents who have allowed me to serve them as their Member of Parliament and, from time to time, as a Minister. It is a great privilege and a challenge to work for one's country, to do one's best to build it, and to make a better life for its whole population.

I thank very much those who have spoken for their kind words. I hope, with the support of the Almighty and my electors, to be able to continue to try to live up to the sentiments expressed in those remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), and of course the Leader of our Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) for the kind words they have expressed.
It has indeed been an honour and a privilege for me to have been able to be here for 25 years, to be able to do the things I want to do, and to be able to express the views and to push for the ideas in which I believe.
I want to recognize and thank the people of my part of Winnipeg for letting me do this. I have not been too surprised, because it is a tradition which goes back to 1900.
In 1900, the first Labour Member of Parliament in Canada, Arthur Putee, was elected in Winnipeg. In 1925, Winnipeg North sent a Labour Member, Mr. Heaps, to Parliament, who stayed here until 1940. We had one Liberal for one term in 1945, then we elected a CCF Member, Alistair Stewart, who stayed here until 1958. We had a Conservative Member for


one term, and after that I was elected. The people of my part of Winnipeg support our Party consistently.
I want to thank the people of my constituency. I want to thank the members and supporters of our Party. I want to thank particularly members of my family, some of whom, to my great surprise, are here today. I know I speak for all Members of Parliament when I say that it is our families who sacrifice when we are Members of Parliament. Every Member of Parliament knows how little their families see of them because of their work.
It has been a great honour for me to represent what I consider to be one of the finest constituencies in Canada which has representatives of every racial, religious, and ethnic group in Canada living in it. We have native people, the original inhabitants of our country and we have representatives of some of the newest ethnic groups including Koreans and El Salvadorans. We have people from every economic group, from people who are on welfare through to a few people who are quite wealthy.
I am proud of the fact that I have been able to represent these people. I am proud of the fact that I have been able to speak for a vast majority of them in a way of which they approve. I hope to be able to continue to do that for some years to come. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the best way I could confirm what I said a few minutes ago is to seek your permission to ask the government House Leader what business the Government intends to call for the next week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will call Bill C-55, amendments to the Immigration Act. Tomorrow we will debate the motion respecting capital punishment, as we will on Monday. Tuesday it is proposed that we will deal with Bill C-63 in all stages, the Small Businesses Loans Act.
We will deal with third reading of Bills C-15 and C-41 and second reading of Bills C-53, C-61 and C-54 as well as the resolution respecting Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland. We will be working with Parties opposite to work out the best arrangement as to when those Bills will be called so that we can ensure that the Ministers and the official critics are
Privilege-Mr. Marchi
available in the best time slots to expedite the business for those days. Wednesday the House will not sit.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
ALLEGED DiVULGENCE OF COMMITTEE REPORT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place on a point of privilege that arises from what I happen to believe is a very serious and erroneous act of one of the Standing Committees. It concerns the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, a meeting of which I attended this morning.
The committee is in the process of preparing a very thorough and long-ranging report on the status of multiculturalism policy in Canada for the next decades to come. The report is completed and is at the printers. We expect to table the report in the House of Commons on June 29, the day before we break for the summer.
However, I found out this morning at the committee meeting that the committee has given an advance copy of this report to the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who is also the secretary of State. I believe that that act runs counter to the spirit of parliamentary reform and to the independence of the Government and of Ministers enjoyed by committees.
I would suggest that the supplying of the report to the Hon. Member for Rosedale is an affront to the rights and privileges of all 282 Members of Parliament. The report is still confidential. It was to be tabled on the floor of the House of Commons for all Members and therefore for all Canadians on June 29.
We can all concede that once the report is tabled, we would hope that the Government, and particularly the Minister responsible, would take a very serious look at the report and would try to implement those very concepts that have been articulated in and recommended by it. However, 1 find it completely unacceptable as a Member of Parliament who has worked on this confidential report that it be sent before it is tabled in the House of Commons to the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism (Mr. Della Noce). I believe that I have worked on no other committee that has followed such a course.
The fact remains that there are still two weeks left and the Government could have waited to see what was recommended in the report rather than trying to justify that it is proper and fit that the Department and the Minister ask the committee for an advance copy before it is tabled and deposited with the House of Commons.
1 draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Citation 647 of Beauchesne's which reads as follows:
No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House.
It goes on to read:


Privilege-Mr. Marchi
The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to Members will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.
Without taking any further time, I would request that you, Mr. Speaker, look into this matter, because I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. It undermines the independence of a Standing Committee of Parliament. It undermines the privilege of all Hon. Members of the House to know of the contents of the report at the same time the Member for Rosedale and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism do. I believe this is a sad day for the independence of a committee and a sad day for parliamentary reform. If you rule in favour of a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move a motion accordingly.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in assisting you in coming to a conclusion on my hon. friend's prima facie case, I would like to draw your attention to two items which I think should be brought into play. First, breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee. Therefore, I would submit that if there has been a breach of my hon. friend's privileges as a member of that committee, it would first be required that the committee itself report that breach to the House.
There is no proof before the House of what my hon. friend has suggested. There are no committee minutes, there has been no reference to it in the media, there is no correspondence and there is nothing to show that in fact the Hon. Minister, either in his capacity as a Minister or in his capacity as a Member, received a copy of the report.
Obviously I am prepared to entertain the comments of my hon. friend who would not mislead the House. He has said that the Hon. Minister has in either capacity received what I would guess would be a draft copy of the report because there can be no final copy of the report until it is presented in the House.
The second point I want to make deals with the citation to which my hon. friend referred, Citation 647 of Beauchesne's. In this case, I believe we should read the heading of that citation which is "Premature Disclosure of the Report". The full citation reads as follows:
No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House. Upon this principle the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, on April 21, 1937, resolved "That the evidence taken by any select committee of this House and the documents presented to such committee and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any member of such committee or by any other person".
It is the publication of the proceedings of committees which are conducted behind closed doors which constitutes the breach, not the giving of a report to another Hon. Member of the House.
I would suggest that were that report to be published in the media as a result of the actions of any Member, my hon. friend would be absolutely correct. However, since the report has
gone to a Member of the House in his capacity as a Member, there is no breach until it is published.
Drawing upon my meagre experience as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee at one time, when we were drafting reports it was the nature of the beast that from time to time Members would take draft reports for consideration prior to returning to a meeting for a final rewrite. That was done on the understanding that all Members of the House are honourable Members and that it would be a very serious breach for the committee report in draft form to be published before it was presented in the House.
I would suggest that until such time as the report is prematurely disclosed and published, there can be no breach of my hon. friend's privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has raised a matter which is obviously of concern. As I take his representations, his complaint is that it was his understanding, and perhaps that of others, that at this stage a report being prepared would not be divulged to anyone other than committee members. That may very well be a serious complaint in the context of all that has been happening in the committee. In this case the Hon. Member has advised the Chair and other Hon. Members that he has learned the report was given to a Minister.
I have listened with care to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, who I think has very properly pointed out that having given the document to a Minister, or for that matter to some other Member of this place, that is not-also in the opinion of the Chair-that sort of publication which would be the basis of a question of privilege.
The Chair is also concerned about another procedural rule, which Hon. Members will recall, that the Chair, except in some exceptional circumstances, ought not to entertain a question of privilege with respect to proceedings in a committee until the committee has brought the matter to the Chair.
Under the circumstances, perhaps the Chair could suggest to the Hon. Member for York West that the complaint, which is certainly real enough, ought to be taken back to the committee and then, depending on what happens there, he might want to raise the matter again with the Chair. Indeed, depending on what happens there, the Chair may be seized of the matter as a consequence of a report coming from the committee.
I would say again with respect to the affairs of a committee, there has been a long-standing tradition that it is not for the Chair to meddle in the internal workings of a committee. At the same time the Chair does ask all members of committees and committee chairpersons to take appropriate steps to ensure that there are a minimum number of complaints with respect to the proceedings in committee. Inevitably, if there are complaints, those complaints are brought to the Chair primarily because it is to the Chair that an Hon. Member can


at least air the grievance, even if in procedural terms the matter may have to go back to the committee.
I ask the Hon. Member to abide by the long-standing rules of this place and take the complaint back to the committee. I would hope that it could be properly dealt with there.
I thank the Hon. Member for his concise and well-reasoned argument and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for quite properly pointing out that there are procedural rules, traditions, and judgments by which I am bound in this case.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55 now before this House for second reading. I do so encouraged by the broad public support the people of Canada have already shown for this proposed legislation, less because it excludes those who seek to abuse Canada's generosity than because it confirms our country's determination to do everything possible to help the genuine refugee in need of our protection. We can take pride that 75 per cent of those taking part in the recent Goldfarb poll on this issue responded positively to this longstanding commitment which lies at the very heart of this Bill.
Bill C-55 is about one thing. This Government will protect the genuine refugee in need of that protection, period. That is what C-55 is about, and that is all C-55 is about. Yet it has been opposed by many of those who share with us this one important principle.
It was John Locke who wrote almost 300 years ago that new opinions are always suspected and usually opposed without any other reason but because they are not already common. I do not question for one moment the sincerity and conviction of those who have criticized C-55. They speak with a voice that comes from the heart, from values and beliefs which go right to the core of what we Canadians are, what we as a society and nation stand for. It is precisely because these values are so important to all of us that we must not belittle them, either through intemperate rhetoric or actions which only serve to divide us, or through our inherent distrust of new ways and new ideas of achieving the same objectives that the old ways and the old ideas failed to achieve.
1 understand the concerns about access, review, and the concept of safe third countries which in particular led to opposition to and criticism of this legislation. What I ask those
Immigration Act, 1976
critics to understand, however, is the intent of C-55, an intent which I believe answers those concerns.

We want it to enable us to process the cases and give the same importance to the factors speed, justice and equity. We want it always to give the benefit of the doubt so as to ensure that genuine refugees who really need our protection will indeed get that protection.
That is our only objective. There is no other, absolutely no other. However, the points we are debating and the reasons why it has been necessary to design a new refugee status determination process are more complex.
Consider these reasons for a moment: the ever increasing world-wide pressures of migratory movements of an economic nature; the shameful manipulation of people desperately seeking better conditions elsewhere, which led to the mushrooming number of false claims; the adoption of new immigrant and refugee legislation in the United States and in certain European countries, with the resulting scramble here in Canada to obtain landing rights or some sort of official status.

Clearly the old refugee determination system is unable to handle these and other new realities. It was never intended to. It was designed for circumstances and for a time which, while only a few short years ago, today we can look back at as being far more innocent and far less sophisticated than our own. We could all wish it were otherwise but we cannot turn the clock back. We simply do not have that luxury.
The reality is that before we introduced control measures on refugee claims in February those claims were being made at a weekly rate equal to the annual rate just six or seven years earlier. Those control measures have been a temporary answer to the most blatant abuse, but they are not a solution.
It is the Government's view, and one I believe is implicit in Bill C-55, that such a solution will not come about unless we adhere to one principle above all others, namely, that Canada's refugee determination system be able to distinguish between the genuine refugee in need of our protection and all other claimants not in need of that protection.
You may call it maintaining the integrity of our refugee determination system, although the expression seems to set off alarm bells. "Integrity" has become a dirty word. However, I have no trouble with the idea of preserving the integrity of our system and process here in Canada if it means this principle will be met.
I have no trouble with that at all because distinguishing between need and no need, between genuine and false claims, is not dumping, orbiting, or any of the other practices by which some nations may be reneging on their obligations and commitments. We place no limit, in theory or in fact, upon refugees in real need whom we will help today or tomorrow.


Immigration Act, 1976
This, of course, goes to the heart of one major concern of those who oppose Bill C-55-access. Yet, who is denied access under this legislation?
If the claimant is already recognized as a refugee by another country he or she will be denied access unless they can demonstrate a fear of persecution in the country which accorded them protection. If the claim has no credibility it will be denied access to the refugee determination system. If it is a rejected claim that has not been 90 days outside Canada, it will also be denied.
However, the legitimate refugee with no prior possibility of protection from another country will not be prevented from obtaining that protection in Canada and access will not be denied on the basis that the claimant simply passed through another country on the way to Canada. It will not be denied if there is the slightest danger of refoulement. The legitimate refugee in need of our protection is who we are obliged to help, who we want to help, and who we will help.
Every claimant will have an opportunity to argue why his or her claim should be heard. It is not correct that the initial hearing before an immigration adjudicator and a refugee board member is a prescreening. It is an integral part of the fair and impartial process which we intend to establish.
This question of screening or prescreening is more than a matter of semantics. It is unfortunate that materials released at the introduction of Bill C-55 used the expression because to me screening is what happens before the first stage. If there is a screening it is the initial examination by an immigration officer at the port of entry, an examination which cannot by itself exclude any claimant.
If you want screening, look to the border police of many European countries with records of humanitarian assistance equal to our own. Some can turn claimants around and send them back from whence they came in a matter of hours. Others have set aside a budget greater than Canada's federal government grants to NGOs for settlement services. That $5 million plus a year is to buy airline tickets to launch claimants back into orbit.
In one or two cases they put armed police on aircraft as they arrive to check papers and make summary decisions on any doubtful cases, decisions which expel such cases before they even set foot on the soil of the countries concerned, without formal hearings, without counsel, and without translation.
That is not the way in Canada. Under the initial hearing before an immigration adjudicator and the refugee board member there must be absolutely no doubt that the claim is false for the claimant not to be allowed to proceed-not some doubt, not hardly a doubt, but no doubt, none.

Never will we even take a chance of returning a legitimate claimant to a country where he might be persecuted or experience a worse fate still. This is why the provisions of Bill C-55 to set up an official list of safe third countries have been
more carefully drafted than those of any other country where a similar procedure is followed.
The notion of a third country is definitely not a way of turning our backs to those refugees whom we would not be prepared to welcome here. On the contrary, mindful of the fact that genuine refugees often are educated people with good training and superior motives, I believe that many of them are precisely the type of people Canada would like to attract during a period when immigration is given more importance. As it happens, we are at the beginning of such a period.
But here is the important point, the distinction to make: a person who already enjoys the protection of another country or who has had enough means and opportunities to obtain such protection should not be able to enter Canada as a refugee status claimant. That person can very well file a standard immigration application and stands very good chances of being selected.
On the other hand, a refugee who is already under protection elsewhere may be sponsored by the Government or a private group for relanding purposes. Once Bill C-55 has been adopted we will continue to reland refugees with the same determination, without lessening our commitment in that respect. This year alone we expect to admit 18,000 refugees this way.
At the risk of repeating myself, I say again: By adopting the concept of safe third country, we want to extend through Bill C-55 all the resources of our refugee determination process to those who have nowhere to go and really need our protection. It is not a hard-noses means to exclude those we do not want to accept.
If such had been our goal, we would not have subjected the list of safe third countries to so many stringent criteria.
First, the Cabinet is directly responsible for that list. This is very important because if someone goofs or an error happens, or if pertinent information is not taken into account, the Cabinet will be responsible rather than the process.

Knowing the degree of scrutiny which attends its every single decision, I cannot think of a better safeguard than to give this responsibility to Cabinet. The Members of this House, the NGOs, the media, and the people of Canada themselves will know exactly who is accountable. It will not be some faceless bureaucrat and not the system, but the Ministers of the Government themselves.
You may be certain, therefore, that the list and the document centre which will be created to support it will be recipients of the most up-to-date information possible. It will come from our own External Affairs, from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, from the Refugee Board itself, and from many other sources. It will be accurate and comprehensive.
It will not become a complex and impossible system to manage, as some have suggested, because of our absolute


insistence on criteria of the highest standard and because under such criteria the number of potential safe third countries is, sadly for the world, pitifully small. We have stated in our announcement that a safe third country for one group of nationals may not be safe for another.
In actual operation, however, our safeguards will go even further because the third country provision will not work successfully unless we have some degree of understanding, an arrangement with the countries themselves. We do not intend to act as have some and use the process to place refugees in orbit. The possibility of de facto protection and safe return must be entirely clear or it shall not be exercised.
I am confident that this kind of insistence, this kind of quality, which I believe and know is built into both the intent and the actual operation of Bill C-55, will not fail us, neither today nor tomorrow.
We knew we had to create a determination system to meet the present crisis, but also one which would withstand future pressures equally well. Our obligation on both counts, therefore, was to insist that quality be the hallmark of the proposed new system, and quality there is. It is in the third country list. It is in the initial hearing which, in my opinion, puts the odds greatly in favour of the claimant going to the full refugee board if he or she has any grounds whatsoever for a legitimate claim. Of course, there is quality in the new board itself.
Hearings before the board will be oral. They will be nonadversarial. The claimant will be entitled to counsel, provided, in many cases, at government expense. The claimant will also have full access to the document centre. The board itself will be fully and completely independent.
The board members must be hand-picked for their knowledge and expertise in refugee issues. They will be trained further upon appointment. I can assure Members of the House that in seeking the best qualified people to serve as members of the new refugee board, we will not hesitate even to look to those communities active in refugee issues which are most vocal in opposition to Bill C-55.
Why would we do this? Because, again, as far as the intent of C-55 is concerned, in its one central purpose of helping those who truly do need our help, we are not in disagreement with the non-governmental organizations, the Members opposite, the churches or anyone else in Canada who shares this objective.
Again, I appeal to our critics to look at the over-all intent before they judge the specifics. Before they ask why there is no review of fact, for instance, look at the system as a whole, as it has been designed. Look at the insistence upon quality and the insistence upon fairness. Look upon the benefit of doubt given at every stage, which is itself review.
Immigration Act, 1976


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Looking around the House, I do not believe that we have a quorum in the Chamber.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We do now have a quorum.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, only one of the two board members at the board hearing need find in favour of the claimant for the claim to be accepted.
Yes, there are many "what ifs", and I am aware that a review process would satisfy many of the doubts about Bill C-55. But where would it end? How long before there would be the demand for a review of the review? How long before we would be back with the same year upon year impossible process we have now? Justice has an obligation to be accurate, but also to be swift.
If new circumstances unfold during a hearing itself, they can be taken into consideration right there. If the process itself has not been adhered to, then leave to appeal on a point of law will be granted.
Finally, let us not forget that at any time, if the facts merit it, permission to remain in Canada on humanitarian grounds may be granted by the holder of my present office.
It is my belief that within Bill C-55 lies not only a workable but also a fair refugee determination system.
Surely I do not need to explain to any Member of the House who disagrees with the opportunity afforded by the legislative process for debate, for the gathering of evidence or for the proposition of amendments.
Bill C-55 calls for swift determination because speed in this case is an agent of justice. Refugees want and need to pick up the pieces of their lives. But accuracy will not be sacrificed.
Bill C-55 upholds the idea of integrity because without it the system cannot work. Integrity is important because without it we cannot for long maintain the support of our partners in this undertaking, the people of Canada.
Public opinion is important, and I applaud the people of Canada who support this Bill and who share our determination to assist the refugee in legitimate need of our protection. Let none of us who is privileged to sit in this Chamber ever forget that it is the people of Canada, not we ourselves, who have built the great traditions of humanity which we all honour and in which we all take pride.
[ Translation]
Refugees are sponsored by Canadians. It is because of them that immigration is such an essential and decisive factor to build the open, welcoming society in which we live. They make relocation a positive, successful experience.
And Canadians in the final analysis pay the bill. It is with their taxes that we discharge our obligations and commitments internationally to help both development and refugees. In both cases Canadians are generous.


Immigration Act, 1976
Canada will remain true to the remarkable reputation it has built up since Wold War II in the area of help to refugees by allowing more than half a million refugees to relocate on our soil.
We will continue to do so because we are aware of our heavy responsibilities. Because we respect the commitments we freely undertook under the Geneva Convention, which to us is neither a condition binding us to admit refugees from certain countries, nor a set of restrictions applicable even to refugees we accept, denying them for five years the right to work, restricting their freedom to move and forcing them to live in camps even though they have parents in the same country.
We will keep on showing our traditional humane attitude in our will to put an end internationally to political agitation and economic depression, injustice and intolerance, racism and persecution.
And we will maintain the same attitude in our personal commitments aimed at improving all our mechanisms and institutions which make it possible for us to govern and enforce the law.
Bill C-55 is part of this process. It is not an end in itself. It is not a universal remedy for all ills, under any circumstances, something which would be immutably and forever engraved in stone.

But within it there lies that fundamental commitment upon which we should and must agree.
Almost two generations ago the fledgling United Nations issued a proclamation which began with the following words:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
As we approach the fortieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we can number the world's refugees in the millions; 10 million, 15 million, perhaps even 20 million.
In this age of cynicism there is no great difficulty in finding grounds upon which to distrust the world's commitment to the refugee and to human rights.
But I say to Members of the House and to the people of Canada that they will not find such grounds within the actions of this Government.

As we were able to see last week or the week before at the Venice Summit, a voice continues to place human rights at the top of all agenda.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) continue to fight
against tyranny and injustice wherever they show their ugly heads. They made every effort to convince their opposite numbers that there is no room for compromise when human dignity is at stake.
Under their guidance, we are seeking solutions, whether abroad through our diplomatic action and development assistance, or even here in Canada, through our settlement programs which have never been so successful.
But we should have no illusion. Whatever its refugee status determination policy may be, Canada cannot solve this problem all by itself.
Yet, our first concern should be to help all those who need our assistance and protection.
As far as all the other people are concerned, whether they are recognized in other countries as refugees or economic migrants, Canada will always be prepared to entertain applications from thoses who meet our immigration criteria.
We hold that possibility open to all peoples of all races, all colours and all religions. We want new people, we need new people, and this Government is actively working to find those people. We have already increased immigration levels from what they were when we took office by almost 50 per cent. We are now working to see that actual landings correspond to those levels. For the future, we are seriously considering raising both levels and landings. These are not the policies of a Government which is anti-immigrant or anti-refugee. They are the policies of a Government which welcomes both and is committed to both.
Bill C-55 is an integral and honourable part of this commitment, a part which will work swiftly, fairly and justly. To the refugee in genuine need of our protection, it will say but one thing, welcome.
What have we actually done by bringing forward this refugee process? What is it that our process will do?


David Berger: Bring shame on Canada.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I am sure the Hon. Member does no justice or service to the real refugees, the people whom he and 1 would like to help, by his very unhelpful interventions.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide protection to those who need protection, a safe home to those who have no home. For people who already have a home, a roof over their heads, indeed, there is less priority and they should be applying as regular immigrants to this country. We have brought forward a process which is fair, quick and which balances reason with compassion. It is a very practical solution because in a very decisive manner it identifies and welcomes real refugees. However, abusers will be kept out. There is no room for fakes in this particular system. We are managing our resources


effectively to the benefit of the real refugees. This is a real world, not a theoretical world. It requires subjective criteria not subjective opinion. We are putting common sense to what we are doing.


David Berger: We have heard that before.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Of course you have, and you are going to hear it again. I know the Hon. Member does not like to hear it, but the majority of Canadians understand and know that what we are doing is about to be for the benefit of all real refugees. I hear a lot of naivete, but we have a realistic solution. We are creating a hospitable environment where genuine refugees will benefit.
We cannot take the public attitude for granted for the support which is needed to build broader refugee programs with the type of refugee problem the world is facing. We must continue to build that feeling in Canada. We must build a broader immigration policy because of the benefits immigrants and refugees bring to this country.
We have built a lot of safeguards into the process. Those are the strengths of what we are doing. We have given the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. Every claimant will be seen and heard by an independent, objective convention refugee board member. This person will be represented by counsel at all stages at quality hearings. All of those things will be done. With respect to a Third World country, we will be very, very careful. The human rights record of that country will be carefully examined, its record in protecting refugees and all nationals. We are going to seek the widest possible advice in building that list. We will be consulting the very people who have worked for years in the refugee community, the organizations, our own embassies and high commissions abroad and the international humanitarian agencies. A documentation centre will be set up, and indeed I have underlined that there must be an ad hoc arrangement. The country we are going to be asking the person to go back to and seek protection in must be willing to receive him back. What we are doing is good for the refugee, it is good for the community and good for Canada. I will repeat the words of the Montreal Gazette, and say that this Bill should be passed speedily.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise and address Bill C-55 at the beginning of second reading. It is ironic to a certain degree that Bill C-55 in its second reading has come up in this year of 1987 which has been designated by the United Nations as the International Year for the Homeless. It is an effort of the international community to reach out to those who do not have a home, those who are looking for a roof over their heads for themselves and their families.
I cannot think of any individual or group who better defines the homeless than those who are refugees. It is ironic that when we put a magnifying glass to this piece of legislation, it really translates, for these refugees who are searching for their new home, that the Government is playing Pontius Pilate. It is
Immigration Act, 1976
washing its hands of responsibility, which runs counter to the traditions of past Governments and this country. In fact, in large measure, to be a Canadian means to have initially been a stranger, to have left the familiar for the new. That is what it means, in large measure, to be a Canadian. Waves upon waves of immigrants have sought a new opportunity, a new chance, and Canada has allowed that new lease on life. At the same time these refugees have helped to build and develop a country which is second to none in the world.
When we talk about our immigration program, we talk of family reunification, extended family reunification and independent categories of individuals, such as entrepreneurs who wish to come here and invest their capital and know-how, students wanting to access our educational system and, after they leave and return to their own homelands, become ambassadors, if you will, for this country. And we also talk of refugees. In terms of refugee legislation, Canada has played a leadership role in the international community. It is not every day that in competition with the big superpowers of this world, we can lay claim to being the leaders on one particular issue. But if there is one area in which Canada can hold its head high, acting as a trigger for other countries, it is in the area of refugees. Successive Liberal Governments have had the courage to lead and not follow.
The Minister is right when he says that it is not the'Govern-ment or Members of Parliament who build countries, that it is not necessarily Members of Parliament or governments who have to be thanked for allowing people to come to a country. It is Canadians and public opinion which have wanted those policies to happen.
I submit to the Minister that we need a Government that is also prepared to lead. We need a Government that is prepared not to manipulate public opinion for its own political and partisan reasons. We need a Government which will educate, lead and articulate what it means to be a landed immigrant and what it means to be seeking refugee status. We have to deal with those matters legitimately. It is morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest to confuse the two and to play one against the other.
The greatest frustration in Canada vis-a-vis immigration, or one of them, is probably the inability of Canadians to sponsor family and relatives to come here. Many of us in this place go home on Friday evenings and have our constituency days on Saturdays. How many immigrant-related cases do we see? How many individuals do we interview in our offices who cannot understand for the life of them why their uncle, their aunt or their nephew cannot come here where they would have shelter, financial, and linguistic and cultural assistance from their families? They would probably even be given a job. They cannot understand why they cannot come into the country. Unfortunately, some of them look to the refugee back-log and ask themselves: "How come the Government is prepared to let refugee A in but not my nephew?" That is a legitimate


Immigration Act, 1976
question, but it is a different one. It would behove the Government not to answer that question and not to solve the problems by addressing the need for family reunification. Right now the percentage of family reunifications is much lower in percentage terms than it was under past Liberal Governments.
We must begin to debate whether we should not be giving more points to people who have family in Canada in order to come to Canada. We must begin to debate the expansion of the definition of family class. That is how we must do it. That is how we must begin to try to solve the problem for Canadians who cannot have their families join them here legitimately. Stepping up our refugee legislation does not provide an answer to them, a move which creates the perception that Canadians cannot bring in their family members because there are too many refugees coming in already. That strategy is wrong. It is morally wrong. I ask the Government in its marketing strategy to begin to deal with those two classes independently and responsibly.
With respect to immigration and, in particular, refugee legislation, we have a responsibility to the international community under the Geneva Convention. We cannot deal with refugee legislation in a vacuum. We cannot deal with refugees in isolation. We must recognize, as past Liberal Governments have recognized, that if we are to solve the problem, we will solve it in concert and in co-operation with other countries. We cannot deal with legislation as regressive as Bill C-55 in isolation and expect the problem to go away. It will not go away.
The Government also has a responsibility to educate with respect to the evolution of refugee legislation. It is simply too easy to say: "Well, the past Liberal Government left us with a mess. Here it is and we are trying to clean it up. What was there before and how did we select refugees?"
I submit that what we are dealing with is a new phenomenon in terms of refugees. In the 1960s and the 1970s we had the luxury of sending our visa officers to various postings to select refugees on the basis of certain criteria. The community then had a chance to sponsor refugees and lodge them within their own neighbourhoods in different parts of the country. That system was very orderly. It was very clean and effective. But then in the late 1970s and early 1980s, these refugees were not waiting in the camps for the visa officers. They were in fact coming to our country by various and different means and claiming refugee status. Therefore, we had to adapt from the old structure and the old system of doing things to a new one. That is where the problem originates. It was not in terms of any one Government leaving a mess for another Government.
I think that lending our support and our assistance to those less well-off is something for all Governments to undertake regardless of political stripe. However, I think that there is a transition in terms of the phenomenon of refugees that has not been expressed honestly and candidly by the Government. We are now into a different phase of the system which requires a different system and a different mechanism within the country to address expeditiously, fairly and humanely those who are in
Canada and those who are asking for refugee status. That is why the Plaut report was commissioned by our Government in the dying days of the previous administration. It was to try to come to grips with how we would move in this important watershed of world refugees.
Then the present Government came into power. The Plaut report was a very substantial and significant report suggesting a certain direction. It took three or four different Conservative Ministers of Immigration, after they had received the Plaut report, to make a pronouncement on it, to make a decision on it with respect to what they were going to do and what they were going to implement.
Therefore, there was a delay in the formation of this Government. There was the promise by different Ministers that the Plaut report, or the spirit of it, would in fact be translated into legislation very quickly. We were told that this would be done by 1985. We were then told it would not be until 1986. We are now into 1987 and we are just getting ready to give second reading to the legislation. I submit that there has been a procrastination within the Government to come to grips with the Plaut report, after the standing committee has laboured for long hours and with great effort.
What did we get at the end of this three-year consultation process? We got a betrayal of the consultation process. Not only did we have a long delay before the Government responded officially, but when it chose to respond it did not listen to the results of that three-year consultation process. The Minister spent 40 minutes this afternoon saying how fair the system was, how great it was and what type of leadership role he and the Government are taking with Bill C-55.
Where is the support within constituencies to support those claims? I ask the Minister to name one non-governmental organization that at the very least leaves an indication that it might be in support of this legislation. I underline the word "might". Where are those individuals who have been inherently involved in the process and who have congratulated the Minister? Sure it is great. He holds up Goldfarb and says: "Eighty-three per cent of Canadians support our legislation". But Goldfarb also said that 75 per cent of Canadians want a fair system. He knows and I know that perhaps Canadians have not had the time or the luxury to read through the Bill. If they did, then that 83 per cent figure would plummet like dead weight in terms of people thinking that this is a fair system. They have indicated through their vote that they want a fair system. The key question is: Is this Bill fair?
Those who have taken the time and trouble to read the Bill have given their verdict. And what is that verdict? What are people saying?
Tom Clark, a tireless worker for the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, said:
Instead of access there is a screen, instead of bringing Canada a notch ahead of European countries, the immigration minister has brought it down to their level. It's despicable.


Michael Schelew, Amnesty International said:
It's an about-face on Canada's humanitarian record, that may place people fleeing persecution in jeopardy.
Elie Wiezel, the winner of the Nobel Prize, said:
"I believe that a society can be measured and judged by its attitude towards strangers ... I would hope that Canada would like to be measured according to these lofty rules. I say Canada should lead by example.
Lome Waldman, of the Canadian Jewish Congress said:
The long-term aim of the immigration department is to eliminate all refugee claims within Canada. The Government has spent millions of dollars and innumerable hours consulting on this problem, and everyone's recommendations have been ignored altogether.
And Gunther Plaut, the author of the Government Commission Report, had this to say:
It does not do justice to our international obligations to protect refugees. Nazi Germany would qualify as a safe country under Canada's proposed new refugee rules. I don't think I would have been let in. I came in the 1930s from Nazi Germany. The Government is building a Berlin Wall around the country.
Mr. Speaker, those organizations and those individuals have fought, and continue to fight, for the plight of refugees. They have looked at Bill C-55, and that is their verdict. I suggest to the Minister that, on behalf of the Government and of Cabinet, he has the responsibility to defend and promote that constituency. Ele has an obligation to stand up in Cabinet and fight for those constituencies.
Certainly we cannot have the ideal, a piece of legislation that is perfect for every single one of the 25 million people in this country. That is impossible. I agree with that. But it is also irresponsible to push ahead stubbornly with a piece of legislation that every major constituency group-every individual involved, every church leader, every community group leader-describes as unfair and unbecoming in the traditions of Canada.
He has a responsibility to listen to his constituency as well, rather than hide behind a poll that can be interpreted in 101 different ways.
Canadians believe in the integrity of a Government to give it a fair system. They do not believe in a Government that says one thing and does another.
Mr. Speaker, we have tried to do our part. We are only 40 in the Liberal Party. We know that we are going to lose every single vote, until 1988. Canadians know that. But what we are not prepared to do is to lose the debate. What we are not prepared to do is to lie down and allow this Government to introduce a piece of legislation that Canadians do not want.
We have tried to be responsible. That is why we have used Question Period and two Opposition Days to focus on the immigration policy over-all and specifically on Bill C-55.
The communities have tried to do what they can. We start the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill at the end of a major one-week national campaign by church groups, by community groups, by volunteers, to try to mobilize and sensitize Canadian public opinion and Canadians as to
Immigration Act, 1976
what is contained in Bill C-55-something that the Government does not have the courage to do outside this Chamber.
In every city, people have collected petitions, people have gone on hot line shows, and people have written letters. With deep emotion, we had re-enacted, at Harbour Front in Toronto, the arrival of the St. Louis in Canada. The refugees were in a boat, and we met them in a boat-all in an effort to bring this issue a little closer to the people of Canada. That is the sort of effort that has been made by people across this country, and by the Opposition. But what has the Government done? What has been the role of the Government? The role of the Government has been to try to create and fabricate a crisis. It has tried to create the impression that Canada is being swarmed by refugees. It is doing so in parallel with what it has tried to do in the capital punishment debate, that being to use one issue to climb the political ladder of popularity. Well, that is something that is not working very well in either instance. I suggest to you that that ladder will crumble; that the Tories and the Minister will take a fall-because that ladder is built on quicksand. It is not built on Canadian tradition; it is not built on what the people of my riding and the people of Toronto, and elsewhere in this country, want to see come about. It is not built on the foundation of what has been achieved by past Governments, with the concurrence of Canadians, in terms of refugee policies.
There is a backlog of refugees. I readily admit that. But it is a shame that this Government is trying to use that backlog to suggest that there is a crisis and that in light of that crisis, this legislation is required. It is trying to legitimize what is essentially a regressive piece of legislation.
In past years, Canadians supported Governments in accepting refugees into this country. In 1947, the Government of the day permitted 186,000 in as part of the post-war European movement. In 1958, 37,000 Hungarians were allowed in; in 1968, 11,000 Czechoslovakians; in 1972, 7,000 Ugandans; in 1973, 7,000 South Americans, following a purge on that continent; from 1975 to 1979, 9,000 Vietnamese/Cam-bodians were granted refugee status; and in 1982, following the Polish uprising, 9,000 citizens of Polish descent were granted refugee status. And the list goes on, and on, and on.
Canadians have accepted refugees in the past, and they are prepared to accept refugees in the future. That is the type of policy that Canadians have supported in terms of government leadership.
Trying to fabricate a crisis out of some 50 Chilean individuals in Argentina is not only wrong but borders on being scandalous, given the numbers that Canadians have accepted with open arms in past years.
Is it any wonder that Canadians are losing confidence in the policies of this Government, when we have a petition signed by 7,000 employees of the Immigration Department, 7,000 individuals who work for the "big boss"? The representatives of that group appeared before the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration and essentially said: "We don't


Immigration Act, 1976
have confidence in the direction and policy of this Government".
Is it any wonder that Canadians are losing confidence in an immigration policy which is confusing in its definition and questionable in its direction, when 7,000 employees put their jobs on the line by signing a petition to the effect that they are losing confidence in this Government's immigration policy?
Mr. Speaker, why are all of the church and community groups saying that Bill C-55 should go back to the drawing board?
There are a number of very good reasons, and I should like to go through some of them right now.
The first one is that while the Government finally designed a refugee board which meets with the approval of most Canadians, it is not prepared to allow that board to work unfettered with the refugees. It built a barrier around that new refugee board, and the barrier is called a pre-screening process.
The Minister and the Government will now have two officers at border points who will make the determination on whether a refugee or claimant can go from the border to the refugee board to be heard by two competent members of the board. That is where they are washing their hands; that is where they are not allowing individuals to come forward, rightly or wrongly, to present their cases and to live with the decisions. They have two officers to do the pre-screening or the selection, as it were.
Upon what criteria would it be based when the two individuals do not have any discretionary authority under the legislation as printed?
Obviously there is a vacuum or a gulf of difference between what the Minister says and purports is in the Bill and what is in the actual piece of legislation. There may have been a breakdown between the Minister and what he wanted to do and government drafters in the Department and what they wanted to do and to control. Those two officers-and one can call them what one wants-are pre-screeners. The Minister knows that. I know that. The constituency know that. There is no need or requirement for them. In fact, they are building a separate bureaucracy across the country at various border points.
The Government should allow the claimants to come directly to the refugee board. I will support the board. 1 think Parliament would support the board. The constituency would support the board, but why will the Government not support it? It is because the Government is saying that the system will be more efficient by limiting refugees.
It is tantamount to hospital administrators saying that they will make hospitals more efficient by limiting the number of patients. That cannot be done. Either a patient is sick or not. If a patient is sick, he or she should have access to the hospital. Efficiency must be built upon reasons other than limitations
and accessibility handicaps. Limiting access was the centrepiece of the consultation process.
The second aspect is the safe third country concept which has been floating around for a month and a half. I have yet to hear the Minister in the House, in committee, or elsewhere in the country defend with any degree of satisfaction what in the name of God is a safe third country. How will it be determined? How will it meet new uprisings in the world? How will the list be drafted?
The Minister suggested that Cabinet would consult and draft the list of safe third countries. Let us consider the reversal of policies. Under a Liberal Government we had devised a B-l list, a list of countries to which Canada would not deport people because of human rights violations. Clearly the onus was on the safety of life. We were not prepared to take the chance of sending someone to persecution and probable death. We were prepared to have those people remain here. Not only did the Conservative Government remove the B-l list on February 20, which means that it is open season for everyone everywhere, it also instituted the safe third country concept-a list of countries to which the Government is prepared to deport people.
Where are the guarantees or the safeguards that those countries will in fact respect refugees? Where are the guarantees that once a person goes to Germany or Great Britain he or she will have access to becoming a citizen and entry into the refugee system? This piece of legislation does not guarantee that. Admission does not guarantee that.
I could be admitted to West Germany on one day and be booted out on the third day. There is no guarantee whatsoever. This is where the Pontius Pilate theory comes into play. They have sent people adrift. It is like a ping-pong game; they are sent to a country which sends them somewhere else, and then everyone does it.
In Question Period the Minister was prepared to say that he would get agreements with those countries. In Hansard on May 7, 1987, in answer to my question, the Minister said:
I can assure the Hon. Member that we will be very careful with every individual and will have an agreement in place before we do anything.
Some people might say that if we have an agreement with a country, that country must honour the agreement. However, what did he say last week in committee? He was not prepared to say that he would live up to an agreement. He said that Canada would follow an arrangement, which is even more nebulous or ambiguous than the safe third country concept. The Government prefers to be everything to everybody by being ambiguous. However, that is not a guarantee for a legitimate refugee. That is not a guarantee for the refugee constituency who are asking themselves: "What is a safe third country?"
The Minister has refused to answer. Is the United States, which deports Guatemalans or Salvadorans, a safe third country? Is Great Britain, which deports Tamils, a safe third country? Of course they are not, not for those individuals. Is


the Government prepared to keep the United States of America and Great Britain off the safe third country list? Of course Great Britain and the United States will be on a safe third country list, because it would be an embarrassment to Uncle Ron and Aunt Maggie not to be on the safe country list of Canada.
This is where the international political games take place. There will be manoeuvrings to get on that list. Who at the cabinet table will remember, rushed with other agenda items and crises, the legitimacy of the individual who is fleeing persecution, torture, and death? That is the problem with the safe third country concept.
How quickly will that list change? How quickly will it change when there is a new uprising in a certain part of the world recognized on the list? When screening officers say, "I am sorry, Bermuda is still on our safe country list", the refugees will say: "I am sorry but we just had a revolution in Bermuda". How long will it take for the Government or the bureaucracy to react to that crisis? How many people, by the time it reacts, will have been sent back? How many people will suffer the consequence of that tardiness, which is natural in any bureaucracy or any government operation?
Third, what about the appeal system, a system which can be measured by sensitivity and compassion? The Government has suggested that the appeal system should be with leave to the Federal Court of Canada on points of law. The Federal Court has been unable, in the opinion of all, to render responsibility to refugee claimants and their stories. They will not be able to present individual circumstances; they must be points of law. To make the matter even worse, it has been suggested that the person who appeals to the Federal Court must leave the country and then he will be called collect if his appeal is successful.
What kind of humanity is that? An individual who is fleeing persecution can appeal to the Federal Court. Canada sends him back. Two or three months later, they might call the individual, but where will he be? Is there any guarantee that he will not be persecuted, tortured, jailed, or killed? Of course not.
Those are the holes in the legislation to which the Minister, in his 40-minute remarks, did not address himself. Those are the life and death shortcomings in the piece of refugee legislation with which the Government must begin to deal responsibly.
The fourth problem is with the refugee board. The Minister said that the refugee board will operate independently and unfettered. That is not true. Bill C-55 provides that there will be a government lawyer presenting evidence, and therefore the process will no longer be non-adversarial. A government lawyer will have at heart government interests and not the interests of a refugee claimant.
Immigration Act, 1976
The other question that begs to be asked is, from where does the government lawyer get information? Then we can draw the link back to the pre-secreening officers. That is where the government lawyer will pick up the information that in the end of the process will be used against refugees. Is that a fair system? Is that a non-adversarial system? The answer to those questions is clearly, no.
The fifth problem has to do with our international responsibilities. What will be the repercussions of this Bill? Canadians know that we cannot accept the 10 million to 15 million refugees who are looking for homes. Every Member of Parliament knows that as well.
What will happen if other countries in the international community begin to legislate the safe third country concept? Canada will be one of the first countries to do that. What would happen if Great Britain, Switzerland, the United States and every other country would legislate a pre-screening provision and a safe third country concept? The answer is very simple and obvious. There will be an international corridor of locked doors. Every door on which any legitimate refugee will knock will be closed. The legitimate refugee will be told, "I am sorry, you are from a safe third country, go somewhere else". That is not responsible. The abuse of the system will be greater.
The Government has tried to market this legislation on the basis that it will curb abuse as if this Party, this Hon. Member or any Canadian agreed with abuse. Of course we do not agree with abuse. No one wants to see abuse in the refugee system, in the workers' compensation system, in the pension system, or in the UIC system. Everyone wants to work against abuse, but we do not fight abuse on the backs of legitimate refugees and we do not curb abuse by being more restrictive and rigid as this legislation is.
As the Conservative administration has moved toward closing the door tighter, the schemes and scams to get people in have increased proportionately. When legitimate refugees who are fleeing from death and persecution are pushed against the wall, they have no options. No human in this world would rather go back to certain death or persecution than try to enter a country. They will try to enter a country because of their human spirit, and if they cannot get through the front door, they will enter through the back door.
We have seen people entering through the back door in greater numbers with every more rigid piece of legislation that is passed. Therefore, I ask the Minister what favour he is doing Canada and the international community by closing the door tighter. Does the Minister not realize that other countries will do the same and that if such is the case, then we will really have a legitimate crisis on our hands? Fifteen million refugees the world over will be desperately trying to enter any country by any means. Then those low-lifes who make a career out of desperate individuals will surface, as we have seen with great frequency.


Immigration Act, 1976
I see you are signalling that I have only two or three minutes left in debate, Mr. Speaker. I would like to be able to continue because there are other areas into which I would like to delve.
Those are the criteria by which this legislation must be measured. Those are the criteria this Minister ought to use to build refugee legislation that looks not only to the next year or two, years when the Minister may still be here in that capacity, but to the long term. He must measure his legislation in comparison to tradition.
After this Minister is long gone and after I am long gone- MPs and Ministers come and go, Canada always stays-this Minister will have to live with himself. He will have to live with his community. He will have to be able to account to his community for his actions and for the direction this policy is taking. I submit to him that it would be very difficult to look in the mirror or to his community for approval for this piece of legislation. He knows that and he is under pressure.
I respect the pressures that we are all under, but I also respect individuals. I respect Ministers who will stand up in Cabinet and in Parliament and be counted for the long term. I respect Ministers who move in directions in which they are proud to move and who lead Canadians to a progressive vision of things to come. All of us share in the commitment that is Canada. Every Canadian wishes to have a system that is expeditious and is fair to those who are seeking our assistance.
Every Canadian is compassionate. Every Canadian is humane. Very many Canadians know about the opportunities they have had to start anew in this country. My family knows it and the Minister's family knows it as well. In all justice and fairness, we cannot enter Canada and then say: "Now that we are here, let's lock the doors". The building of Canada does not stop here. Future generations will be made up of immigrants. Our birth rate is dwindling and our aged population is growing. Because of our small population, this country will once again be built by continuous and massive waves of immigrants and refugees.
Yes, there has been some abuse. Yes, the odd individual tries to circumvent the system and get into Canada the wrong way. The Government must stand up and say that the vast majority of immigrants and refugees, however, are individuals who do not cheat Canadians or the system and that they too, once they take their oaths of citizenship after three years, are as proud, as loyal and as hardworking as every Member of Parliament in this Chamber.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister, at second reading or at committee stage, in partnership with witnesses, refugee groups and the churches, who will once against have to come to Ottawa to plead their case, will listen and will do two things.
I ask the Minister to drop the pre-screening and to drop the safe third country concept. If he does that, he will make a bad Bill a liveable Bill into and he will have my support. Thank you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for-


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I forgot to add that I would like to move an amendment in conclusion.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member had ended his speech. Certainly our procedures allow ample opportunity at later stages for a member of his Party or for any other Member of the Chamber to move a motion.
I think the Hon. Member had clearly terminated his address. He may indeed rise on a point of order to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have the floor once again for the purpose of introducing a motion, but if that were to be the case, then I think I would find myself predisposed to denying that unanimous consent at this point.
The Hon. Member is simply the second speaker on a very major piece of legislation. Nothing in our rules or procedures precludes the opportunity at a later stage for someone else to introduce a motion, but I think it would be inappropriate and might set a dangerous precedent for the future if someone who has given up the floor is allowed all of a sudden to reclaim it for the purpose of introducing a motion without the unanimous consent of the House.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: May I rise on the same point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no need to hear the Hon. Member on the same point of order. I had given the floor to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), and I will allow him to resume.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your understanding. In that spirit I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word
"That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and to amend other
Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that it be read
a second time this day six months hence."


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I seek a little clarification. If this motion is found to be in order, what does it do to the length of time allowed for speeches? Are we now debating an amendment? Does the third Party in the House have the right under our Standing Orders to a 40-minute speech at a later date when we come back to the main motion? Or do we now proceed to 20 minute speeches on the basis of the amendment? Just what is the result?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds the motion in order. As far as the time allowed for speeches is concerned, it is the understanding of the Chair, and I will verify this, that the first three speakers get 40 minutes each without questions regardless of whether an amendment is moved by any of those speakers.
The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has the floor.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your interpretation of that last point.
I am not going to say I am happy to debate this Bill because I am very, very sorry the Government brought it forward. I am very sorry that in the last six months the Government broke with a policy of consultation which it had continued until December. Until then there was open discussion between the Government, opposition Members, and the public about what sort of Bill this should be. It is very sad that around that time the Government shut itself off, refused to communicate, and began to carry on a secret course of action. It is of course legal for it to do that, but I am very sorry it ceased to act in the spirit of good will and good faith which had continued until then.
Until that time we seemed to be making progress in identifying the problems and the best possible solutions. There was until that time grounds for understanding that we all basically agreed, both Members of Parliament and the people of Canada, about what we had to do about a very serious problem. That is not the problem of abuse, it is the problem of the great need of many, many people in the world. The problem of abuse is a secondary problem. There can be abuse of any good program and there will be abuse even of the program the Government has put forward if it becomes law. The Minister himself said that nothing is perfect.
Our committee, when it studied this matter for hundreds of hours-and the former Chairman of that committee sitting across the way will corroborate this, I am sure, when he speaks-found that of all those who had been examined until that time, the abusers were in the minority. Under the old system, which had been slightly modified to the extent allowed by law, about one-third had been found to be refugees, and an unknown further number were found to be worthy of humanitarian consideration. We would not send Iranians back to the Ayatollah Khomeini's Government. We would not send people back to the Soviet Union if they said they were afraid to return. We would not send people back to Poland, whether they fitted the definition of refugees or not. We would not send people back to El Salvador, Chile, or Guatemala if they were afraid to go back for the same reason.
When we considered that the Supreme Court of Canada found that the system by which people were being judged was unfair, contrary to the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then the committee judged that the majority of the applicants, even under the old and cumbersome system, had a good claim on Canada's protection, either technically as refugees or practically on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. These were people who should not be sent back to civil war or similar kinds of disturbances which have the same effect as individual persecution.
We based that partly on the many, many witnesses who appeared before the committee during the six months we held hearings. Many, many witnesses told us they wanted a favourable approach to refugees. They also are reflected in the 75 per cent referred to in the Goldfarb poll who said we should
Immigration Act, 1976
admit legitimate refugees. They did not define what legitimate refugees are in that poll; they simply understand them as being people whose lives are in danger because of their politics, religion, membership in some social group, or for any other reason which requires them to, as the UN said, seek and enjoy the protection or asylum of another country. That was the essential decision of our committee.
I regret that the Government, against so much public opposition from informed people, has decided to move ahead with this very destructive Bill. I have been one of those who have called for the simple withdrawal of this Bill. What I wish to do now is to point out the need for withdrawal and, second, to enlarge on the approach of the Canadian people over and beyond the approach of Canada's Parliament. Third, I want to show how the action of the Government over the last few months has been in the opposite direction. It has gone contrary to the Canadian people's policy, and contrary even to its own policy before that time. Finally, I want to show how the Canadian people are reaffirming their original orientation on this issue.
One reason for withdrawing this Bill is that to spend the time necessary to debate it and consider amendments is much more wasteful of time, and much more likely to allow the situation to grow worse, than if the Government were to make a clean break and admit that the Bill is irrevocably flawed and withdraw it. Then, in consultation with the people who have worked on this subject for several years, it could draft a new Bill.
Of course we have a crisis but this Bill, if passed, will not solve the crisis for at least several months. It probably will not solve it even then, because we have been warned that lawyers who are competent in this matter will voice their objections where it will count, in the Federal Court and the Supreme Court.
The Minister has said, "Trust me". He has said, "Trust the intent of the Government". You and I, Mr. Speaker, know that if this comes to a vote you will not ask me and the other Members of the House whether we will vote for or against the intent of the Government. That is not possible because it is not on the agenda. The Government did not put its intent on the agenda. It did not put forth a discussion paper or White Paper. We begged the Government for a year to put a White Paper before us which could be discussed. It would not do that. Instead we are asked to vote for Bill C-55.
The Government's intent makes no difference whatsoever, and it is mischievous of the Government to pretend that by voting for its intent we will be voting for something better than the Bill, something without the faults of the Bill.
We know that there is considerable trouble with the backlog. We know that the backlog is a small reflection of a world-wide problem of 10 million or 15 million refugees. We also know that every lawyer in the private sector who has


Immigration Act, 1976
spoken on this Bill has spoken against it. I believe that within a day or two the Canadian Bar Association will say that officially and collectively.
It is a little ironic that the Government praises the private sector, calling it the engine of recovery, and brings private sector accountants and lawyers into a privileged position in the budget process. Yet, when lawyers from the private sector criticize this Bill, the Hon. Minister, contrary to his statements of respect for them, attacks their motivation. I heard him in Montreal a couple of weeks ago accuse his opponents of being "street-corner lawyers", whatever that means. He obviously did not mean it in a favourable sense.
It is reported that when he was in Winnipeg he attacked a leading refugee and immigration lawyer there, accusing him of being concerned merely with the revenue he gets from refugees who usually arrive penniless. The Minister had the effrontery to make that accusation, and he repeated it in Montreal a couple of days ago, according to the Gazette. He said that the lawyers who criticized the Bill are simply looking for fees for defending refugees.
What a contemptible piece of slander the Minister indulges in by condemning all the lawyers in the private sector who have spoken against this Bill as being only interested in private profit! It is a strange philosophy for a Conservative politician to condemn lawyers for doing their work because they might be paid by someone for doing it.
This Bill has no credibility with those in the public who have studied it. If you ask people on the street whether they want to admit real refugees, they will say, yes. If you ask whether they like the Minister's Bill, they will say, yes because the Minister has put out tens of thousands of dollars worth of false propaganda which says that this Bill does what this Bill does not do. Of course he has succeeded in deceiving the public to some extent, but not for long.
Le Devoir, which was originally willing to buy the Bill, published a second editorial two weeks ago which called it une loi de refoulement and said that this Bill is not what it first appeared to be. I heard Mr. LeClerc speak to this last Friday night. He believed that he had been taken for a ride after first consideration of the Bill, and he is now solidly opposed to it.
1 want to illustrate the Canadian response, not only to people who have been proven to be refugees but to people who come to the doors of our country asking for a chance to prove that they are refugees. Two days after the Minister introduced those harsh regulations on February 20, I attended a rally at Fort Erie spontaneously organized by the people there who had been helping refugees.
These were not "street-corner lawyers" making a fortune on the backs of refugees, as the Minister would like to suggest. These were the townspeople of Fort Erie who, in the last two years, have billetted 500 refugees. They had put them up at their expense, fed them, clothed them, and given them shelter for a short or a long time. They helped them after they came across the bridge.
These 500 people, through that rally, were telling the Canadian Government not to be afraid of the welfare system for refugees breaking down because they are looking after them. That is the kind of attitude there is in Canada, not only at Fort Erie but in Quebec and other places as well. Residents of Quebec sent a truckload of clothing and food to Plattsburg for refugees who had been turned back from Canada. At Thunder Bay several dozen people are engaged in meeting refugees at the border and helping them to make their way to and through immigration officials. On the Prairies and in British Columbia the same things are taking place.
Canadians are helping these refugees. They are presently doing it legally, but I know they are studying the sanctuary movements in the United States and respect the heroic clergy of those movements who will go to jail rather than send a refugee back to torture or death.
Canadians have been learning compassion. We have had our faults in our immigration policies over the past century and more. There are some things of which we are not proud. I do not want to take time to go into those today. However, support for refugees from the Canadian people primarily, not from this or the previous Government, was what won the Nansen Medal Award.
This law will not go with the Canadian people. If it is passed, the Canadian people will ensure that it is overturned. The basic sense of justice of Canadian people was reflected in the Singh decision two years ago which the Government has done its best to ignore. The Supreme Court of Canada said that when a person's life is at stake, the people who are to decide whether he or she is or is not a refugee must be competent people and must look him or her in the eye. He must stand in front of them so that he can judge their credibility, because nine-tenths of a refugee's case is based on the story he or she has to tell and their ability to convince the judges that the story is true.
The Supreme Court said that it cannot be done on paper or by intermediate officials. Those who are to decide whether to send a person back to possible death must do it face to face with the refugee. That was the Singh decision and that is what is backed by the Canadian people and the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, the reports of which the Government never answered. The report on the refugee system and that on the backlog have been shamefully ignored by the Government to this day, as it has ignored other reports since then.
There are several fundamental faults with this Bill which the lawyers who have looked at it say cannot be reformed by amendment. That is why we asked for withdrawal.
First and foremost is that the Bill begins with the principle that a person is guilty until he proves himself innocent. Furthermore, it does not give him much time to prove it. He is


guilty of being a liar, a cheat, and a queue jumper by illegally trying to get into Canada. That is what the Minister says.
Therefore, we begin the whole process by bringing him to an inquiry. An inquiry is the procedure for examining why a person should not be deported. The onus is on him to prove that he should not be forced to leave the country. That is the way this refugee claimant is treated from the outset, because the Government has chosen to found the whole Bill on the philosophy of the abuser rather than on the philosophy of refugees.
The Government delayed the first Plaut report for half a year and has suppressed the second Plaut report. It has ignored the reports of the committee. It has put in arbitrary regulations in February which have sent away many legitimate refugees. It has refused to examine the refugees in the airplane that was stopped improperly in Buenos Aires. It has refused to examine the evidence about those refugees, which was brought by a competent lawyer sent by the private sector to Buenos Aires to examine them.
It simply scorned any evidence from the people who know something about real refugees. It has pumped out misleading propaganda about the Bill which follows on a policy of several senior officials for several years in trying to instill in the public the idea that most refugee claimants are phonies.
The Government published the ministerial overview which makes claims about the law which the law itself denies. The Bill itself, as printed, denies the main claims of the ministerial overview.
Most people do not have time to read the Bill and most people are not lawyers and cannot understand 60 pages of legalese. Therefore, they read the ministerial overview and form the opinion that the Bill is good and support it. However, the ministerial statements are false and misrepresent what is exactly in Bill C-55.
The Minister's statement that no one with a shred of genuine fear of persecution will be sent back to the country he is fleeing is false. The Minister cannot possibly support it by reference to the law.
Any time that I or anyone else has asked the Minister to discuss the actual words of the law, the Minister slides out by saying that if there are some fine points to be considered, they can be taken up in the committee hearings later on.
It is not fine points with which we are concerned, it is the fundamentals of the law. The Minister has refused ever to talk with individuals or groups and come to grips with the fact that his statements are contradicted by the Bill he is asking me and other Members of the House to support.
One way in which this Bill treats refugees as guilty until proven innocent is in Clause 93 which provides the Government with the power to seize an aircraft of an airline that brought someone to Canada who is considered to have inadequate travel documentation, in other words, someone who is a refugee claimant.
Immigration Act, 1976
This law goes further than the present law which provides for fining the airline. The Europeans have already begun to copy the existing law for fining airline companies, and presumably then will copy the proposed legislation if it passes and seize aircraft in order to force payment of the fine. According to this proposed law, if an airline brings someone here under existing law and the United Nations declaration for the protection of refugees, including anyone who lied in order to claim refugee status and might be found to be a refugee afterwards, the fact of having brought that person without adequate documents will be an offence for which the airline may have its aircraft seized. This is the principle of guilty until proven innocent.
There is also the principle of safe country about which there has been much talk. The Minister has never given a serious and safe answer to that principle.
In the press conference, the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) said: "People with refugee status elsewhere and people arriving from safe third countries who had reasonable opportunity to claim protection will be returned to those countries". That is not what Bill C-55 says. Instead, Clause 48.1(1) states:
A person who claims to be a Convention refugee is not eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division if
(b) the claimant came to Canada from a country that has been prescribed as a safe third country for all persons or for persons of a specified class of persons of which the claimant is a member and would be allowed to return to that country, if removed from Canada, or has a right to have the claim determined therein;
In other words, the fact of being allowed to return is enough by itself. It does not say that he will also have the right. The clause states: "The right to return or the right to have his claim determined". It does not say both. It does not say what happens after he returns to that country.
The point is that these two officers, the refugee board member and adjudicator, according to this law, do not have the power to send that person on to the refugee board if he is ineligible by reason of coming from a country that is described as a safe country for that class of person.
Contrary to what the Minister has repeated again and again in the House and outside the House, this law states that a person who claims to be a Convention refugee is not eligible to have his claim determined by the Refugee Division, he is not eligible to have those two officials send him on to the refugee board, which is the express and only meaning of this clause, he is not eligible if he came from what we are told will be described as a safe third country.
We have never been given any description in the law of what is a safe third country. The Cabinet is simply given a list which it approves as safe third countries. We do not know what considerations go into that decision because the Minister has refused to explain it or put it into this legislation.
There is also the matter of the humanitarian and compassionate factors. The Minister said that a Minister will be able to do as he does now, but the law is entirely silent on the


Immigration Act, 1976
matter and we have no guarantee that the Minister or his successor will respect the promise he has made today.
There is also the matter of credible claims. Again, the Minister likes to talk about discretion because it is so vague. The law states that the person cannot be sent on to the board unless he is determined to have a credible basis for the claim. Clause 48.1(4) states:
In determining whether a claimant has a credible basis for the claim to be a Convention refugee, the adjudicator and the member of the Refugee Division shall consider any evidence adduced at the inquiry or hearing regarding
It goes on to list two points, the wording of which means only two points. Rather than "including" two points, it states that they shall hear evidence "regarding" two points. One is the record with respect to human rights of the country that the claimant left and the other is the disposition under this Act or the regulations of claims to be Convention refugees made by other persons who alleged fear of persecution in that country.
In other words, if Canada has not received many refugees from that country or believes that it has a good human rights record, for which there is no definition, then that person must be accused of not having a credible basis for his claim and will not be allowed to appear before the refugee board to make his claim, because he is not eligible. That is what the law says, not what the Minister says. I cannot vote for the twaddle I hear from the Minister. I am asked to vote for the law and I will vote against this law. I believe that if Members of Parliament would read Clause 48 and consult their consciences, they would have to vote against it as well.
Another major fault in this law is that the Federal Court is not only limited by its own nature, but it cannot review the merits of a decision. It cannot review a bad decision made in that first screening, nor a decision made in the later hearing, if there is one for that person. It cannot review the merits. It cannot ask if his story was true. It can only look at certain points of procedure and can only do that after there has been a written appeal. By experience we know that fewer than 5 per cent of written requests for permission to appeal are in fact granted. So the chance is very, very small of getting any sort of review.
There is also Clause 48.3(3) which introduces into the refugee consideration the idea that even after an individual is found to be a refugee, he will not be landed if the officers examining him think he will be unable or unwilling to support himself. We have refugees who are children, unaccompanied. We have refugees who have been so badly tortured in the country they left that their mental or physical health does not permit them to earn a living, at least at the beginning. Those people would be excluded by this law. They will be told: "You are a refugee, but, sorry, we do not want you. You are not financially advantageous to Canada".
Another reason that this Bill should be withdrawn is that there is, and has been for many months, a better way to handle this refugee determination. The standing committee, acting on
the directive of the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, spent hundreds of hours examining this subject, looking at the report from Rabbi Plaut, listening to the officials of the Immigration Commission and to members of the public who have had experience in the matter, and came up with a system to which the Government has never yet replied, even though the Standing Orders directed it do so.
It would be a system in which the first step from the border would be a meeting with two members of the refugee board, after about a week in which the refugee claimant could orient himself and find a lawyer, if that is what he or she wanted, which is the right of everyone in Canada. The refugee board would decide either that he is a refugee and should be processed with a view to landing, or that he is not a refugee, in which case a senior level of the board would not do a rehearing but would do a paper review.
The hearing would be examined in order to catch a possible error. The senior level of the board would be able to receive further evidence and would give an answer to the refugee claimant so he would know what the accusation was against him, where he failed on his claim. He would then be able to explain a point which was misunderstood or to add further evidence he did not realize at first was needed. But none of that is allowed at this pre-screening on safe third country or credibility. In most cases the board members do not have to give their reasons and will not do so because they will be too busy. They will not do it unless the law requires them to do so.
The system we propose would require that the reasons be given so that the refugee claimant has a normal chance on paper to state his response to the reasons for being rejected. That review committee would then have the responsibility for either upholding the original decision that he is not a refugee or saying there should be a rehearing. Perhaps in a very few cases there would be a rehearing since, as the Minister has said, nothing is perfect and no one is infallible.
This is based on public support. There are hundreds of organizations in Canada which have gone on record as supporting this approach and as opposing this Bill. Some of the largest are the Canadian Labour Congress and at least 11 of the major churches in Canada, the Jewish Congress and the active members of the Canadian Bar Association, immigration section. Within a couple of days I believe they will make their position generally public. There is a growing campaign. There are church services devoted to the welcoming of the refugees and to opposition to Bill C-55. There are public rallies devoted to opposition to Bill C-55. There is a growing petition campaign from Nanaimo to St. John's, Newfoundland. People are saying, "Do not put this Bill into action. This Bill does not help refugees. This Bill would turn refugees away."
I want to say a few words in closing, not about Canadian opposition to this, but to the international meaning of it. A previous speaker mentioned the international line-up of countries which will be inclined to follow Canada's lead and close all the doors. These are the countries primarily of western Europe and North America. Yes, our officials for


several years have been consulting with their officials for this purpose, leading the way in devising ideas for locking out refugee claimants. Most of the refugee claimants nowadays come not from eastern Europe, as they used to, but from the Third World, from the non-white peoples. This law, whatever is the good intention of the Minister, if it goes into action, will be a racist law because it will turn away the huge majority of refugee claimants who in fact are non-white people coming from former colonial countries. This is because there has been a shift of labour policy. Our countries for some decades welcomed cheap labour from the Third World countries, people who could be brought into work at minimum wage or a little less, at least for a few years. We welcomed them in the United States, Canada and western Europe. The multinationals and the banks would now rather have the manufacturing done in those Third World countries. Not only manufacturing but data processing is more and more being done in the Third World countries where the wages are perhaps one-tenth of the wages in Canada.
The wages are held down by the actions of terrorist Governments such as the Governments of South Korea, El Salvador and Chile, where the death squads rule untouched and unrestrained by the government of the day, unrestrained by the dictator in Chile or by the so-called President in El Salvador who shows he has no power over them. By killing off the trade union leaders in those countries, they are able to keep the wages down.
When I was in El Salvador in the first week of May, I had an interesting meeting with the Vice Minister of Planning. I asked him what he was going to do about 70 per cent unemployment in his country. He replied: "I want you Canadians to invest in our cheap labour". It was not a translation. He spoke very good English. He said: "We want you to invest in our cheap labour. Send your wood and cloth down here and we will make furniture and clothes and sell it to the United States. We will get the wages and you get the profits". Those were his words. In other words, this law, Bill C-55, is part of an arrangement adopted by the First World countries to shut Third World people out from our countries. We no longer want them as cheap labour here. We want them as cheaper labour in their home countries where they will be policed by terrorist squads, death squads, aimed particularly at leaders of trade unions and co-operatives who are trying to raise the living standards of their members above starvation level.
It is an evil law. Whatever is the stated intention of the Minister, this law is an evil law. It is evil in two ways. I am now speaking about what the words of the law state and not what the Minister said in his statement since I cannot vote for the stuff that he says. I have to vote yes or no to Bill C-55 and the words that are written in it. What is written in it will harm refugees. Whether or not it will keep the abusers out, I do not know. But I know that it will harm refugees by shutting them out.
Immigration Act, 1976
Second, this law is an evil law because it purports, and particularly with the interpretations circulated at the taxpayers' expense and carefully drafted to misrepresent the law, to be something that it is not. It purports to be helping refugees when in fact it lays the foundation for shutting them out.
Even if this law goes through second reading, through committee, report stage and third reading and is proclaimed law it will not work. We know that there will be resistance of all kinds, legal and illegal resistance, by Canadian people who will not stand the injustice that this law would present. This law will be not only unjust but it will be unworkable. This was a warning given to the previous Government when the present Immigration Act was being considered. It was warned that it would be unworkable. Those who made the warning were laughed at. At that time they said that there should be an oral hearing for every claimant. The Government said that that would be too expensive. Well, after millions if not billions of dollars of expense the Supreme Court has said: "Give them an oral hearing". This law does not do that. This law would deny what the Supreme Court meant by an oral hearing to the majority of people who come to our ports. Just having them heard on a narrow point by one member of a board is not the oral hearing that the Supreme Court spoke about. Because of that fundamental injustice, Canadian people will have to block this law.
It would be much better if the Minister would withdraw it now and enter into consultation with all those concerned in order to bring us a much truer law that would actually help refugees through a system that would be quick, which is what the committee and what the churches proposed. It would take about three months to determine the cases and there would be no more attraction for these rip-off artists, such as the ones that the Minister has been so slow to prosecute in the case of the Portuguese and now in the case of the Brazilians. The only remedy for this law is to withdraw it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there not time allotted for questions and comments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, there is not. That provision does not apply to the first three speakers. The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) that mine is the first speech that will be open for questions and comments and I would welcome some at a later stage.
I have served for many hours on the committee with the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). On many things over all those many meetings and many months we have come to a common understanding and a common sense of agreement. That comes out of a deeply felt commitment to the refugees in the world. That is where we have our area of agreement.


Immigration Act, 1976
Elowever, with the Elon. Member's concluding comments I find myself in complete disagreement. If I were to have to stand in the House today and vote on Bill C-55 as it is currently written I would find myself voting against it. However, I think it is a Bill with the kinds of characteristics that are needed by the refugees of the world and by Canadian society.
What we are being asked to do, and what we are debating here today is to consider whether or not the House should take the decision to move Bill C-55 to committee. Once in committee expert testimony can be heard. Witnesses can be heard and amendments can be moved. The Bill can be strengthened to do the types of things that the Government would so clearly like it to be able to do.
This Bill is something that many of us in the Chamber have been looking forward to for a long period of time. I would like to congratulate the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). This problem came up five Ministers ago, two in the previous Government and three in the current Government. The present Minister is the first Minister who has been able to produce a Bill for the consideration of the House. It is a Bill which the Minister has said again and again Cabinet intends to be a piece of legislation which will make the world a better place, which will make the world a safer place.
During the Minister's speech I was particularly disturbed by the heckling from the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) who I think will be speaking after me. The Hon. Member may indeed want to read which of those heckles got into Hansard and may indeed want to apologize not only to the Minister but to the House. It is possible in this Chamber to get carried away with heckling. However, I found the remarks of the Hon. Member for Laurier to be particularly offensive and not in the least in keeping with the kind of standard of conduct that the electors of the country would expect from their representatives in this place. This is the place which is the bastion of freedom. This is the place where, surely, comments directed so clearly at a Member's racial or religious background are inappropriate. I hope that upon further reflection we will hear an apology from the Hon. Member before this debate is concluded.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise because the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) insinuated that I made comments which reflected upon the Minister's religious or ethnic background. It is perhaps possible that I got carried away in some of the comments I made. However, in Parliament, and if one looks at the tradition of Parliaments, not just this one but of British parliamentary democracy, one will see that there is a tendency to call a spade a spade. I will check the record and it would surprise me if I were to find that I had made any veiled references or unveiled references to the Minister's ethnic or religious background, any detrimental references, which I did not.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I heard the word "ovens" thrown out across the Chamber more than once. Given the
circumstances of the debate we are on and the background of the Minister, that is what I find offensive and inappropriate.
It is somewhat prophetic perhaps that Bill C-55 is presented on a day which began with a domestic discussion of capital punishment. All of us in this Chamber feel that debate very keenly. It is a matter of life and death. Some Members feel strongly that the reinstatement of capital punishment is important to protect the lives of potential future victims. Others think that it is reprehensible to put capital punishment back into Canadian law and deliberately to have the state take a human life. Those differences are felt, and they are felt strongly by the Members of the House and by our constituents.
It is perhaps a little more difficult to see that the fine print of Bill C-55, if it becomes the law of this country, will deal with that very same issue, the issue of life and death. It is the life or the death of strangers. It is not Canadian citizens that we are talking about, not landed immigrants in Canada, but strangers, people who live outside of our borders, but who live in a country-specific situation where, through the arbitrary nature and action of the state, their lives are potentially forfeit.
It is those people, Mr. Speaker, who make their ways to our shores by one means or another and ask for the protection of this country and the protection of its people. They do so, Mr. Speaker, because if they are sent back to their country of origin, they face death, torture, and persecution.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the fine print in Bill C-55 is something that should engage everyone who has an interest and a background in these matters. That is why, Mr. Speaker, there are people in this country who represent groups working with refugees who are urging Members of this Chamber to reject the Bill in its entirety. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have had protests.
Mr. Speaker, in many ways, those groups are reacting to a history, to a history that really began for them in 1976, that which has been mentioned by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
In 1976, there were very few people in this country, very few lawyers in this country, who had experience in refugee matters. The Parliament of the day, in its time and in its place, passed a law, and it is that same law that is in place in Canada today. Under that law, Mr. Speaker, there was no adequate opportunity for those claiming refuge in this country to tell their story orally in front of the decision-makers who got to decide their fate.
As a new Government, we inherited that law, that situation. The Supreme Court was seized of that matter, and the Supreme Court ruled that there should be an oral hearing.
This Government changed the Immigration Act to allow refugee claimants refused on the basis of a paper review to appeal orally and in person before the Immigration Appeal Board. We have had a year's experience with that new regime. And what does it tell us, Mr. Speaker? It tells us that 8 per cent of the claimants, on the basis of the oral hearing, are


judged to need the protection of Canada, and the board rules that those people should be granted refugee status in this country.
That tells us, in the first instance, that the oral hearing, the chance to tell one's story, is important. It is not just a theory; it is a reality, a demonstrable reality, in the Canadian mosaic.
It also tells us, Mr. Speaker, that 92 per cent of those appealing denial on the basis of a paper review are found not to need the protection of Canada by a three member panel in an oral hearing. It tells us, clearly, that there are abusers. There are those who seek to use the court processes in this country to advance their own selfish ends, regardless of the difficulties that that may cause for legitimate refugees, those who care about them and those who serve them.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, when a poll is done on Bill C-55, there is such overwhelming endorsement of it. The average Canadian does not know what is contained in the 62 pages of the Bill. The average Canadian does not have the background, the experience, the training to determine whether the fine print will get the job done or not. What the average Canadian is responding to, Mr. Speaker, is the notion that those who need the protection of this country will be found to be bona fide refugees and will be granted that protection, and that those who abuse the system will not be granted that special privilege and will in fact be deported.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that that is what Canadians want. The only issue for the House in relation to Bill C-55 is whether or not these proposed amendments to the immigration law of Canada have enough going for them that they are worth detailed study and examination by committee to ensure that what Canadians want will indeed come about.
Mr. Speaker, I was deeply disappointed to hear the speaker on behalf of the Liberal Party immediately move what we refer to as the sixth month hoist. He did that before hearing the lead-off speaker for the New Democratic Party or a second speaker on behalf of the government side. To move the six month hoist is to assume that the Bill is unsalvageable and would make no contribution to the lives of refugees or to Canadian society.
Mr. Speaker, the kindest thing I can say about that action is that it is premature. I move from words like "premature" to "poorly thought out", "ill-conceived", "unwise", and "damaging".


David Berger: It is the same reaction that we have seen on the part of all of the groups across the country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) says that it is the same reaction on the part of all of the groups across the country.


David Berger: Yes. The store-front lawyers.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That, Mr. Speaker, is an example of the kind of rhetoric we have come to expect over the past eight years.
Business of the House
It is not the reaction of all of the groups in the country; it is not the reaction of all of the people of the country. It is not my reaction, to start with. I can talk about what I believe and what I think.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55, I believe, has the potential to achieve what Canadians want, that being the protection of those who need this country's protection in as fail-safe a manner as is possible in any system that requires human decision making, while at the same time bringing about a significant reduction in the potential for abuse of the system.
Had the previous Government tackled this problem when it first arose five or six years ago and not left it to this Government to provide the oral hearing-which it did by way of a prior piece of legislation-we would not now be dealing with something of this complexity in an environment where there are thousands, and even perhaps tens of thousands, of abusers. Had the Liberal Party shown as much concern in the early 1980s as they would profess to have today, we would not be engaged in this debate.


David Berger: In 1980, there were 1,800 in-land claimants. In 1983, there were 6,100.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What are the problems with this Bill, Mr. Speaker? Part of the problem, insofar as the small print is concerned, is that we have not had the opportunity to hear witnesses and to examine those witnesses on the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I see that it is time for Private Members' Hour. I believe I have some time left and that I shall be recognized following Private Members' Hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.

[Translation\


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-65, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the Parties and the House Leaders, and I think Your


Business of the House
Honour would find unanimous consent for the House to deal with the Bill introduced yesterday by the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), Bill C-259, an Act to extend the term of a patent relating to a certain food additive.
The Hon. Member for LaSalle will rise on the motion for second reading to explain the purpose of the Bill. Then it would be our intention to have the House deal with the remaining stages of the Bill without debate, so that it could be sent to the Senate this evening.
In order for the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), whose Private Member's Motion is up for debate this evening, not to lose the full benefit of one hour of debate, it is our suggestion that the time for the debate on his motion be extended by whatever time it takes to deal with Bill C-259 at all stages.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to order of Friday, June 12, 1987, the House will now proceed to Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House has heard the terms of the proposal of the Government Deputy House Leader. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   PATENT EXTENSION (ASPARTAME) ACT EXTENSION OF TERM OF PATENT
Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works) moved: that Bill C-259, an Act to extend the term of a patent relating to a certain additive, be read the second time and, with unanimous consent, referred to a committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking Hon. Members for granting us this unanimous consent and for understanding the very essence of a debate that is not a debate in the controversial sense but which could have been, and whose purpose is to observe the principle of equity with respect to the intellectual property of a company. I greatly appreciate the co-operation we have received, as expressed in this unanimous consent, from the two opposition Parties, the NDP and the Liberal Party. I also wish to thank my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party for their show of confidence.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore welcome this opportunity today to introduce a Bill that will extend by five years the Canadian
patent on the food additive aspartame, more commonly referred to as nutraSucre or nutraSweet, in English.
First of all, I should say that the case of aspartame is unique. The sale of aspartame was first approved by the U.S. Government in 1974. However, before it was put on the market, approval was withdrawn because of concerns about the safety of this product. The situation in the United States forced the Canadian authorities to be careful not to expose Canadians to any undue health risk. In 1981, after a complete and complex investigation, the Searle Company was finally authorized to market aspartame in Canada. Searle, after having had only six years to reap the benefits arising from its patent, is asking today to have the patent extended by five years, to compensate for the time during which its product was kept off the market due to circumstances beyond its control.
The Searle Company has already obtained an extension of the term of its patent for aspartame in the United States, Great Britain, South Africa and Australia and filed applications for an extension in New Zealand. If a five-year extension were granted in Canada, Monsanto Canada, the parent company of Searle and NutraSweet, would invest $10 million in a new plant located in the beautiful constituency of LaSalle. This pilot plant would create about 30 new jobs and pave the way for improvements in manufacturing processes and for the development of new technologies which Searle could apply throughout the world. Monsanto has indicated that this measure would eliminate imports from the United States and create export opportunities to European markets, and lead to a search for possible export markets in Asia. This measure is consistent with the objectives of our Government to promote technological innovation and reduce the dependency of Canada in the field of science and technology.
So that there can be no confusion about the nature of aspartame, I would like to underline once more that this product is a food additive and not a drug. It is the only low calorie sweetener which can be added to food products and beverages in Canada. It is widely used by diabetics and the weight-conscious. It is important to understand that it is not a drug. Generic product manufacturers can obtain a license at any time to produce and market equivalent products. Consequently, consumers will soon be able to find equivalent products containing aspartame or its equivalents at very good prices.
Let me repeat that this Bill is a special answer to a unique problem. Searle has had to face exceptional circumstances surrounding the initial marketing of its product, and it is normal that Canada now extend its period of protection as it certainly did not benefit from the 17 years of protection its patent should have provided under the 1932 Act.
It is in the interests of this government and of all Canadians, especially Quebecers and LaSalle residents, that fair protection be given to those who put their scientific knowledge at the service of consumers. It is in this spirit that we should give our support to this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! Excellent!


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask this House to continue in this fine spirit of cooperation so that we may give passage to this Bill as quickly as possible as the patent will expire on July 1st.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee by unanimous consent, reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act for the purpose of creating a special deduction for all veterans aged 65 and over, thus recognizing services rendered to the nation in wartime.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer will be debated during 60 minutes beginning now.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the House that this is not a partisan motion. It is nothing more than a tangible reward we should give to all those who fought during at least four years to defend the freedom we all enjoy today.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to read the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act for the purpose of creating a special deduction for all veterans aged 65 and over, thus recognizing services rendered to the nation in wartime.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear from the outset that I did not specify any amount in this motion. This is precisely why it reads: "That the Government should consider the advisability". I am sure it will examine the motion and that some of my colleagues will comment on this.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that during the last two world wars more than 1,300,000 people joined the armed forces and fought overseas for the freedom of people which was threatened.
I would also like to say that, out of these 1,300,000 plus, 650,000 are still among us, both men and women, of course. The number of veterans decreases by 25,000 each year and, by the year 2025 or thereabouts, perhaps 1,000 at most will still be living.
The average age of World War I veterans is 89, that of World War II veterans is 66, and that of Korean War veterans is 57, or an over-all average age of about 66.
Income Tax Act
Mr. Speaker, after joining the armed forces these people experienced difficult years, years of horror, years of distress, but they were always motivated by the courageous decision to leave their families to go and fight in foreign lands to defend freedom.
There is no doubt that this motion would contribute to reduce some of the taxes they have to pay. They are all pensioners, as I said earlier, and we know that the average income of pensioners, that is those who have retired, is about $12,533 a year. So we can say that the only income of most veterans is roughly the same as the national average income of all pensioners.
We must also remember that some of those veterans were prisoners of war, of course, and as such they receive an allowance, a kind of pension. And then there are others who were wounded, others who were handicapped when they came back and who receive a pension for their injuries and their disability.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is above all to compensate, on an individual basis, all veterans aged 65 who served the cause of freedom. Over the years we have always admired and congratulated our veterans on Remembrance Day, we have built monuments, we have given them recognition, as a group, for their valour, courage and bravery in the wars, as people who gave this country the freedom we enjoy today. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have been particularly attentive to those who fought for so many years, who suffered so that today's generation could have that freedom we cherish.
We can say that little or nothing has been done on an individual basis, and that is why I have just announced that I would like to see some tangible compensation for those who fought during the terrible war years, who willingly gave up the best years of their lives, their youth, to go and fight so that this generation and future generations would have the freedom we all enjoy today.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure we could have a long discussion on the amount of this special deduction. Personally, I would suggest a deduction of $400 per veteran. In most cases, a $400 deduction would result in a fairly substantial income tax deduction, in other words, they would be paying $184 or $200 or $400 or $500 less in income tax. I believe that this would totally cancel the amount they would have to pay in taxes since, as you know, Mr. Speaker, when you have $1,000 or $2,000 in taxable income, you have to pay $100 or more in taxes. We also know that this is more symbolic than anything else as these people still want to feel useful in society. They want to give some meaning to their life because they have done something tangible for Canada. I do not think that future generations will be willing to sacrifice their lives as did Canadians between 1914 and 1917 and between 1939 and 1945.


Income Tax Act
There are also military decorations, and I am thinking mostly about the Distinguished Service Order, or DSO, to which is attached a small monetary award of 10 pounds sterling, or about $40, which is not very much. However, for those who have been given this decoration, this monetary award is a matter of pride in what they have done. It represents much more than the money as it confirms that they have served their country, Canada. Churchill said: "Never have so many owed so much to so few." I believe that Sir Winston Churchill said those words after the battle of London, and I think that such deeds should be emphasized in our history books so that this generation and the ones to come will understand that there were great acts of bravery and courage during the Second World War.
Mr. Speaker, you have to know some of the veterans to realize that most of them live at about the poverty line. I am not speaking about those who receive pensions, and even in their cases, pensions and allowances do not mean much, since, especially in the case of allowances, every Canadian becomes eligible for the income supplement at the age of 65. As veterans' allowances are given as supplements, those who receive them simply change over to the system provided for all Canadians at the age of 65.
This morning, we had the privilege of welcoming the Association of Former Prisoners of War. We heard some of the stories these people had to tell, Mr. Speaker, and it is enough to make your hair stand on end. It is impossible to imagine that men and women can have suffered so long during the war and not receive anything in return except our sympathy. As for me, I believe that those who came back, who were not wounded, who were not prisoners of war, who were able to rebuild their life, perhaps a very ordinary life, should receive something tangible in return. Some may say: this is impossible because of the high costs involved. Mr. Speaker, if those people had not been where duty had them at the time, I think it would have taken our country much more than just money to give those veterans a new sense of hope, a new sense of pride in belonging to this country for which they fought, for which they defended the freedom enjoyed by all those who lived in Canada at the time. People can obviously take pride in mentioning in their income tax return that they are veterans, and once again, we have to understand them, understand that they are proud to have served in the wars, and that they genuinely deserve a reward.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of our time.
I believe my motion is quite straightforward. It is not cast in concrete. There is room for improvements, and maybe we will be pleasantly surprised tonight to learn that consideration has been given to veterans in the tax reform, though I do not know anything about that, but I believe that it is of the utmost importance that this generation show consideration for the generation of those who suffered for us.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that veterans have always been considered as a group. Of course, some minor efforts are
presently being rewarded on an individual basis a specific segment of those veterans, and I am referring the VIP program, or Veterans Independence Program through which veterans who were wounded or live on some pension, instead of being isolated in hospitals, clinics, or foster homes, are indeed able to stay at home, to stay within thier communities, to say where they spent all their lives, where they have been happy. I therefore submit that this program should be extended to other categories of veterans. It is an encouraging sign, but once again, I think we should read, and maybe all Hon. Members should do so, the terrifying and totally amazing stories of what those veterans went through during the First and Second World Wars.
I recently had the opportunity to visit France with a few of my colleagues. We were entertained in Reims and in Chalons-sur-Marne, and in a number of other places in France, in the south, in Avignon, in Nice and I can assure you that we always got a very warm welcome from those who entertained us, but all their speeches were along the same line, they would thank us for the huge services we rendered to the Allies as well as to the French families during the two World Wars.
Mr. Speaker, when you see those valleys, those fields of poppies, you are constantly reminded of all the war movies. That is why we have to give a kind of new faith to those who fought and, naturally, honour them. The Department of Veteran Affairs wants to honour their memory by building monuments. During the centennial year of our national parks, in 1985, the Department erected about 12 monuments in parks. Nice things can be engraved on steles, reminding us of those who gave their lives, who are buried on various continents or in the seven seas. But for the survivors, there is only bitter memory of lost years, lost income and of the one thing they won like everybody, freedom. It is up to us to add something to that and I think that what I propose in the motion is worth considering, if not in total, at least in part.
I have always had a lot of respect for veterans. I saw one yesterday who spent 14 years in the Royal Canadian Air Force. He had to get out because of various personal problems, but after 14 years, Mr. Speaker, he has no pension, nothing. In 1938, he was making $33 a month, he fought throughout the war, but he got no pension, no veteran's allowance after the war because he did not have 20 years of service. He was in the regular forces and now he must rely on social welfare. He is frustrated as are many others, not because he fought to give us a future, but he is frustrated when he realizes that Canada is not very grateful for what they did.
Mr. Speaker, I know that much has been done for veterans. However, I think that the tremendous service they rendered Canadians will always exceed all services which could be made available to them at any cost. I hope the House will pass this motion which obviously is not binding on the Government since it asks the government to consider the advisability to do something in accordance with the substance of the motion.


Moreover, on behalf of the veterans, it would be quite difficult I think for the Hon. Members to do otherwise. And I am sure that perhaps some of our friends ... I see the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) wriggling in his seat. No doubt he would like to rise. I hope that he will not try to bury us under heaps of figures because the purpose of this Bill is not to resolve an equation, but merely to try to reward those people who rendered services to all of us as a community and whom we still cherish.
I hope that there will be no more war, but for those who were eyewitnesses of those disastrous wars which have become necessary to defeat the enemy and regain our freedom ... I would like us to find a small tangible way, Mr. Speaker, to improve the lot of those who are 65 years of age and over, since most of them live near the threshold of poverty.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder why the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) should be afraid of mathematics or a series of figures when he knows that an engineer will respond on behalf of the Minister of Finance. He should not be afraid, and I believe that our Government has shown that we have as much compassion as rational sense, with both feet on the ground.

I would like to take this opportunity, as did the Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), to pay due homage to the veterans of Canada in general and to the wonderful riding of LaSalle in particular. I have an opportunity today to air the problems of these veterans. When I go to Legion 212 these veterans, most of whom are now aged, tell all sorts of horror stories to which the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer just referred.
The Ladies Auxiliary of Legion 212 maintains the morale of the active members and of the members who are hospitalized in Sainte-Anne de Bellevue Hospital by greeting them a few times a year so that they are not forgotten. La devise of Quebec is Je me souviens and it is translated at the Legion as "Lest we forget". Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to the members of all Legions of Canada and, in particular, those in the riding of LaSalle.
[ Translation]
And speaking of horror stories, Mr. Speaker, we are too young to have been directly involved in World War II, but we did have, if I may put it this way, the opportunity to take part in the Korean War or in other wars, in other peacekeeping missions undertaken by Canada throughout the world. I must recall the pathetic death of a member of my community, more specifically, when I was young, Private Jacques Lefebvre who fell in Normandy and whom I had gotten to know very well on my home street. This was a young man who went to war, who saw action and did not come back. Parents had to live with this kind of situation for many years, and I want to pay tribute to
Income Tax Act
all those soldiers who fell on the battleground, who were killed in action, but particularly to the one I knew, Private Jacques Lefebvre whom I still remember as representing the sacrifice many Canadians had to make, namely sending healthy sons away so they would maintain peace in the world.
Still, notwithstanding the compassion we must show for our veterans, we have to keep both feet on the ground and deal with this tax problem with appropriate objectivity.
Mr. Speaker, the motion urges the Government to consider the advisability to amend the Income Tax Act for the purpose of creating a special deduction for veterans, thus recognizing services rendered to the nation in wartime.
First, it is important to emphasize that the income tax due by an individual is based on that individual's ability to pay. In that sense, the tax legislation must be general and uniform. This means the past or present occupation of a taxpayer has no impact on the amount of tax he or she has to pay. In that light, it does not seem appropriate to grant individuals a general exemption in recognition of past services. This is a matter of general policy.
Many groups in our Canadian society are in need and would certainly deserve our help. Some assistance already has been given to retirees, by increasing and indexing the Old Age Security pension, and also the guaranteed income supplement, as well as to war veterans directly and their families by increasing the veterans' allowance and the veterans' disability pension. The numerous amendments made these last few years to the tax legislation substantially increased available income, and thereby the purchasing power of small- and medium-income people.
The Canadian Government is aware of the debt Canadians as a whole owe our war veterans and it is attempting to help them within its resources. A number of federal acts already provide for the payment of pensions, allowances and various benefits to war veterans. This includes the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans' Allowance Act and the Pensions Act. Benefits paid to war veterans under those acts are not included in income, which means they are tax exempt. That approach has the merit of recognizing the special contribution of War Veterans to the protection of our country, our heritage and world peace in general.
On the other hand, where a war veteran has other sources of income such as employment, business, investments, etc., it seems reasonable that he pay the same amount of tax as other Canadians with similar income and circumstances.
The tax reform initiated by this Government, the outline of which will be made public in a few minutes, will reduce the tax burden of low income families, and thereby of many veterans who are in that particular situation.
To sum up, the Income Tax Act already grants preferred treatment to war veterans, and in view of the measures the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will be announcing later


Income Tax Act
tonight, establishing an extra income tax deduction for war veterans may not appear needed or even appropriate.
Such a deduction that needless to say would reduce employment, business or investment income would favour war veterans to the detriment of other Canadian taxpayers who might be just as deserving.
Nonetheless, it is not to be ruled out that the Government might increase its help to War Veterans. Simply, it does not seem appropriate that such additional help be provided through the tax legislation. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is best able to identify and dispense help to war veterans in need. That role should not be relinquished to the Minister of National Revenue.
Mr. Speaker, this measure is quite in keeping with this Government's leitmotiv, which is to help the people most in need, which means unfortunately that we have to mitigate the benefits extended to those who are less in need.
What the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) is proposing would afford an advantage to people with high incomes and little advantage, if any, to people with no income. This is in total conflict with any social measure one can imagine. We believe that those in need, including veterans, are not getting enough compared to what they have contributed.
However, we must realize that we will certainly not give more to those who are most in need by collecting less revenue from those who are able to pay.
So, given all these considerations and with due regard and compassion, of course, for these brave fighting men and those who sustained their action away from the front lines, we believe that this motion should not be encouraged by our Government since it is almost anti-social and would certainly not help those who need it most.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) for giving the House an opportunity to discuss matters affecting Canada's veterans. All too often the House does not have an opportunity to discuss policy matters as they affect those individuals who, at great personal sacrifice, fought for Canada and world freedom, especially in the last two major wars.
I have been associated with the Hon. Member for Hull- Aylmer for quite a number of years through our joint activity on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I know he brings a great deal of knowledge and experience to this debate. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Hon. Member and for the effort, energy, and enthusiasm which he puts into those matters affecting Canadian veterans.
As I understand it, the intent of the motion of the Hon. Member is to provide a benefit through the Income Tax Act to
those Canadians who served in Canada's Armed Forces in time of war. As I understand it, this benefit would be in the form of a tax credit and would be designed to give recognition to those Canadians for the sacrifice they made on Canada's behalf during wartime.
As will undoubtedly be pointed out in the course of this debate, those veterans who were wounded during the war, suffered through illness as a result of wartime experience, or were prisoners of war, will have benefits available to them under various programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I understand that this motion would provide a degree of recognition to those Canadians who were not prisoners of war and do not receive any other additional benefits under the various programs provided by the existing veterans legislation. The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer is attempting to tell those veterans that while fortunately they are ineligible to become a recipient as a result of a war injury, illness or of being a prisoner of war, the federal Government and indeed Parliament wants to extend an extra recognition to them for the service they gave to the country during periods of armed conflict. In that sense, I think it behoves all of us to give full consideration to the sentiments being advanced by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer.
The Hon. Member, like myself, is not a tax accountant by any means. We are simply Members of the House who want to recognize the value that a number of Canadians have given to this country over the years. We are interested in the sentiment and recognition expressed in the motion.
The motion also gives us an opportunity to examine how we are treating a number of others in our veteran population. There is some urgency to the Hon. Member's motion that we give some additional recognition when we consider that Canada's veteran population is declining at a rate of some 25,000 a year.
I am sure the Hon. Member who moved the motion does not want to leave the impression that nothing is being done because I have heard him say on many occasions that all of us appreciate the efforts of the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) to the pressing problems facing our veterans. In fact, I have said in the House that since I came here in 1980 I do not know of any other Minister of Veterans Affairs who has moved so quickly in such a short period of time to resolve many of the outstanding problems facing veterans, even going back to the 1914-18 war.
I could not believe it when one of the first pieces of legislation the Minister of Veterans Affairs introduced in the House corrected a grievance that had existed since the 1914-18 war. Numerous delegations from the Canadian Legion appeared before the Veterans Affairs Committee over the years to seek correction of that injustice. The Minister took that action. I do


not know why previous Ministers of Veterans Affairs had such difficulty in resolving many of these simple problems.
While I support the intention of the motion and praise the work done by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, it does not mean that there are not other matters that must be addressed soon on behalf of veterans.
One matter which I want to raise specifically concerns an issue that defies logic. It is a policy dealing with Canadians who served overseas during the war and, at the termination of the war, elected to remain in the country in which they served rather than return to Canada. According to the legislation, before these veterans can become eligible for the War Veterans Allowance, they are required to reside in Canada for a 12-month period. These are people who made a great sacrifice to themselves and their families and volunteered to fight not only for Canada but on behalf of free people everywhere in the world. While serving in those countries they may have met their spouse, married in the country in which they served and raised families. Many of them now are at an age when they are infirm and need some extra financial assistance in order to lead as normal a life as possible.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has indicated that it is willing to give these people assistance but, before doing so, they must uproot themselves from their family and return to Canada for 12 months to receive the benefits under the various pieces of legislation for veterans. I, nor those veterans, understand the logic behind that policy. I know that the Minister is quite sympathetic to the problem facing these veterans. I believe it is time for action, but I also understand and appreciate that it involves a cost to the treasury.
I have proposed a suggestion to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Canada is very generous to allied forces who are not Canadians but come to Canada and reside here for 10 years. After that 10-year period they become eligible for benefits under our veterans' legislation, quite properly so. I have suggested to the Minister that perhaps negotiations should take place with the United Kingdom and other European countries on the basis that we treat their veterans very generously in Canada and perhaps a reciprocal agreement with those Governments could be arranged to ensure that Canadian veterans living in those countries are treated as well as veterans who decide to live in Canada.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important matter. It deserves all the support that the motion calls for.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate because the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) is entirely in keeping with the approach this Government has taken with respect to veterans.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) will probably go down as the most popular and effective Minister of Veterans Affairs that this country has ever seen. It has been a
Income Tax Act
great pleasure and honour for me to have served as his parliamentary secretary.
When I visit Legions and Army and Navy units across the country, representing the Minister at Veterans Affairs functions, I hear nothing but the highest praise and respect for the Minister, particularly for the advanced legislation that he has brought forward over the last couple of years.
I am a life member of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans. In my Legion in Winnipeg, every time I visit, I am asked about my Minister. It is the same in the Charleswood Legion in my riding. They often comment on the Minister's advanced legislation.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs made two very important announcements when he took office. The first announcement was that veterans were very special Canadians and that they would be treated as such by the Department of Veterans Affairs and by the Government of Canada. Following this was a second announcement that the overriding policy at the Department of Veterans Affairs would be summarized in three words: courtesy, generosity and speed. Those statements were strongly endorsed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and, indeed, by the entire Government. Since that time, I am confident all Hon. Members would agree, the Government has honoured the commitments given by the Minister of Veterans Affairs in September 1984.
It might appear easy today to say this is no big accomplishment. However, that was certainly not the case when we took office. Those of us who were here in the last Parliament can recall only too well how dreadful things had become at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, constituents' complaints about Veterans Affairs ran second only to complaints about the Post Office. That is how badly the Department had slipped. In fact, matters were sufficiently serious to cause the previous Government to establish an independent committee of inquiry to try to sort it all out. The new Government scrapped that committee, rolled up its sleeves and went to work on behalf of Canada's veterans. The result in a very short time of less than three years has been dramatic.
Unquestionably, the number one complaint across Canada was delays in the pension process. Some veterans were waiting up to five years just to get a final ruling on their claims, and their chances of getting a favourable decision were not good at all. Thanks to this Government, delays in the pension process have been slashed by at least half and, in some cases, by over three-quarters. No one wants to hear the statistics anymore because there is no news in good news, yet our accomplishment is not only incredible but a source of real and genuine pride for all associated with it.
I use the word "incredible" and I know it is a very overworked word. Nonetheless, the slashing we have done with pension processing times has been achieved in the face of an


Income Tax Act
almost two-fold increase in caseload. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, cutting turnaround times by well over half while almost doubling one's workload. At the same time veterans' claims are receiving far more thoughtful and considerate attention than was the case previously. Favourable decisions are running at over 50 per cent at first application, 60 per cent at first appeal and over 40 per cent at final appeal. This is the kind of generosity veterans have every reason to expect.
We also came to power with initiatives in mind and our legislative proposals have turned these initiatives into law. Widows of veterans no longer see the married rate of pension reduced within a month of the pensioner's death. Bill C-28 passed in early 1985, continued the married rate for a full year, thus giving the surviving spouse a chance to recover from his or her bereavement. The same principle was extended to exceptional incapacity and attendance allowance payments. Bill C-28 also settled once and for all the very legitimate complaint that veterans and veterans' organizations have raised with regard to the basic rate of pension.
It was always intended that the basic rate of pension, which is the rate payable to single pensioners whose disability assessment is 100 per cent, should be equal to the average take-home pay of four categories of public servants. Unfortunately, no mechanism was ever put in place to make sure the basic rate stayed in line with what these categories of public servants were receiving. The result was an endless circle of veterans falling behind, Parliament voting to raise the basic rate, veterans falling behind again, and on it went. We put an end to that by pegging the basic rate to the average wage I just mentioned while, at the same time, keeping veterans' pensions fully indexed. Veterans can now rest totally assured that the basic rate of pension will never again fall behind.
Action was also taken to remove a very discriminatory practice insofar as former prisoners of war were concerned. What was happening is that former prisoners of war were being denied any POW benefits if their disability pension was paid at the 100 per cent rate. Similarly, POW benefits were reduced if the payment of the full benefit, combined with the veteran's pension, would bring the total over the 100 per cent ceiling. This section of the Act caused hundreds of veterans to lose all or part of their compensation and it hurt the most severely disabled veterans the most. In fact, it was the Hong Kong POWs who were most affected by this unjust and inequitable measure.
Bill C-100, passed in March 1986, put an end to this discrimination. The legislation said plainly and simply that former POWs would receive all the compensation they were entitled to regardless of how much pension they were receiving. That legislation also acknowledged the fact that the Dieppe POWs were being unfairly compensated under the Act. Their compensation was increased from the equivalent from a 20 per cent pension to a 25 per cent pension.
This Government has always been active on the nonlegislative side to assist veterans and their dependents. Eligibility for the Veterans Independence Program has been expanded four times since September 1984 and significant
improvements have been made in the quality and extent of health and medical benefits.
We have also raised the casual earnings and interest income exemptions for war veterans allowance recipients, to say nothing of the almost twofold increase in the amount of education assistance provided under the Children of the War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. More recently the Minister announced that an 11 year injustice done to Canadian veterans held prisoners in North Africa during the Second World War had come to an end. These veterans will be receiving prisoner of war compensation and it will be paid retroactive to 1976, the year they should have started receiving this benefit.
This Government has further initiatives in mind and announcements will be made in the coming months in that regard. Our record to date is one in which I take personal pride because no one fought harder than I did in the last Parliament on behalf of Canada's veterans. We as a country owe veterans a tremendous debt and they richly deserve the very best we can provide. Our Prime Minister and our Government very sincerely believe that, and we have proven our sincerity in word and deed for the past two and a half years.
The Hon. Member's motion has been drafted in exactly the same spirit and I commend him for it. For my part, I would be very glad to see the Hon. Member's suggestion given every consideration by the Minister of Finance, who has himself demonstrated a long standing interest and concern in Veterans Affairs.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) is giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the riding of Levis who have fought in the last wars. Many of them never came back from overseas. Therefore, I want to pay tribute to them as well as to their families and to those who are still living. Each year in November, I meet a number of them. I am pleased today to mention the dean of those former defenders of our country, Mr. Levis Brochu, a citizen still very active in our riding and who took part in the First World War of 1914-18. He told me personally what life was like in the trenches at that time. Therefore, I pay tribute to Mr. Brochu who on every occasion and at every celebration of Remembrance Day manages to come and see me in order to explain what happened during the years 1914 to 1918 and during the subsequent wars.
The purpose of the proposal of the Hon. Member for Hull- Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) is to give to former servicemen and veterans a unique status in terms of our tax system. That suggestion, I think, could have been made between the years 1965 and 1984, when the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer was a member of the Government in office, except for a short period in 1979.
The Hon. Member was also Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). He was also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) where he was in a privileged


position to encourage that course of action for veterans. Therefore, in that sense, may be the proposal comes too late. In another sense, I think that it may be less appropriate today because this Government, in particular this Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), will announce to Canadians new proposals for a major tax reform, the most extensive one since 1971 and maybe since 1917, when the general tax legislation was passed.
Mr. Speaker, maybe this is why one should wonder whether it is advisable to act immediately on the proposal of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer. I reflect on the meaning of his proposal considering the two aspects of the Government's role. The first duty of a Government is to collect taxes to finance state expenditures in terms of goods and services. At present, that financing costs $116 billion to Canadians. From that amount, this Government allocates $57 billion to the protection of disadvantaged people and to bring their standard of living more in line with that of Canadians in general. Fifty-seven billion dollars in our budget are already allocated to the underprivileged, and the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer would recommend that the money allocated to those people be increased through tax expenses. You have to have money to be able to redistribute it to Canadians, and tax expenditures are a loss of revenues for our Government, they already amount to $35 billion a year. So, I do not feel it is appropriate to increase those tax expenditures by such an amount, to increase them by $35 billion.
There is also the fact that the tax system applies to all Canadians and must be fair. Most of the benefits paid to veterans are tax free. This is already a tax assistance which is given to them and which nevertheless protects the integrity of the tax system. It is directly related to payments made in consideration of military service.
Moreover, veterans benefit from other programs and tax breaks like the old age deduction, that is $2,640 in 1987 for those 65 years old and over. There is also the deduction for disabled people, that is $2,890 in 1987, which is now available to a larger number of taxpayers, a deduction for medical costs including the cost of a nursing home insofar as the costs exceed 3 per cent of the net income.
Finally, the pension income deduction: a maximum of $1,000 on payments received from private retirement funds.
Deductions in the calculation of taxable income benefit high income taxpayers, which might not be the purpose of the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer, while they put low income taxpayers at a disadvantage. The tax reform we will announce officially tonight at eight o'clock proposes to change those deductions into tax credits. Any increase in a deduction aimed at lowering taxable income, Mr. Speaker, favours Canadian men and women in the higher tax brackets. Any tax credit that is granted favour Canadian men and women who pay little in taxes. That is why our tax reform
Income Tax Act
will recommend tax credits. The most destitute veterans, whom we take for granted the motion seeks to help, will effectively benefit from measures that will be put forward tonight at eight o'clock.
The adoption of a special deduction for veterans would make our tax legislation even more complex than it is and you know our Government is trying in every way it can to demystify and simplify the whole legislative process in effect in Canada, including the tax legislation process.
So the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer's motion would make the tax legislation even more complex than it is, since it would require that several provisions be drafted to single out eligible taxpayers.
Finally, if such a deduction were to be granted to veterans without regard to their needs and their ability to pay, the government would probably be flooded with claims from groups as much entitled to a similar deduction as the veterans. That would result in a significant erosion of the tax base and a weakened personal income tax system.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, such a reduction of our revenues is altogether contrary to our need to balance the expenditures and revenues of this country. We have been trying to achieve such a balance since 1984. When we came to power, the annual deficit amounted to $38 billion and, according to the technocrats of the day and depending on the way government's planned legislation was being interpreted, it was estimated then that the deficit would reach $40 billion, or $45 billion or even $50 billion a year. Since we came to power and as we want to balance revenues with expenditures, we decided to reduce the deficit year after year and we must keep that objective in mind while addressing the proposal of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer. Moreover, given the fiscal reform to be announced tonight, I suggest the motion is premature.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) for the superb job that he has been doing. The 11 Legions in my riding of Timiskaming certainly respect the job that he has done for them.
I would like to review some of the comments made in regard to further tax treatment for veterans. A couple of the areas which we would like to look at include the disability deduction of over $2,890 which is now available to a large segment of the population. Along with that deduction in respect of medical expenses, nursing care-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42( 1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give the House notice that, at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the order of the day for resuming debate on Motion No. 5, standing in my name, regarding capital punishment, and on the amendment proposed thereto, I shall be moving a motion that the debate shall not be further adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 57.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the Day.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee and the amendment of Mr. Marchi, (p. 7338).
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed Private Members' Hour. It is always a bit disconcerting to have one's presentation interrupted. I understand I had three or four minutes left on my allocated time.
The first point I made is that the current law needs changing. To my mind, the better course at this stage is to have Bill C-55 referred to committee. Once we have the opportunity to hear the testimony of the experts in this area, we can then amend the Bill such that it will achieve what Canadians and Members of this House would like to see it achieve. Before concluding, I should like to leave Hon. Members with a sense of the major issues to which the legislative committee should direct its attention.
The Minister has said that the Bill is not cast in stone. He has said, clearly and consistently, that the refugee board member who conducts the oral hearing at the first stage shall have discretion as to whether or not the case should proceed to a later stage. That is an important principle. If the Bill is not clear in that respect, if the testimony before the committee indicates that amendments are required to make that clear, then I would urge that those changes be made.
There is a lot of concern about the issue of appeal, of review. The words vary from place to place. What is really involved is that in any situation where the object is to protect life, there must be a way of correcting an error. Whether that ability exists in the legislation by virtue of the humanitarian and compassionate grounds allowed the Minister or whether there needs to be wording changes is a point for discussion. In any event, we must not bring the Bill back before the House
without there being some principle in it which will allow for the correcting of an error.
It is inconceivable that the two-person panels across the country would be capable of adjudicating these matters day in and day out, year in and year out without error. There will be mistakes made, and we must have a mechanism to correct such errors.
I would urge Cabinet to be a little less sanguine about the responsibility of naming safe third countries. The Cabinet has a complex task, a complex job. In terms of international relations, it is not unknown to have linkages. Cabinet must deal with trade concerns, concerns about peace and war, concerns related to alliances.
In naming safe third countries, we are dealing with human rights issues. I suggest to the House that we examine the idea that the expert body, the board itself, might propose to Cabinet safe situations, thus giving the elected representatives of this country the final say. I suggest that that might be a better body to propose safe third country situations than that which has previously being considered.
The fourth item relates to the whole issue of abusers. I have read and reread the legislation, and I am still not certain how this whole process begins. Under the current law, an individual claiming to be a refugee is referred to an inquiry. The inquiry is adjourned and another hearing takes place, with evidence taken under oath, and it then moves on to later stages.
Under Bill C-55, the process may start at the same beginning point, where a claim is made and an inquiry starts, and it then has to be adjourned, with a refugee board person then being brought in. That process may result in a backlog. It is that administrative process that may cause a backlog. It may be the mechanism that might benefit abusers. I would urge the committee, and those preparing to testify before the committee, to take a close look at that process.
If what I fear is correct, the solution may be to split the situation so that the refugee hearing is separate from the Immigration Board inquiry. That may be administratively sounder; it may be fairer to the refugees; and it may be cheaper from the taxpayers' point of view. It simply may work best.
People talk about visitor visas. That is the screen that keeps refugee claimants out of this country. It is a broad and brutal brush. I have seen it in operation.
Bill C-55, with careful scrutiny and necessary arrangements, will produce a situation which, I am convinced, will be fairer to bona fide refugees than any system that exists in any country in the world. But, it needs to go to committee. We need the expert testimony and the wisdom of those who work so hard in this area to enable us to understand the complexities of this issue. We cannot achieve that in the House. The Bill must be referred to committee. I would hope that the Liberal Party might reconsider its position and in fact help us get the Bill


before the committee, where we can do the job that needs doing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), to be followed by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to what the former chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration has had to say, and I am heartened by the movement that he has displayed over the course of his 20 minute speech on the motion for the second reading of this Bill. He has articulated, I think very genuinely, some of his concerns with respect to the Bill, and the fact that he, together with the opposition Parties, would like to see some very significant amendments in order to make the Bill supportable.
I am unsure as to what he meant in the last portion of his remarks when he said that it was his wish that the Liberal Party allow the Bill to go to committee. I do not think the Liberal Party has the liberty of stopping it from going to committee. We will certainly be there and we will be moving amendments and calling witnesses. We are certainly going to play an active part in committee consideration of the Bill.
I heard the Hon. Member speak of his concerns about the safe third country concept, as well as the appeal process. I may have missed the portion of his remarks wherein he discussed the prescreening stage. I am wondering what his views on that are. The Minister seems to suggest that it is not a prescreening. The constituency, on the other hand, feels very strongly that this does is in fact undermine the effectiveness of the refugee board in doing the work that we all want it to do.
I am curious as to how he views the role of the two officers at the border point and whether he favours a removal of that provision, or whether he favours a provision which would call for both Members to be from the refugee board as opposed to one being from the immigration team.
I am wondering whether he would care to share with the House his views on that very fundamental and important first step, a step that could be the last step for many refugees, if those provisions are allowed to stand.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Let me say at the outset that the motion which the Hon. Member moved, if passed by the House, would halt progress of the Bill through the House. It would never be considered. That is why I urge the Liberal Party to rethink its position on it.
The more important issue which the Hon. Member raises is the matter of the first stage hearing. The advantage that this legislation provides is the fact that we would have, for the first time, an expert body, a group of people whose sole concern would be refugees, a group of people who are knowledgeable about country-specific conditions, handling these matters. If that board has discretion, then, in my view, there is universal
Immigration Act, 1976
access to an oral hearing in stage one. If that board is not to have discretion, then it amounts to a screen.
There are lawyers who tell us, very clearly, that the way the fine print now reads, it is a screen. The Minister has said many times in the House that that discretion is there for the board person. But if it is the expert person who is deciding and the decision is that there is not the slightest bit of evidence that the claimant needs the protection of Canada, then that is an absolute decision; or the decision could be that there is some doubt as to the matter, in which event it proceeds to stage two.
I believe that a properly functioning board person, with that kind of expertise and that kind of discretion, would always err on the side of sending the matter forward for a more complete examination, thus providing more time for the claimant to produce the necessary evidence to substantiate the claim for refugee status.
It is at that stage when the board itself hears the case and says that there is not the slightest scintilla of possibility that the person needs the protection of Canada. If that is what they are doing, then I say that it is universal access and it is a hearing. A fuller hearing can take place at stage two if there is any possibility that a person may need the protection of Canada.
I think that would work. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the discretion lies at the heart of it.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have three questions. I will try to list them quickly and ask the Hon. Member to respond.
I am certainly interested in his expression of concern or sympathy with some of the objections raised with people in the public who have expertise about the Bill.
My main question is: when this goes to committee, does the Member envisage that the committee and the majority members on the committee, namely members of his caucus, will be willing to allow the time to go into the amendments which have been suggested by the public thoroughly and to deal with them fairly, or will they just say. "Well, a couple of meetings, then back to report"? That sort of thing has happened not on all Bills, but on some Bills.
Second, when he says that Cabinet should be less sanguine about naming third countries and perhaps give the first round to the refugee board, would he go so far as to advocate amending the law so as to include in it the criteria of the safe third country?
For example, must a safe third country be one which guarantees not to refoule the person to the country from which he says he is fleeing, or is a safe third country that will give the person a refugee hearing which meets Canadian standards, with of course the guarantee not to refoule if he is found to be a refugee? What other criteria, less than that or more than that, would the Member consider for the safe third country? Would he be willing to write those into the law?


Immigration Act, 1976
My third question is on abusers. Would the Member be willing to see the process begin without the presumption of guilt, that is, without the inquiry first to stamp the person as either an abuser or a probable abuser with the issuance of a deportation order or a conditional deportation order? Can we start the actual refugee hearing without putting that stigma on the claimant?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with those three questions in the order they were presented.
Recent history tells us clearly that a law which is not legally sound or in accordance with the Charter and all those things is a bad law. The courts will turn it down. We have had that happen to our Immigration Act in recent history. That is the reason which led to a lot of the changes in the Immigration Appeal Board.
I believe that no one in this Chamber wants to put in place a law which will be struck down. To be as sure as we can be that it will not be struck down requires expert testimony from government official and private sector people about the fine print.
I do not think in this particular case, given the complexity, the history, and the problems, that there is any danger of cutting off debate. What 1 do think-and I may differ from the Hon. Member who raised the question; I am not sure-is that we need expert witnesses. I do not think we need witnesses who want to attest the Parliament of Canada about their concerns about refugees. I think that is a given shared by all Members. What we need is expert testimony about the fine print.
Turning to the third country concept, it is possible to entertain some amendments which would bind that. 1 have an immediate reaction that that might not be the wisest course, that what we might want there is simply a test. If we are returning to another country, we want to be sure that they do not need the protection of Canada but that they do indeed have the protection of the country to which they are returning. It may be a test rather than an attempt to bind. Sometimes when we attempt to bind things we leave out some things and later, in retrospect, we wish we had them in there; sometimes we put in things we did not intend. We may not have all the wisdom; it may be that some other kind of legal concept would be helpful.
This is why I suggest that the board itself, in its expert wisdom and using what it does to judge individual cases, might indeed be the best body to judge country cases. That might be the more important thing to put in the law.
When it comes to the issue of inquiry first, refugee hearing first, the inquiry is important to stop abuse, and it should happen quickly; that is my view. The hearing on whether somebody might or might not be a refugee is what I see as a separate thing.
In our committee report in October 1985, we drew the distinction between immigration concerns and human rights
concerns. I want as pure a process as we can see for the human rights concern, not for it to be fouled up with the immigration concern. However, I think we would be inviting trouble if we said that Immigration could not proceed to make the decisions which Immigration must make.
It may be that doing the two in the same hearing is better. I have not heard the testimony pro or con or all the reasons. However, I think it might not be the best way. It is the separation, the clarity on the two sides, which concerns me more, not the time.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, there are two very different aspects to Canada's refugee policy. First, there are refugees we select abroad and, second, there are those who make claims in Canada.
The refugees we select abroad are part of a controlled, predictable movement which allows Canada to select the cream of refugees through relaxed immigration criteria. A minority are convention refugees. I want to emphasize that immigration criteria dominate the selection of refugees abroad.
First, we determine whether the claimant is a convention refugee. Second, we determine whether the applicant is capable of becoming successfully established in Canada. We take into consideration, in so doing, all factors used in assessing independent immigrants.
The needs of the refugee are secondary in a process which is shaped by our domestic immigration needs and our domestic policies. Through immigration we seek to foster internal growth by adding skills which are in demand in Canada. We seek to further social goals such as reuniting families. This is all done within the policy goals of Canada and according to our domestic needs.
When we select refugees abroad, Canada's needs are looked after. However, this does nothing to respond to the needs of the refugee who may have to pick up and go quickly, who has no time to apply, whose life may be in danger by lining up at a Canadian embassy or consulate to apply to come to Canada as a refugee judged by immigration criteria.
Selecting refugees abroad, according to immigration criteria, is no help to those who are jumping away from the fire, as Rabbi Plaut put it several weeks ago when he spoke in Montreal. This is why we have the procedure of allowing claims in Canada.
Under the 1951 UN Convention, Canada has undertaken to protect persons who are physically present in Canada, who claim to be refugees, and who seek asylum here. This flow is much less controllable and does not allow for the selection process which is used when we select refugees abroad.
On February 20, the Government introduced a series of measures designed to prevent refugees from coming to Canada to make their claims. These measures include transit visas, abolishment of the non-deport list and the holding of claimants


at the U.S. border. The Government wants refugees to come to our embassies abroad where we can select them according to our own interests and according to our own immigration criteria.
Bill C-55 which we are debating today for the first time introduces the troubling concept of the safe third country. A claimant who comes to Canada from such a country will have no opportunity to be heard on the merits of his or her claim. As "there are no Tefugee-producing st~ateTbh~b~ur~BorBefs of in close proximity to Canada, it is not hard to figure out that as many as 80 per cent to 90 per cent of refugee claimants will be excluded as a result of this provision.
To understand the significance of the administrative changes of February 20 and of Bill C-55, I would like to say a few words about the UN Convention. That Convention was a milestone in the history of the treatment of refugees because it addressed the rights of individuals and the obligations of states. Given the overwhelming tragedy of World War II with hundreds of thousands of people becoming victims because they had nowhere to go, because no country would accept them, it was felt necessary to provide individuals with the capacity to effect some salvation on their own, to move spontaneously to a safe haven. The Convention was a significant deviation from the principle that a sovereign country had absolute control over who it permits to enter its borders. The Convention of 1951, the Universal Declaration of Eluman Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are parts of what has been described as a revolution in international law. Traditionally international law recognized only states. Since the Convention and the Declaration, individuals are recognized under international law.
Prior to the Convention, the capacity to move to a safe haven did not exist. The victims of the Holocaust had no such capacity. Without the Convention, all a refugee has is what the Government wants him to have. The Government wants refugees to apply to immigrate to Canada or to another country from an embassy within the refugee's own country or perhaps a bordering country. If turned down, the refugee, of course, has the right to suffer.
Through the measures of February 20 and Bill C-55, the Government is saying: "It is our right to choose". This violates the UN Convention because the moment we talk about choice, we introduce elements which have nothing whatsoever to do with individual rights. When one chooses, one does not look at the needs of the person involved. It is domestic policies and politics which prevail.
Keeping Jews out of Canada in the 1930s and the 1940s was very popular domestically. Today, in his opening comments and practically in his very first sentence, the Minister referred to the fact that Bill C-55 is popular in Canada, and so it may be. However, the question I put to the Minister is does that make it right? Is legislation right just because it responds to what many Canadians see as being a problem?
Immigration Act, 1976
Perhaps many Canadians are concerned that there have been too many refugee claimants coming to Canada in recent years. Perhaps they feel that our system is somehow being swamped. Whether they are right or wrong, does that make it right to introduce legislation which responds to public opinion but which may be morally unfounded?
What criteria will be used to choose refugees? Again, Canada chose not to take Jews in the 1940s. This clearly was not based on the needs of the victims. I suggest to the Minister that it is wrong to assume that when he or any Minister chooses, those who are most in need will be chosen or they will be chosen according to fair criteria. That is why it is so important and indeed essential that people have the capacity to present their claims. That is why the convention exists.
We do not need a Convention to tell people to line up abroad. It is essential that people have the capacity to have their cases presented and judged on the basis of Canada's international obligations under the Convention and developed through decisions rendered over the past 35 years. That is why the thrust of the recommendations made by Rabbi Plaut, nongovernmental organizations, church groups, human rights organizations and the standing committee is that the claimant should be given the opportunity to be heard by an independent tribunal which would inquire into the substance or merits of the claim for protection. Bill C-55 violates that basic principle because it establishes procedures under which claimants have no opportunity to be heard if they come from a safe third country.
If a claimant comes from a country which is on a predetermined list, established by Cabinet, a list which may have nothing whatsoever to do with personal circumstances, he is out. He is sent back home. The Minister cannot say that no genuine refugee will be returned when he has not established a procedure that will inquire into whether a person is indeed a refugee or not.
In the procedure proposed by the Government, there will be no opportunity for a claimant to present a case if he comes from a country which is on the list of safe third countries. There will be no opportunity to refute the assumption that the country the Government proposes to return him to is indeed safe. The inquiry will be limited to determining from where the person had come. There will be no discretion on the part of the two people who will preside at the initial hearing. The undeniable effect is that we will return people who need protection. It is false for the Minister to say that no genuine refugee will be returned to a country where he or she may face persecution because the procedure he proposes provides no opportunity for the refugee to make his or her claim.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) said that we should study this in committee and hear what the experts have to say about it. I would ask him if he has even read the legislation. I believe any first-year law student could tell him that no discretion is given to those who will preside at the initial hearing. Every lawyer to whom I have spoken who has read this Bill feels that there is no discretion in it. How can


Immigration Act, 1976
the Government now tell us that a refugee will in all cases be given the benefit of the doubt? How can the Minister say as he had said umpteen times, and that is what is so infuriating about his attitude, that even when there is a shred of evidence supporting the claim, the claimant will be entitled to a hearing? That is a lot of garbage. It is just not so.
The Government suggests that the opponents of this Bill are advocating an open-door policy, a policy of taking in millions of refugees. One would think that hundreds of thousands of people were standing in the pipeline, as Rabbi Plaut put it several weeks ago. You would think that 155,000 Tamils had come to Canada last August. Last year we had 18,000 claimants, no more than would fill an average size hockey arena.
The NGOs, the churches, human rights organizations, lawyers who work with refugees, Rabbi Plaut, and the standing committee all called for a process which would discourage abuse by dealing with claims quickly. There is abuse today because the process is cumbersome. Anyone who comes here today is assured of two to five years of procedure and appeals. A person can get married and appeal to the Minister on compassionate grounds. There is an incentive to abuse the system. However, if the process turns these people around in three months there will be no incentive to abuse. That is the way to deal with abusers, not by imposing an arbitrary screening procedure such as is proposed in this legislation.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the real question is how many can Canada accept? What evidence is there that the Canadian society cannot absorb any more refugees or immigrants? Have we reached our saturation point? All signs point to the contrary.
May I remind you of what Canada did five or six years ago to help refugees from Indochina. At the time, the Government had appealed to the generosity of Canadians who then organized refugee sponsoring groups in various parts of the country. We opened our military bases and we chartered planes to bring in refugees from Indochina. Since 1979, we have received over 100,000 such refugees, including over 60,000 in 1979 and 1980 alone. Seven or eight years later, all these people are contributing something to our country.
In fact, since the war, Canada has received over 500,000 refugees. But can anyone claim sincerely that Canada is doing more than its share compared with other countries, especially those which have common borders with the refugee producing countries? I should like to quote a few figures, Mr. Speaker. Today, Pakistan has some 2.7 million refugees from Afghanistan within its borders; Sudan, 1.2 million; Somalia, 700,000; Hong Kong, 200,000; Thailand has welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Today, there are still some 250,000 refugees in camps situated along the Cambodian border. Mexico has some 175,000 refugees; France, 174,000; West Germany, 134,000; England,
135,000. Who, then, can say that Canada has done more than its share?
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that Canada is the second largest country in the world. We have a very small population, compared to most other countries. Our natural resources are unbelievable. Which country will maintain a generous attitude toward refugees if not Canada? Canada should play a leading role in the protection of refugees. And it is not with the type of a bill introduced by this Tory Government that Canada will assume its responsibilities.

Therefore, in conclusion, I wish to indicate that 1 support the amendment proposed by my colleague from York West for a six-month hoist. I do not agree with the Hon. Member for Calgary West that this Bill merits second reading.
I would like to make an additional comment. The Minister and other spokesmen for the Conservative Party have said very few countries will be on the list of safe third countries. The Minister tells us to have faith in him because he is a good guy. I remind him that the basis of protection is in law, not in speeches of the Minister. When the people who preside at the initial hearing have to decide the case they will look at the Act, the regulations and the manual. They are not going to look at the speeches the Minister made all over the country trying to promote his Bill. This law will be applied long after the Minister is gone. I ask him, why have a provision if it is not going to be applied?
It is incredible to suggest that the public, legislators, and people who work with refugees should rely on the Minister's good faith and not on what the law says. That is what the Minister has been telling us for the past few weeks. I say to him in all sincerity that that kind of an argument is totally unacceptable. We cannot pass a law on the basis of the Minister's good intentions. We have to study, judge and pass a law on the basis of the very clear language in which it is written.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his remarks. He was very interested in this issue long before this legislation arrived here for second reading. No one in this Party wishes to stop this legislation from going to committee. Obviously we look forward to having another round with witnesses who can again make their representations on this legislation. What has worried us the most is that after three years of consultation a major segment of what was proposed by the NGOs were not listened to. As a result, we are afraid that the same process will take place in committee for a second time.
We heard from the Hon. Member for Calgary. We heard from NDP Members. Both myself and the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) have spoken as well. All of this was in the hope that the Government will pay attention to the needed


reforms and amendments and show some movement so that everyone can be happy with the legislation.
1 would like to ask the Elon. Member if he can share with us his views on an appeal mechanism based on points of law rather than on the circumstances faced by the legitimate refugee in his homeland.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, 1 have heard the Hon. Member say on a number of occasions that the determination process is only as good as the appeal process. If you do not have an appeal on interpretation of fact, there is no appeal. This recommendation was made unanimously by all groups which have been heard from in the past several years as well as by the standing committee. It points to what the Minister is asking us to swallow.
I have heard him say publicly on a couple of occasions that this Bill is not perfect. I heard a Conservative Party member speak at a conference in Montreal last Friday night on the right of internal asylum and say that the Bill is not perfect. However, the Minister was quoted in the papers yesterday as saying that he will not amend the Bill. Perhaps he was misquoted.
What are we supposed to believe? He goes around the country saying he is a nice guy. Six months ago he told people that if a Bill was presented which he could not accept, he would resign. This Bill violates every basic principle which has been laid down and talked about for the past few years, yet he does not resign. He says, "I'm not perfect but I won't amend the Bill".


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is making all kinds of statements about things I am alleged to have said or not to have said. Why does he not answer the question and not try to enter into debate on something on which he has no evidence or facts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair believes that is a matter of debate. The Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) has the floor.


David Berger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is incredible that the Minister would go around the country saying that the Bill is not perfect and that maybe we can improve it, then say the next day that they will not amend the Bill. He wakes up one day and is Mr. Nice Guy. The next day he may have been kicked by his wife in bed and tells us that he will not amend the Bill. Is this the kind of basis upon which parliamentarians are expected to evaluate and judge a Bill?
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question and make a few comments to my colleague from Laurier (Mr. Berger), for I know he is open-minded about the immigrant and refugee issue.
Immigration Act, 1976
Keeping in mind the fact the the Minister of State responsible for immigrants-and keeping in mind the open-mindedness of Montrealers and the ever generous welcome they extend to refugees, particularly in Montreal West, I should like to ask him this: How can the people of Montreal and the people of Dollard understand their Member now, when we know that the people of Montreal West have always been very generous with these people, always welcoming them, and now a former mayor of Montreal West who today is the Minister responsible has been making speeches in the Montreal region and trying to make people believe he has an open mind, whereas in fact here he is the most hard-hearted man for refugees, a man who has changed completely?
I wish my colleague from Laurier would tell me: Is it because the Minister is under supervision here, he does not carry any weight-all he has is a limousine and the extra $40,000-he is powerless and has been given orders, or is it simply that he is showing his true colours here and showing his other face in his riding? I would like to know the opinion of my colleague on this.


David Berger: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It should be said that the people of Montreal West are not the only ones who have been generous to refugees and immigrants in the last several years. As I have already said, only a few years ago, in 1979 and 1980, Canadians welcomed with open hearts thousands of East Asian refugees.
The Minister makes generous speeches. He says that he is meeting all the expectations of the population and that he will treat refugees fairly. This is a spurious statement and this is why the government is deceiving the Canadian public.
Let me just quote the words of a Toronto lawyer who met with the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) and with various groups representing refugees in Montreal and other organizations from throughout Canada who were in Montreal a few weeks ago. This lawyer said: "You know, Mr. Minister, there are two Bills C-55. There is the Bill tabled in the House which we now have before us, and then there is the other Bill C-55 to which you refer in your speeches."
He added: "We have not seen this second Bill". As for us, Members of Parliament, we have to deal with the Bill which was introduced in this House on March 5. It is a fact that the Canadian public welcomes the speeches of the Minister because they deal with a bill that does not exist, except in his imagination.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise).


Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate on Bill C-55, a very important Bill, which is concerned with equity, justice and compassion for refugees. And at this point I would like to extend special greetings to the refugees in the riding of Chambly, who are very well received, need I add.


Statements by Ministers
Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand why the Official Opposition, the Liberals and the New Democrats, are opposed to this Bill or want a six-month hoist on referring the Bill to committee, while claiming at the same time that our Bill does not go far enough in facilitating the admission of refugees to Canada. They should make up their minds once and for all and decide whether they would rather deny refugees the right to enter Canada, so we will have to go on working with boards and hearings and calling additional witnesses while we know that the existing system is already much too slow. And that is why it is so important for this Bill to have these important provisions that facilitate the entry of refugees in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to have Bill C-55 adopted, not for our own benefit as parliamentarians but for the benefit of refugees. We want to make things easier for them. And when we talk about public opinion polls, it is obvious Canada was built thanks to the refugees who came to our shores, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) is the first Minister of State for Immigration among the last five we have had who has managed to table a valid and serious piece of legislation that will make refugees better aware of their rights and make it easier for them to enter Canada. That is essential, and I think we have a duty to let this Bill, Bill C-55, go to committee as soon as possible. Of course there may be a few minor changes, but I think that on the whole, in this Bill the Minister wanted to take quick action to facilitate refugee access to this country and enable Canada to maintain its international refugee policy.
Mr. Speaker, our purpose in tabling Bill C-55 was certainly not to turn our backs on refugees. In fact, we want to offer genuine protection to those who need our help. However, if we are to focus our efforts on protecting bona fide refugees, we must rationalize the process and clamp down on abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I see I have very little time left, but I am glad to give up my time so that Canadians, once again thanks to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Conservative Government and our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), will experience a historic moment in their lives: tax reform.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made Friday, June 12, 1987, the House will now revert to Statements by Ministers. The Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, tonight I am proposing sweeping changes to Canada's tax system. These changes will directly affect all Canadians for many years to come.
Our tax system should be a strong force in meeting the challenges that face our country.
It must help individuals and businesses deal with the challenges of the 1990s and into the next century.
It must reinforce our ability as a country to continue to provide the social programs needed by our people.
It must generate the hope and opportunity that will motivate Canadians to build a strong country in a very competitive world.
But to do this, the tax system must have the respect of Canadians. We know that it does not. And we know why.
We all know that the tax system allows many profitable corporations to avoid paying a fair share of tax, year after year.
We all know that it allows some people with very high incomes to pay less tax than the average Canadian wage-earner, year after year.
We all know that it allows those who are able to use special tax breaks to shift the burden to others less able to carry it.
Canada needs a tax system that raises revenues in a fair and reliable way; a system that supports our national effort to promote economic growth and create more and better jobs.
Over the years, our tax system has become a crazy quilt of special incentives, special deductions and special write-offs.
Each special incentive gives a break to someone. But each special tax break means that taxes have to be higher for everyone else. Special breaks have made the income tax more and more complicated, and less and less fair.
During the past two years, I have acted to strengthen the integrity of the tax system. Many tax breaks have been eliminated. But further action is needed to restore faith and trust in the system, to ensure that it works for the benefit of all Canadians. Tonight I am taking that action. I am proposing sweeping reforms to the personal and corporate income tax system. Beginning January 1, 1988:
We will reduce or eliminate many special tax breaks. Those high-income individuals and profitable corporations who currently pay little tax will carry a greater share of the tax burden.
We will further increase the fairness of our personal income tax by converting tax exemptions and deductions to tax credits, with particular benefits for lower-income and elderly Canadians.
We will reduce the burden of taxation on those who have not been taking advantage of special tax breaks. As a result, 80 per cent of Canadian households will have lower personal income taxes in 1988. A typical family of four earning $30,000 will pay about $500 less in taxes. Federal income tax will be


completely eliminated for 850,000 Canadians, 250,000 of whom are senior citizens.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Tax reform is much more than simply fixing what has gone wrong with our tax system.
We have an opportunity to build a new tax system that will be fairer and more progressive.
A tax system that will assist, rather than hinder, our ability to grow and prosper.
A tax system that will complement and support important initiatives that will shape our future.
A tax system that will keep Canada competitive in a freer trade environment, one that is compatible with new approaches the government is planning on child care, and that reinforces other key priorities.
The reform proposals are far-reaching in their scope and impact. They are explained in the documents that I will table tonight. Tomorrow, booklets and pamphlets will be available in most supermarkets and shopping malls across the country. I would urge Hon. Members and all Canadians to study the tax reform package carefully.
The proposals have benefited from ideas, suggestions and recommendations from many people and groups across the country and from members of this House. 1 have also had constructive consultations with provincial ministers of finance.
This package reflects these consultations. It reflects basic principles of good and fair taxation, and in a way that recognizes Canadian reality and Canadians' priorities.
[Stage Direction]
The proposals will be implemented in two stages. Income tax changes will take effect beginning in the 1988 taxation year. In the second stage, the existing sales tax will be replaced by a new sales tax system. The existing sales tax has long been recognized as unfair to Canadian industry, workers and consumers. The new sales tax will be linked to the personal income tax through an enhanced sales tax credit to improve the fairness of the tax system.
[Stage Direction]
I want to emphasize that the reform proposals I will table tonight are a package.
They work together in a consistent, comprehensive way.
They strike a responsible balance among the many objectives that our tax system must serve in addition to raising revenues: objectives such as targeting assistance to those who need it most, promoting regional equality and encouraging greater investment in Canada's future.
Some will argue that the government should have wiped out more tax incentives. But I am not prepared to abandon key
Statements by Ministers
national and regional priorities. The incentives that will remain in the system are there for good reasons.
Others will argue for retention of some of the tax breaks being eliminated. But let us not forget that they are asking for special tax breaks for some which mean higher taxes for many others.
Our reforms are designed to be neither a revenue grab nor a windfall. On balance, the reformed system will raise about the same revenue as the current system.
But, by shifting more of the tax burden from individuals to corporations, and by lowering rates and removing preferences, the reforms make fundamental changes in who pays and how much.
Those who have made extensive use of tax preferences will pay more tax. Many corporations and some individuals will pay more. Most individuals and some businesses will pay less. Corporations will carry a bigger share of the total tax load. Sales tax revenues will be increased.
Canadians want personal income taxes to be lower. They will be. We will have both lower rates and a fairer system.

[Stage Direction]
Federal personal income taxes will be reduced by about $2 billion in 1988 and more than $11 billion over the next five years.
Most Canadians will pay lower taxes because of two far-reaching changes: a new structure of federal income tax rates and the conversion of exemptions and deductions to tax credits.
Currently there are 10 rates of federal income tax, rising with income to a top rate of 34 per cent. Beginning in 1988, there will be only three rates: 17 per cent on the first $27,500 of taxable income, 26 per cent on the next $27,500 and 29 per cent on taxable income over $55,000.
Despite having only three tax brackets, the personal income tax system will be more progressive.
The key to making the system more progressive is the conversion of exemptions and deductions to tax credits. This will completely eliminate federal income tax for 850,000 Canadians, 250,000 of whom are senior citizens. Let me explain how credits make this happen.
If the Government were to introduce a program to help the elderly or the disabled, and if the program were set up so that richer people got a bigger payment than poorer people, most Canadians would think that was unfair. And they would be right.
But, that is exactly what our current system of exemptions does.
For example, we now have a deduction of $2,670 for Canadians 65 and over. For a senior citizen with $15,000 of income, this is worth about $455 in lower taxes. For another
[Stage Direction]

Statements by Ministers
senior with $100,000 of income, the same deduction would be worth $910-about twice as much.
Exemptions reduce the amount of income that is subject to tax. This makes their value greater for those with higher incomes because higher-income people have higher tax rates. Credits reduce tax payable. They are worth the same regardless of income.
We will replace exemptions with tax credits. In the case of the age credit, it will be worth $550 in tax savings to all seniors.
The new credits will ensure that the vast majority of Canadians pay lower income taxes.
This will mean, for example, that nine out of 10 Canadians 65 and over will pay less federal tax in 1988. A typical elderly married couple with $25,000 of income will pay about $650 less.
Tax credits also support the objectives we set in the February, 1986, Budget-to target assistance more effectively to those with lower incomes and reduce the after-tax value of transfer payments to those with higher incomes. Converting exemptions to credits does just that, while maintaining universal access to family allowance and old age security payments.
[Stage Direction]
The personal income tax reforms reflect a number of priority areas for this government.
We all want our younger Canadians to receive a good education. This is critical to Canada's future. The new education and tuition credits can be claimed either by the student or a supporting spouse, parent or grandparent. This will substantially augment the availability of tax assistance for students pursuing a post-secondary education.
Our communities are strengthened and enriched by the contribution of volunteer organizations. The new tax credit for charitable giving has been designed to provide a substantial incentive for donations, particularly for low-and middle-income earners.
The tax reform proposals will continue to help Canadians become more self-reliant by saving for their retirement. The fairer and more flexible system I announced last October will not be changed. However, the $15,500 limit for RRSP contributions will be phased in more slowly.
[Stage Direction]
Tax reform recognizes the important role of agriculture in Canada. The farm community will continue to benefit from the existing $500,000 capital gains exemption for farmland. I am also proposing new rules to increase certainty about the tax treatment of farm losses. These rules will provide objective tests to determine when farm losses should be restricted for tax purposes.
Canadians have created 840,000 jobs since September, 1984. Much of this is the result of the efforts of individual men and women, each striving to build and grow in their own way.
To reinforce the job-creating potential of the small business sector, I am proposing that the $500,000 capital gains exemption for shares of small businesses become effective on January 1, 1988 rather than January 1, 1990.
This Government has encouraged small business, risk-taking and entrepreneurship, and will continue to do so.
But the most effective tax incentive is lower tax rates. Lower rates mean more reward for that extra effort.
And to provide that incentive for all taxpayers, we must restrict and remove a number of tax deductions and exemptions.
Self-employed Canadians are entitled to deduct expenses they incur in earning income. But some deductions are for expenses which represent an element of personal consumption. To recognize this, the deduction for business meals and entertainment will be restricted to 80 per cent of expenses incurred. In addition, where home offices and automobiles are not used exclusively for business purposes, deductions for these expenses will be limited.
The lifetime capital gains exemption for all property, other than qualifying farm property and small business shares, will be held at the 1987 level of $100,000. To reduce tax shelter possibilities and to better match deductions with income, capital gains will qualify for the lifetime exemption only to the extent they exceed net investment losses after 1987. This will not reduce an individual's lifetime exemption limit.
The taxable portion of capital gains will rise from one-half to two-thirds in 1988 and three-quarters in 1990. The dividend tax credit will be reduced to directly reflect the reduction in the corporate tax rate. The tax system will continue to give preferential treatment to capital gains and dividends in recognition of the risks associated with investment.
Currently, those who receive investment income or make extensive use of tax preferences pay consistently lower taxes than others. After reform, they will pay more. About 1.5 million households will have an average tax increase of about $665. They will continue to pay lower average effective rates of tax than those with similar income derived mostly from employment. But the gap will be narrowed.

[Stage Direction]
Corporate income tax reform will meet three major objectives.
The jobs of many Canadians depend on a corporate income tax system that is competitive with other countries, particularly the United States. Tax reform will improve the overall competitive position of Canadian business and industry.
Tax reform will return the profit motive to investment by rewarding success. It will encourage investment decisions to be based far more on the imagination and creativity of research,
[Stage Direction]

engineering and marketing experts, and far less on the advice of tax specialists.
And it will ensure that profitable corporations carry a bigger share of the total tax burden. Federal corporate income tax revenues will increase by about $5 billion over the next five years.
To maintain a competitive tax system, corporate tax rates will be reduced, effective July 1, 1988. The general federal rate will fall to 28 per cent. The rate for small business will fall to 12 per cent and the manufacturing rate will be reduced by 1991 to 23 per cent.
Income tax revenues from corporations will increase because these lower rates will apply to a broader tax base with fewer special incentives. Capital cost allowances will be reduced to bring them more in line with actual rates of depreciation. The rate of tax on capital gains will be increased. Deductions for meals and entertainment expenses will be limited. Small manufacturers will be taxed at the same rate as other small businesses.
Many profitable financial institutions and real estate companies are paying little or no tax because of existing tax provisions. New rules will be introduced to ensure that they pay their fair share of tax. I am also announcing changes, effective immediately, to reduce the tax advantage available to non-taxpaying companies that issue preferred shares.
More balanced development across all regions will continue to be strongly supported through the tax system. The reform proposals retain the investment tax credits in the Atlantic and Gaspe regions, Cape Breton, and special investment tax credit regions across Canada. The rates of credit will be reduced in line with lower tax rates, but the relative incentive effect will be maintained.
The mining industry is important to regional economic growth and to isolated communities across Canada. Earned depletion, which provides a tax write-off in excess of actual costs, will be phased out by mid-1989. Flow-through shares and the ability to write off all investment against the income from a new mine will be retained.
The average tax rate of the mining sector will remain one of the lowest. And for a new investment in mining, the tax rate will be lower than in any other sector.
The reform proposals also recognize the strategic position of Canada's oil and gas industry. The industry will benefit over all from tax reform. The lower tax rate will more than offset the slightly broader tax base. The industry will continue to have access to flow-through shares.
In current world oil markets, many major projects with long lead times face very high risks. Accordingly, as in the past, the government will consider what adjustments in non-tax assistance would be appropriate to encourage major oil and gas projects which provide important regional or national benefits and which are fundamentally economic.
Statements by Ministers
The agriculture, logging and fishing sectors are important sources of employment and income for many regions of Canada. After tax reform, they will have the lowest average tax rate of any sector.
[Stage Direction]
The changing composition of our economy and the importance of adjusting to technological change make it essential that our reform proposals look to the future as we prepare for the 21st century. The reformed system will strongly support two key priority areas for this government: research and development and labour-intensive economic sectors.
Firms engaged in R&D in Canada will continue to benefit from one of the most favourable tax regimes for R&D in the industrialized world. The current tax incentives for R&D costs will not be changed, with the exception of buildings claimed for R&D.
Canada's wholesale and retail trade and service businesses are leaders in employment growth, yet they are the most heavily taxed of any corporate sector. By lowering their taxes, tax reform will encourage new investment in these sectors in all parts of Canada.
The further reduction of the low tax rate for manufacturing will maintain its competitive position.
[Stage Direction]
In recent years, tax planning in Canada has become more sophisticated and aggressive. Canadians quite rightfully resent it when they find that others avoid paying tax by bending the rules of the tax system. We must be assured that the tax burden will be fairly shared. The reforms I have outlined will make our income tax system substantially fairer than it now is. Lower rates and fewer preferences will reduce the incentive and opportunity for tax avoidance.
But further action is required. Over the past two years, I have dealt with an increasing number of complicated transactions designed primarily to avoid tax. I am proposing legislative changes that will provide a stronger basis for reassessing artificial tax avoidance transactions. Information reporting requirements for investment income and tax shelters will be strengthened to help identify avoidance and evasion. Penalties will be increased for chronic offenders.
In reform of the income tax, I have set out to make the system fairer and more efficient while retaining its fundamentally sound principles. No such reform is possible within the current federal sales tax. It is beyond repair and will be replaced by a new system in the second stage of tax reform.

[Stage Direction]
A fair and effective sales tax is an essential part of the overall balance of Canada's tax system.
[Stage Direction]

Statements by Ministers
The present tax is fundamentally flawed. It is a hidden, arbitrary and capricious tax.
Many Canadians are unaware of this tax because it is normally applied when a product is manufactured and is hidden in the price of goods which are eventually sold to consumers. By the time it reaches the consumer, a dollar of tax paid by a manufacturer can raise the price to the consumer by a lot more than a dollar. And the purchaser does not know by how much.
The existing sales tax hurts our economy. It puts more tax on Canadian-made goods than it does on competing imported goods. It puts a hidden tax on our exports that makes them less competitive. That does not make much sense for a country that trades as much as we do in tough, competitive, world markets. That extra tax penalty is costing us jobs and creating them in other countries.
[Stage Direction]
These problems with the sales tax are not new. They have been known for 40 years. They have been growing worse. What has been lacking has been the political will to fix them. It is time to get on with the job.
The existing sales tax will be replaced by a new sales tax that will apply to a much broader base. The result will be a lower tax rate and a fairer system.
Sales tax reform will eliminate the hidden tax in the prices consumers pay. It will remove the tax burden on exports and will treat our domestic producers on the same basis as their foreign competitors. It will make us more competitive in world markets and will enhance our trade initiatives.
The new sales tax will be fairer for low- and middle-income Canadians. It will be accompanied by important changes in the personal income tax system to achieve this goal. The most important of these will be to substantially increase the refundable sales tax credit introduced by the government in 1986 and to extend this credit to many more Canadians,
The new sales tax credit will be paid regularly and in advance.
The level of the credit and the income threshold for eligibility will be established to more than offset the impact of the new sales tax on low-income Canadians. In addition to the credit, when the new sales tax is introduced, the personal and corporate income surtaxes will be removed and there will be further income tax cuts for middle-income taxpayers. These measures will make the combined personal income and sales tax systems, after tax reform, more progressive than they now are.
Compensation will be provided to small businesses to help offset the cost of complying with the new system.
The Government is considering three alternative forms for the new sales tax. One is a National Sales Tax which would replace both the present federal sales tax and provincial retail sales taxes with one national system. Two federal-only sales
taxes are also being considered: a Goods and Services Tax and a Value-Added Tax.
The discussion about which of these forms to implement will have a direct bearing on three important decisions that remain to be made: the level of the tax rate, the scope of the tax base and the design of the sales tax credit.
The new sales tax must raise enough revenue to replace the existing sales tax and provide for additional income tax cuts and the enriched credit.
Decisions about the tax rate and the design of the tax credit will depend on how broad the tax base is. The decisions are closely linked. A broader tax base would result in a lower tax rate for everyone and require a bigger tax credit for those who need it. With a narrower tax base, involving exemptions for such things as food and clothing, the tax rate would be higher on the remaining items and the tax credit could be smaller.
The Government is committed to sales tax reform. It will proceed after consultation with provincial governments and other interested Canadians.

[Stage Direction]
Responsible tax reform must be fiscally responsible. Our progress in reducing the deficit is essential to our success in reducing interest rates, increasing growth and lowering unemployment.
Sales tax reform will follow the reforms to our personal and corporate tax systems. In the interim, we must make the existing sales tax more reliable. We must deal with its worst competitive distortions. And we must raise more revenue, in conjunction with corporate income tax increases, to help fund the personal income tax cuts.
I am proposing a number of changes to the existing sales tax, effective January 1, 1988.
To reduce competitive distortions and protect against avoidance, the tax will be applied to marketing companies which do not operate at arm's-length with a manufacturer. It will also be moved to the wholesale level for a limited range of products.
To raise revenue, the tax will be extended to most telecommunications services at a rate of 10 per cent. The charges for basic residential telephone service will be exempt from tax.
To further protect lower-income Canadians from the impact of these changes, the existing refundable sales tax credit will be increased from $50 to $70 for adults, and from $25 to $35 for children.
Finally, in order to improve cash management and to offset some of the transitional revenue effects of tax reform, I am proposing to accelerate the payment of sales and excise taxes, effective April, 1988. The remittance of personal income taxes deducted at source will be further accelerated, effective January, 1990.
[Stage Direction]

These two measures will not increase taxes on Canadians. They will ensure that the Government receives money it is owed on a more timely basis. This will reduce our need to borrow and will yield ongoing savings in interest costs.
The proposals I am presenting tonight are fiscally balanced. The personal income tax reductions are made up by increases in corporate and sales taxes and the acceleration of tax collections.

[Stage Direction]
I am tabling with the tax reform proposals an updated economic and fiscal outlook.
[Stage Direction]
Our economic prospects for this year are little changed since my February Budget. I am very much encouraged by the strong employment growth and declines in the unemployment rate we have seen in recent months. Since September 1984, Canadians have created 840,000 jobs. The unemployment rate, at 9.1 per cent, is at its lowest level in more than five years. But what is most encouraging are the indications, from both employment data and recent surveys of investment intentions, that growth is becoming better balanced across the regions of Canada.
[Stage Direction]
Over the medium term our economic prospects will depend greatly on the success of the industrialized countries in reducing the large international trade and fiscal imbalances that cast a shadow over world growth. Canada is playing a constructive role in this regard. Much progress has been made in recent months. The recent economic summit in Venice underlined the determination of the major industrial nations to continue that progress. Canada shares fully in the commitment expressed at that summit to take further action to achieve our shared economic objectives if that proves necessary.
Our prospects will also depend on what we do at home. Making further progress on tax reform, on our trade initiatives and on the deficit will strengthen investment and growth in all regions of Canada. This will provide us with greater strength and resilience to cope with an uncertain world and with a better capacity to sustain needed social programs.
Our fiscal outlook continues to be encouraging. The most recent estimate for the fiscal year just ended suggests that stronger revenue growth at the end of the year will result in the deficit being about S31 billion, $1 billion lower than I forecast in February.
As I stated in the Budget, 1 expect the deficit for this fiscal year to be $29.3 billion. It will decline moderately over the next two years. The deficit and financial requirements show substantial declines in the medium term. The debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to stabilize by 1991-92. This is a key objective which the Government has set for itself since coming into office in 1984.
Statements by Ministers
I wish to table this White Paper and the related Ways and Means motion and supporting documents.

[Stage Direction]
Tax reform is a major and complex exercise. It goes far beyond changing some sections in the Income Tax Act. The results must be judged not only in the tax savings of individual Canadians. They must also be judged on how we can contribute to a stronger, more just and more vibrant Canada, in the 1990s and beyond.
The package I am now placing before Parliament and the nation respects our needs today and will help us build a better tomorrow. It reflects the concern we share for our senior citizens and the challenges facing our young people and our entrepreneurs. It respects the importance of our farmers and our resource industries. It recognizes the competitive battles being fought daily by our manufacturers and the challenge of the future for our technology and service sectors. It provides tax savings to individual Canadians and gives them the freedom to spend, save or invest as they see fit.
Some are being asked to pay a greater share through a reduction in tax preferences. In making these decisions, I have considered carefully the key goals of greater fairness and competitiveness. And where the impact is substantial, the change will be phased in over time.
But in the final analysis, this package will be judged on whether we have given to our senior citizens more peace of mind and security; to those in greatest need, a fairer and reduced tax burden; to our young, a greater sense of opportunity and hope; and to our working people, more incentive, stability and freedom.
I believe we have met these tests.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to tell you that I do not take any joy in what I am about to say, because no amount of applause from the Tory benches can disguise the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has not delivered a White Paper on tax reform tonight. He has delivered a budget, and he has violated the long-standing tradition of budget secrecy. Because he has done so, parliamentary convention and tradition demand the immediate resignation of the Minister of Finance.
Today in Question Period the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) said that the statement of the Minister of Finance was going to be a discussion paper in the same way the White Paper of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) was a discussion paper. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance know that there are important differences. The White Paper of the Minister of Defence asks Canadians to discuss a proposal for nuclear submarines. Those submarines may never be built.


Statements by Ministers
At the other end, the budget statement of the Minister of Finance which was just delivered in the House clearly outlines in a Ways and Means motion that we had the opportunity to see during the lock-up this afternoon specific tax changes, some of which are effective at midnight Wednesday, last night. Tax changes affecting farm property, passenger vehicles, limited partnerships, research and development, dividends received by financial institutions, life insurance reserves, multinational insurers, these and other tax changes will take place immediately. Other tax changes to take place at a later date were also announced by the Minister of Finance in the Budget Speech and the documentation he tabled with his speech.
How can the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance pretend that the Minister's statement is only a discussion paper? Tonight the Minister of Finance has delivered a Budget. It is a Budget that has been available to a select 31 individuals at least a full day before its official release. If the Minister of Finance does not understand his responsibilities in these circumstances, the Prime Minister must assume his responsibility and remove the Minister of Finance from the important public office he holds.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is not a matter for public debate. The Minister's duty is clear. It is a question of restoring public confidence in one of the most sensitive and important ministries of any Government. As a former Minister of Finance, I am well aware of the propriety expected of such an office-holder. I say with regret that I know, and the Minister of Finance knows in his heart, that he has committed an unforgivable breach of his duty and he must go, and go now.
I believe that all Hon. Members know that I am not one to make such statements lightly or without good cause. It is important that the House debate and debate fully the tax changes announced in the Government's Budget this evening. However, such an important debate cannot properly occur in the shadow of the loss of confidence in the Minister of Finance of Canada. I say to the Minister of Finance, if this evening the Minister has still not clearly understood the action expected of him now, that I hope for his sake that he will have submitted the proper letter to the Prime Minister by tomorrow morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister may laugh but he knows in his heart that he committed a mistake, a very important one, and he does not deserve to serve as Minister of Finance in this House.

Mr. Speaker, what we had this evening was not a White Paper but a Budget. A Budget that contains tax increases, including some that will be effective as of midnight yesterday
evening, not even tonight. There are 17 or 18 tax measures, in fact there are more in this evening's statement than there were in the Budget Speech last February, a Budget we said was not a Budget but a Minister's Statement. And today the reverse is true. Today, we had a real Budget Speech. Mr. Speaker, I think that with this Budget Speech we had a few statements on tax reform.


An Hon. Member:: Name them!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I am being asked to name them. I may refer the Hon. Member to the Motion of Ways and Means, where he will find they are all listed with the effective date as midnight last night.
Mr. Speaker, in the tax reform which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has unveiled this evening, except for the measures which will be included in a real Budget, everything else is related to a question of credibility. The Minister is telling us that the sales tax which will be imposed eventually will be fairer, more equitable for everybody. The Minister of Finance claims that the changes he is making in the personal exemptions system through tax credits will benefit the Canadian taxpayer. I will get back to this question.
But first I will tell him that his credibility with respect to what can happen in the future is not very strong.

In fact, this tax reform is related to the trust that one can have in the Minister of Finance. What has the Minister of Finance said in the past before the election of 1984 about tax increases? On March 6, 1984, a few months before the election, he said, as reported at page 1827 of Hansard:
We would cut spending. We would not raise taxes. Tax levels in Canada are already too high.


John Napier Turner: He said that?


Raymond Garneau: He said that on March 6, 1984.

"We will cut spending, we will not raise taxes. Tax levels in Canada are already too high", he said.

On August 8, 1984, a month before the election, the now Minister of Finance said to CITY-TV in Toronto: "We have no intention of raising income taxes to Canadians".


John Napier Turner: Who said that?


Raymond Garneau: The Minister of Finance.


John Napier Turner: He said that?


Raymond Garneau: On August 8, 1984. That was before the election.
Let us see what he said after the election. In November of 1984 he said: "Our immediate goal is to reduce the deficit through expenditures and not through major tax increases".

The Minister of Finance told us: "Our immediate goal is to reduce the deficit through expenditures and not through major tax increases." That is what the Minister said before the election. Let us see what he did immediately after his election. Mr. Speaker, if we take the lists one after another, and you can see I have a few of them: the 1986 announcement about the deindexation of the tax system at a cost of $635 million to the Canadian taxpayers; the elimination of the Registered-

The elimination of the Registered Homeownership Savings Program effective May 22, 1985, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $105 million. The elimination of the federal tax reduction which benefited low-income earners effective 1986, a cost to those Canadians of $650 million. Changes to marital exemptions for years of marriage, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $20 million.
An increase in excise taxes on cigarettes and tobacco effective May 24, 1985, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $320 million. A 2 per cent increase in excise taxes on alcohol effective May 24, 1985, a cost to the taxpayer of $20 million. An increase of two cents per litre in the excise tax on gasoline effective September 3, 1985, a cost to the taxpayer of $930 million.
An extension of the sales tax on candies, soft drinks, etc., effective July 1, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $400 million. A general 3 per cent surtax effective July 1, 1986, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer in one year of $1,200 million.
A general 1 per cent increase in sales tax effective October 1, 1984, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $1 billion. A general 1 per cent increase in sales tax, another increase, effective January 1, 1986, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of an additional $1 billion.
A general increase of 1 per cent in sales tax effective April 1, 1986, the third one, an additional cost of $1 billion to Canadians. Equalization of sales taxes on leaded and unleaded gasoline, another $30 million in taxes. An extension of the sales tax on snack food effective July 1, 1987, $60 million. An increase in taxes on alcohol and tobacco effective February 27, 1986, $150 million. Increase in tax on cigarettes and tobacco by 4 per cent effective February 19, 1987, $70 million. Increase in air transport tax effective May 1, 1987, and August 1, 1987, a one-year increase of $45 million. An increase of 1 cent per litre excise tax on gasoline effective January 1, 1987, $450 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Stop!


Raymond Garneau: It is not finished. An increase of 1 per cent in the excise tax on gasoline effective February 19, 1987, $450 million. There was also a 5 per cent and 10 per cent surtax effective for part of 1986, $500 million.
Statements by Ministers
There was also some tax reduction. The lifetime $500,000 capital gains. That was goodies for the rich. They received a gift of $700 million.
That is the man who said to Canadians before the election that he will never raise taxes. If we add all those taxes they amount to $22 billion. It took three years for the Minister of Finance to raise personal taxes by $22 billion and he will take five years to return $5 billion with tax reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, when we look at the tax increases plus tax reform, what is the net result? That man made great publicity about his tax reform. He was supposed to transfer part of the tax burden from individuals to corporations. In 1984-85 when that man became Minister of Finance, the total personal and sales taxes paid by individuals amounted to $36.8 billion. After tax reform in 1988-89, probably the election year, the total amount of taxes paid by individuals will have risen to $59.1 billion according to the figures we have in the White Paper. That is an increase of 93 per cent.
Let us look now at the corporation side. In 1984-85 corporations paid $9.4 billion in taxes. At the end of the five-year Tory mandate they will pay $11.1 billion, an increase of 7 per cent. A 93 per cent increase for individuals and 7 per cent for corporations.


John Napier Turner: Even after reform.


Raymond Garneau: Do you think that is fair?

Do you think it is fair to have a 93 per cent increase in revenues coming from individuals and an increase of only 7 per cent in revenues coming from corporations?
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the consequences for individuals, one by one. The Minister did not spare any expenses, he has a lot of paper to advertise. The figures given, Mr. Speaker, reflect the impact of the three Budgets tabled by this Minister of Finance, 1985, 1986, and 1987. I already mentioned those figures in the House during the Budget debate and nobody challenged their validity.
If you take a married man with an income of $15,000, whose wife stays home to look after their two children, for this man the last three Budgets mean an increase in taxes of $489 in 1987. That is the cumulative result of the three Budgets. Let us look now at what it will be after the fiscal reform, in 1988. To give you an example of how devious those documents are, they give as one figure the benefits for both federal and provincial income taxes.
It is then very difficult to compare, but the Minister cannot claim that he is lowering taxes that are not his.
That person whose taxes have gone up $489 in three years, will see them decrease, after the fiscal reform, by $270. In short, his taxes have gone up for three years, but now he is given some slack, he gets an electoral break of $270.


Statements by Ministers
If we consider now a family of four where the bread-winner has an income of $30,000, Mr. Speaker, do you know that the last three Budgets meant for that family an increase of more than $1,000 in taxes?
When we look at that tax reform, despite all the computations he gave, his tax reduction will be $370. So after his taxes were increased by more than $1,000, they reduce them by $370 and people are saying hear! hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Raymond Garneau: They refer to senior citizens. The Minister said in his Budget speech, because that was a Budget speech, senior citizens would benefit from that thing, that speech.
Mr. Speaker, I submit again the Minister is hiding the truth or does not want to tell it all. A single individual aged 65 or over with a $15,000 income saw his income tax increased by $383 since the Conservatives came to power. That same single individual earning $15,000 will recoup only $66, or thereabouts, in tax reduction after tax reform. First a $383 increase then he recoups $66, and they are saying hear! hear! across the aisle.

I am convinced it will be very easy for us to explain to the Canadian people that the Government is hiding something. It is just like-

-just like that merchant who raises his prices two weeks before he announces a sale. He raises his prices 25 per cent, 30 per cent and then he advertises: Come to my sale, all prices slashed 10 per cent. This is a scam, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Minister of Finance that in all the examples he gave in his Budget documents nowhere is the increased sales tax taken into account. Nowhere. They are only showing the benefits from the income tax side, and which are minimal anyway. But nowhere is reference to be found to the $1 billion the Minister is quietly getting from that tax reform.
We have been told this evening that Canadian taxpayers will pay $1 billion more in 1988 in federal sales tax and it has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this tax reform is expanded solely for discussion purposes. I say calmly about the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House: either he did not know what his Minister of Finance was doing, in which case he made a serious mistake, or else he did not want to say ... And we know certain unparliamentary terms prevent me from saying the truth about the matter. And I truly question the sincerity of the Prime Minister this afternoon when he answered the questions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


John Napier Turner: He also misled the Speaker.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with some other aspects of the tax reform which will have substantial effects in several regions. However before this I should like to raise another aspect of the tax reform. The Minister, who was then applauded by Tory members, said:

He gets a round of applause because 850,000 Canadian taxpayers will be taken off the tax rolls. I have people who have been working on that. Because of the 31 people who were informed of the Budget before tonight, we had all sorts of leaks in the paper this morning. One of them was exactly that, that we were supposed to have 850,000 people taken off the tax rolls.
What a coincidence. People who have been researching the matter for me sent me a note just before I rose to my feet. They tell me that many more than one million taxpayers have been added to the tax rolls because of the last three Budgets. This will be proved tomorrow through further research but they have researched the fact that the Conservatives have added more than a million taxpayers to the tax rolls since they have been in power. Now- big deal-they are subtracting 800,000.
This tax reform will affect regional development. The changes in the flowthrough shares will affect the mining industry. The earned depletion allowance is affected.


Some Hon. Members:: Bye-bye, Mike.


Raymond Garneau: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister told me he would have to leave before the end of the day.
With regard to regional development, not only will the mining regions be affected but also the Maritimes, the Gaspe and other regions which, until now, were benefiting from tax credits. The tax reform in this Budget will affect regional development once more.
There is nothing in this tax reform which will help women who have to look after their children and work at the same time. There is nothing in this tax reform to help single parent families. The tax credit for the increase in sales tax is not sufficient. Since none of the tax credit is reimbursable, this scheme does no good for the poor and the middle class.
Many people close to me know that I am a history lover. When I heard that the Minister of Finance was going to table his White Paper on tax reform on June 18,1 recalled that June 18 is the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. That battle took place on June 18, 1815. The World Book Encyclopedia says the following: The Battle of Waterloo-
-fought on June 18, 1815, was the final battle of the French military genius, Napoleon Bonaparte. It put an end to his political ambition to rule Europe. His defeat was so crushing that, when a person suffers a disastrous reverse, we say the person has "met his (or her) Waterloo."
I suggest that the Minister of Finance has met his Waterloo.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday 30 experts who were signed on by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who were prepared to work for free apparently, were given an advance look at the White Paper. These were tax experts, tax lawyers, and accountants who move comfortably in the world of taxation which is much more understood by people in corporations on Bay Street and St. James Street than by ordinary Canadians.
If the Minister of Finance had had the good sense, which he did not, to give 30 farmers, fishermen, working men and women, housewives or pensioners an advance look at his tax reform and ask them for advice in order to find out whether or not he was on the right track with tax reform, they would have told him to take his tax reform back and have another go at it because this is not tax reform to benefit ordinary Canadians.
The fact is that we do need real tax reform in this country. We did not get it tonight in the announcement of the Minister of Finance. I regret the lost opportunity and I want to talk about what Canadians were looking for in the tax reform package, what they failed to get, and what we did get tonight in the Finance Minister's paper.
The answer to the question of whether this was a budget measure is self-evident. I have lost count of the number of specific tax measures which take effect tonight or tomorrow as a consequence of the Ways and Means motion tabled by the Minister of Finance. That issue was dealt with today by you, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Commons and will be dealt with tomorrow in the House of Commons. Tonight we are talking about whether Canadians got the fairness and frankness to which they were entitled in the tax reform measures which were announced.
Canadians have been waiting a long time for tax reform. I guess it was naive to expect real tax reform from a Conservative Government. Our mistake was hoping that somehow, despite the general direction of the Government, some good tax reform would come from the Finance Minister with his Bay Street background and the Party he represents in this House of Commons.
People always ask me whether I can say anything good about things coming from the Minister of Finance. I can say that his rhetoric was just great. In terms of calling for a simple, fair, and progressive tax system and of condemning the archaic sales tax and so on, the Minister of Finance was right on the money. The problem was that he failed to match his rhetoric with reality. In other words, he has maintained the faults of the present tax system and has not made the fundamental changes which Canadians were seeking.
I can sum it up by saying that the average family will get a tax cut in the first round of $295 per year or $6 per week, not now, not in December, but sometime in July or August of 1988. That is a fat lot of help for people who need the help right now. Three-quarters of the Canadian families earning $100,000 or more will get tax cuts as well. The tax cuts for
Statements by Ministers
those rich Canadian families will amount to $4,365 per annum on average or $85 per week.
Therefore, tax reform for the average family means a couple of Big Macs and maybe fries on the side every week. Tax reform for the wealthy Canadian family means dinner at Winston's or the Beaver Club, candlelight, imported French wine, tournedos and those kinds of things. That is the disparity which the Government is perpetuating with its tax reform.
One asks oneself why wealthy Canadians who benefited in last year's Budget, who got the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption in 1985, and who seemed to always come out on the winning side in Budgets of Liberal Governments, should come out on the winning side yet again in this tax reform proposal of the Minister of Finance.
If Canadians were looking for fairness, they are disappointed in what they heard tonight.

As for equity, analysis shows that the Conservative tax reform means that three out of four wealthy families will pay an average of $4,365 a year less in taxes, that 60,000 profitable companies will continue to pay not one cent in taxes and that the average Canadian family will pay about $1,000 a year more in taxes than in 1984. I submit to the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) that, since 1984, the taxes paid by the average Canadian family have increased by some $1,300. We are now asked to believe that this is a real tax reform,'that this same average family might pay $300 less in taxes in 1988, while wealthy families will benefit from a tax decrease 14 times higher than that of low-income earners.
As for integrity, the Conservatives have unfortunately decided to keep the bad news for after the elections.
The new sales tax, whatever form it takes, will nearly cancel out the tax rebates for average families. In addition, the Government will probably be taxing for the first time ever basic necessities such as food and housing. By itself, the tax on food products would mean $300 more for the average family. Canadians deserve more honesty. They deserve to get the full picture this evening. Once more, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have taken some good ingredients, but they have used the same recipe which benefits the rich and spares big companies. The final result is still the same: The average family will foot the bill.
PC tax reform means favouring wealthy Canadians, favouring thousands of profitable corporations that will continue to go tax free and it means allowing average families to pay more while not getting anything back in what they have paid in increased taxes since 1984. At the same time, the Conservatives are hiding the bad news in that sales tax increase which will wipe out any income tax cuts for the average Canadian family.


Statements by Ministers
It is quite clear that the Government intends to proceed with the tax, including the tax on food and other household essentials, despite overwhelming adverse reaction. I have talked to my constituents and I have received telephone calls from across the country.


Mr. Hockin:: You just heard the speech.


Michael Morris Cassidy: We knew this would be in the speech. We have been asking the Government to back away from tax on food since the announcement by the Minister of Finance just over a month ago about what would basically be contained in this package tonight.
Did the Conservatives back away? No. Were they even prepared to admit that there was a problem? No. Instead, they reiterated their belief that food should be taxed so that when people go to Woodward's, Safeway, Loblaws, the A&P, the IGA or Boushey's grocery store in my constituency, they will have to pay a 6 per cent tax on food.
That is very clearly sketched in this package. My friend, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) was with me in the lock-up and we were frankly shocked at the way the Government continues to ignore the advice it receives from ordinary Canadians.
I say to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) that he should tell his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that while Dalton Camp was hired at more than $100,000 a year to advise the Government on how to keep out of trouble, he failed because he did not persuade the Government and the Minister to abandon the sales tax on food.
I understand that even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appealed to the Minister of Finance not to put this in the White Paper. He also failed in having it removed. The Government is making a tragic mistake. We realize that the Government is low in the polls and experiencing problems. We know it will continue to stay down in the polls if it threatens in 1989 to take back this reduction in income tax with the sales tax they propose on food and other items.
Let me point out the figures which the Government has put into its estimates of revenue on sales tax for 1988 and 1989. It indicates that sales tax revenue in that year will increase not by the $1 billion that was announced by the Minister tonight, but by $2 billion over 1987. In fact, in 1988, the Conservatives will have doubled the sales tax burden on average Canadians since they came to office. Canadians tell us that they are prepared to accept taxation on the basis of the ability to pay. That means on the basis of their income, not on what they buy.
Let me deal with personal income tax. We welcome the conversion of the Conservatives to the tax credit system. It is long overdue in our tax system and we welcome that. However, I deplore the fact that in implementing the tax credit system the Government failed to make it essentially any more progressive than it is now.


Thomas Hockin: It is much more progressive.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Minister of State for Finance says that it is much more progressive. Let us look at the cuts in taxation for the winners. People earning less than $15,000 will receive a $140 tax cut in 1988 or thereafter. Those earning $15,000 to $30,000 will receive a $405 tax cut. Those earning $30,000 to $50,000 will receive a $470 tax cut. This is a system which rewards those who have, not those who need because as one's income goes up, one wins more.


Thomas Hockin: They are paying more in tax.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Those in the $50,000 to $100,000 income range receive a $700 tax cut. When we get to the blue circle people earning over $100,000, we see that they receive a tax cut of $4,365. That is a tax cut which is 30 times the tax cut for people who earn under $15,000.
What kind of tax reform is that? Why can we not have tax reform that benefits poor Canadians and ordinary Canadians rather than putting money into the hands of the rich?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: What sophistry.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Minister of State for Finance has obviously not been privy to the secrets of his colleague, the Minister of Finance. Otherwise, he would realize what a paltry job has been done with this particular tax reform.
The real measure of tax reform is the amount of cash that goes back into people's pockets. The amount of return to people earning under $15,000 is equivalent to eight-tenths of a per cent of their income. That is not exactly revolutionary. The amount of return for those in the income level between $15,000 and $30,000 is 1.4 per cent, somewhat better.
The amount of return for those earning $30,000 to $50,000 is again eight-tenths of a per cent, the same as those earning less than $15,000. Apparently, people in the $40,000 bracket need as much back in proportional terms as poor people.
Those in the $50,000 to $100,000 range are not quite so well off since they only receive back six-tenths of a per cent.
Our wealthy friends earning over $100,000 receive back in proportion to their income an amount equal to 1 per cent of their income. This means that tax reform that is meant to make the system more progressive puts a higher proportion of income back into the hands of the very wealthy than it does to the very poor. That is Tory tax reform, not real tax reform. I believe it is a pitiful excuse for the kind of reform Canadians were expecting. It is no wonder that average Canadians ask why, under Liberals and Conservatives, wealthy Canadians get a break in every budget while poor Canadians do not get any breaks.
Ordinary Canadians wonder why they have had to pay $1,300 more a year while wealthy Canadians receive the breaks. Average Canadians will wonder whether it is simply a coincidence that 850,000 Canadians will be taken off the tax roll when, according to our calculations, that is the number of


Canadians who have been put on the tax rolls by the Conservatives since they came to office in 1984. What a coincidence.
The personal tax system yields approximately $42 million or $44 million in revenue a year. While the Minister's announcement that some 800,000 people will be taken off the tax rolls seems good, it is not so remarkable when one considers that those Canadians pay some $300 million to $350 million in tax. The Minister's grand gesture which is designed to dress up his tax reform amounts to less than 1 per cent of total revenues for personal income tax. Big deal.


Thomas Hockin: Would you tax them?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Average Canadians wonder why the Government continues to favour capital gains. If the Government acknowledges the principle that capital gains should be treated like any other income, why does it continue to tread on eggs and give special treatment to people with investment income and people with capital gains?
Now that the Government acknowledges that its $500,000 capital gains tax exemption was one of the most stupid measures to be included in this country's tax system, Canadians will wonder why it has left part of it in the tax system rather than following the advice of the tax experts and removing it completely.
My Party supports exemptions for farmers and exemptions for the transfer of small businesses. My Party does not support, however, this continued belief that somehow capital gains of any kind are a sacred trust that should be honoured by the Progressive Conservatives because of their constituency.
My Party wonders as well about what we call the "T. Eaton" amendment which appears will allow Timothy Eaton's heirs, grandsons, great grandsons, that whole clan, to benefit from the small business amendment on capital gains exemption just as much as someone who makes a few dollars because of a gain on a very small family-owned business which does not have to be public traded.
Average Canadians will wonder why is it this Government, in putting forth what was meant to be a progressive tax reform, continues to maintain deindexation, this time of the credits rather than the deductions, so that over time those credits will be worth less and less and, therefore, the system will systematically become less and less progressive and more and more regressive.
I guess what Canadians are wondering is if there was a tax reform package which had made the wealthy really pay their fair share, then moderate and low income families could have had real tax breaks. Average Canadians ask why could they not have had those kinds of tax breaks rather than the kind of tax things they are getting from the Government now.
Statements by Ministers

Mr. Speaker, as far as corporate taxation is concerned, the Canadian taxpayers will ask why a minimum income tax has not been introduced for those thousands of profitable companies which do not pay one cent, so that they assume their fair share of the tax burden. After this so-called tax reform, there will still be 60,000 profitable companies not paying one cent in income tax. And this issue, Mr. Speaker, has been raised by the NDP. We are the ones who told the House of Commons that some 79,000 Canadian corporations did not pay any income tax. In other words, 25 per cent of all Canadian companies do not pay any income tax at all.
Now the Government recognizes that there were not 79,000 but rather 110,000 profitable companies in this situation. And the Government will somehow reduce that proportion, but there will be nevertheless 60,000 of them without any tax to pay, which indicates that this system is unfair. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we do need a minimum tax on corporations and it is unfortunate that such a provision has not been imposed or proposed in this tax reform. Taxpayers will ask also why it is that the total increase of income tax on corporations is only $470 million, less than one quarter of the tax increase resulting from the U.S. fiscal reform and half the amount received by Olympia and York through a tax loophole in 1985 under the Conservatives. They will ask why this minimal increase does not even cover the $6 million that will be saved on differed taxes by corporations such as CP, Bell and Imperial Oil.

I wonder about this. We are told by the Minister of Finance that it is wonderful he is raising corporate taxes by $5 million over five years. He has not mentioned that the reduction in tax rates is the largest in any field for corporations, from 36 per cent to 28 per cent, and he has not mentioned that that one cut will save large companies such as CP and Imperial Oil $6 billion because of the reduction in taxes on deferred taxes they have on their books. So over the next five years, those big corporations will save $6 billion. At the same time the Government will be getting $5 billion more in taxes from corporations. As I perceive it, that means a balance of a deficit of $1 billion over the next five years. That is not tax reform. That is moving backwards.
Average Canadians believe and know that corporations should be paying their way. They should be paying a fair share of the tax system. They are not paying it now and they will not be paying it under the tax reform proposals tabled by the Minister of Finance in this House tonight.
Canadians will also wonder about the sales tax changes which have been introduced. I really wonder about the Minister of Finance who says that the sales tax as we have it now is a hidden, arbitrary and capricious tax and then proceeds to impose new sales taxes, according to the present system, which, of course, will also be hidden, arbitrary and capricious.


Statements by Ministers
When we reach out and touch someone by telephone, we will be paying a 10 per cent tax. It will not be to Ma Bell this time, it will be to Uncle Michael Scrooge over there, who has now imposed this particular tax on telecommunications services. If we try to pretty up our house we will have to pay extra tax on the wallpaper. If we try to provide equitably for your cat, we will be taxed on its kitty litter. Games and toys for kids are going to be additionally taxed.
The Government has made it very clear that its proposals on sales tax are no longer options, that it is intent on pushing forward with a tax which, in its view, ought to include a tax on food. The Minister's paper on tax reform states that the Government proposes to replace the existing federal sales tax with a broad based multi-staged sales tax which extends the retail level. This multi-staged tax will be a form of value-added tax. The Minister of Finance is saying quite specifically that taxable sales will include sales of most goods and services in Canada. The Minister's White Paper indicates that he understands that the taxation of food is an emotional and controversial issue, and then proceeds to explain why the Government is intent on rolling over the objections of Canadians in order to tax food.
The Minister of Finance tries to indicate that the people who earn below average incomes spend less over-all on food than people with above average incomes. There is a good reason for that. They have less income to go around. However, the lower one's income goes, the more of it one will spend on food. If a sales tax is imposed on food, we therefore have a regressive tax which will cost more to ordinary Canadians with lower incomes than it costs people with higher incomes. It is not fair to tax people not according to their ability to pay but according to their need to consume, which means that average and below average earners will be hit harder by the tax on food than the people who have high incomes and can afford to pay.
The Government's arguments in this White Paper are specious and wrong. The New Democrats are going to oppose them in this House, in the committee on finance and everywhere else those arguments are proposed.
The Minister of Finance is just plain wrong if he tries to impose that kind of tax. He is mean and wrong. It appears he wants to go ahead. He wants to do it in 1989 because of electoral politics. Canadians out there should understand very clearly that they should not go and spend the $200 or $300 the Minister tells them they will receive next year because the Minister is going to take it right back in sales tax increases in 1989. That is his plan and he is trying to hide it from Canadians by means of a two-step tango.
The Minister of Finance should have had, of course, one package rather than two but he did not and what he has done instead is to bring in a little bit of a sales tax credit, trying to say that that will alleviate the burden for ordinary Canadian families. Canadians should know that the sales tax credit only applies to people far below the poverty line. It only applies to people with incomes of less than $16,000 or $17,000 a year. Above that level, one still has $6,000 or $7,000 to go before
one reaches the poverty line for a Canadian family living in a major Canadian city. So thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Canadian families below the poverty line, will pay that tax on food and get nothing back.
Thousands of working families where there are possibly two spouses working in order to make ends meet, to pay the mortgage, to pay the rent and put food on the table, are going to find they are hit with this tax and will receive no recompense at all.
The Minister is not being frank. He is not being fair, and his tax system is not simple, either. I have here the 1986 General Tax Guide and Return for residents of Ontario which I had the privilege of filling out this year. It was about 84 pages long. The Minister says his new system is simple because he has put in three rates rather than 12 rates which applied before. In the back of my book there is a federal and Ontario tax table. I always calculate my tax that way. There could be a hundred different rates, it would not make any difference to me. The fact is that the tax return form in 1988 and 1989 will be just as complex and just as long as what we have now. The Minister has not simplified the system. In fact, he has probably made it more complex because of the new bells and whistles he has put into his particular system.
I want to close off by saying that I welcome some of the concessions that have been made by the Minister of Finance. For years we have been condemned by Liberals and Conservatives for saying that it was wrong to give special privileges for capital gains; for saying it was wrong to give special privileges for investment income; for saying it was wrong to give special privileges for dividends and give them tax concessions; for saying it was wrong for corporations to be able to transfer dividends tax-free; and for saying it was wrong to continue to have deductions when we advocated there should be tax credits. Suddenly everything we were saying that we were told was wrong is right. The Minister is bringing in tax credits. He is acknowledging that the dividend tax credit is wrong. Except he is not taking it away. He is only taking away a bit of it. He acknowledges that we were right to say that capital gains should be taxed just like any other kind of income. Except he then kind of loses the thread-he will only tax capital gains a bit more heavily than now. But he will still favour those kinds of income over the income that is earned by the sweat of the brow of workers, farmers and small business people who pay income tax on all their income, as all Canadians should pay tax on all of their income.
So the Minister accepts our arguments but only in principle. When it comes down to cases, when it comes down to practicalities, he does not accept them enough. When the people judge the Minister of Finance on fairness, they should not just judge him on his rhetoric, they should judge him on his results. Any proposal that can cut taxes on average Canadians by $6 a week but cuts taxes for the wealthy by $85 a week is not real tax reform.


Any White Paper that leaves 60,000 profitable Canadian corporations not paying tax is not real tax reform. Any fiscal package that leaves companies paying a lower share in 1990 of federal government revenues than they paid in 1984 is not real tax reform.
But wait, some Elon. Members will say, the corporations are paying more. Surely that is what the Minister of Finance said. That is what he said, but his figures say otherwise.
In 1984, corporations provided 20 per cent of federal government revenues from income and sales tax. In 1990, after these reforms are in place, it will only provide 17 per cent. In other words, rather than moving forward to a more equitable system we are moving backward.
Any tax package that gives tax cuts to a majority of Canadians in 1988 but then clearly intends to take those tax
Statements by Ministers
cuts back in 1989 by means of a sales tax change is not tax reform. Any proposal that hands back to rich Canadians more of their income than is handed back to people who are poor is not tax reform-it is tax fraud.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will meet this Minister on the hustings. We will meet him in the House of Commons. We will meet him in the Finance Committee. We will meet him out across the country. This is a fraud on Canadians. It is not real tax reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.43 p.m., pursuant to Order made Friday, June 12, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. in accordance with Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.43 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, June 19, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-1980, 332-2283, 332-2424, 332-2441 to 332-2444 inclusive, 332-2496, and 332-2573.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101,1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association.



PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF CANADIAN BRANCH OF COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which participated in the annual Commonwealth parliamentary visit to Britain from May 6, 1987 to May 22, 1987.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling the twenty-second and twenty-third reports of the Striking Committee.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CONCURRENCE IN TWENTY-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Agreed.', '\nNational Transportation Act, 1986']
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by Mr. Lewis, that the twenty-third report of the Striking Committee tabled earlier today be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by residents of Moncton, New Brunswick, who are asking for changes in our road safety regulations.
The petitioners believe that rear seat-belts in passenger cars are inadequate and that the suffering of crash victims could be reduced or avoided through improved seat-belts.
They also believe that the cost of medical care can be reduced or eliminated.


Petitions
For these reasons, your petitioners call upon Parliament to institute mandatory installation of three-point adjustable lap/shoulder seat-belts for rear-seat passengers. As well, petitioners request the mandaroty installation of front seat airbags.
[DOT] (mo)


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of the citizens of the Province of Ontario and indeed Canadians from all across Canada 2,318 signatures calling upon Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment in Canada. These signatures which now total 8,320 represent the strong will of the Canadian people on this very important issue.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of the citizens of Erie riding in the Province of Ontario 1,980 signatures calling upon Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment. These signatures represent the strong will of the Canadian people on what we believe to be a very important issue.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to present on behalf of 1,971 citizens of Canada, from eastern Canada right through to the West Coast, who feel that Canadians have consistently supported the reinstatement of capital punishment in principle and in practice and they are calling upon all Members of Parliament to vote in favour of the motion that calls for the return of capital punishment.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present on behalf of the citizens of Alberta and Canadians from all across the country over 2,000 signatures calling on Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment in Canada. These signatures represent the strong will of the Canadian people on this very important issue.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, through the co-operation of the Ontario Police Association, the Canadian National Police Association and the Coalition for the Return of Capital Punishment in Canada, I am pleased to present 1,913 signatures from people in the Peterborough federal riding and from right across this nation. This brings the total number of signatures as of today to 10,233 and it is the intent to honour these petitions as long as they keep arriving at the House of Commons.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present on behalf of over 400 residents of my constituency a petition as follows. Whereas troubles in many parts of the world are causing people to seek safety from persecution by coming to Canada; whereas
Canada has established standards of refugee status determination but our existing procedures have broken down under unexpected strains; whereas the Standing Committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force; whereas this proposal has support among all Parties in Parliament as well as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and other groups and individuals; whereas procedures recently adopted are turning away refugee-status claimants from ports of entry and putting real refugees at risk, therefore we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present on behalf of a number of residents of the southern part of Winnipeg, and this should be of some interest to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assini-boine (Mr. McKenzie) since it includes many of his constituents, this petition. Whereas we the undersigned feel that as taxpaying Canadians and supporters of the postal system, through stamps and other services, it is our right to receive mail delivery to our own door, and whereas we as yet do not have postal delivery to our door, and we do not have any intention of accepting supermailboxes as an alternative to door-to-door delivery, and whereas approximately 80 to 90 per cent of our development has door-to-door delivery, we feel that that courtesy and right should be extended to the rest of us, therefore, we the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instigate door-to-door postal service to the remaining few homes in the area of Vista South in Winnipeg, Manitoba.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition on a different topic. This petition contains the signatures of several hundred employees of the airlines resident in the Winnipeg, Montreal and Toronto areas. The petitioners say that the experience of airline deregulation in the United States has resulted in a diminution of safety standards and practices and an over-all reduction in services to many communities and cheaper fares but these effects are already apparent in Canada in the form of airline mergers and the deterioration of labour relations within the industry. The social fabric of Canada is based on an accessible transport system which is jeopardized by deregulation. Wherefore, the undersigned your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to defeat this legislation and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, and residents of Nakusp, Beaton, Revelstoke and Trout Lake and the communities of Hinton, Jasper and Grande Cache in Alberta.
These petitioners are calling upon Parliament to initiate a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration and regulation of the use of pesticides and the examination of alternative ways of controlling pests such as biological control and plant-derived pesticides because the petitioners are of the opinion that increasing numbers of chemicals used as herbicides and insecticides are being proven to have harmful effects on human health.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a large number of residents of my constituency of Burnaby who note the very high level of unemployment in western Canada and particularly in the Province of British Columbia and urge the Government to reject any proposed legislation designed to eliminate federal contributions to the unemployment program, to weaken that program in any way or to reduce UI benefits for unemployed Canadians.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that Question No. 136 will be answered today.


Mr. Kaplan: Since September 4, 1984, by month, were any domestic applicants denied refugee status in Canada and, if so, of these, how many (a) remained in Canada (b) left Canada, and on what basis?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: the term "domestic applicants" means household domestics or people who receive permission to enter and remain in Canada as maids, nannies, handymen or butlers, there is no cross referencing between that category of person and those who claim refugee status.
Order Paper Questions
If, on the other hand it means how many people were denied refugee status after making a claim to refugee status in Canada, the following data is relevant:
1984		1985			
Sept.	102	Jan.	245	July	333Oct.	194	Feb.	227	Aug.	349Nov.	188	Mar.	243	Sept.	196Dec.	213	Apr.	167	Oct.	195May	187	Nov.	203June	247	Dec.	2951986	1987	Jan.	303	Jan.	490Feb.	290	Feb.	563Mar.	188	Mar.	627Apr.	332	Apr.	458May	150	May	N/A
July	104		
Aug.	195		
Sept.	180		
Oct.	257		
Nov.	297		
Dec.	535		
(a) and (b) It is not possible to report on how many of these people left or remained in Canada, because the majority were eligible for consideration under the administrative review of the backlog which was commenced on July 15, 1986; almost 85 per cent of the 25,000 persons in the process will be granted permanent residence.
Those who have been refused under the administrative review remain at various stages of the current claim process. Those who cannot substantiate a claim to refugee status will be moved as expeditiously as possible into the immigration enforcement stream.
* Determinations made by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


National Transportation Act, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, An Act respecting national transportation, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 16, 1987, the House will now proceed with the deferred recorded division on third reading of Bill C-18, and Act respecting national transportation.
Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Crosbie), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 217)
++YEAS
Members
Tardif
(Charlesbourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec- Est) Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Allmand
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy
Baker
Benjamin
Berger
Blackburn
(Brant) Broadbent Copps dc Corneille Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Foster
Frith
Fulton
[DOT] (N40)
Valcourt
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
++NAYS
Members
Garneau Gauthier Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Johnston (Saint-Henri- Westmount) Kaplan Keeper Killens MacLellan Manly Marchi McCurdy Murphy
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-137
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Ouellet
Penner
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud Robinson Tobin Young-42
Andre	Ferland	ManthaAttewell	Fontaine	MasseBeatty	Forrestall	MayerBelsher	Fraleigh	MazankowskiBernier	Fretz	McCainBlais	Friesen	McCrossanBlenkarn	Gagnon	McCuishBouchard	Gass	McDougallBourgault	Gottselig	(St. Paul's)Boyer	Gray	MclnnesBradley	(Bonaventure-lles-de-	McKenzieBrightwell	la-Madeleine)	McKinnonBrowes	Greenaway	McKnightCadieux	Grise	McMillanCardiff	Guilbault	MerrithewChampagne	(Drummond)	Minaker(Champlain)	Gustafson	MitgesCharest	Hamilton	NickersonClark	Harvey	Nowlan(Brandon-Souris)	Hawkes	OberleClifford	Hees	OostromClinch	Hnatyshyn	PaproskiCollins	Holtmann	PennockComeau	Horner	PetersonCorbett	Howie	PietzCossitt	James	PlourdeCote	Jelinek	Porter(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Jepson	RavisCote	Joncas	Redway(Langelier)	Jourdenais	ReidCrofton	Kempling	ReimerCrombie	Kindy	St-JulienCrosbie	King	Schellenberger(St. John's West)	Lanthier	(Wetaskiwin)Crosby	Lawrence	Scott(Halifax West)	Layton	(Victoria-Haliburton)Dantzer	Lesick	ScowenDarling	Lewis	Shieldsde Cotret	MacDonald	SiddonDella Noce	(Kingston and	SparrowDick	the Islands)	SpeyerDomm	MacDougall	StackhouseDorin	(Timiskaming)	StewartEllis	MacKay	SulukFennell	Mailly


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON REINSTATEMENT The House resumed from Friday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a)	which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what
circumstances;
(b)	which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of
death, and in what circumstances;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), this special committee be hereby appointed as a committee to prepare and bring in a bill no later than three months following the adoption of this motion, founded on the committee's recommendations on (a) and (b) above; such a bill shall be the object of a separate and distinct report of the special committee, and such a report shall be its final report;
That such bill, when reported from such special committee to the House, be deemed pursuant to Standing Order 107(1) to have been introduced and stand on the Order Paper, in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business"; and that, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a Legislative Committee;
[Stage Direction]

That the Striking Committee be empowered to name the Members of the special committee, provided that once the Striking Committee report is laid upon the Table, it shall be deemed concurred in;
That the special committee have the power to sit while the House is sitting and during periods when the House stands adjourned;
That the special committee be empowered to report from time to time and send for persons and papers, and to print such papers and evidence from time to time as may be ordered by the committee and to retain the services of expert, technical, professional and clerical staff;
That the special committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place inside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the appropriate staff accompany the committee;
That a quorum of the special committee be eight (8) members for any vote, resolution or other decision; and that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof whenever six (6) members are present;
That any substitution of membership on the special committee be made pursuant to Standing Order 94(4); and That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the special committee is ready to issue its final report and the said bill, the special committee shall present its report and the bill to the House by filing them with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and the bill shall then be deemed, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), to have been introduced at the first sitting of the House thereafter and to stand on the Order Paper in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business".
Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate today-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 move:
That the Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) be now heard.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I was speaking.


Mr. Speaker:: On Orders of the Day, resuming debate was called and the Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who, in the opinion of the Chair, was clearly speaking.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has risen and moved a traditional motion that another Member be now heard.
It is important that all Hon. Members and the public that is watching understand exactly what this procedure is, because it is a very difficult one for the Chair.
I am going to refer to what the procedural law is in this matter so that there is no misunderstanding. I am referring to a ruling of Speaker Sauve on October 27, 1983. It is as follows:
-Members may on a point of order ask that an Hon. Member be now heard as long as no other Member has the floor legitimately. Beauchesne states that a motion that a Member be now heard must be moved before the Member recognized has begun speaking. If the Member recognized has simply said "Madam Speaker," that is enough to be in possession of the House and, therefore, under those circumstances a motion that another Member be now heard is not in order.
Capital Punishment
There is always a difficulty for the Chair in these cases, because there is what amounts to a physical contest for the floor. However, in this case, clearly the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) had begun to speak, and 1 must advise the Hon. Member that he is out of order. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with today is a very important decision about the future of our country. Our decision will tell us how civilized our country is and what kind of country it will be for our kids.
Many Canadians have said there should be capital punishment. They say that because there is a lot of crime. They see violence on television and hear about it all the time. For these reasons I want to ask the Canadian people and my fellow Members of Parliament about 12 questions today with respect to whether or not we should reinstate capital punishment.
The most important question, of course, is if capital punishment is a deterrent, is it going to protect our society? Even those who believe in capital punishment have never been able to prove that it is a deterrent. They have not been able to prove it is a deterrent in this country, or in any other country. Therefore, if it is not a deterrent, why do people want to bring back capital punishment? If capital punishment is not a deterrent, then why bring it back?
I suggest the only reason for bringing back capital punishment is pure and simple revenge. It is vengeance. It is a belief that we must have an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is a belief that if someone robs you, you have the right to rob them. It is a belief that if someone were to punch you in the eye, you have the right to punch them in the eye. It is pure revenge. It is a vengeful vendetta. I suggest that basing the argument for capital punishment on revenge and retribution is not right.
My third question asks, if we bring back capital punishment, what kind of society will we have in this great country of ours called Canada? What kind of society will we be if we give the state the legal right to take a life, the right to kill someone? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that would not be a very nice society.
Bringing back capital punishment may indeed provoke even more murders, even more violence and killing. In his speech the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) outlined in detail some statistics on what we call the brutalization effect, that is, when a state legally kills someone it can provoke someone who is sick and demented to go out and kill someone or commit an act of violence.
The Hon. Member in his speech before the House cited some studies made in New York State and in South Carolina where indeed when the state did murder someone, there was concrete evidence that it provoked more killings and violence in those particular states. That evidence proves that there is a strong chance that if we bring back killing by the state, capital punishment, all we will do is create more violence and murder.


Capital Punishment
We have seen evidence time and time again that violent acts on television may provoke some violence of one kind or another. I remember when I was a young boy that a cousin of mine was always watching westerns on television. He saw how they kept hanging the bad man, and that in the next show the bad man came back. This little cousin of mine, who was about four-years old, went out to the barn, took his favourite cat and he hung the cat. This is the kind of message he was receiving from the television set.
I suggest that Canadians should be influenced by the fact that by executing people, we in turn may be provoking more violence and killings by sick and demented people.
My fourth question asks, are we going to get as many convictions for first-degree murder if we have capital punishment? Are juries going to convict people as readily of first-degree murder if we have capital punishment? I suggest that is highly unlikely. We will have more convictions for second-degree murder and murderers will be running around our streets a lot sooner if we have capital punishment rather than a 25 minimum first-degree sentence.
I refer again to studies which show that out of some 30 juries, at least 29 would have been affected by the fact that capital punishment was the law of this land. There are many Canadians in Canada who would never convict someone of first-degree murder if they knew that the conviction would result in someone being executed. As a result there would be more convictions for second-degree murders and murderers would be out on the street in a position to do more harm and violence to our society. I ask Members of Parliament to think a lot about that.
In my Province of Saskatchewan a couple of years ago JoAnn Wilson was murdered. We had the conviction of Colin Thatcher, a very prominent citizen of Saskatchewan. It was a very difficult case. The jury, if I remember correctly, took some five days to make a decision. I wonder whether Colin Thatcher would have been convicted of first-degree murder, which he was, if capital punishment was in force. I rather doubt it. The decision was difficult enough without the issue of capital punishment. With capital punishment, it would have been made a lot more difficult.
I believe if we had capital punishment, there would be millions of Canadians sitting on juries who would never knowingly send someone to the gallows and have blood on their conscience for the rest of their lives. That is an absolute fact. There are a lot of Canadians who would not convict someone if they knew that person had to face the executioner.
A Conservative friend of mine back here is laughing. 1 suggest it is no laughing matter. We are talking about something very serious.
My fifth question asks, can an innocent person be executed if we had capital punishment? I think the answer is very clearly yes. Again, the Conservative Member of Parliament from Ottawa West put some statistics on the record which proved that where they have capital punishment, over history,
many, many innocent people have been executed. I do not want this to happen in this country. I could not have that on my conscience. So I ask Members of Parliament to think very seriously about the possibility of an innocent person being executed.
Along that line, I would like to refer to a letter in the Prairie Messenger, which is a newspaper of the Roman Catholic Church in the Province of Saskatchewan. It was a letter written recently by Mr. Robert Eisler of Regina. I wish Members of Parliament who are leaning towards capital punishment would listen to Mr. Eisler's arguments. He says in part:
As long as we are human there is always the danger of putting an innocent person to death. So long as that possibility exists it completely destroys all arguments in favor of the death penalty.
How can I in all conscience vote for a return of the noose? In so doing, and should an innocent person be put to death, I would be compelled to spend the rest of my life with blood on my hands.
That is what Mr. Eisler wrote in the Catholic newspaper in Saskatchewan.
With the return of capital punishment, it is only a matter of time before an innocent person is put to death, and once someone is put to death there is no way of making amends or issuing apologies. Once that person is dead, that person is dead, and it is much too late. So I ask Members of Parliament to think very carefully about that issue before they rise in this House and ask that people be put to death in this country.
I refer to the Donald Marshall case recently in Nova Scotia. He was convicted of murder and after a number of years it was proven that Mr. Marshall was innocent. This was second-degree murder, but it is only a matter of time before someone is convicted of first-degree murder and put to death. As the Hon. Member for Ottawa West said, this has happened hundreds of times throughout history in countries and states which have capital punishment. Again I ask Members who want to vote for capital punishment, for hanging, to think twice before they do so.
My sixth question asks, if we bring back capital punishment, who is going to be executed? There was a study done of all the executions in Canada since we became a country back in 1867. It was found in this study that in the main it was the poor people who were executed; it was the disadvantaged who were executed; it was the native Indians who were executed in great numbers; it was the eastern Europeans, people of Ukrainian descent who, historically, were more likely to be executed than Anglo-Saxons. In the United States it is blacks who go to the gallows much more often then white Americans. That is so because they do not have the money to hire the best lawyers. They do not have the privileges that the wealthy have in our society.
Once again I say to Hon. Members, if we bring back capital
punishment we will be bringing in a law from which the rich
will once again be protected to a greater degree than the poor,


the deprived and the disadvantaged. I ask some of my wealthy friends in the House who are intending to vote for capital punishment to think very carefully about who, in the main, they will be sending to the gallows.
My seventh question is this. Will we save money by bringing back capital punishment? I have heard some people say, "Hang them, execute them, you will save money. Look at how much it costs to keep someone in jail. It costs thousands of dollars to keep someone in jail". Once again I say that that is a wrong argument. It is wrong to even base this type of argument on financial matters.
However, even if it is based on financial matters, I argue that it would cost the state more to bring in capital punishment than it would to keep someone in jail. There would be appeal after appeal, and millions and millions of dollars would be spent in the appeal process which would, once again, cost the Canadian people a great deal of money.
The next question I want to ask my fellow MPs who are thinking seriously about voting in favour of the return of capital punishment is this. Even if we bring back capital punishment, even if we bring back the hangman, will people be executed anyway? My answer to that is probably not. I cannot foresee any Prime Minister of Canada in the next number of years who will want to have on his conscience the fact that he had not commuted the death sentence for some Canadian. When we pass a Bill on capital punishment I assume that the power to commute a death sentence would rest with the Cabinet.
I cannot see the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ever agreeing because he believes in abolition. He does not believe in vengeance. He does not believe in capital punishment. In my opinion the present Prime Minister would never in effect, sign a death warrant, to have blood on his hands by agreeing to have someone sent to the gallows. That would not happen if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) were Prime Minister. It would not happen if the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) were Prime Minister. It did not happen with the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau. It did not happen with the Prime Minister before that, the current Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).
I am also proud to say that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has strongly hinted to the people of Canada that he would have to reconsider staying in his post as Minister of Justice if capital punishment were brought back and if he was faced with the possibility of having to send someone to the gallows.
Again, if we pass a resolution to establish a Bill to bring back capital punishment we will be setting up a process whereby legally we will have capital punishment but the final result will be that we will not send people to the gallows.
I ask another question of Hon. Members. Supposing someone in the family of an Hon. Member was convicted of murder, what would they do? I suspect there is not a single
Capital Punishment
person in the House who would not fight as hard as possible and use all the money they had to try to free that particular person. I want once again to quote Mr. Eisler's letter as it appeared in the Catholic Church's Prairie Messenger.
I have one question for those favouring a return of the death penalty. God forbid, but if some member of their family were charged with murder, would they still be in favour of capital punishment? Or would they be willing to spend their last dollar to prevent the ultimate? If not, I would hesitate to refer to them as caring and loving parents.
How can 1 promote capital punishment for someone else's son or daughter when I refuse to accept it for one of my own?
I think that is a very strong and compelling argument. There are a great many other arguments. There are a great many churches and a great many people who want to make those arguments. Because of that I want to move an amendment to the motion before the House, an amendment that will give the churches and the people of Canada more time to present their cases. My amendment is seconded by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and it reads as follows:
That the word "three" in lines 5 and 14 be deleted and that the word "six" be substituted therefor.
This amendment would mean that instead of having three months to study the issue of capital punishment the committee would take six months to study it. The people of Canada, namely, the churches, which have shown tremendous leadership on this issue, would have more time to talk to Canadians about how wrong it is in a decent and civilized society to bring back capital punishment, to provide the same laws in our country as exit in the Soviet Union, China, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Chile, and other countries in South America. Surely to goodness we can strive for higher ideals and higher moral values than there are in some of the countries I have just named. I appeal to my friends in the House not adopt the same mentality as those in the Soviet Union, Chile, South Africa, Iraq or Iran. For God's sake, we are a more decent, democratic and civilized society than some of those countries.
I say that it is not morally right to have capital punishment in Canada. It is not morally right, and the churches have said that to us. The Catholic Church has said time and time again that it is not right, as has the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, the United Church, the Mennonites and other churches. Representing the moral leadership of the country they have said no, no, no to capital punishment on moral terms. This House should be saying no, no, no to capital punishment as well.
I want to conclude by asking a few more questions. Can I ever vote for a Bill on capital punishment? Obviously, my answer is no, for the nine or ten reasons I have already given. If I cannot vote for capital punishment, then how can I pass a law which will state that another Canadian must make the decision to kill? If I cannot kill myself, if I cannot be the hangman myself or the executioner, how can I pass a law that will make it mandatory for another Canadian to do that job? How can I pass a law that states that a jury must make a decision on life or death? I cannot pass such a law.


Capital Punishment
How could I pass a law which would state that a judge must make a decision on life or death? I cannot morally do that. I do not know why I should then pass that decision on to a judge or a jury.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it fair to expect, if capital punishment is returned, to have a medical doctor stand and verify that somebody has been hung by the neck until dead and then pronounce that person dead? Should we expect a medical doctor to do that whether the method of execution is by hanging, electric chair or lethal injection? Is it fair to force the people in the medical community to go through that type of uncivilized act? It is not fair. I would not do it. How can I pass a law saying that we expect doctors to do it?
Is it fair to expect a minister of the cloth, a reverend or a priest, or what have you, to be there when someone is executed and to give them their last rites, to be with them and try to comfort them? That is not fair.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it morally right to leave someone who is condemned on death row year after year after year while the appeals go on and on, while the date of execution is pushed back and back? Do Members of the House really believe in that kind of torture? I ask them if they believe in that type of torture for someone who is condemned?
I also ask if Members of the House really believe that it is fair to the family of the condemned woman or man, to see their brother, sister, father, mother, cousin or loved one on death row waiting week after week and month after month and year after year while appeals are being exhausted and retried and exhausted once again?
Finally, I ask whether any Member of this House of Commons would volunteer to be the hangman? Someone has to pull the trigger, someone has to push the button. I suggest that there is no one in the House of Commons who would do that.


Paul Gagnon: Yes, there is, right here.


Felix Holtmann: Yes, I would.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon) would do it, and so would the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann). They are exceptions. They would volunteer to be the hangman, to push the button.


Paul Gagnon: We had a million people go serve in the war who do not want to fight against crime.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Almost no one in the House would do it. If we would not do it or they would not do it, how can they vote for a Bill that forces someone else to do it?


Felix Holtmann: As long as you were standing there we would do it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have had hangmen in this country who have committed suicide because of the job they had to do. These are people who lived a life of sheer hell because of the job they had to do.
Mr. Speaker, if we would not do it ourselves, how can we pass a law that obligates another member of our society to be the executioner, to be the hangman?
We live in a civilized society. We have a great country. I believe we now have to reach for higher morals, for a higher standard in society. History will judge us on how we vote on this issue. Years down the road, when I am asked where I stood on this very historical debate, I will be able to say with pride that I stood on the side of decency, that I stood on the side of higher morals in our society, that I stood on the side of a democratic society, a just society; that I did not stand on the side of those who want to bring back the noose, taking us closer to the kind of society we see in the Soviet Union, or China, or Iraq, or Turkey, or Iran, or Chile, and other countries of South America, or South Africa. 1 do not believe in the kind of society that exists in those places. I believe that Canadian people reflecting on this issue will overwhelmingly come down on the side that capital punishment is morally wrong and dangerous for Canada as a country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of Mr. Nystrom's amendment. The Chair finds the motion for amendment in order.
Questions or comments?
The Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson), on debate.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House today to speak on the issue of capital punishment, an issue on which there are deeply held convictions on both sides. It is wrong for those on either side of the issue to claim the high moral ground. Those on both sides of the question have deep convictions. It is wrong to impute that one side has the high moral ground and the other not.
In the debates that I have had with the former Solicitor General, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and Mr. Edward Greenspan, it was generally agreed that the statistics will not conclusively prove either side of the issue.
I am in favour of capital punishment for first degree murder, or premeditated murder. I believe the courts must have the capital punishment option. The Government must make it clear that society will not tolerate the premeditated taking of a life. The clear message must be that the sanctity of life is foremost in our considerations.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we see a focus on the rights of the
accused as an individual. But, what about the collective rights


and the protection of society as a whole? Are those rights not deserving of consideration and protection?
We hear that the guilty party is a product of his or her environment and is therefore not responsible for his or her actions. I believe that we are all ultimately responsible for our actions, and must be held accountable. When are we going to see a focus on individual responsibility and accountability in our society?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that responsibility fosters a just society; an undue focus on individual rights fosters rebellion. Our criminal laws must be based on justice, and under those laws a person must be responsible for his or her actions.
The 1978-79 statistics show that the average time served in prison for attempted murder before being granted parole was four years and nine months; for manslaughter, two years and nine months; for kidnapping, two years and six months; for rape, two years. What kind of a message do those statistics send to society about the sanctity and value of life, about justice in our society.
In looking at the issue of capital punishment, it is important that we look at the over-all justice system. And in looking at the plea bargaining system, at the parole system, at the bail laws, and all other aspects of justice, we see that there has to be a tightening up, there has to be more accountability. We must send a stronger message to society. It must be made clear that we will not tolerate blatant abuse of the laws of our land, blatant abuse of the protection and rights of all Canadians.
The abolitionists in this debate have a concern about error, about the possibility of an innocent person being executed. Since Confederation, there has not been one person executed who was later found to be innocent. Yet, since 1920 there have been eight murderers released, with the resultant loss of 11 more innocent lives. Many of those victims had a full life ahead of them, with expectations and dreams. They were simply snuffed out.
We speculate about the margin of error in the court system, with no concrete evidence that in fact it works against the innocent. We do, however, have concrete evidence to support the fact that 11 innocent lives have been snuffed out by repeat offenders, by murderers who had been released.
I have faith in our judicial system. I have faith in the men and women of Canada who are involved in the judicial system. I have faith in the due process of law, with the exhaustive appeal system that is in place.
Those on the other side of this issue are constantly throwing out this red herring about the possibility of an innocent person being executed. They cite the Donald Marshall case as an example of a situation where an innocent man could have been taken to the execution chamber. We know better than that. Donald Marshall was charged with, and convicted of, second
Capital Punishment
degree murder, not first degree murder. What I stand for is capital punishment for first degree, premeditated murder.
We hear the Biblical quotation "an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth" as justification for vengeance.
Mr. Speaker, what that scripture is saying to us is that we must have sentences that are commensurate with the crime committed. It is not that the punishment for cutting a person's arm off is to cut off the arm of the perpetrator of that act; that the punishment for killing a person is necessarily that the perpetrator of that act should be killed.
What we are saying is that we must have punishments commensurate with the crime committed, and I do not believe we are seeing that in the operation of our judicial system today. I repeat the statistics cited earlier. For attempted murder the average prison sentence is four years and nine months; for manslaughter, where a life has actually been taken, the average time in prison is two years and nine months.
1 find such sentences hard to comprehend in our society today.
We also hear those on the opposite side of this question quoting scripture, "Thou shalt not kill". What the scripture says is, "Thou shalt not murder". It cannot be said that the state, in carrying out an execution, is murdering or killing; what the state is doing is executing judgment.
Romans 13.1.6 tells us that God places Governments in authority over the people, to provide for the protection of society. Those who commit no wrongdoing or evil have nothing to fear; but those who do break the law, those who do commit crimes of violence, have to fear the "execution of the sword", as it is quoted in scripture. In other words, they have to stand fully accountable under the law.
Furthermore, Genesis 9.6 says, "Who so sheddeth a man's blood by man shall blood be shed."
I believe scripture very clearly states that capital punishment is in order for first degree premeditated murder.
We heard the New Democratic Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) talk about the stands of the various churches. There is no question that the executives of the United and Anglican Churches, as well as the Conference of Catholic Bishops, have stated that they are against capital punishment. There is no question about that. However, they are not speaking for their memberships. If they were speaking for their memberships, it would be clearly reflected in the polls, yet we see that for a number of years the percentage of Canadians in favour of capital punishment has hovered between 60 per cent and 70 per cent. It is quite obvious that they are not speaking for their memberships; they are speaking as executives of the respective churches.
Turning to the question of deterrence, I agree with my
friend from Saskatchewan who spoke before me that it cannot
be conclusively proven that capital punishment is a deterrent.


Capital Punishment
However, it cannot be proven conclusively that there is not a deterrent factor.
If capital punishment does not deter crime, why do criminals fear it more than any other penalty? Why does almost every criminal sentenced to death appeal for life imprisonment? Life is irrefutably the murderer's most valuable possession.
According to J. Edgar Hoover, a Director of the FBI, professional law enforcement officers are convinced from experience that hardened criminals have been and are deterred from killing based on the prospect of the death penalty.
If we reflect back to 1971 and the Kingston Prison riots, at that time capital punishment was in effect for the killing of prison guards. Although 12 lives were lost in that sad event, not one prison guard was killed. In fact, the prisoners murdered two inmates and dressed them up as prison guards, hoping to fool the media and those with whom they were negotiating to try to bring it to an end which was to their satisfaction.
I find it ironic that we live in a day and age when we see
66,000	unborn babies murdered each year. Yet, we see a Party like the NDP to my right, which is kind of ironic, standing for abortion on demand, to continue the wanton killing of innocent lives. At the same time, as a bloc, as a Party, it stands against capital punishment.
In conclusion, may I say that I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the debate be now adjourned.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
(Division No. 218)

Members
Attewell	Grise	PorterBelsher	Gurbin	RavisBernier	Hamilton	RedwayBlais	Harvey	ReimerBouchard	Hawkes	St-JulienBourgault	Holtmann	SchellenbergBoyer	Horner	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Bradley	Howie	SchellenbergerBrightwell	Jelinek	(Wetaskiwin)Brisco	Jepson	ScottBrowes	Joncas	(Victoria-Haliburton)Cardiff	Jourdenais	ScottChampagne	Kempling	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Champlain)	Kindy	ScowenClifford	King	SparrowClinch	Lanthier	SpeyerCollins	Lawrence	StewartComeau	Lesick	SulukCorbett	Lewis	TardifCossitt	MacDougall	(Charlesbourg)Cote	(Timiskaming)	Taylor(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Malone	ThackerDantzer	Mayer	TowersDarling	Mazankowski	TremblayDomm	McCain	(Quebec-Est)Fennell	McCrossan	Van De WalleFontaine	McCuish	VankoughnetForrestall	McKinnon	WarnerFraleigh	McKnight	WhiteFriesen	Nickerson	WilsonGagnon	Nowlan	(Swift CurrentGottselig	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)Gray	Pennock	Winegard-92(Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway	Peterson Pietz Plourde	
++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Hopkins	NunziataAngus	Johnston	NystromBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	OuelletBerger	Westmount)	Pennerde Corneille	Kaplan	Prud'hommeEpp	Keeper	Riis(Thunder Bay-	Lapierre	RobichaudNipigon)	Malepart	RobinsonFoster	Manly	Young-29Gauthier	Marchi	Grondin	McCurdy	Heap	Murphy


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) on a point of order.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Jepson), which was agreed to on the following division:


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to say that I
would have voted against the motion, like my Party colleagues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, your vote will be recorded. [English]
It being 1.05 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.05 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p. m.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, following the failure of the most recent First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal rights, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said: "That was not the end of it... I deeply regret we did not succeed but-we shall try again to make sure that justice comes about for the native peoples of Canada".
All Hon. Members can applaud, approve and wholeheartedly support that affirmation of the Prime Minister of Canada. That being so, I ask this House if it is not curious, therefore, that the Government is terminating its constitutional funding to the national native organizations for aboriginal rights research and negotiation, with special reference to the right of self-government?
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has no reply except to say that funding will end as of June 30. I ask him and I ask the Prime Minister is it not really the case that aboriginal issues have been pushed off the agenda of the Government and the hope is that a few good words and nice sentiments from time to time will suffice as those unresolved rights are permitted to disappear from our sight?



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I believe the death penalty for people who deliberately plan and then murder a human being is a deterrent. However, whether it is or not, I support the execution of such murderers. Why? Primarily because Biblical evidence in both the Old and New Testaments supports capital punishment.
"Whoso sheddith man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ... ''(Genesis 9:5,6). No later statements in the Holy Book cancel this principle of civil government.
Again, Paul the Apostle endorsed capital punishment when he said: "If I be an offender or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die: (Acts 25:11). And when
God gave us the Ten Commandments to guide our behaviour in life, the verse says: "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). But if we disobey this commandment then we are punished, and for premeditated murder under the Mosaic Law the punishment was death.
When Christ was on the cross he forgave the sins of the thief, but He did not stop the execution and He could have, had He chosen to do so.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Secretary of State has recommended that the budget of the Women's Program be at least maintained at current levels, indexed to the cost of living and, if possible, be increased to meet the needs of new groups and address emerging priorities. The Women's Program gives the Government excellent value for its money in terms of volunteer hours and staff dedication.
Additional funds are required for projects aimed specifically at improving the status of women who are doubly disadvantaged, such as women who live in remote regions, those who are disabled or are members of a visible minority. Government must not pit established groups against new groups in a futile battle to divide up a pie which isn't large enough to go around. Instead, we must recognize that until economic, social and political barriers to equality have been removed, the Women's Program will require government support.
I would ask that the budget for the Secretary of State's Women's Program be increased so that women's advancement toward equality may continue.



DRUMMONDVILLE SIXTH WORLD FOLKLORE FESTIVAL


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to a special event which will take place in my riding, the sixth edition of the World Folklore Festival. I extend an invitation to all my colleagues and to all Canadians to attend the festivities. During the July 3-13 period we will be welcoming groups from every corner of the world: Africa, Asia, Europe and North America. Spend 10 days with us and discover the popular traditions and culture of various nations through songs, music, dances, and a wide variety of most enlightening activities.

In five years Drummondville's World Folklore Festival had become the most important folkloric event in North America. More than 600,000 visitors attended last year's festivities. We have various activities, including craft exhibits, more than 400 dance shows, religious events, public events, and day and night parades.
I should like to commend the Mackinaw folkloric ensemble for their outstanding contribution in first hosting this festival. I expect to see you at the World Folklore Festival between July 3 and July 13, for this is a unique event.



CHILDREN


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Defence for Children International, a Swiss based organization dedicated to children's issues, has just released a report "Children under Apartheid'' detailing incidences of child abuse in South Africa. This report outlines massive evidence that members of the South African Government's security forces are abusing the powers granted them under the state of emergency in effect since last June, and children are being arrested and detained without cause.
The South African Government has admitted it is guilty of these allegations. Since 1985, police have shot and killed more than 300 children and wounded more than 950 children with gun-fire.
The report also alleges that an estimated 10,000 children under the age of 18 years are held in custody without trial in South Africa.
The Canadian Government has known for a long time of the brutal treatment of innocent black South African children. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has been reluctant up until this point to impose full economic sanctions against South Africa. But his other avenues of recourse are not stopping the cruel and oppressive treatment of South African blacks.
It is good that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has condemned the treatment of blacks by the Botha Government. Will he now commit his Government to helping innocent children? These children deserve a future, not one that is marred with a loss of dignity, torture, and even brutal slaughter.



MULTICULTURALISM

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-FOUNDATION OF MULTICULTURAL IDENTITY
William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to address the House with respect to the provisions for Canada's multicultural community in our constitutional Accord.
It is with honour that I allay misgivings expressed in this Chamber and in the media that the large number of Canadians of neither French nor English background may be overlooked in the Accord. In both spirit and actual wording our rich cultural language of ancestral traditions and heritage languages is portrayed and assured of protection.
Canada's respect for its multicultural roots has always been government policy and it will be further entrenched next autumn when the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) tables Canada's first ever multiculturalism Act. More than ever, our unique multicultural identity will be seen as a fact of law, not just as a fact of life.
Our constitutional Accord serves as a firm foundation by which the Government upholds its cherished multicultural character. The new Act will further affirm this symbol of Canadian ancestral pride.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Saskatchewan the Conservative Government of Grant Devine brought in a Budget. In this Budget the Government increased the flat tax, increased the sales tax from 5 per cent to 7 per cent, brought back the gas tax, and brought in all types of other taxes. During the campaign members of the Conservative Party promised not to increase taxes. They have now brought in tax after tax after tax.
Once again this action shows us that Tory times are taxing times; that Tory times are tough times.
In addition, medical care services have been cut back, as have dental care services, nursing homes, and services to ordinary people.
The present Government of Saskatchewan is similar to the Government of R. B. Bennett of the 1930s. That was the Government that brought us the Great Depression. I learned as a little child that Tory times are tough times. After R. B. Bennett the Conservative Party disappeared in the West for about 35 years. It was not until Diefenbaker revived it that it reappeared.
With this latest Budget of Grant Devine and with the help
of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), once again


the Conservative Party will become extinct in the West and the legacy of John Diefenbaker will disappear.
Tory times are tough times.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, as official spokesman for the socialist Party in matters of defence, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) should clarify his position concerning Canada's NATO participation in the defence of the interests of western communities.
We know that all Members of his Party, including their leader, are systematically opposed to Canada's participation in NATO, and we know that the resolutions which have been in force since the 1985 socialist convention confirm the policy concerning Canada's withdrawal fron NATO and other military alliances, as evidenced by Resolution 43 of the Convention of 85.
At their latest convention in March of this year the delegates and the leader of the socialist Party were not honest enough to include this question and explain their position to Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians support the western world's common defence system.
This bunch of leftists and Kremlin sympathizers must forthwith state their official position on our defence policy.
The leader of the socialist Party should listen to me. Is he going to throw out the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)? Is he going to ignore the resolutions of his delegates? One way or another, Mr. Speaker, as usual he will have to flip and flop.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, as most of us already know, the fire earlier this week at the Reynolds plant at Cap-de-la-Madeleine has caused serious damage.
This is very unfortunate for our region, and although long term lay-offs do not seem likely, the tragedy will have an impact on the region's economy, at least for some time.
That is why I hope the Government will do everything it can to help that industry overcome the adverse effects of the fire as soon as possible.
I want to ask all departments concerned to take action immediately and offer government assistance to Reynolds' management.
Since many people in my riding work at the plant, I want to take this opportunity to say they have my full support.



IN REMEMBRANCE OF RABBI DAVID FEUERWERKER

John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, Canadians commemorate this week the passing of Grand Rabbi Dr. David Feuerwerker, Z.T.L., on June 20, 1980.
This Lamed Vav was more than a builder of our communities. He was the guide and master of many generations.
We cannot omit some reference to the work of Grand Rabbi David Feuerwerker who saved thousands of human lives from the horrors of the death camps.
Chamir, FF1 Captain, co-founder of the Combat movement, Rabbi of Tournelles, director of the Cercle d'Etudes du Marais, General Chaplain, professor at the Sorbonne and at the University of Montreal, author of L'emancipation des Juifs, Grand Rabbi of the Canadian Jewish Cultural Association, he rests in peace beside the judges of the Sanhedrin at the foot of the Temple in Jerusalem.
With his wife, Antoinette Gluck, we publicly sanctify the name of God and declare that the chain of tradition is intact, and we shall recite, with all God's peoples, a fervent Kaddish in memory of Grand Rabbi Dr. David Feuerwerker, Zichon Tzadik Livrocho.



FISHERIES


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in St. John's, fishermen and processors could not reach an agreement on the capelin fishery. In a press release issued yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries stated:
-it appears unlikely that production of capelin product in excess of 15.000 tonnes would be of benefit to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador. Given the current unsold inventory of capelin in the Japanese market, and the increase of production in Iceland in 1987, the previously established harvesting quota of 69,000 tonnes seems far in excess of market demand for this year.
Since the Minister can clearly identify the problem, one
wonders why he has failed the fishermen of Newfoundland


miserably by not having the courage to come through with a solution. He has rejected any form of price supports-"the free market must prevail at all costs."
He has failed to create any form of marketing boards or use existing infrastructures to help this ailing fishery and, finally, he has refused to move quickly on the industry's call for a reduction in the capelin quota to more appropriate levels.
No wonder Newfoundlanders call this a 100 per cent failure.



THE CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-ABORIGINAL AND MULTICULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, Canadians whose origins are other than French or English have serious concerns over their status within the present constitutional Accord.
When I raised this issue on Tuesday with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), rather than dealing with the issue with the sensitivity and seriousness that the matter deserves, he preferred, instead, to suggest, very falsely, that I was at odds with my Leader and with my Party by raising these concerns.
It should be made very clear to the Prime Minister that at our policy conference last November, unlike the present Accord, in the preamble of our constitutional resolution, a resolution that was adopted very enthusiastically, we suggested that Canada is defined by its French, English, aboriginal, and multicultural dimensions.
Furthermore, on May 11, my Leader in the House of Commons, three times in the body of his speech, repeated the concerns about the lack of any "multicultural" reference in the Accord. Moreover, in his national address on CBC to the country, he voiced regret that the Premiers and the Prime Minister did not go further and recognize, fundamentally, the contributions and aspirations of our indigenous and multicultural community in Canada.
The Prime Minister has not given good reasons for rejecting, in Clause 1, the addition of a very integral part of Canadian society.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, almost two months ago a parliamentary committee recommended that the major department stores reduce their charge card rates to the level of the bank-issued credit cards. Almost two months later, with the banks having lowered their
rates significantly, store chains like The Bay, Canadian Tire, Eatons, Sears, Simpson's and Woolco are still charging 28.8 per cent on outstanding balances.
I ask those companies the following questions. Are they saying "the Parliament of Canada be damned"? What do we need? What are they waiting for? Do we have to take a legislative club and beat them over their corporate heads?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE HONOURABLE STANLEY KNOWLES


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon to mark an important occasion. Today, a very special former parliamentarian is celebrating his seventy-ninth birthday. I refer of course to the Hon. Stanley Knowles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, Stanley Knowles likes to tell the story of how goat's milk saved his life when he was a child. He grew up to be a man whose kindness and strength of character are legendary, and we hope to celebrate many more anniversaries with him.

When Stanley was 21 years old, his father wrote to him and said the following in his letter:
I note how your soul is burning with the vision and zeal of youth to carry the message of good news to the peoples of the earth that will make this earth more heavenly and certainly a better place to live in.
Well, Stanley followed that up.

The wisdom that comes with age has in no way diminished Stanley's vision of a fairer and more compassionate world. He has worked very hard to realize this vision for Canadian men and women. Ever since he was elected Member for the riding of Winnipeg North Centre in 1942, he has led the fight to improve living conditions for the poor and the needy. And he keeps reminding us that the fight is not over yet.

Over 60 years ago when Stanley first visited Ottawa in 1924, the Peace Tower had not yet been completed. Today, the image of Stanley personifies Parliament as indelibly as the Peace Tower for Canadians from coast to coast.
I should like to ask all Members of the House to join with
me in wishing Stanley a most happy birthday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) concerning the principle of secrecy as it relates to fiscal matters. Yesterday I allowed extensive argument on this matter because I recognized that it was one of overriding importance. Because it affects a major fiscal issue which is to be brought before the House later today, I have decided that I should not delay my ruling.
The question of privilege of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was based to some extent on a report in yesterday's Globe and Mail. The right hon. gentleman supplied the Chair with a copy of that report, and I have read it very carefully. There is no doubt that the report gives the impression that the 20 experts engaged by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to study the final text of his White Paper are a privileged group who will be able to provide advice to their clients with the benefit of advantages that others working in their field will not have.
The facts, as I understand them, and which are not disputed, are as follows. Twenty experts have been engaged by the Hon. Minister of Finance to give technical advice on the White Paper which is to be presented to this House tonight. They have been involved in the process for a matter of months but have been given a preview of the final text, or parts of the final text, of the White Paper prior to its tabling in the House this evening. These 20 people have all been sworn to secrecy and have taken the same oath as that administered to members of the Public Service.
The complaint of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, which was supported by a number of Hon. Members who participated in the discussion, is that these 20 individuals have been given a special privilege of which they could take advantage. I emphasize the word "could", the conditional tense, because it was not suggested by any Hon. Member that any of these people had in fact breached their oaths of secrecy or were likely to do so. The integrity of these individuals is not in question, and Hon. Members will remember that I intervened several times during the discussion to establish this point. I want it to be clearly understood.
The question of privilege is based exclusively on the suggestion that the privileges of Hon. Members of this House have been breached because 20 individuals have been given access to the final text of the White Paper before it has been made available to Members of the House. The Hon. Minister of Finance made the point that the White Paper was not a
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
budget, that it is nothing more than a proposal and that it does not even represent budgetary policy. While I appreciate the distinction, I feel that the White Paper nevertheless has very important budgetary implications.
The Hon. Minister of Finance also made the point that there was nothing new in the Government hiring experts to advise it on budgetary matters. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and those who supported him saw a distinction between the hiring of experts during the formulation process and giving those same experts access to a final document before its presentation to the House.
I have examined the precedents available and have come to the following conclusions. Budgetary secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention. Its purpose is to prevent anybody from gaining a private advantage by reason of obtaining advance budgetary information. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to two British cases which involved the resignations of Ministers, in one case a Chancellor of the Exchequer because of a budget leak. However, the issues were never raised as matters of parliamentary privilege.
In this House, issues of this nature have in the past been raised as questions of privilege. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) referred to two such cases. In a ruling relating to one of them given on April 17, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome expressed serious doubts as to whether the convention of budgetary secrecy fell within the area of privilege at all. I must inform the House that in these circumstances I have arrived at the same conclusion.
I do not believe that this issue was one of privilege because Hon. Members of this House, and this is very important when one considers what is privilege, have not in any way been obstructed in the fulfilment of their duties by the fact that these 20 experts were given a preview of the White Paper. 1 must emphasize, however, that I am not ruling on the issue of propriety. The limits of parliamentary privilege are very narrow and it is not a responsibility of the Chair to rule as to whether or not a parliamentary convention is justified or whether or not the matter complained of is a breach of that convention. That is a matter of political debate and not one in which the Chair would wish to become involved.
I draw to Hon. Members notice of the fact that during argument yesterday, Hon. Members rose to say that they were not rising against the principle of a Government consulting with people in the private sector. I must therefore rule that on the evidence presented to me, I cannot accord this matter precedence over all other business. I stress, however, that I am ruling on this matter only as it relates to parliamentary privilege.
I would also emphasize that nothing which has been said in this House implies any reflection on the integrity of the 20 individuals to whom reference has been made. In that regard, I am indebted to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who made that point abundantly clear toward the end of argument


Oral Questions
yesterday and was supported by other Hon. Members, keeping in mind my admonition that I have I asked Hon. Members to remember that we must always guard the reputations of those outside this Chamber and respect their integrity and innocence in these matters.
I thank Hon. Members for their interventions yesterday, interventions which were lengthy but which I believe were important.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we of course accept your ruling on the question of privilege on the basis of our knowledge and your knowledge of the facts as they are now available to us. We note that you left the question of propriety open, so my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
As a result of a letter written today by the Minister of Finance to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, who is currently quarantined, we know 31 specially privileged lawyers and accountants were given advance information on tax policy. I suggest in the strongest terms that was wrong, unfair, and unethical. It is as simple and clear as that. What is not clear is whether the Government knows the difference between right and wrong and, if it does, whether it really cares.
Did the Prime Minister know that 31 leading specialists in tax law and accounting were to be given privileged access to the White Paper in advance of Members of Parliament and other Canadians, and did he personally approve?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend of course knows it is not wrong, not unfair, and the conduct was not unethical. Surely he just heard the Speaker purport to speak in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition where, as I understand it, he, the Right Hon. Member, did not suggest there was anything improper or unethical regarding the conduct of those people who participated. The question then becomes is this kind of consultation conventional? I think it is.
The tradition for some considerable period of time has been that, given the progressive complexity of tax legislation on the social policy, labour and legal sides, Ministers of Finance reach out to various experts from all walks of life to seek guidance and counsel in the application of tax policy. That is what was done by the Minister of Finance and the Government, and I think it is entirely proper and helpful.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not understand or is not willing to understand. The Speaker left open the question of propriety. He left it open to debate and to the judgment of the Canadian people. His Honour dispensed with the question of privilege but left open the question of propriety.


Jack Wendele Shields: He said it was political debate, John.


John Napier Turner: We are not questioning the ethics of those who accepted the invitation from the Minister of Finance. We are questioning the ethics of the Minister in giving an unfair advantage to experts at the expense of the Canadian people.

Mr. Speaker, how unfortunate that the Prime Minister should be unable to understand this question.


INQUIRY WHY 31 PRIVILEGED PERSONS WERE ENABLED TO EXAMINE DETAILS IN ADVANCE
John Napier Turner: The
question is this: Why did the Prime Minister allow these 31 privileged persons to gain advance knowledge of some of the details of the tax reform, ahead of Hon. Members and ahead of other Canadians? Can the Prime Minister tell us why he did not chastise the Minister of Finance for inviting these experts and giving them preferential treatment, thus completely ignoring all other Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that nobody was given preferential treatment, that it was a perfectly normal practice, followed by other Ministers of Finance, to consult experts in this field in an attempt to come up with a tax policy which is consistent with the interests of all Canadians. This process dates back to a few years. The Leader of the Opposition is asking me why the Prime Minister allowed ... Yes, but as far as I know many Prime Ministers before me not only allowed but even urged their Ministers of Finance to consult even more, and I would suggest that is precisely what the Minister of Finance did under perfectly normal circumstances.


NATURE OF OBJECTION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we did not say the Minister of Finance had no right to consult experts. No. We do object to the fact that the Minister gave these experts an advantage after making his final decision. That is the difference which the Prime Minister fails to understand.
The books were closed and these gentlemen had a cosy
advantage over the rest of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Napier Turner: The Government sinks into more disrepute with every answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Question.


John Napier Turner: A small dose of frankness would do wonders.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not recognize that his Minister of Finance has breached a centuries-old tradition of tax secrecy which ensures that all the citizens of the realm are treated equally? If he does, why is his Minister of Finance still the Minister of Finance today?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend says that he is not questioning the integrity of the outside advisers and then proceeds to do precisely that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He proceeds to imply very categorically that they had a "cosy advantage" which they were going to abuse notwithstanding their oath of secrecy and position of trust which this Government and other Governments have used with regard to-


John Napier Turner: Give me a precedent for this particular situation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will give a precedent on giving out tax information. When Marc Lalonde was Minister of Finance the Budget was put out to all Canadian people. When they were caught they changed it, which cost Canadians $200 million. That is a fundamental violation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHOICE OF MEMBERS OF SPECIALISTS GROUP
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is on the same subject. The Prime Minister says that the chosen few, the group of 31, were not given an unfair advantage. Canadians do not believe that and the facts suggest otherwise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Question.


John V. Nunziata: How were the chosen few in fact chosen? How was this elite group of 31 put together? Can he explain why, for example, the major firms of Laventhol & Horwath,
Oral Questions
Peat Marwick, and Samson Belair were not invited to participate in this elite group? Can he explain how the others were chosen?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell my hon. friend that which has been conveyed publicly, that is, that the officials of the Department of Finance who have dealt with tax matters over the years under successive Governments have consulted with people from the private sector. I was not aware of who was being consulted. If some people have been left off the list, I am sure we would be happy to correct it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I bet you would.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, perhaps when the Prime Minister is correcting the list he might want to invite the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, the poverty organizations, and all the other major groups in the country who have an interest in the White Paper.


CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING GROUP MEMBERS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, is it mere coincidence or pure happenstance that the firms of Ernst & Whinney and Thorne Riddell contributed over $164,000 to the Conservative Party between 1984 and 1985? Was it mere coincidence that they contributed this amount of money and were subsequently invited to select two people to participate in this elite group?


B. Keith Penner: Now we know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members will of course understand that that question does not go to the administration of the Government or any particular Department thereof. It is, of course, in the hands of Ministers whether they wish to answer the question.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps I can rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How were they chosen?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has indicated that he is prepared to accept my admonishment and rephrase the question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we in the Opposition and indeed all Canadians would like to know how this list was put together. I will direct the question to the Minister of Finance.
What criteria were used to choose the major firms invited to participate in this elite group? Can he explain why certain major accounting firms and certain major law firms were not invited to participate? Would he not agree that those invited to participate would have an unfair advantage in the situation?


Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear why these people were invited to participate. They were invited by the officials of the Department of Finance on the basis of their professional qualifications. These people are seen by the tax community as the best tax experts in the country. If the Hon. Member wants to ask around about the qualifications of these people in their community, I think he would find that that is exactly the basis on which they are regarded by their peers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about Peat Marwick?


CHANGE MADE TO BUDGET BY FORMER MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I preface it with the observation that the Speaker has said that he ruled the question of privilege out of order because privilege is defined in very narrow and strict terms. However, he went on to say that the White Paper "has very important budgetary implications".
With regard to the Prime Minister's answer about Marc Lalonde, I suggest that the conclusion is the opposite to the one he reached. Is it not the case that Marc Lalonde changed the Budget precisely because it was discovered that he had done something wrong?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that British parliamentary practice calls for the Minister's resignation when information with regard to a Budget is made public. As I understand it, with regard to the case of Mr. Lalonde that information was made public. The Minister did not resign, in violation of British parliamentary practice. He changed the Budget and then came back into the House and said he did not have to resign because the information was different from that in the document which had been filmed.
I think my hon. friend would agree that that is a complete violation of British parliamentary practice while the present Minister of Finance is in total conformity with British parliamentary practice.


MINISTER'S ACTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say with respect that I think the Prime Minister has drawn the wrong conclusion again. As I understand the case, the Hon. Marc Lalonde would have had to do one of two things-either change the budget document in respect of the information that was revealed to the public, or resign. He changed the document. In this case a Minister gave privileged access to budgetary information-


An Hon. Member:: It is not budgetary.


John Edward Broadbent: -information that has direct budgetary implications, as the Speaker has said. The Minister in question
neither changed the document afterwards nor submitted his resignation. When will he do the right thing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that Mr. Lalonde had to do one of two things. That is where we part company. Mr. Lalonde should have done one thing, that is, resign. He made that Budget public and the photographic evidence was obtained. There is a fundamental difference. He did not have two options. Pursuant to parliamentary practice that is cited so well by a former Minister of Finance, who is presently the Leader of the Opposition, there was one inevitable conclusion which Mr. Lalonde ought to have made. He chose not to, and changed the practice, and changed his Budget.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are doing neither.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The White Paper is not a Budget. It is something entirely different from a Budget, as White Papers have traditionally been since this country was founded. My hon. friend knows that.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, those were not my words, they were the words of the Speaker who said that this White Paper is not merely a discussion document of some kind. He said it "has very important budgetary implications".
Perhaps a difference between the Marc Lalonde situation and the present one is that at least all the people in Canada had access to the particular point that Mr. Lalonde incorrectly revealed, whereas this Minister just gave it to a handful of people.


Finlay MacDonald: They are under oath.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the Prime Minister not agree that there is an important distinction to be made between consulting people before preparing a document, whether it is a White Paper or a Budget, and giving them the information after the document has been prepared, which is this case? If he agrees that they should not have privileged access, why were the documents not taken back and held for at least 24 hours to make complete changes, or why did the Minister not do the correct thing, which is indeed to resign under the circumstances?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will agree that he has asked a number of questions. Let us deal with the fundamental issue.
A White Paper is not something that is truly exceptional. We are considering one tonight and there was one some two weeks ago on the question of national defence. It is the same kind of instrument that is used in a parliamentary democracy for a Government to put forward plans and invite debate and consideration of a great national issue. It sets forth the general thrust of government thinking, but it is not a Budget in the


sense that it does not, per se, take effect the very same day pursuant to a Ways and Means Motion.
I think my hon. friend would agree that there is a world of difference between the White Paper on national defence or a White Paper on tax reform, and a formal Budget which has its own conventions and has acquired its own traditions and requirements over the decades and centuries.
1 am asked for a view in regard to what took place with Mr. Lalonde who was presenting a Budget. There was clearly no option. That required the Minister's resignation because that was an impropriety of the highest parliamentary order.
What has taken place here is consultation pursuant to the publication of a White Paper, as happened with the White Paper on defence two weeks ago. Surely my hon. friend would agree that there was nothing improper two weeks ago, and there is really nothing improper today.


CONSULTANTS' ADVANCE ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I do not see how the Government can get away from the characterization of this White Paper as a document in the nature of a Budget. That is clear from answers given by the Prime Minister today and from answers that the Minister of Finance gave yesterday.
Consultation is fine until the preparation of the final document. However, what precedent is there for giving privileged access of final documents to members of the public before the document is revealed here to Members of Parliament?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this particular question has been answered. It was referred to in the Speaker's ruling. These people have taken an oath under the Official Secrets Act in the course of their work advising on the preparation of the White Paper. That is the substance of the position they have taken.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Parliamentary tradition is clear that members of the public not be given that type of access whether or not they take oaths.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister claim to rest on long established precedent, what precedent is there for giving members of the public under any circumstances-oath or no oath-privileged access to the contents of the document before the revelation of a Budget here?


An Hon. Member:: It is not a Budget.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the former Prime Minister and former Ministers of the Crown would know that in any Government there are
Oral Questions
dozens of consultations going on that involve highly sensitive information about which Canadians are invited to assist the Government, pursuant to the Official Secrets Act. There is nothing new in this.
It took place most recently in regard to the White Paper on national defence which was designed to put forward a position paper that Canadians could then debate more fully in public. There were intimate consultations involved in that before.
There is nothing new in this, and the Minister's conduct in this regard has been consistent with tradition and perfectly proper, as one would expect from this Minister of Finance.


QUERY CONCERNING PRECEDENTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. 1 think we all agree that proper consultation on matters such as tax reform is very appropriate. However, I want to indicate to the Prime Minister that this is a White Paper which is government policy by definition, and our information is that it will be accompanied by the tabling of a Ways and Means Motion. It goes far beyond a simple statement of intent by the Government.
The Prime Minister indicated in his response to my Leader that there were all sorts of precedents regarding this matter, where public individuals had access to the final document, whether it was a Budget or a White Paper on taxation to which people from the private sector, not on the payroll of the Department of Finance, had access the day before its tabling in the House of Commons. To what precedent was he referring?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member must realize that there is a wide range of precedents of people being involved in the process leading up to a White Paper. I think this has been the case with previous Governments and certainly has been the case with this Government. That is the basis on which these people have been invited, as part of an ongoing process of advice which started last November and will continue until the completion of the process.


ACCESS TO WHITE PAPER CONTENTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister because it was the Prime Minister who indicated that there were many precedents for this particular action by the Government.
We have no quarrel with advice being received leading up to the drafting of a White Paper. The point concerns private sector individuals having access to the White Paper in its final form. The Minister of Finance said no changes would be made.
The Prime Minister indicated that there were many
precedents of people seeing the final draft. Will he name one


Oral Questions
precedent in Canadian history where individuals in the private sector had access to this kind of draft?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the question that was dealt with by the Chair.


John Edward Broadbent: No, it isn't.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, it was. In his response the Speaker said that, in regard to the question of propriety, it is a matter of political debate.


John Edward Broadbent: That is what it is.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As a matter of political debate you can have your opinion and I can have mine, and I disagree with you.


John Edward Broadbent: What an answer.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Government has consistently denied the role that it has played in bringing about the postal strike. However, a certain Harold Dunstan, General Manager of Labour Relations for Canada Post, sees it differently. He said this morning, and I quote:
The agency is still looking for the flexibility it needs to implement a sweeping restraint program ordered by the Conservative Government.
He also said he is getting fed up with the unions' refusal to accept at least some of the concessions the agency needs to wipe out Post Office deficits by next March as the Government wants.
Will the Prime Minister recognize now that his Government has in fact caused the strike? And will he do the proper thing, which is to remove the handcuffs and shackles the Government has imposed on Canada Post and allow it to make reasonable offers which would bring the strike and the violence to an end? This is what we want to know.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when the Crown corporation was created in 1981, it stated right in the Bill the object was for it to operate on a fiscally break-even basis. The then Government set that for 1982-83. It was extended to 1984-85. Our Government extended it to 1985-86 and then there was an extension to 1987-88. The fact is there have been a lot of extensions to that corporate plan, but more fundamental is the question of whether these negotiations, as they are going on, are restrained by the fiscal or corporate plan or whether in fact it is a matter of the usual kinds of conflicts one sees in many collective
bargaining situations in the search for power between the union and management. We have here, in my view, that normal situation.
The corporation made an offer at ten o'clock this morning, or at noon. There has been an indication by the union that it will make a counter offer this evening. The process is proceeding as envisaged by the collective bargaining process. I think that we should let that proceed and ought not to interfere in those talks by continually raising these issues on the floor of the House of Commons.


SERIOUSNESS OF SITUATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says the situation is normal, while television has shown us some incredibly violent scenes where people got hurt. I suppose someone will have to die before the Government decides to intervene.
Is the Government going to wait until the social climate further deteriorates in this country before it takes the only reasonable action it should take, which is to take away the constraints it has imposed on Canada Post-constraints the Corporation admits do exist-and let the Corporation make reasonable offers and thus put an end to a dispute that is getting dangerous, that may lead more violence and even totally paralyse our postal services?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, 1 agree with the Hon. Member. There is no place for violence. I have asked Canada Post and, indeed, before I made the request, it had already instructed its managers across the country to avoid situations which have the potential for violence. I hope Mr. McGarry, if he has not yet, will ask his members to avoid violence and I hope we in this Chamber will all counsel that violence be avoided. It is unnecessary.
As I just indicated, negotiations are going on as envisaged by normal collective bargaining. An offer has been made and there is an indication that a counter offer will be made. The Hon. Member is not serving the process well, or the country, by implying that in fact all the blame is on one side and there are distortions in the process.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's on your side.


Jacques Guilbault: It's the government strike breakers.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member may consider that to his partisan advantage but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


AGRICULTURE
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, compared to most of the questions from the Opposition this afternoon, my question-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -my question to the Minister of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Napier Turner: Next?


Mr. Speaker:: The Members cannot compare the Hon. Member's question with other questions until we have at least heard it. Would the Hon. Member put his question?


Gordon Edward Taylor: In view of the fact that subsidies paid for the production of barley and greenfeed enable the producers to sell these products to the feeders at a price which undercuts the price of hay, and since the subsidies paid to U.S. farmers for the exportation of compressed hay to Japan stops Canadian hay producers from selling to that market, will the Minister qualify Canadian hay producers for assistance under the Special Canadian Grains Program?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I appreciate the Hon. Member's continuing interest in the problems of Canadian agriculture. However, the Hon. Member will know that the rules, guidelines and criteria were established by ourselves in close cooperation and concert with 35 or 40 farm leaders across the country.
The Hon. Member will know as well that to be eligible for the Special Canadian Grains Program market prices must have been directly and detrimentally affected by the U.S. Farm Bill and the Export Enhancement Program. It was the decision of the farm leaders that, of course, hay would not meet the criteria. The Hon. Member will know as well that we established advisory groups in both eastern and western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Wise: They have considered and, indeed, reconsidered, and have decided that it would not meet the guidelines.
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. He assured me yesterday that security of the mail would be taken care of and that replacement workers would have to meet the same kinds of standards as regular post people. We find now that in fact a member of the CBC was able to get a job as an alternative worker with just a telephone number and an insurance number, whereas the regular workers have to be bondable, finger printed, and checked out before they actually touch the mail.
Will the Minister now admit that he is playing fast and loose with the security of the mail and is giving out keys to people who have not been properly checked?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I checked with Canada Post Corporation and was informed this is standard practice and that permanent employees, when they are hired, start on salary and the security check by the RCMP, in terms of criminal record, is subsequently undertaken as quickly as possible. If it is found they are unsuitable for employment in the Post Office, they are dismissed. That is the same procedure that applies in this case.


James Douglas Manly: Just like Roch LaSalle's office.


Harvie Andre: Obviously, in this circumstance, where we are talking about a lot of people in short order, there is not a guarantee that 100 per cent were done within first half hour they started work. Every precaution has been taken and anyone who steals from the mail will be committing a criminal offence and will be taken care of.


TRAINING OF PERSONNEL AND SECURITY CHECKS
Cyril Keeper: Obviously the Minister and the Post Office should not be hiring these replacement workers anyway because of the provocation that presents. But I must point out to the Minister that when a regular post person is hired, they are trained for a couple of weeks-


Some Hon. Members:: order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair always tries to accommodate Members with preambles but I think the Hon. Member has laid the foundation for the question and I would ask that the question be put.


Cyril Keeper: Is the Minister not aware that a regular post person when hired has a training period during which the security check can take place before the person actually goes out and delivers the mail, not the way it is happening now with these casual employees where someone can just walk in off the street, is given the mail, and there is no basic security for the mail?


Oral Questions
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, responding to the preamble of the Hon. Member, he is quoted in a Canadian Press article that he hesitated when asked if an NDP Government would move to ban the use of non-union labour during a legal strike. He said: Frankly, 1 really don't know. It's difficult for me to know what we would do if we were in office".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact the Chair had to make a ruling at the beginning of Question Period, I would ask the cooperation of all Hon. Members to continue for another five minutes. I say this, realizing that some Members and perhaps some Ministers may have to leave. I would ask for as much cooperation as we can get.


TAX REFORM
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the matter of the privileged access of the 31 big-name accountants and lawyers to the White Paper on taxation.
The Minister of Finance said earlier in Question Period that the people on that committee were the best qualified to serve. Will he tell us and the country what is wrong with the qualifications of firms such as Laventhol & Horwath, Peat Marwick and Samson Belair? Why are they less qualified? What is wrong with them?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Guy Lord of Samson Belair is a member of this group.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Norman Guerin, also of Samson Belair, is a member of this group.
I would like to qualify what I have said, if I might. I do not want to say that these are the only good lawyers and accountants in the country. They are among the best. They are understood to be among the best. There is some rotation among members of the group depending on their specific technical qualifications. That has resulted in some firms not being represented because, maybe, their top person is not particularly qualified for a particular function for which he is required. But these are clearly among the best in the country.


ACCESS TO CONTENTS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister said that the consultation involving this group of 31 was just part of the normal process of consultation that goes on all the time with White Papers and other similar documents. I wish to ask the Minister this.
Were there representatives of workers, low-income Canadians, senior citizens, farmers and fishermen sworn and shown the White Paper in the Department of Finance yesterday in exactly the same way as this group of 31 was shown it? If that is not the case, if they were not given exactly the same access yesterday, then is this a form of privileged access on the part of this group of 31 ?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have had full consultations with representatives of social groups, labour groups, business umbrella groups, sectoral groups, the provinces, and farm associations. This is probably the widest range of consultations that we have had with respect to any document in the Department of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I can assure the Hon. Member that the views of these groups have been very carefully taken into account in the production of this White Paper.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Two weeks ago, a union advisor with the CNTU in Quebec, Mr. Marc Boivin, was arrested by the Quebec Provincial Police.
Could the Prime Minister confirm to the House that Mr. Boivin was an informer or a secret agent for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service since 1984, and if so, how can the Prime Minister justify this shocking infiltration of a democratic organization in Quebec, the CNTU, considering that this action was criticized yesterday by Mrs. Paule Gauthier, a member of the committee monitoring the CSIS?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: the Hon. Member that he be very, very careful in making allegations on the floor of the House of Commons, under its protection, with respect to a matter that is before the courts.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, curiously, no charges have been laid against Mr. Boivin arising out of this incident.


POLICY OF CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that CSIS can plant informers in any democratic organization in Canada without even obtaining a judicial warrant, and given the history of abuses by the security service in the past in failing to distinguish between subversion and dissent, I wish to ask the Prime Minister this. Will he not instruct the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review urgently CSIS policy with respect to planting informers? Meanwhile, will he tell CSIS to stop spying on the labour movement in Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is not our practice, my practice or the practice of the Solicitor General to comment with respect to any particular set of circumstances under investigation which is before the courts.
I would only say to the Hon. Member that in general terms CSIS operates under legislative mandate approved by Parliament. There is a very exhaustive set of scrutiny processes involved in that legislation which involves the observation of its activities to ensure that it does in fact operate within the law. In this particular case I think that the Hon. Member would agree that there is a very, very good set of safeguards available to ensure that Canadian interests are protected.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise Hon. Members that there will be one question only from the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie and also one from question from the Hon. Member for Drummond. The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie.


EXPORTATION OF ELECTRICITY BY QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Today we heard that unfortunately the National Energy Board turned down an application by Hydro-Quebec to export electric power to New England. Because of the time, I have only one question, Mr. Speaker, so I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he intends to ask the National Energy Board to review its decision, to support the application by Hydro-Quebec and
Members of Parliament
accelerate the process. I would like to know what explanation the Minister has for the decision to turn down the application, supposedly because there was no evidence the power was surplus to the needs of the other provinces, who, in fact, are themselves exporting power to the United States.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it is up to Hydro-Quebec to lodge a complaint.


TAX REFORM
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and has to do with the White Paper on tax reform which he will make public this evening. Can the Minister assure the House and the Canadian people that tax revenues after this reform will not exceed current taxes, that it is not a trick which will yield more revenues for the public treasury to reduce the deficit, something which would put a heavier tax burden on small wage earners?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can comment on that in a general way and repeat for the benefit of the Hon. Member one of the key objectives that we established for ourselves last October in tax reform, that is to say, that it would not be a revenue grab. We would take the same amount of revenue as a percentage of the total size of our economy after tax reform as before.
I have also indicated that I think that it is important that corporations as a whole pay a greater share of our revenues than would individuals. These are two objectives that I think the Hon. Member will see fulfilled later on this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that there may be some representations from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to two of our colleagues who have given some considerable service to this place. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have occasion again this week as Your Honour has so generously suggested to recognize two Members of the


Members of Parliament
House for dedicated and long service to the people of Canada and to this Chamber. I rise to pay particular tribute to my seat-mate and friend, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), and the opposition House Leader for celebrating today the twenty-fifth anniversary of his first election to the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I use the same privilege you have accorded to me to extend the same good wishes and admiration to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who has served this House with distinction in a very historic seat in a great tradition from that city, in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are in a happy mood, and you ought to take advantage of it. I hope the Clerk of the House will transmit to Stanley Knowles our best wishes, from this quarter of the House, on his seventy-ninth birthday.
I want to say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees), whose seventy-seventh birthday it was yesterday, that he is looking better than ever; that he is sounding better than ever.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is his first seventy-seventh, too!


John Napier Turner: As a matter of fact, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has a younger approach to life than does the current Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty).


An Hon. Member:: He is not nearly as stuffy.


John Napier Turner: I am sure the House will allow me a personal remark or two in tribute to my friend from Windsor West (Mr. Gray). He has served this House and Canada as Minister of National Revenue, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and President of the Treasury Board. In all of those capacities, and in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, he has fought assiduously for his constituents in Windsor West and for the rights of individual Canadians.
The cause that the Hon. Member is most noted for is his passionate dedication to a strong independent Canada. I reckon that no one in the House can question his unequalled record as a defender of the independent sovereignty of this country over the period of his public life.
I shall have the honour tomorrow evening to attend a dinner in tribute to the Hon. Member for Windsor West, attended by a few hundred, or perhaps a thousand, of his closest and
intimate friends, and I am privileged to count myself among those.
While there may be some disagreement around the House about this, the House Leader and I think we make a great team: he does all of the work and I get all of the publicity. Recent events have prompted me to say, why don't we exchange roles?
Let me be personal for a moment.

-I had the honour to introduce the Hon. Member, when he was first elected to the House, to his wife Sharon, and we are very glad and privileged to have the Grays among our best friends.

He has served in this House under six Prime Ministers, seven Opposition Leaders, nine Speakers and, because of the nature of things, countless Ministers of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I point that out, Mr. Speaker, only to reveal the depth of understanding and appreciation that the Hon. Member has for this institution and the love he has for Parliament.
We in this House, and indeed the people of Canada, owe him a great debt for his unstinting service to the traditions, to the honour, to the privileges of this House, and particularly to the people of Windsor, whom he has served now for 25 years. Lest there be any doubt about his current intentions, he told me privately, before I rose in my place today, that he has every intention of serving another 25 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join with the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to two quite distinguished colleagues, the New Democratic Party Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and the Liberal Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), both of whom have served their constituents and this country for a quarter of a century.
A few words first about my colleague. Many Members here will know that the Member for Winnipeg North has worked hard as a Member of Parliament. I have had the pleasure to serve with him for some 19 of his 25 years here. But, what many Members will not know is that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North was in municipal politics, in a variety of capacities, for some 14 years before becoming a Member of Parliament.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have here a man who has truly served the community in which he grew up with incredibly fine and durable distinction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish to make two particular points about the Member for Winnipeg North. First, he is one who knows what some of us don't learn-and I think perhaps it may be why some are eventually defeated as Members of this House- that we must always remember those who vote for us. The men and women in his particular constituency are the people who elected him here, and their concerns are front and centre when it comes to his participation in this place.
One does not normally talk about what goes on in caucus, but I can tell Hon. Members that when there are matters that may affect the City of Winnipeg, those matters are brought to the attention of our caucus and this House by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North. He remembers those who vote for him.
I should like to pay particular tribute to David Orlikow, if I may so refer to him in these formal procedures, for his commitment to the principles of social democracy. There have been few men and women in this interesting historical period of our country who have more passionately devoted themselves to that philosophic framework, that commitment to improving the human condition by achieving a better mix of liberty and equality in our country, and beyond. The Hon. Member has reached beyond his commitment to the people of Winnipeg to include Canada, and beyond Canada, the people of the world, in terms of his very serious commitment to the improvement of the global family, if I may put it that way.
1 thank him from the bottom of my heart for the work that he has done for the New Democratic Party and for the work that he has done here in the House of Commons on behalf of all of the people of Canada.
Let me turn now to the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). Given that he is a distinguished opponent, I of course cannot say something that is too positive, and particularly since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has just assured us that he plans to be a Member for another 25 years. So, I shall choose my words with care and will perhaps be less fulsome than the circumstances warrant.
In all sincerity, there is no Member who has devoted himself to the cause of an independent Canada, a sovereign Canada, and for a working out of economic and social arrangements that are of a higher and more just order, according to his principles, as the Hon. Member for Windsor West.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: He has held many Cabinet portfolios, with a wide variety of obligations, and he has carried out his duties with a great dedication to work.
Both Hon. Members are known readers-and that is a refreshing aspect to their respective natures. Most Canadians, I am sure, would probably appreciate it if more Members of Parliament spent more time reading the type of material that is reflected in what these two Members have to say in the House. That is something that the two have in common.
Members of Parliament
Let me conclude with a personal wish for the Hon. Member for Windsor West, and that is that he succeed abundantly in all of his personal endeavours.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister and my colleagues on the government side of the House, it truly is a pleasure to join with Members opposite in paying tribute to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of their election to this great institution.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that these two men have been returned to this place in each election since 1962 speaks volumes for their integrity and abilities as parliamentarians and the high regard in which they are held by their constituents.
Of course, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the New Democratic Party in the tribute that he paid to the Member for Winnipeg North. I can attest to the fact that in the 19 years that I have been a Member of this House, he has always served his constituents well. He has stood for the interests of Winnipeg, for Manitoba. Indeed, he represented himself as an outstanding Canadian and an outstanding fighter for the issues which affect western Canada.
In offering my congratulations, I also want to say that in the 19 years I have been here I can truthfully say that 1 have never witnessed, on any occasion, either of these gentlemen not acting in the best traditions of this institution. Clearly they are men of integrity, and clearly they act in the best traditions of the House. They are men of integrity and honour who have always placed the nation's welfare and interest high above partisan gain.
To the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)-and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party have already referred to his very distinguished career as a parliamentarian-may I say on a personal note and as one who negotiates with him on a week-to-week basis with regard to the legislative program of the House, that he is certainly a man of integrity. He is a man of his word. He is a good and fair negotiator. He has always worked toward facilitating the business of the House in the best parliamentary tradition. I want to thank him and assure him that indeed that kind of co-operation is appreciated by the Government and, I am sure, by all Members of the House.
Parliament and Canada are indeed fortunate to have men of such calibre and dedication. 1 am sure they will continue to retain the confidence of their constituents and return to this place for many years to come.
In conclusion, I want to join with other Members of the House in congratulating the Hon. Stanley Knowles on the occasion of his seventy-ninth birthday. I do not think we could


Members of Parliament
itemize all the tremendous contributions which this gentleman has made to Parliament and to Canada. It is always a pleasure to have him in our midst. We always sense that he is a sort of guardian angel that presides over this institution and one who sort of provokes us into doing those things which are clearly right and clearly in the best interest of the parliamentary tradition.
To my great friend and colleague, a truly great Canadian, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees), who celebrated his seventy-seventh birthday on Wednesday, let me say that I agree with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that he is getting younger and better looking every day. I am sure he will be around for a long time to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who must rise on this day each week to ask the usual question of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). I know, after all the marvellous things which have been said about him, that today's exchange will be an absolute model of civility.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to postpone asking the customary weekly question about the business the Government intends to call, so that I may have a minute or two to respond to the comments of my Leader, the Government House Leader, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
First, I want to join with the good wishes extended already to the Hon. Stanley Knowles and to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) on the occasion of their birthdays. May they go on for many years to come.
Using the precedent of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, may I say in a personal sense, in respect of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who entered the House in the same election as myself in 1962, that frankly it does not seem all that long ago that I first arrived here. Perhaps it is because-and I think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North would agree with me-1 have had the marvellous privilege of being able to serve in the House of Commons and the marvellous privilege of being able to serve the people of my community, of the City of Windsor, and the people of Canada as a Member of Parliament and also as a Minister. Very few people have had that kind of opportunity. I am deeply grateful to all those who have helped me achieve what I have been able to achieve, no matter how little it may be.
I express my thanks to my own family. I express my thanks as well to the thousands of people in my own community who have worked with me and have supported me over past years to enable me to have the privilege of serving in the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament and, from time to time, the privilege of working as a Minister.
I think I can say that whatever I have done and whatever I hope to do in the House of Commons, the people of my
community share with me in these efforts and, hopefully from time to time, in some achievements. In a sense they are here with me, because I feel very much that I am here working with and for them.
Certainly I have been privileged to be able to work for and speak out on behalf of individual Canadians, ordinary Canadians and their families, as workers, consumers, and small business people. I have been privileged to be able to speak out and work for the preservation of Canada as a strong, sovereign, and independent country.
I am grateful for the words of my Leader in that regard, but I want to say to him that I am not sure I am even ready to consider rushing in to accept the offer he made a few minutes ago. I think I would like to see the present situation continue, hopefully crowned with even greater achievement and success in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much I appreciate the great privilege of being a Member of the House and representing thousands of electors, thousands of constituents who have allowed me to serve them as their Member of Parliament and, from time to time, as a Minister. It is a great privilege and a challenge to work for one's country, to do one's best to build it, and to make a better life for its whole population.

I thank very much those who have spoken for their kind words. I hope, with the support of the Almighty and my electors, to be able to continue to try to live up to the sentiments expressed in those remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), and of course the Leader of our Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) for the kind words they have expressed.
It has indeed been an honour and a privilege for me to have been able to be here for 25 years, to be able to do the things I want to do, and to be able to express the views and to push for the ideas in which I believe.
I want to recognize and thank the people of my part of Winnipeg for letting me do this. I have not been too surprised, because it is a tradition which goes back to 1900.
In 1900, the first Labour Member of Parliament in Canada, Arthur Putee, was elected in Winnipeg. In 1925, Winnipeg North sent a Labour Member, Mr. Heaps, to Parliament, who stayed here until 1940. We had one Liberal for one term in 1945, then we elected a CCF Member, Alistair Stewart, who stayed here until 1958. We had a Conservative Member for


one term, and after that I was elected. The people of my part of Winnipeg support our Party consistently.
I want to thank the people of my constituency. I want to thank the members and supporters of our Party. I want to thank particularly members of my family, some of whom, to my great surprise, are here today. I know I speak for all Members of Parliament when I say that it is our families who sacrifice when we are Members of Parliament. Every Member of Parliament knows how little their families see of them because of their work.
It has been a great honour for me to represent what I consider to be one of the finest constituencies in Canada which has representatives of every racial, religious, and ethnic group in Canada living in it. We have native people, the original inhabitants of our country and we have representatives of some of the newest ethnic groups including Koreans and El Salvadorans. We have people from every economic group, from people who are on welfare through to a few people who are quite wealthy.
I am proud of the fact that I have been able to represent these people. I am proud of the fact that I have been able to speak for a vast majority of them in a way of which they approve. I hope to be able to continue to do that for some years to come. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the best way I could confirm what I said a few minutes ago is to seek your permission to ask the government House Leader what business the Government intends to call for the next week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will call Bill C-55, amendments to the Immigration Act. Tomorrow we will debate the motion respecting capital punishment, as we will on Monday. Tuesday it is proposed that we will deal with Bill C-63 in all stages, the Small Businesses Loans Act.
We will deal with third reading of Bills C-15 and C-41 and second reading of Bills C-53, C-61 and C-54 as well as the resolution respecting Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland. We will be working with Parties opposite to work out the best arrangement as to when those Bills will be called so that we can ensure that the Ministers and the official critics are
Privilege-Mr. Marchi
available in the best time slots to expedite the business for those days. Wednesday the House will not sit.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
ALLEGED DiVULGENCE OF COMMITTEE REPORT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place on a point of privilege that arises from what I happen to believe is a very serious and erroneous act of one of the Standing Committees. It concerns the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, a meeting of which I attended this morning.
The committee is in the process of preparing a very thorough and long-ranging report on the status of multiculturalism policy in Canada for the next decades to come. The report is completed and is at the printers. We expect to table the report in the House of Commons on June 29, the day before we break for the summer.
However, I found out this morning at the committee meeting that the committee has given an advance copy of this report to the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who is also the secretary of State. I believe that that act runs counter to the spirit of parliamentary reform and to the independence of the Government and of Ministers enjoyed by committees.
I would suggest that the supplying of the report to the Hon. Member for Rosedale is an affront to the rights and privileges of all 282 Members of Parliament. The report is still confidential. It was to be tabled on the floor of the House of Commons for all Members and therefore for all Canadians on June 29.
We can all concede that once the report is tabled, we would hope that the Government, and particularly the Minister responsible, would take a very serious look at the report and would try to implement those very concepts that have been articulated in and recommended by it. However, 1 find it completely unacceptable as a Member of Parliament who has worked on this confidential report that it be sent before it is tabled in the House of Commons to the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism (Mr. Della Noce). I believe that I have worked on no other committee that has followed such a course.
The fact remains that there are still two weeks left and the Government could have waited to see what was recommended in the report rather than trying to justify that it is proper and fit that the Department and the Minister ask the committee for an advance copy before it is tabled and deposited with the House of Commons.
1 draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Citation 647 of Beauchesne's which reads as follows:
No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House.
It goes on to read:


Privilege-Mr. Marchi
The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to Members will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.
Without taking any further time, I would request that you, Mr. Speaker, look into this matter, because I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. It undermines the independence of a Standing Committee of Parliament. It undermines the privilege of all Hon. Members of the House to know of the contents of the report at the same time the Member for Rosedale and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism do. I believe this is a sad day for the independence of a committee and a sad day for parliamentary reform. If you rule in favour of a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move a motion accordingly.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in assisting you in coming to a conclusion on my hon. friend's prima facie case, I would like to draw your attention to two items which I think should be brought into play. First, breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee. Therefore, I would submit that if there has been a breach of my hon. friend's privileges as a member of that committee, it would first be required that the committee itself report that breach to the House.
There is no proof before the House of what my hon. friend has suggested. There are no committee minutes, there has been no reference to it in the media, there is no correspondence and there is nothing to show that in fact the Hon. Minister, either in his capacity as a Minister or in his capacity as a Member, received a copy of the report.
Obviously I am prepared to entertain the comments of my hon. friend who would not mislead the House. He has said that the Hon. Minister has in either capacity received what I would guess would be a draft copy of the report because there can be no final copy of the report until it is presented in the House.
The second point I want to make deals with the citation to which my hon. friend referred, Citation 647 of Beauchesne's. In this case, I believe we should read the heading of that citation which is "Premature Disclosure of the Report". The full citation reads as follows:
No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House. Upon this principle the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, on April 21, 1937, resolved "That the evidence taken by any select committee of this House and the documents presented to such committee and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any member of such committee or by any other person".
It is the publication of the proceedings of committees which are conducted behind closed doors which constitutes the breach, not the giving of a report to another Hon. Member of the House.
I would suggest that were that report to be published in the media as a result of the actions of any Member, my hon. friend would be absolutely correct. However, since the report has
gone to a Member of the House in his capacity as a Member, there is no breach until it is published.
Drawing upon my meagre experience as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee at one time, when we were drafting reports it was the nature of the beast that from time to time Members would take draft reports for consideration prior to returning to a meeting for a final rewrite. That was done on the understanding that all Members of the House are honourable Members and that it would be a very serious breach for the committee report in draft form to be published before it was presented in the House.
I would suggest that until such time as the report is prematurely disclosed and published, there can be no breach of my hon. friend's privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has raised a matter which is obviously of concern. As I take his representations, his complaint is that it was his understanding, and perhaps that of others, that at this stage a report being prepared would not be divulged to anyone other than committee members. That may very well be a serious complaint in the context of all that has been happening in the committee. In this case the Hon. Member has advised the Chair and other Hon. Members that he has learned the report was given to a Minister.
I have listened with care to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, who I think has very properly pointed out that having given the document to a Minister, or for that matter to some other Member of this place, that is not-also in the opinion of the Chair-that sort of publication which would be the basis of a question of privilege.
The Chair is also concerned about another procedural rule, which Hon. Members will recall, that the Chair, except in some exceptional circumstances, ought not to entertain a question of privilege with respect to proceedings in a committee until the committee has brought the matter to the Chair.
Under the circumstances, perhaps the Chair could suggest to the Hon. Member for York West that the complaint, which is certainly real enough, ought to be taken back to the committee and then, depending on what happens there, he might want to raise the matter again with the Chair. Indeed, depending on what happens there, the Chair may be seized of the matter as a consequence of a report coming from the committee.
I would say again with respect to the affairs of a committee, there has been a long-standing tradition that it is not for the Chair to meddle in the internal workings of a committee. At the same time the Chair does ask all members of committees and committee chairpersons to take appropriate steps to ensure that there are a minimum number of complaints with respect to the proceedings in committee. Inevitably, if there are complaints, those complaints are brought to the Chair primarily because it is to the Chair that an Hon. Member can


at least air the grievance, even if in procedural terms the matter may have to go back to the committee.
I ask the Hon. Member to abide by the long-standing rules of this place and take the complaint back to the committee. I would hope that it could be properly dealt with there.
I thank the Hon. Member for his concise and well-reasoned argument and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for quite properly pointing out that there are procedural rules, traditions, and judgments by which I am bound in this case.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55 now before this House for second reading. I do so encouraged by the broad public support the people of Canada have already shown for this proposed legislation, less because it excludes those who seek to abuse Canada's generosity than because it confirms our country's determination to do everything possible to help the genuine refugee in need of our protection. We can take pride that 75 per cent of those taking part in the recent Goldfarb poll on this issue responded positively to this longstanding commitment which lies at the very heart of this Bill.
Bill C-55 is about one thing. This Government will protect the genuine refugee in need of that protection, period. That is what C-55 is about, and that is all C-55 is about. Yet it has been opposed by many of those who share with us this one important principle.
It was John Locke who wrote almost 300 years ago that new opinions are always suspected and usually opposed without any other reason but because they are not already common. I do not question for one moment the sincerity and conviction of those who have criticized C-55. They speak with a voice that comes from the heart, from values and beliefs which go right to the core of what we Canadians are, what we as a society and nation stand for. It is precisely because these values are so important to all of us that we must not belittle them, either through intemperate rhetoric or actions which only serve to divide us, or through our inherent distrust of new ways and new ideas of achieving the same objectives that the old ways and the old ideas failed to achieve.
1 understand the concerns about access, review, and the concept of safe third countries which in particular led to opposition to and criticism of this legislation. What I ask those
Immigration Act, 1976
critics to understand, however, is the intent of C-55, an intent which I believe answers those concerns.

We want it to enable us to process the cases and give the same importance to the factors speed, justice and equity. We want it always to give the benefit of the doubt so as to ensure that genuine refugees who really need our protection will indeed get that protection.
That is our only objective. There is no other, absolutely no other. However, the points we are debating and the reasons why it has been necessary to design a new refugee status determination process are more complex.
Consider these reasons for a moment: the ever increasing world-wide pressures of migratory movements of an economic nature; the shameful manipulation of people desperately seeking better conditions elsewhere, which led to the mushrooming number of false claims; the adoption of new immigrant and refugee legislation in the United States and in certain European countries, with the resulting scramble here in Canada to obtain landing rights or some sort of official status.

Clearly the old refugee determination system is unable to handle these and other new realities. It was never intended to. It was designed for circumstances and for a time which, while only a few short years ago, today we can look back at as being far more innocent and far less sophisticated than our own. We could all wish it were otherwise but we cannot turn the clock back. We simply do not have that luxury.
The reality is that before we introduced control measures on refugee claims in February those claims were being made at a weekly rate equal to the annual rate just six or seven years earlier. Those control measures have been a temporary answer to the most blatant abuse, but they are not a solution.
It is the Government's view, and one I believe is implicit in Bill C-55, that such a solution will not come about unless we adhere to one principle above all others, namely, that Canada's refugee determination system be able to distinguish between the genuine refugee in need of our protection and all other claimants not in need of that protection.
You may call it maintaining the integrity of our refugee determination system, although the expression seems to set off alarm bells. "Integrity" has become a dirty word. However, I have no trouble with the idea of preserving the integrity of our system and process here in Canada if it means this principle will be met.
I have no trouble with that at all because distinguishing between need and no need, between genuine and false claims, is not dumping, orbiting, or any of the other practices by which some nations may be reneging on their obligations and commitments. We place no limit, in theory or in fact, upon refugees in real need whom we will help today or tomorrow.


Immigration Act, 1976
This, of course, goes to the heart of one major concern of those who oppose Bill C-55-access. Yet, who is denied access under this legislation?
If the claimant is already recognized as a refugee by another country he or she will be denied access unless they can demonstrate a fear of persecution in the country which accorded them protection. If the claim has no credibility it will be denied access to the refugee determination system. If it is a rejected claim that has not been 90 days outside Canada, it will also be denied.
However, the legitimate refugee with no prior possibility of protection from another country will not be prevented from obtaining that protection in Canada and access will not be denied on the basis that the claimant simply passed through another country on the way to Canada. It will not be denied if there is the slightest danger of refoulement. The legitimate refugee in need of our protection is who we are obliged to help, who we want to help, and who we will help.
Every claimant will have an opportunity to argue why his or her claim should be heard. It is not correct that the initial hearing before an immigration adjudicator and a refugee board member is a prescreening. It is an integral part of the fair and impartial process which we intend to establish.
This question of screening or prescreening is more than a matter of semantics. It is unfortunate that materials released at the introduction of Bill C-55 used the expression because to me screening is what happens before the first stage. If there is a screening it is the initial examination by an immigration officer at the port of entry, an examination which cannot by itself exclude any claimant.
If you want screening, look to the border police of many European countries with records of humanitarian assistance equal to our own. Some can turn claimants around and send them back from whence they came in a matter of hours. Others have set aside a budget greater than Canada's federal government grants to NGOs for settlement services. That $5 million plus a year is to buy airline tickets to launch claimants back into orbit.
In one or two cases they put armed police on aircraft as they arrive to check papers and make summary decisions on any doubtful cases, decisions which expel such cases before they even set foot on the soil of the countries concerned, without formal hearings, without counsel, and without translation.
That is not the way in Canada. Under the initial hearing before an immigration adjudicator and the refugee board member there must be absolutely no doubt that the claim is false for the claimant not to be allowed to proceed-not some doubt, not hardly a doubt, but no doubt, none.

Never will we even take a chance of returning a legitimate claimant to a country where he might be persecuted or experience a worse fate still. This is why the provisions of Bill C-55 to set up an official list of safe third countries have been
more carefully drafted than those of any other country where a similar procedure is followed.
The notion of a third country is definitely not a way of turning our backs to those refugees whom we would not be prepared to welcome here. On the contrary, mindful of the fact that genuine refugees often are educated people with good training and superior motives, I believe that many of them are precisely the type of people Canada would like to attract during a period when immigration is given more importance. As it happens, we are at the beginning of such a period.
But here is the important point, the distinction to make: a person who already enjoys the protection of another country or who has had enough means and opportunities to obtain such protection should not be able to enter Canada as a refugee status claimant. That person can very well file a standard immigration application and stands very good chances of being selected.
On the other hand, a refugee who is already under protection elsewhere may be sponsored by the Government or a private group for relanding purposes. Once Bill C-55 has been adopted we will continue to reland refugees with the same determination, without lessening our commitment in that respect. This year alone we expect to admit 18,000 refugees this way.
At the risk of repeating myself, I say again: By adopting the concept of safe third country, we want to extend through Bill C-55 all the resources of our refugee determination process to those who have nowhere to go and really need our protection. It is not a hard-noses means to exclude those we do not want to accept.
If such had been our goal, we would not have subjected the list of safe third countries to so many stringent criteria.
First, the Cabinet is directly responsible for that list. This is very important because if someone goofs or an error happens, or if pertinent information is not taken into account, the Cabinet will be responsible rather than the process.

Knowing the degree of scrutiny which attends its every single decision, I cannot think of a better safeguard than to give this responsibility to Cabinet. The Members of this House, the NGOs, the media, and the people of Canada themselves will know exactly who is accountable. It will not be some faceless bureaucrat and not the system, but the Ministers of the Government themselves.
You may be certain, therefore, that the list and the document centre which will be created to support it will be recipients of the most up-to-date information possible. It will come from our own External Affairs, from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, from the Refugee Board itself, and from many other sources. It will be accurate and comprehensive.
It will not become a complex and impossible system to manage, as some have suggested, because of our absolute


insistence on criteria of the highest standard and because under such criteria the number of potential safe third countries is, sadly for the world, pitifully small. We have stated in our announcement that a safe third country for one group of nationals may not be safe for another.
In actual operation, however, our safeguards will go even further because the third country provision will not work successfully unless we have some degree of understanding, an arrangement with the countries themselves. We do not intend to act as have some and use the process to place refugees in orbit. The possibility of de facto protection and safe return must be entirely clear or it shall not be exercised.
I am confident that this kind of insistence, this kind of quality, which I believe and know is built into both the intent and the actual operation of Bill C-55, will not fail us, neither today nor tomorrow.
We knew we had to create a determination system to meet the present crisis, but also one which would withstand future pressures equally well. Our obligation on both counts, therefore, was to insist that quality be the hallmark of the proposed new system, and quality there is. It is in the third country list. It is in the initial hearing which, in my opinion, puts the odds greatly in favour of the claimant going to the full refugee board if he or she has any grounds whatsoever for a legitimate claim. Of course, there is quality in the new board itself.
Hearings before the board will be oral. They will be nonadversarial. The claimant will be entitled to counsel, provided, in many cases, at government expense. The claimant will also have full access to the document centre. The board itself will be fully and completely independent.
The board members must be hand-picked for their knowledge and expertise in refugee issues. They will be trained further upon appointment. I can assure Members of the House that in seeking the best qualified people to serve as members of the new refugee board, we will not hesitate even to look to those communities active in refugee issues which are most vocal in opposition to Bill C-55.
Why would we do this? Because, again, as far as the intent of C-55 is concerned, in its one central purpose of helping those who truly do need our help, we are not in disagreement with the non-governmental organizations, the Members opposite, the churches or anyone else in Canada who shares this objective.
Again, I appeal to our critics to look at the over-all intent before they judge the specifics. Before they ask why there is no review of fact, for instance, look at the system as a whole, as it has been designed. Look at the insistence upon quality and the insistence upon fairness. Look upon the benefit of doubt given at every stage, which is itself review.
Immigration Act, 1976


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Looking around the House, I do not believe that we have a quorum in the Chamber.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We do now have a quorum.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, only one of the two board members at the board hearing need find in favour of the claimant for the claim to be accepted.
Yes, there are many "what ifs", and I am aware that a review process would satisfy many of the doubts about Bill C-55. But where would it end? How long before there would be the demand for a review of the review? How long before we would be back with the same year upon year impossible process we have now? Justice has an obligation to be accurate, but also to be swift.
If new circumstances unfold during a hearing itself, they can be taken into consideration right there. If the process itself has not been adhered to, then leave to appeal on a point of law will be granted.
Finally, let us not forget that at any time, if the facts merit it, permission to remain in Canada on humanitarian grounds may be granted by the holder of my present office.
It is my belief that within Bill C-55 lies not only a workable but also a fair refugee determination system.
Surely I do not need to explain to any Member of the House who disagrees with the opportunity afforded by the legislative process for debate, for the gathering of evidence or for the proposition of amendments.
Bill C-55 calls for swift determination because speed in this case is an agent of justice. Refugees want and need to pick up the pieces of their lives. But accuracy will not be sacrificed.
Bill C-55 upholds the idea of integrity because without it the system cannot work. Integrity is important because without it we cannot for long maintain the support of our partners in this undertaking, the people of Canada.
Public opinion is important, and I applaud the people of Canada who support this Bill and who share our determination to assist the refugee in legitimate need of our protection. Let none of us who is privileged to sit in this Chamber ever forget that it is the people of Canada, not we ourselves, who have built the great traditions of humanity which we all honour and in which we all take pride.
[ Translation]
Refugees are sponsored by Canadians. It is because of them that immigration is such an essential and decisive factor to build the open, welcoming society in which we live. They make relocation a positive, successful experience.
And Canadians in the final analysis pay the bill. It is with their taxes that we discharge our obligations and commitments internationally to help both development and refugees. In both cases Canadians are generous.


Immigration Act, 1976
Canada will remain true to the remarkable reputation it has built up since Wold War II in the area of help to refugees by allowing more than half a million refugees to relocate on our soil.
We will continue to do so because we are aware of our heavy responsibilities. Because we respect the commitments we freely undertook under the Geneva Convention, which to us is neither a condition binding us to admit refugees from certain countries, nor a set of restrictions applicable even to refugees we accept, denying them for five years the right to work, restricting their freedom to move and forcing them to live in camps even though they have parents in the same country.
We will keep on showing our traditional humane attitude in our will to put an end internationally to political agitation and economic depression, injustice and intolerance, racism and persecution.
And we will maintain the same attitude in our personal commitments aimed at improving all our mechanisms and institutions which make it possible for us to govern and enforce the law.
Bill C-55 is part of this process. It is not an end in itself. It is not a universal remedy for all ills, under any circumstances, something which would be immutably and forever engraved in stone.

But within it there lies that fundamental commitment upon which we should and must agree.
Almost two generations ago the fledgling United Nations issued a proclamation which began with the following words:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
As we approach the fortieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we can number the world's refugees in the millions; 10 million, 15 million, perhaps even 20 million.
In this age of cynicism there is no great difficulty in finding grounds upon which to distrust the world's commitment to the refugee and to human rights.
But I say to Members of the House and to the people of Canada that they will not find such grounds within the actions of this Government.

As we were able to see last week or the week before at the Venice Summit, a voice continues to place human rights at the top of all agenda.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) continue to fight
against tyranny and injustice wherever they show their ugly heads. They made every effort to convince their opposite numbers that there is no room for compromise when human dignity is at stake.
Under their guidance, we are seeking solutions, whether abroad through our diplomatic action and development assistance, or even here in Canada, through our settlement programs which have never been so successful.
But we should have no illusion. Whatever its refugee status determination policy may be, Canada cannot solve this problem all by itself.
Yet, our first concern should be to help all those who need our assistance and protection.
As far as all the other people are concerned, whether they are recognized in other countries as refugees or economic migrants, Canada will always be prepared to entertain applications from thoses who meet our immigration criteria.
We hold that possibility open to all peoples of all races, all colours and all religions. We want new people, we need new people, and this Government is actively working to find those people. We have already increased immigration levels from what they were when we took office by almost 50 per cent. We are now working to see that actual landings correspond to those levels. For the future, we are seriously considering raising both levels and landings. These are not the policies of a Government which is anti-immigrant or anti-refugee. They are the policies of a Government which welcomes both and is committed to both.
Bill C-55 is an integral and honourable part of this commitment, a part which will work swiftly, fairly and justly. To the refugee in genuine need of our protection, it will say but one thing, welcome.
What have we actually done by bringing forward this refugee process? What is it that our process will do?


David Berger: Bring shame on Canada.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I am sure the Hon. Member does no justice or service to the real refugees, the people whom he and 1 would like to help, by his very unhelpful interventions.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide protection to those who need protection, a safe home to those who have no home. For people who already have a home, a roof over their heads, indeed, there is less priority and they should be applying as regular immigrants to this country. We have brought forward a process which is fair, quick and which balances reason with compassion. It is a very practical solution because in a very decisive manner it identifies and welcomes real refugees. However, abusers will be kept out. There is no room for fakes in this particular system. We are managing our resources


effectively to the benefit of the real refugees. This is a real world, not a theoretical world. It requires subjective criteria not subjective opinion. We are putting common sense to what we are doing.


David Berger: We have heard that before.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Of course you have, and you are going to hear it again. I know the Hon. Member does not like to hear it, but the majority of Canadians understand and know that what we are doing is about to be for the benefit of all real refugees. I hear a lot of naivete, but we have a realistic solution. We are creating a hospitable environment where genuine refugees will benefit.
We cannot take the public attitude for granted for the support which is needed to build broader refugee programs with the type of refugee problem the world is facing. We must continue to build that feeling in Canada. We must build a broader immigration policy because of the benefits immigrants and refugees bring to this country.
We have built a lot of safeguards into the process. Those are the strengths of what we are doing. We have given the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. Every claimant will be seen and heard by an independent, objective convention refugee board member. This person will be represented by counsel at all stages at quality hearings. All of those things will be done. With respect to a Third World country, we will be very, very careful. The human rights record of that country will be carefully examined, its record in protecting refugees and all nationals. We are going to seek the widest possible advice in building that list. We will be consulting the very people who have worked for years in the refugee community, the organizations, our own embassies and high commissions abroad and the international humanitarian agencies. A documentation centre will be set up, and indeed I have underlined that there must be an ad hoc arrangement. The country we are going to be asking the person to go back to and seek protection in must be willing to receive him back. What we are doing is good for the refugee, it is good for the community and good for Canada. I will repeat the words of the Montreal Gazette, and say that this Bill should be passed speedily.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise and address Bill C-55 at the beginning of second reading. It is ironic to a certain degree that Bill C-55 in its second reading has come up in this year of 1987 which has been designated by the United Nations as the International Year for the Homeless. It is an effort of the international community to reach out to those who do not have a home, those who are looking for a roof over their heads for themselves and their families.
I cannot think of any individual or group who better defines the homeless than those who are refugees. It is ironic that when we put a magnifying glass to this piece of legislation, it really translates, for these refugees who are searching for their new home, that the Government is playing Pontius Pilate. It is
Immigration Act, 1976
washing its hands of responsibility, which runs counter to the traditions of past Governments and this country. In fact, in large measure, to be a Canadian means to have initially been a stranger, to have left the familiar for the new. That is what it means, in large measure, to be a Canadian. Waves upon waves of immigrants have sought a new opportunity, a new chance, and Canada has allowed that new lease on life. At the same time these refugees have helped to build and develop a country which is second to none in the world.
When we talk about our immigration program, we talk of family reunification, extended family reunification and independent categories of individuals, such as entrepreneurs who wish to come here and invest their capital and know-how, students wanting to access our educational system and, after they leave and return to their own homelands, become ambassadors, if you will, for this country. And we also talk of refugees. In terms of refugee legislation, Canada has played a leadership role in the international community. It is not every day that in competition with the big superpowers of this world, we can lay claim to being the leaders on one particular issue. But if there is one area in which Canada can hold its head high, acting as a trigger for other countries, it is in the area of refugees. Successive Liberal Governments have had the courage to lead and not follow.
The Minister is right when he says that it is not the'Govern-ment or Members of Parliament who build countries, that it is not necessarily Members of Parliament or governments who have to be thanked for allowing people to come to a country. It is Canadians and public opinion which have wanted those policies to happen.
I submit to the Minister that we need a Government that is also prepared to lead. We need a Government that is prepared not to manipulate public opinion for its own political and partisan reasons. We need a Government which will educate, lead and articulate what it means to be a landed immigrant and what it means to be seeking refugee status. We have to deal with those matters legitimately. It is morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest to confuse the two and to play one against the other.
The greatest frustration in Canada vis-a-vis immigration, or one of them, is probably the inability of Canadians to sponsor family and relatives to come here. Many of us in this place go home on Friday evenings and have our constituency days on Saturdays. How many immigrant-related cases do we see? How many individuals do we interview in our offices who cannot understand for the life of them why their uncle, their aunt or their nephew cannot come here where they would have shelter, financial, and linguistic and cultural assistance from their families? They would probably even be given a job. They cannot understand why they cannot come into the country. Unfortunately, some of them look to the refugee back-log and ask themselves: "How come the Government is prepared to let refugee A in but not my nephew?" That is a legitimate


Immigration Act, 1976
question, but it is a different one. It would behove the Government not to answer that question and not to solve the problems by addressing the need for family reunification. Right now the percentage of family reunifications is much lower in percentage terms than it was under past Liberal Governments.
We must begin to debate whether we should not be giving more points to people who have family in Canada in order to come to Canada. We must begin to debate the expansion of the definition of family class. That is how we must do it. That is how we must begin to try to solve the problem for Canadians who cannot have their families join them here legitimately. Stepping up our refugee legislation does not provide an answer to them, a move which creates the perception that Canadians cannot bring in their family members because there are too many refugees coming in already. That strategy is wrong. It is morally wrong. I ask the Government in its marketing strategy to begin to deal with those two classes independently and responsibly.
With respect to immigration and, in particular, refugee legislation, we have a responsibility to the international community under the Geneva Convention. We cannot deal with refugee legislation in a vacuum. We cannot deal with refugees in isolation. We must recognize, as past Liberal Governments have recognized, that if we are to solve the problem, we will solve it in concert and in co-operation with other countries. We cannot deal with legislation as regressive as Bill C-55 in isolation and expect the problem to go away. It will not go away.
The Government also has a responsibility to educate with respect to the evolution of refugee legislation. It is simply too easy to say: "Well, the past Liberal Government left us with a mess. Here it is and we are trying to clean it up. What was there before and how did we select refugees?"
I submit that what we are dealing with is a new phenomenon in terms of refugees. In the 1960s and the 1970s we had the luxury of sending our visa officers to various postings to select refugees on the basis of certain criteria. The community then had a chance to sponsor refugees and lodge them within their own neighbourhoods in different parts of the country. That system was very orderly. It was very clean and effective. But then in the late 1970s and early 1980s, these refugees were not waiting in the camps for the visa officers. They were in fact coming to our country by various and different means and claiming refugee status. Therefore, we had to adapt from the old structure and the old system of doing things to a new one. That is where the problem originates. It was not in terms of any one Government leaving a mess for another Government.
I think that lending our support and our assistance to those less well-off is something for all Governments to undertake regardless of political stripe. However, I think that there is a transition in terms of the phenomenon of refugees that has not been expressed honestly and candidly by the Government. We are now into a different phase of the system which requires a different system and a different mechanism within the country to address expeditiously, fairly and humanely those who are in
Canada and those who are asking for refugee status. That is why the Plaut report was commissioned by our Government in the dying days of the previous administration. It was to try to come to grips with how we would move in this important watershed of world refugees.
Then the present Government came into power. The Plaut report was a very substantial and significant report suggesting a certain direction. It took three or four different Conservative Ministers of Immigration, after they had received the Plaut report, to make a pronouncement on it, to make a decision on it with respect to what they were going to do and what they were going to implement.
Therefore, there was a delay in the formation of this Government. There was the promise by different Ministers that the Plaut report, or the spirit of it, would in fact be translated into legislation very quickly. We were told that this would be done by 1985. We were then told it would not be until 1986. We are now into 1987 and we are just getting ready to give second reading to the legislation. I submit that there has been a procrastination within the Government to come to grips with the Plaut report, after the standing committee has laboured for long hours and with great effort.
What did we get at the end of this three-year consultation process? We got a betrayal of the consultation process. Not only did we have a long delay before the Government responded officially, but when it chose to respond it did not listen to the results of that three-year consultation process. The Minister spent 40 minutes this afternoon saying how fair the system was, how great it was and what type of leadership role he and the Government are taking with Bill C-55.
Where is the support within constituencies to support those claims? I ask the Minister to name one non-governmental organization that at the very least leaves an indication that it might be in support of this legislation. I underline the word "might". Where are those individuals who have been inherently involved in the process and who have congratulated the Minister? Sure it is great. He holds up Goldfarb and says: "Eighty-three per cent of Canadians support our legislation". But Goldfarb also said that 75 per cent of Canadians want a fair system. He knows and I know that perhaps Canadians have not had the time or the luxury to read through the Bill. If they did, then that 83 per cent figure would plummet like dead weight in terms of people thinking that this is a fair system. They have indicated through their vote that they want a fair system. The key question is: Is this Bill fair?
Those who have taken the time and trouble to read the Bill have given their verdict. And what is that verdict? What are people saying?
Tom Clark, a tireless worker for the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, said:
Instead of access there is a screen, instead of bringing Canada a notch ahead of European countries, the immigration minister has brought it down to their level. It's despicable.


Michael Schelew, Amnesty International said:
It's an about-face on Canada's humanitarian record, that may place people fleeing persecution in jeopardy.
Elie Wiezel, the winner of the Nobel Prize, said:
"I believe that a society can be measured and judged by its attitude towards strangers ... I would hope that Canada would like to be measured according to these lofty rules. I say Canada should lead by example.
Lome Waldman, of the Canadian Jewish Congress said:
The long-term aim of the immigration department is to eliminate all refugee claims within Canada. The Government has spent millions of dollars and innumerable hours consulting on this problem, and everyone's recommendations have been ignored altogether.
And Gunther Plaut, the author of the Government Commission Report, had this to say:
It does not do justice to our international obligations to protect refugees. Nazi Germany would qualify as a safe country under Canada's proposed new refugee rules. I don't think I would have been let in. I came in the 1930s from Nazi Germany. The Government is building a Berlin Wall around the country.
Mr. Speaker, those organizations and those individuals have fought, and continue to fight, for the plight of refugees. They have looked at Bill C-55, and that is their verdict. I suggest to the Minister that, on behalf of the Government and of Cabinet, he has the responsibility to defend and promote that constituency. Ele has an obligation to stand up in Cabinet and fight for those constituencies.
Certainly we cannot have the ideal, a piece of legislation that is perfect for every single one of the 25 million people in this country. That is impossible. I agree with that. But it is also irresponsible to push ahead stubbornly with a piece of legislation that every major constituency group-every individual involved, every church leader, every community group leader-describes as unfair and unbecoming in the traditions of Canada.
He has a responsibility to listen to his constituency as well, rather than hide behind a poll that can be interpreted in 101 different ways.
Canadians believe in the integrity of a Government to give it a fair system. They do not believe in a Government that says one thing and does another.
Mr. Speaker, we have tried to do our part. We are only 40 in the Liberal Party. We know that we are going to lose every single vote, until 1988. Canadians know that. But what we are not prepared to do is to lose the debate. What we are not prepared to do is to lie down and allow this Government to introduce a piece of legislation that Canadians do not want.
We have tried to be responsible. That is why we have used Question Period and two Opposition Days to focus on the immigration policy over-all and specifically on Bill C-55.
The communities have tried to do what they can. We start the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill at the end of a major one-week national campaign by church groups, by community groups, by volunteers, to try to mobilize and sensitize Canadian public opinion and Canadians as to
Immigration Act, 1976
what is contained in Bill C-55-something that the Government does not have the courage to do outside this Chamber.
In every city, people have collected petitions, people have gone on hot line shows, and people have written letters. With deep emotion, we had re-enacted, at Harbour Front in Toronto, the arrival of the St. Louis in Canada. The refugees were in a boat, and we met them in a boat-all in an effort to bring this issue a little closer to the people of Canada. That is the sort of effort that has been made by people across this country, and by the Opposition. But what has the Government done? What has been the role of the Government? The role of the Government has been to try to create and fabricate a crisis. It has tried to create the impression that Canada is being swarmed by refugees. It is doing so in parallel with what it has tried to do in the capital punishment debate, that being to use one issue to climb the political ladder of popularity. Well, that is something that is not working very well in either instance. I suggest to you that that ladder will crumble; that the Tories and the Minister will take a fall-because that ladder is built on quicksand. It is not built on Canadian tradition; it is not built on what the people of my riding and the people of Toronto, and elsewhere in this country, want to see come about. It is not built on the foundation of what has been achieved by past Governments, with the concurrence of Canadians, in terms of refugee policies.
There is a backlog of refugees. I readily admit that. But it is a shame that this Government is trying to use that backlog to suggest that there is a crisis and that in light of that crisis, this legislation is required. It is trying to legitimize what is essentially a regressive piece of legislation.
In past years, Canadians supported Governments in accepting refugees into this country. In 1947, the Government of the day permitted 186,000 in as part of the post-war European movement. In 1958, 37,000 Hungarians were allowed in; in 1968, 11,000 Czechoslovakians; in 1972, 7,000 Ugandans; in 1973, 7,000 South Americans, following a purge on that continent; from 1975 to 1979, 9,000 Vietnamese/Cam-bodians were granted refugee status; and in 1982, following the Polish uprising, 9,000 citizens of Polish descent were granted refugee status. And the list goes on, and on, and on.
Canadians have accepted refugees in the past, and they are prepared to accept refugees in the future. That is the type of policy that Canadians have supported in terms of government leadership.
Trying to fabricate a crisis out of some 50 Chilean individuals in Argentina is not only wrong but borders on being scandalous, given the numbers that Canadians have accepted with open arms in past years.
Is it any wonder that Canadians are losing confidence in the policies of this Government, when we have a petition signed by 7,000 employees of the Immigration Department, 7,000 individuals who work for the "big boss"? The representatives of that group appeared before the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration and essentially said: "We don't


Immigration Act, 1976
have confidence in the direction and policy of this Government".
Is it any wonder that Canadians are losing confidence in an immigration policy which is confusing in its definition and questionable in its direction, when 7,000 employees put their jobs on the line by signing a petition to the effect that they are losing confidence in this Government's immigration policy?
Mr. Speaker, why are all of the church and community groups saying that Bill C-55 should go back to the drawing board?
There are a number of very good reasons, and I should like to go through some of them right now.
The first one is that while the Government finally designed a refugee board which meets with the approval of most Canadians, it is not prepared to allow that board to work unfettered with the refugees. It built a barrier around that new refugee board, and the barrier is called a pre-screening process.
The Minister and the Government will now have two officers at border points who will make the determination on whether a refugee or claimant can go from the border to the refugee board to be heard by two competent members of the board. That is where they are washing their hands; that is where they are not allowing individuals to come forward, rightly or wrongly, to present their cases and to live with the decisions. They have two officers to do the pre-screening or the selection, as it were.
Upon what criteria would it be based when the two individuals do not have any discretionary authority under the legislation as printed?
Obviously there is a vacuum or a gulf of difference between what the Minister says and purports is in the Bill and what is in the actual piece of legislation. There may have been a breakdown between the Minister and what he wanted to do and government drafters in the Department and what they wanted to do and to control. Those two officers-and one can call them what one wants-are pre-screeners. The Minister knows that. I know that. The constituency know that. There is no need or requirement for them. In fact, they are building a separate bureaucracy across the country at various border points.
The Government should allow the claimants to come directly to the refugee board. I will support the board. 1 think Parliament would support the board. The constituency would support the board, but why will the Government not support it? It is because the Government is saying that the system will be more efficient by limiting refugees.
It is tantamount to hospital administrators saying that they will make hospitals more efficient by limiting the number of patients. That cannot be done. Either a patient is sick or not. If a patient is sick, he or she should have access to the hospital. Efficiency must be built upon reasons other than limitations
and accessibility handicaps. Limiting access was the centrepiece of the consultation process.
The second aspect is the safe third country concept which has been floating around for a month and a half. I have yet to hear the Minister in the House, in committee, or elsewhere in the country defend with any degree of satisfaction what in the name of God is a safe third country. How will it be determined? How will it meet new uprisings in the world? How will the list be drafted?
The Minister suggested that Cabinet would consult and draft the list of safe third countries. Let us consider the reversal of policies. Under a Liberal Government we had devised a B-l list, a list of countries to which Canada would not deport people because of human rights violations. Clearly the onus was on the safety of life. We were not prepared to take the chance of sending someone to persecution and probable death. We were prepared to have those people remain here. Not only did the Conservative Government remove the B-l list on February 20, which means that it is open season for everyone everywhere, it also instituted the safe third country concept-a list of countries to which the Government is prepared to deport people.
Where are the guarantees or the safeguards that those countries will in fact respect refugees? Where are the guarantees that once a person goes to Germany or Great Britain he or she will have access to becoming a citizen and entry into the refugee system? This piece of legislation does not guarantee that. Admission does not guarantee that.
I could be admitted to West Germany on one day and be booted out on the third day. There is no guarantee whatsoever. This is where the Pontius Pilate theory comes into play. They have sent people adrift. It is like a ping-pong game; they are sent to a country which sends them somewhere else, and then everyone does it.
In Question Period the Minister was prepared to say that he would get agreements with those countries. In Hansard on May 7, 1987, in answer to my question, the Minister said:
I can assure the Hon. Member that we will be very careful with every individual and will have an agreement in place before we do anything.
Some people might say that if we have an agreement with a country, that country must honour the agreement. However, what did he say last week in committee? He was not prepared to say that he would live up to an agreement. He said that Canada would follow an arrangement, which is even more nebulous or ambiguous than the safe third country concept. The Government prefers to be everything to everybody by being ambiguous. However, that is not a guarantee for a legitimate refugee. That is not a guarantee for the refugee constituency who are asking themselves: "What is a safe third country?"
The Minister has refused to answer. Is the United States, which deports Guatemalans or Salvadorans, a safe third country? Is Great Britain, which deports Tamils, a safe third country? Of course they are not, not for those individuals. Is


the Government prepared to keep the United States of America and Great Britain off the safe third country list? Of course Great Britain and the United States will be on a safe third country list, because it would be an embarrassment to Uncle Ron and Aunt Maggie not to be on the safe country list of Canada.
This is where the international political games take place. There will be manoeuvrings to get on that list. Who at the cabinet table will remember, rushed with other agenda items and crises, the legitimacy of the individual who is fleeing persecution, torture, and death? That is the problem with the safe third country concept.
How quickly will that list change? How quickly will it change when there is a new uprising in a certain part of the world recognized on the list? When screening officers say, "I am sorry, Bermuda is still on our safe country list", the refugees will say: "I am sorry but we just had a revolution in Bermuda". How long will it take for the Government or the bureaucracy to react to that crisis? How many people, by the time it reacts, will have been sent back? How many people will suffer the consequence of that tardiness, which is natural in any bureaucracy or any government operation?
Third, what about the appeal system, a system which can be measured by sensitivity and compassion? The Government has suggested that the appeal system should be with leave to the Federal Court of Canada on points of law. The Federal Court has been unable, in the opinion of all, to render responsibility to refugee claimants and their stories. They will not be able to present individual circumstances; they must be points of law. To make the matter even worse, it has been suggested that the person who appeals to the Federal Court must leave the country and then he will be called collect if his appeal is successful.
What kind of humanity is that? An individual who is fleeing persecution can appeal to the Federal Court. Canada sends him back. Two or three months later, they might call the individual, but where will he be? Is there any guarantee that he will not be persecuted, tortured, jailed, or killed? Of course not.
Those are the holes in the legislation to which the Minister, in his 40-minute remarks, did not address himself. Those are the life and death shortcomings in the piece of refugee legislation with which the Government must begin to deal responsibly.
The fourth problem is with the refugee board. The Minister said that the refugee board will operate independently and unfettered. That is not true. Bill C-55 provides that there will be a government lawyer presenting evidence, and therefore the process will no longer be non-adversarial. A government lawyer will have at heart government interests and not the interests of a refugee claimant.
Immigration Act, 1976
The other question that begs to be asked is, from where does the government lawyer get information? Then we can draw the link back to the pre-secreening officers. That is where the government lawyer will pick up the information that in the end of the process will be used against refugees. Is that a fair system? Is that a non-adversarial system? The answer to those questions is clearly, no.
The fifth problem has to do with our international responsibilities. What will be the repercussions of this Bill? Canadians know that we cannot accept the 10 million to 15 million refugees who are looking for homes. Every Member of Parliament knows that as well.
What will happen if other countries in the international community begin to legislate the safe third country concept? Canada will be one of the first countries to do that. What would happen if Great Britain, Switzerland, the United States and every other country would legislate a pre-screening provision and a safe third country concept? The answer is very simple and obvious. There will be an international corridor of locked doors. Every door on which any legitimate refugee will knock will be closed. The legitimate refugee will be told, "I am sorry, you are from a safe third country, go somewhere else". That is not responsible. The abuse of the system will be greater.
The Government has tried to market this legislation on the basis that it will curb abuse as if this Party, this Hon. Member or any Canadian agreed with abuse. Of course we do not agree with abuse. No one wants to see abuse in the refugee system, in the workers' compensation system, in the pension system, or in the UIC system. Everyone wants to work against abuse, but we do not fight abuse on the backs of legitimate refugees and we do not curb abuse by being more restrictive and rigid as this legislation is.
As the Conservative administration has moved toward closing the door tighter, the schemes and scams to get people in have increased proportionately. When legitimate refugees who are fleeing from death and persecution are pushed against the wall, they have no options. No human in this world would rather go back to certain death or persecution than try to enter a country. They will try to enter a country because of their human spirit, and if they cannot get through the front door, they will enter through the back door.
We have seen people entering through the back door in greater numbers with every more rigid piece of legislation that is passed. Therefore, I ask the Minister what favour he is doing Canada and the international community by closing the door tighter. Does the Minister not realize that other countries will do the same and that if such is the case, then we will really have a legitimate crisis on our hands? Fifteen million refugees the world over will be desperately trying to enter any country by any means. Then those low-lifes who make a career out of desperate individuals will surface, as we have seen with great frequency.


Immigration Act, 1976
I see you are signalling that I have only two or three minutes left in debate, Mr. Speaker. I would like to be able to continue because there are other areas into which I would like to delve.
Those are the criteria by which this legislation must be measured. Those are the criteria this Minister ought to use to build refugee legislation that looks not only to the next year or two, years when the Minister may still be here in that capacity, but to the long term. He must measure his legislation in comparison to tradition.
After this Minister is long gone and after I am long gone- MPs and Ministers come and go, Canada always stays-this Minister will have to live with himself. He will have to live with his community. He will have to be able to account to his community for his actions and for the direction this policy is taking. I submit to him that it would be very difficult to look in the mirror or to his community for approval for this piece of legislation. He knows that and he is under pressure.
I respect the pressures that we are all under, but I also respect individuals. I respect Ministers who will stand up in Cabinet and in Parliament and be counted for the long term. I respect Ministers who move in directions in which they are proud to move and who lead Canadians to a progressive vision of things to come. All of us share in the commitment that is Canada. Every Canadian wishes to have a system that is expeditious and is fair to those who are seeking our assistance.
Every Canadian is compassionate. Every Canadian is humane. Very many Canadians know about the opportunities they have had to start anew in this country. My family knows it and the Minister's family knows it as well. In all justice and fairness, we cannot enter Canada and then say: "Now that we are here, let's lock the doors". The building of Canada does not stop here. Future generations will be made up of immigrants. Our birth rate is dwindling and our aged population is growing. Because of our small population, this country will once again be built by continuous and massive waves of immigrants and refugees.
Yes, there has been some abuse. Yes, the odd individual tries to circumvent the system and get into Canada the wrong way. The Government must stand up and say that the vast majority of immigrants and refugees, however, are individuals who do not cheat Canadians or the system and that they too, once they take their oaths of citizenship after three years, are as proud, as loyal and as hardworking as every Member of Parliament in this Chamber.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister, at second reading or at committee stage, in partnership with witnesses, refugee groups and the churches, who will once against have to come to Ottawa to plead their case, will listen and will do two things.
I ask the Minister to drop the pre-screening and to drop the safe third country concept. If he does that, he will make a bad Bill a liveable Bill into and he will have my support. Thank you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for-


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I forgot to add that I would like to move an amendment in conclusion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member had ended his speech. Certainly our procedures allow ample opportunity at later stages for a member of his Party or for any other Member of the Chamber to move a motion.
I think the Hon. Member had clearly terminated his address. He may indeed rise on a point of order to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have the floor once again for the purpose of introducing a motion, but if that were to be the case, then I think I would find myself predisposed to denying that unanimous consent at this point.
The Hon. Member is simply the second speaker on a very major piece of legislation. Nothing in our rules or procedures precludes the opportunity at a later stage for someone else to introduce a motion, but I think it would be inappropriate and might set a dangerous precedent for the future if someone who has given up the floor is allowed all of a sudden to reclaim it for the purpose of introducing a motion without the unanimous consent of the House.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: May I rise on the same point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no need to hear the Hon. Member on the same point of order. I had given the floor to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), and I will allow him to resume.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your understanding. In that spirit I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word
"That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and to amend other
Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that it be read
a second time this day six months hence."


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I seek a little clarification. If this motion is found to be in order, what does it do to the length of time allowed for speeches? Are we now debating an amendment? Does the third Party in the House have the right under our Standing Orders to a 40-minute speech at a later date when we come back to the main motion? Or do we now proceed to 20 minute speeches on the basis of the amendment? Just what is the result?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds the motion in order. As far as the time allowed for speeches is concerned, it is the understanding of the Chair, and I will verify this, that the first three speakers get 40 minutes each without questions regardless of whether an amendment is moved by any of those speakers.
The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has the floor.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your interpretation of that last point.
I am not going to say I am happy to debate this Bill because I am very, very sorry the Government brought it forward. I am very sorry that in the last six months the Government broke with a policy of consultation which it had continued until December. Until then there was open discussion between the Government, opposition Members, and the public about what sort of Bill this should be. It is very sad that around that time the Government shut itself off, refused to communicate, and began to carry on a secret course of action. It is of course legal for it to do that, but I am very sorry it ceased to act in the spirit of good will and good faith which had continued until then.
Until that time we seemed to be making progress in identifying the problems and the best possible solutions. There was until that time grounds for understanding that we all basically agreed, both Members of Parliament and the people of Canada, about what we had to do about a very serious problem. That is not the problem of abuse, it is the problem of the great need of many, many people in the world. The problem of abuse is a secondary problem. There can be abuse of any good program and there will be abuse even of the program the Government has put forward if it becomes law. The Minister himself said that nothing is perfect.
Our committee, when it studied this matter for hundreds of hours-and the former Chairman of that committee sitting across the way will corroborate this, I am sure, when he speaks-found that of all those who had been examined until that time, the abusers were in the minority. Under the old system, which had been slightly modified to the extent allowed by law, about one-third had been found to be refugees, and an unknown further number were found to be worthy of humanitarian consideration. We would not send Iranians back to the Ayatollah Khomeini's Government. We would not send people back to the Soviet Union if they said they were afraid to return. We would not send people back to Poland, whether they fitted the definition of refugees or not. We would not send people back to El Salvador, Chile, or Guatemala if they were afraid to go back for the same reason.
When we considered that the Supreme Court of Canada found that the system by which people were being judged was unfair, contrary to the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then the committee judged that the majority of the applicants, even under the old and cumbersome system, had a good claim on Canada's protection, either technically as refugees or practically on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. These were people who should not be sent back to civil war or similar kinds of disturbances which have the same effect as individual persecution.
We based that partly on the many, many witnesses who appeared before the committee during the six months we held hearings. Many, many witnesses told us they wanted a favourable approach to refugees. They also are reflected in the 75 per cent referred to in the Goldfarb poll who said we should
Immigration Act, 1976
admit legitimate refugees. They did not define what legitimate refugees are in that poll; they simply understand them as being people whose lives are in danger because of their politics, religion, membership in some social group, or for any other reason which requires them to, as the UN said, seek and enjoy the protection or asylum of another country. That was the essential decision of our committee.
I regret that the Government, against so much public opposition from informed people, has decided to move ahead with this very destructive Bill. I have been one of those who have called for the simple withdrawal of this Bill. What I wish to do now is to point out the need for withdrawal and, second, to enlarge on the approach of the Canadian people over and beyond the approach of Canada's Parliament. Third, I want to show how the action of the Government over the last few months has been in the opposite direction. It has gone contrary to the Canadian people's policy, and contrary even to its own policy before that time. Finally, I want to show how the Canadian people are reaffirming their original orientation on this issue.
One reason for withdrawing this Bill is that to spend the time necessary to debate it and consider amendments is much more wasteful of time, and much more likely to allow the situation to grow worse, than if the Government were to make a clean break and admit that the Bill is irrevocably flawed and withdraw it. Then, in consultation with the people who have worked on this subject for several years, it could draft a new Bill.
Of course we have a crisis but this Bill, if passed, will not solve the crisis for at least several months. It probably will not solve it even then, because we have been warned that lawyers who are competent in this matter will voice their objections where it will count, in the Federal Court and the Supreme Court.
The Minister has said, "Trust me". He has said, "Trust the intent of the Government". You and I, Mr. Speaker, know that if this comes to a vote you will not ask me and the other Members of the House whether we will vote for or against the intent of the Government. That is not possible because it is not on the agenda. The Government did not put its intent on the agenda. It did not put forth a discussion paper or White Paper. We begged the Government for a year to put a White Paper before us which could be discussed. It would not do that. Instead we are asked to vote for Bill C-55.
The Government's intent makes no difference whatsoever, and it is mischievous of the Government to pretend that by voting for its intent we will be voting for something better than the Bill, something without the faults of the Bill.
We know that there is considerable trouble with the backlog. We know that the backlog is a small reflection of a world-wide problem of 10 million or 15 million refugees. We also know that every lawyer in the private sector who has


Immigration Act, 1976
spoken on this Bill has spoken against it. I believe that within a day or two the Canadian Bar Association will say that officially and collectively.
It is a little ironic that the Government praises the private sector, calling it the engine of recovery, and brings private sector accountants and lawyers into a privileged position in the budget process. Yet, when lawyers from the private sector criticize this Bill, the Hon. Minister, contrary to his statements of respect for them, attacks their motivation. I heard him in Montreal a couple of weeks ago accuse his opponents of being "street-corner lawyers", whatever that means. He obviously did not mean it in a favourable sense.
It is reported that when he was in Winnipeg he attacked a leading refugee and immigration lawyer there, accusing him of being concerned merely with the revenue he gets from refugees who usually arrive penniless. The Minister had the effrontery to make that accusation, and he repeated it in Montreal a couple of days ago, according to the Gazette. He said that the lawyers who criticized the Bill are simply looking for fees for defending refugees.
What a contemptible piece of slander the Minister indulges in by condemning all the lawyers in the private sector who have spoken against this Bill as being only interested in private profit! It is a strange philosophy for a Conservative politician to condemn lawyers for doing their work because they might be paid by someone for doing it.
This Bill has no credibility with those in the public who have studied it. If you ask people on the street whether they want to admit real refugees, they will say, yes. If you ask whether they like the Minister's Bill, they will say, yes because the Minister has put out tens of thousands of dollars worth of false propaganda which says that this Bill does what this Bill does not do. Of course he has succeeded in deceiving the public to some extent, but not for long.
Le Devoir, which was originally willing to buy the Bill, published a second editorial two weeks ago which called it une loi de refoulement and said that this Bill is not what it first appeared to be. I heard Mr. LeClerc speak to this last Friday night. He believed that he had been taken for a ride after first consideration of the Bill, and he is now solidly opposed to it.
1 want to illustrate the Canadian response, not only to people who have been proven to be refugees but to people who come to the doors of our country asking for a chance to prove that they are refugees. Two days after the Minister introduced those harsh regulations on February 20, I attended a rally at Fort Erie spontaneously organized by the people there who had been helping refugees.
These were not "street-corner lawyers" making a fortune on the backs of refugees, as the Minister would like to suggest. These were the townspeople of Fort Erie who, in the last two years, have billetted 500 refugees. They had put them up at their expense, fed them, clothed them, and given them shelter for a short or a long time. They helped them after they came across the bridge.
These 500 people, through that rally, were telling the Canadian Government not to be afraid of the welfare system for refugees breaking down because they are looking after them. That is the kind of attitude there is in Canada, not only at Fort Erie but in Quebec and other places as well. Residents of Quebec sent a truckload of clothing and food to Plattsburg for refugees who had been turned back from Canada. At Thunder Bay several dozen people are engaged in meeting refugees at the border and helping them to make their way to and through immigration officials. On the Prairies and in British Columbia the same things are taking place.
Canadians are helping these refugees. They are presently doing it legally, but I know they are studying the sanctuary movements in the United States and respect the heroic clergy of those movements who will go to jail rather than send a refugee back to torture or death.
Canadians have been learning compassion. We have had our faults in our immigration policies over the past century and more. There are some things of which we are not proud. I do not want to take time to go into those today. However, support for refugees from the Canadian people primarily, not from this or the previous Government, was what won the Nansen Medal Award.
This law will not go with the Canadian people. If it is passed, the Canadian people will ensure that it is overturned. The basic sense of justice of Canadian people was reflected in the Singh decision two years ago which the Government has done its best to ignore. The Supreme Court of Canada said that when a person's life is at stake, the people who are to decide whether he or she is or is not a refugee must be competent people and must look him or her in the eye. He must stand in front of them so that he can judge their credibility, because nine-tenths of a refugee's case is based on the story he or she has to tell and their ability to convince the judges that the story is true.
The Supreme Court said that it cannot be done on paper or by intermediate officials. Those who are to decide whether to send a person back to possible death must do it face to face with the refugee. That was the Singh decision and that is what is backed by the Canadian people and the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, the reports of which the Government never answered. The report on the refugee system and that on the backlog have been shamefully ignored by the Government to this day, as it has ignored other reports since then.
There are several fundamental faults with this Bill which the lawyers who have looked at it say cannot be reformed by amendment. That is why we asked for withdrawal.
First and foremost is that the Bill begins with the principle that a person is guilty until he proves himself innocent. Furthermore, it does not give him much time to prove it. He is


guilty of being a liar, a cheat, and a queue jumper by illegally trying to get into Canada. That is what the Minister says.
Therefore, we begin the whole process by bringing him to an inquiry. An inquiry is the procedure for examining why a person should not be deported. The onus is on him to prove that he should not be forced to leave the country. That is the way this refugee claimant is treated from the outset, because the Government has chosen to found the whole Bill on the philosophy of the abuser rather than on the philosophy of refugees.
The Government delayed the first Plaut report for half a year and has suppressed the second Plaut report. It has ignored the reports of the committee. It has put in arbitrary regulations in February which have sent away many legitimate refugees. It has refused to examine the refugees in the airplane that was stopped improperly in Buenos Aires. It has refused to examine the evidence about those refugees, which was brought by a competent lawyer sent by the private sector to Buenos Aires to examine them.
It simply scorned any evidence from the people who know something about real refugees. It has pumped out misleading propaganda about the Bill which follows on a policy of several senior officials for several years in trying to instill in the public the idea that most refugee claimants are phonies.
The Government published the ministerial overview which makes claims about the law which the law itself denies. The Bill itself, as printed, denies the main claims of the ministerial overview.
Most people do not have time to read the Bill and most people are not lawyers and cannot understand 60 pages of legalese. Therefore, they read the ministerial overview and form the opinion that the Bill is good and support it. However, the ministerial statements are false and misrepresent what is exactly in Bill C-55.
The Minister's statement that no one with a shred of genuine fear of persecution will be sent back to the country he is fleeing is false. The Minister cannot possibly support it by reference to the law.
Any time that I or anyone else has asked the Minister to discuss the actual words of the law, the Minister slides out by saying that if there are some fine points to be considered, they can be taken up in the committee hearings later on.
It is not fine points with which we are concerned, it is the fundamentals of the law. The Minister has refused ever to talk with individuals or groups and come to grips with the fact that his statements are contradicted by the Bill he is asking me and other Members of the House to support.
One way in which this Bill treats refugees as guilty until proven innocent is in Clause 93 which provides the Government with the power to seize an aircraft of an airline that brought someone to Canada who is considered to have inadequate travel documentation, in other words, someone who is a refugee claimant.
Immigration Act, 1976
This law goes further than the present law which provides for fining the airline. The Europeans have already begun to copy the existing law for fining airline companies, and presumably then will copy the proposed legislation if it passes and seize aircraft in order to force payment of the fine. According to this proposed law, if an airline brings someone here under existing law and the United Nations declaration for the protection of refugees, including anyone who lied in order to claim refugee status and might be found to be a refugee afterwards, the fact of having brought that person without adequate documents will be an offence for which the airline may have its aircraft seized. This is the principle of guilty until proven innocent.
There is also the principle of safe country about which there has been much talk. The Minister has never given a serious and safe answer to that principle.
In the press conference, the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) said: "People with refugee status elsewhere and people arriving from safe third countries who had reasonable opportunity to claim protection will be returned to those countries". That is not what Bill C-55 says. Instead, Clause 48.1(1) states:
A person who claims to be a Convention refugee is not eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division if
(b) the claimant came to Canada from a country that has been prescribed as a safe third country for all persons or for persons of a specified class of persons of which the claimant is a member and would be allowed to return to that country, if removed from Canada, or has a right to have the claim determined therein;
In other words, the fact of being allowed to return is enough by itself. It does not say that he will also have the right. The clause states: "The right to return or the right to have his claim determined". It does not say both. It does not say what happens after he returns to that country.
The point is that these two officers, the refugee board member and adjudicator, according to this law, do not have the power to send that person on to the refugee board if he is ineligible by reason of coming from a country that is described as a safe country for that class of person.
Contrary to what the Minister has repeated again and again in the House and outside the House, this law states that a person who claims to be a Convention refugee is not eligible to have his claim determined by the Refugee Division, he is not eligible to have those two officials send him on to the refugee board, which is the express and only meaning of this clause, he is not eligible if he came from what we are told will be described as a safe third country.
We have never been given any description in the law of what is a safe third country. The Cabinet is simply given a list which it approves as safe third countries. We do not know what considerations go into that decision because the Minister has refused to explain it or put it into this legislation.
There is also the matter of the humanitarian and compassionate factors. The Minister said that a Minister will be able to do as he does now, but the law is entirely silent on the


Immigration Act, 1976
matter and we have no guarantee that the Minister or his successor will respect the promise he has made today.
There is also the matter of credible claims. Again, the Minister likes to talk about discretion because it is so vague. The law states that the person cannot be sent on to the board unless he is determined to have a credible basis for the claim. Clause 48.1(4) states:
In determining whether a claimant has a credible basis for the claim to be a Convention refugee, the adjudicator and the member of the Refugee Division shall consider any evidence adduced at the inquiry or hearing regarding
It goes on to list two points, the wording of which means only two points. Rather than "including" two points, it states that they shall hear evidence "regarding" two points. One is the record with respect to human rights of the country that the claimant left and the other is the disposition under this Act or the regulations of claims to be Convention refugees made by other persons who alleged fear of persecution in that country.
In other words, if Canada has not received many refugees from that country or believes that it has a good human rights record, for which there is no definition, then that person must be accused of not having a credible basis for his claim and will not be allowed to appear before the refugee board to make his claim, because he is not eligible. That is what the law says, not what the Minister says. I cannot vote for the twaddle I hear from the Minister. I am asked to vote for the law and I will vote against this law. I believe that if Members of Parliament would read Clause 48 and consult their consciences, they would have to vote against it as well.
Another major fault in this law is that the Federal Court is not only limited by its own nature, but it cannot review the merits of a decision. It cannot review a bad decision made in that first screening, nor a decision made in the later hearing, if there is one for that person. It cannot review the merits. It cannot ask if his story was true. It can only look at certain points of procedure and can only do that after there has been a written appeal. By experience we know that fewer than 5 per cent of written requests for permission to appeal are in fact granted. So the chance is very, very small of getting any sort of review.
There is also Clause 48.3(3) which introduces into the refugee consideration the idea that even after an individual is found to be a refugee, he will not be landed if the officers examining him think he will be unable or unwilling to support himself. We have refugees who are children, unaccompanied. We have refugees who have been so badly tortured in the country they left that their mental or physical health does not permit them to earn a living, at least at the beginning. Those people would be excluded by this law. They will be told: "You are a refugee, but, sorry, we do not want you. You are not financially advantageous to Canada".
Another reason that this Bill should be withdrawn is that there is, and has been for many months, a better way to handle this refugee determination. The standing committee, acting on
the directive of the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, spent hundreds of hours examining this subject, looking at the report from Rabbi Plaut, listening to the officials of the Immigration Commission and to members of the public who have had experience in the matter, and came up with a system to which the Government has never yet replied, even though the Standing Orders directed it do so.
It would be a system in which the first step from the border would be a meeting with two members of the refugee board, after about a week in which the refugee claimant could orient himself and find a lawyer, if that is what he or she wanted, which is the right of everyone in Canada. The refugee board would decide either that he is a refugee and should be processed with a view to landing, or that he is not a refugee, in which case a senior level of the board would not do a rehearing but would do a paper review.
The hearing would be examined in order to catch a possible error. The senior level of the board would be able to receive further evidence and would give an answer to the refugee claimant so he would know what the accusation was against him, where he failed on his claim. He would then be able to explain a point which was misunderstood or to add further evidence he did not realize at first was needed. But none of that is allowed at this pre-screening on safe third country or credibility. In most cases the board members do not have to give their reasons and will not do so because they will be too busy. They will not do it unless the law requires them to do so.
The system we propose would require that the reasons be given so that the refugee claimant has a normal chance on paper to state his response to the reasons for being rejected. That review committee would then have the responsibility for either upholding the original decision that he is not a refugee or saying there should be a rehearing. Perhaps in a very few cases there would be a rehearing since, as the Minister has said, nothing is perfect and no one is infallible.
This is based on public support. There are hundreds of organizations in Canada which have gone on record as supporting this approach and as opposing this Bill. Some of the largest are the Canadian Labour Congress and at least 11 of the major churches in Canada, the Jewish Congress and the active members of the Canadian Bar Association, immigration section. Within a couple of days I believe they will make their position generally public. There is a growing campaign. There are church services devoted to the welcoming of the refugees and to opposition to Bill C-55. There are public rallies devoted to opposition to Bill C-55. There is a growing petition campaign from Nanaimo to St. John's, Newfoundland. People are saying, "Do not put this Bill into action. This Bill does not help refugees. This Bill would turn refugees away."
I want to say a few words in closing, not about Canadian opposition to this, but to the international meaning of it. A previous speaker mentioned the international line-up of countries which will be inclined to follow Canada's lead and close all the doors. These are the countries primarily of western Europe and North America. Yes, our officials for


several years have been consulting with their officials for this purpose, leading the way in devising ideas for locking out refugee claimants. Most of the refugee claimants nowadays come not from eastern Europe, as they used to, but from the Third World, from the non-white peoples. This law, whatever is the good intention of the Minister, if it goes into action, will be a racist law because it will turn away the huge majority of refugee claimants who in fact are non-white people coming from former colonial countries. This is because there has been a shift of labour policy. Our countries for some decades welcomed cheap labour from the Third World countries, people who could be brought into work at minimum wage or a little less, at least for a few years. We welcomed them in the United States, Canada and western Europe. The multinationals and the banks would now rather have the manufacturing done in those Third World countries. Not only manufacturing but data processing is more and more being done in the Third World countries where the wages are perhaps one-tenth of the wages in Canada.
The wages are held down by the actions of terrorist Governments such as the Governments of South Korea, El Salvador and Chile, where the death squads rule untouched and unrestrained by the government of the day, unrestrained by the dictator in Chile or by the so-called President in El Salvador who shows he has no power over them. By killing off the trade union leaders in those countries, they are able to keep the wages down.
When I was in El Salvador in the first week of May, I had an interesting meeting with the Vice Minister of Planning. I asked him what he was going to do about 70 per cent unemployment in his country. He replied: "I want you Canadians to invest in our cheap labour". It was not a translation. He spoke very good English. He said: "We want you to invest in our cheap labour. Send your wood and cloth down here and we will make furniture and clothes and sell it to the United States. We will get the wages and you get the profits". Those were his words. In other words, this law, Bill C-55, is part of an arrangement adopted by the First World countries to shut Third World people out from our countries. We no longer want them as cheap labour here. We want them as cheaper labour in their home countries where they will be policed by terrorist squads, death squads, aimed particularly at leaders of trade unions and co-operatives who are trying to raise the living standards of their members above starvation level.
It is an evil law. Whatever is the stated intention of the Minister, this law is an evil law. It is evil in two ways. I am now speaking about what the words of the law state and not what the Minister said in his statement since I cannot vote for the stuff that he says. I have to vote yes or no to Bill C-55 and the words that are written in it. What is written in it will harm refugees. Whether or not it will keep the abusers out, I do not know. But I know that it will harm refugees by shutting them out.
Immigration Act, 1976
Second, this law is an evil law because it purports, and particularly with the interpretations circulated at the taxpayers' expense and carefully drafted to misrepresent the law, to be something that it is not. It purports to be helping refugees when in fact it lays the foundation for shutting them out.
Even if this law goes through second reading, through committee, report stage and third reading and is proclaimed law it will not work. We know that there will be resistance of all kinds, legal and illegal resistance, by Canadian people who will not stand the injustice that this law would present. This law will be not only unjust but it will be unworkable. This was a warning given to the previous Government when the present Immigration Act was being considered. It was warned that it would be unworkable. Those who made the warning were laughed at. At that time they said that there should be an oral hearing for every claimant. The Government said that that would be too expensive. Well, after millions if not billions of dollars of expense the Supreme Court has said: "Give them an oral hearing". This law does not do that. This law would deny what the Supreme Court meant by an oral hearing to the majority of people who come to our ports. Just having them heard on a narrow point by one member of a board is not the oral hearing that the Supreme Court spoke about. Because of that fundamental injustice, Canadian people will have to block this law.
It would be much better if the Minister would withdraw it now and enter into consultation with all those concerned in order to bring us a much truer law that would actually help refugees through a system that would be quick, which is what the committee and what the churches proposed. It would take about three months to determine the cases and there would be no more attraction for these rip-off artists, such as the ones that the Minister has been so slow to prosecute in the case of the Portuguese and now in the case of the Brazilians. The only remedy for this law is to withdraw it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there not time allotted for questions and comments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, there is not. That provision does not apply to the first three speakers. The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) that mine is the first speech that will be open for questions and comments and I would welcome some at a later stage.
I have served for many hours on the committee with the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). On many things over all those many meetings and many months we have come to a common understanding and a common sense of agreement. That comes out of a deeply felt commitment to the refugees in the world. That is where we have our area of agreement.


Immigration Act, 1976
Elowever, with the Elon. Member's concluding comments I find myself in complete disagreement. If I were to have to stand in the House today and vote on Bill C-55 as it is currently written I would find myself voting against it. However, I think it is a Bill with the kinds of characteristics that are needed by the refugees of the world and by Canadian society.
What we are being asked to do, and what we are debating here today is to consider whether or not the House should take the decision to move Bill C-55 to committee. Once in committee expert testimony can be heard. Witnesses can be heard and amendments can be moved. The Bill can be strengthened to do the types of things that the Government would so clearly like it to be able to do.
This Bill is something that many of us in the Chamber have been looking forward to for a long period of time. I would like to congratulate the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). This problem came up five Ministers ago, two in the previous Government and three in the current Government. The present Minister is the first Minister who has been able to produce a Bill for the consideration of the House. It is a Bill which the Minister has said again and again Cabinet intends to be a piece of legislation which will make the world a better place, which will make the world a safer place.
During the Minister's speech I was particularly disturbed by the heckling from the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) who I think will be speaking after me. The Hon. Member may indeed want to read which of those heckles got into Hansard and may indeed want to apologize not only to the Minister but to the House. It is possible in this Chamber to get carried away with heckling. However, I found the remarks of the Hon. Member for Laurier to be particularly offensive and not in the least in keeping with the kind of standard of conduct that the electors of the country would expect from their representatives in this place. This is the place which is the bastion of freedom. This is the place where, surely, comments directed so clearly at a Member's racial or religious background are inappropriate. I hope that upon further reflection we will hear an apology from the Hon. Member before this debate is concluded.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise because the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) insinuated that I made comments which reflected upon the Minister's religious or ethnic background. It is perhaps possible that I got carried away in some of the comments I made. However, in Parliament, and if one looks at the tradition of Parliaments, not just this one but of British parliamentary democracy, one will see that there is a tendency to call a spade a spade. I will check the record and it would surprise me if I were to find that I had made any veiled references or unveiled references to the Minister's ethnic or religious background, any detrimental references, which I did not.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I heard the word "ovens" thrown out across the Chamber more than once. Given the
circumstances of the debate we are on and the background of the Minister, that is what I find offensive and inappropriate.
It is somewhat prophetic perhaps that Bill C-55 is presented on a day which began with a domestic discussion of capital punishment. All of us in this Chamber feel that debate very keenly. It is a matter of life and death. Some Members feel strongly that the reinstatement of capital punishment is important to protect the lives of potential future victims. Others think that it is reprehensible to put capital punishment back into Canadian law and deliberately to have the state take a human life. Those differences are felt, and they are felt strongly by the Members of the House and by our constituents.
It is perhaps a little more difficult to see that the fine print of Bill C-55, if it becomes the law of this country, will deal with that very same issue, the issue of life and death. It is the life or the death of strangers. It is not Canadian citizens that we are talking about, not landed immigrants in Canada, but strangers, people who live outside of our borders, but who live in a country-specific situation where, through the arbitrary nature and action of the state, their lives are potentially forfeit.
It is those people, Mr. Speaker, who make their ways to our shores by one means or another and ask for the protection of this country and the protection of its people. They do so, Mr. Speaker, because if they are sent back to their country of origin, they face death, torture, and persecution.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the fine print in Bill C-55 is something that should engage everyone who has an interest and a background in these matters. That is why, Mr. Speaker, there are people in this country who represent groups working with refugees who are urging Members of this Chamber to reject the Bill in its entirety. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have had protests.
Mr. Speaker, in many ways, those groups are reacting to a history, to a history that really began for them in 1976, that which has been mentioned by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
In 1976, there were very few people in this country, very few lawyers in this country, who had experience in refugee matters. The Parliament of the day, in its time and in its place, passed a law, and it is that same law that is in place in Canada today. Under that law, Mr. Speaker, there was no adequate opportunity for those claiming refuge in this country to tell their story orally in front of the decision-makers who got to decide their fate.
As a new Government, we inherited that law, that situation. The Supreme Court was seized of that matter, and the Supreme Court ruled that there should be an oral hearing.
This Government changed the Immigration Act to allow refugee claimants refused on the basis of a paper review to appeal orally and in person before the Immigration Appeal Board. We have had a year's experience with that new regime. And what does it tell us, Mr. Speaker? It tells us that 8 per cent of the claimants, on the basis of the oral hearing, are


judged to need the protection of Canada, and the board rules that those people should be granted refugee status in this country.
That tells us, in the first instance, that the oral hearing, the chance to tell one's story, is important. It is not just a theory; it is a reality, a demonstrable reality, in the Canadian mosaic.
It also tells us, Mr. Speaker, that 92 per cent of those appealing denial on the basis of a paper review are found not to need the protection of Canada by a three member panel in an oral hearing. It tells us, clearly, that there are abusers. There are those who seek to use the court processes in this country to advance their own selfish ends, regardless of the difficulties that that may cause for legitimate refugees, those who care about them and those who serve them.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, when a poll is done on Bill C-55, there is such overwhelming endorsement of it. The average Canadian does not know what is contained in the 62 pages of the Bill. The average Canadian does not have the background, the experience, the training to determine whether the fine print will get the job done or not. What the average Canadian is responding to, Mr. Speaker, is the notion that those who need the protection of this country will be found to be bona fide refugees and will be granted that protection, and that those who abuse the system will not be granted that special privilege and will in fact be deported.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that that is what Canadians want. The only issue for the House in relation to Bill C-55 is whether or not these proposed amendments to the immigration law of Canada have enough going for them that they are worth detailed study and examination by committee to ensure that what Canadians want will indeed come about.
Mr. Speaker, I was deeply disappointed to hear the speaker on behalf of the Liberal Party immediately move what we refer to as the sixth month hoist. He did that before hearing the lead-off speaker for the New Democratic Party or a second speaker on behalf of the government side. To move the six month hoist is to assume that the Bill is unsalvageable and would make no contribution to the lives of refugees or to Canadian society.
Mr. Speaker, the kindest thing I can say about that action is that it is premature. I move from words like "premature" to "poorly thought out", "ill-conceived", "unwise", and "damaging".


David Berger: It is the same reaction that we have seen on the part of all of the groups across the country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) says that it is the same reaction on the part of all of the groups across the country.


David Berger: Yes. The store-front lawyers.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That, Mr. Speaker, is an example of the kind of rhetoric we have come to expect over the past eight years.
Business of the House
It is not the reaction of all of the groups in the country; it is not the reaction of all of the people of the country. It is not my reaction, to start with. I can talk about what I believe and what I think.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55, I believe, has the potential to achieve what Canadians want, that being the protection of those who need this country's protection in as fail-safe a manner as is possible in any system that requires human decision making, while at the same time bringing about a significant reduction in the potential for abuse of the system.
Had the previous Government tackled this problem when it first arose five or six years ago and not left it to this Government to provide the oral hearing-which it did by way of a prior piece of legislation-we would not now be dealing with something of this complexity in an environment where there are thousands, and even perhaps tens of thousands, of abusers. Had the Liberal Party shown as much concern in the early 1980s as they would profess to have today, we would not be engaged in this debate.


David Berger: In 1980, there were 1,800 in-land claimants. In 1983, there were 6,100.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What are the problems with this Bill, Mr. Speaker? Part of the problem, insofar as the small print is concerned, is that we have not had the opportunity to hear witnesses and to examine those witnesses on the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I see that it is time for Private Members' Hour. I believe I have some time left and that I shall be recognized following Private Members' Hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.

[Translation\


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-65, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the Parties and the House Leaders, and I think Your


Business of the House
Honour would find unanimous consent for the House to deal with the Bill introduced yesterday by the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), Bill C-259, an Act to extend the term of a patent relating to a certain food additive.
The Hon. Member for LaSalle will rise on the motion for second reading to explain the purpose of the Bill. Then it would be our intention to have the House deal with the remaining stages of the Bill without debate, so that it could be sent to the Senate this evening.
In order for the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), whose Private Member's Motion is up for debate this evening, not to lose the full benefit of one hour of debate, it is our suggestion that the time for the debate on his motion be extended by whatever time it takes to deal with Bill C-259 at all stages.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to order of Friday, June 12, 1987, the House will now proceed to Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House has heard the terms of the proposal of the Government Deputy House Leader. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   PATENT EXTENSION (ASPARTAME) ACT EXTENSION OF TERM OF PATENT
Claude Lanthier: that Bill C-259, an Act to extend the term of a patent relating to a certain additive, be read the second time and, with unanimous consent, referred to a committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking Hon. Members for granting us this unanimous consent and for understanding the very essence of a debate that is not a debate in the controversial sense but which could have been, and whose purpose is to observe the principle of equity with respect to the intellectual property of a company. I greatly appreciate the co-operation we have received, as expressed in this unanimous consent, from the two opposition Parties, the NDP and the Liberal Party. I also wish to thank my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party for their show of confidence.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore welcome this opportunity today to introduce a Bill that will extend by five years the Canadian
patent on the food additive aspartame, more commonly referred to as nutraSucre or nutraSweet, in English.
First of all, I should say that the case of aspartame is unique. The sale of aspartame was first approved by the U.S. Government in 1974. However, before it was put on the market, approval was withdrawn because of concerns about the safety of this product. The situation in the United States forced the Canadian authorities to be careful not to expose Canadians to any undue health risk. In 1981, after a complete and complex investigation, the Searle Company was finally authorized to market aspartame in Canada. Searle, after having had only six years to reap the benefits arising from its patent, is asking today to have the patent extended by five years, to compensate for the time during which its product was kept off the market due to circumstances beyond its control.
The Searle Company has already obtained an extension of the term of its patent for aspartame in the United States, Great Britain, South Africa and Australia and filed applications for an extension in New Zealand. If a five-year extension were granted in Canada, Monsanto Canada, the parent company of Searle and NutraSweet, would invest $10 million in a new plant located in the beautiful constituency of LaSalle. This pilot plant would create about 30 new jobs and pave the way for improvements in manufacturing processes and for the development of new technologies which Searle could apply throughout the world. Monsanto has indicated that this measure would eliminate imports from the United States and create export opportunities to European markets, and lead to a search for possible export markets in Asia. This measure is consistent with the objectives of our Government to promote technological innovation and reduce the dependency of Canada in the field of science and technology.
So that there can be no confusion about the nature of aspartame, I would like to underline once more that this product is a food additive and not a drug. It is the only low calorie sweetener which can be added to food products and beverages in Canada. It is widely used by diabetics and the weight-conscious. It is important to understand that it is not a drug. Generic product manufacturers can obtain a license at any time to produce and market equivalent products. Consequently, consumers will soon be able to find equivalent products containing aspartame or its equivalents at very good prices.
Let me repeat that this Bill is a special answer to a unique problem. Searle has had to face exceptional circumstances surrounding the initial marketing of its product, and it is normal that Canada now extend its period of protection as it certainly did not benefit from the 17 years of protection its patent should have provided under the 1932 Act.
It is in the interests of this government and of all Canadians, especially Quebecers and LaSalle residents, that fair protection be given to those who put their scientific knowledge at the service of consumers. It is in this spirit that we should give our support to this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! Excellent!


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask this House to continue in this fine spirit of cooperation so that we may give passage to this Bill as quickly as possible as the patent will expire on July 1st.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee by unanimous consent, reported, read the third time and passed.

Joseph Gaston Isabelle: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act for the purpose of creating a special deduction for all veterans aged 65 and over, thus recognizing services rendered to the nation in wartime.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer will be debated during 60 minutes beginning now.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the House that this is not a partisan motion. It is nothing more than a tangible reward we should give to all those who fought during at least four years to defend the freedom we all enjoy today.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to read the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act for the purpose of creating a special deduction for all veterans aged 65 and over, thus recognizing services rendered to the nation in wartime.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear from the outset that I did not specify any amount in this motion. This is precisely why it reads: "That the Government should consider the advisability". I am sure it will examine the motion and that some of my colleagues will comment on this.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that during the last two world wars more than 1,300,000 people joined the armed forces and fought overseas for the freedom of people which was threatened.
I would also like to say that, out of these 1,300,000 plus,
650,000	are still among us, both men and women, of course. The number of veterans decreases by 25,000 each year and, by the year 2025 or thereabouts, perhaps 1,000 at most will still be living.
The average age of World War I veterans is 89, that of World War II veterans is 66, and that of Korean War veterans is 57, or an over-all average age of about 66.
Income Tax Act
Mr. Speaker, after joining the armed forces these people experienced difficult years, years of horror, years of distress, but they were always motivated by the courageous decision to leave their families to go and fight in foreign lands to defend freedom.
There is no doubt that this motion would contribute to reduce some of the taxes they have to pay. They are all pensioners, as I said earlier, and we know that the average income of pensioners, that is those who have retired, is about $12,533 a year. So we can say that the only income of most veterans is roughly the same as the national average income of all pensioners.
We must also remember that some of those veterans were prisoners of war, of course, and as such they receive an allowance, a kind of pension. And then there are others who were wounded, others who were handicapped when they came back and who receive a pension for their injuries and their disability.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is above all to compensate, on an individual basis, all veterans aged 65 who served the cause of freedom. Over the years we have always admired and congratulated our veterans on Remembrance Day, we have built monuments, we have given them recognition, as a group, for their valour, courage and bravery in the wars, as people who gave this country the freedom we enjoy today. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have been particularly attentive to those who fought for so many years, who suffered so that today's generation could have that freedom we cherish.
We can say that little or nothing has been done on an individual basis, and that is why I have just announced that I would like to see some tangible compensation for those who fought during the terrible war years, who willingly gave up the best years of their lives, their youth, to go and fight so that this generation and future generations would have the freedom we all enjoy today.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure we could have a long discussion on the amount of this special deduction. Personally, I would suggest a deduction of $400 per veteran. In most cases, a $400 deduction would result in a fairly substantial income tax deduction, in other words, they would be paying $184 or $200 or $400 or $500 less in income tax. I believe that this would totally cancel the amount they would have to pay in taxes since, as you know, Mr. Speaker, when you have $1,000 or $2,000 in taxable income, you have to pay $100 or more in taxes. We also know that this is more symbolic than anything else as these people still want to feel useful in society. They want to give some meaning to their life because they have done something tangible for Canada. I do not think that future generations will be willing to sacrifice their lives as did Canadians between 1914 and 1917 and between 1939 and 1945.


Income Tax Act
There are also military decorations, and I am thinking mostly about the Distinguished Service Order, or DSO, to which is attached a small monetary award of 10 pounds sterling, or about $40, which is not very much. However, for those who have been given this decoration, this monetary award is a matter of pride in what they have done. It represents much more than the money as it confirms that they have served their country, Canada. Churchill said: "Never have so many owed so much to so few." I believe that Sir Winston Churchill said those words after the battle of London, and I think that such deeds should be emphasized in our history books so that this generation and the ones to come will understand that there were great acts of bravery and courage during the Second World War.
Mr. Speaker, you have to know some of the veterans to realize that most of them live at about the poverty line. I am not speaking about those who receive pensions, and even in their cases, pensions and allowances do not mean much, since, especially in the case of allowances, every Canadian becomes eligible for the income supplement at the age of 65. As veterans' allowances are given as supplements, those who receive them simply change over to the system provided for all Canadians at the age of 65.
This morning, we had the privilege of welcoming the Association of Former Prisoners of War. We heard some of the stories these people had to tell, Mr. Speaker, and it is enough to make your hair stand on end. It is impossible to imagine that men and women can have suffered so long during the war and not receive anything in return except our sympathy. As for me, I believe that those who came back, who were not wounded, who were not prisoners of war, who were able to rebuild their life, perhaps a very ordinary life, should receive something tangible in return. Some may say: this is impossible because of the high costs involved. Mr. Speaker, if those people had not been where duty had them at the time, I think it would have taken our country much more than just money to give those veterans a new sense of hope, a new sense of pride in belonging to this country for which they fought, for which they defended the freedom enjoyed by all those who lived in Canada at the time. People can obviously take pride in mentioning in their income tax return that they are veterans, and once again, we have to understand them, understand that they are proud to have served in the wars, and that they genuinely deserve a reward.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of our time.
I believe my motion is quite straightforward. It is not cast in concrete. There is room for improvements, and maybe we will be pleasantly surprised tonight to learn that consideration has been given to veterans in the tax reform, though I do not know anything about that, but I believe that it is of the utmost importance that this generation show consideration for the generation of those who suffered for us.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that veterans have always been considered as a group. Of course, some minor efforts are
presently being rewarded on an individual basis a specific segment of those veterans, and I am referring the VIP program, or Veterans Independence Program through which veterans who were wounded or live on some pension, instead of being isolated in hospitals, clinics, or foster homes, are indeed able to stay at home, to stay within thier communities, to say where they spent all their lives, where they have been happy. I therefore submit that this program should be extended to other categories of veterans. It is an encouraging sign, but once again, I think we should read, and maybe all Hon. Members should do so, the terrifying and totally amazing stories of what those veterans went through during the First and Second World Wars.
I recently had the opportunity to visit France with a few of my colleagues. We were entertained in Reims and in Chalons-sur-Marne, and in a number of other places in France, in the south, in Avignon, in Nice and I can assure you that we always got a very warm welcome from those who entertained us, but all their speeches were along the same line, they would thank us for the huge services we rendered to the Allies as well as to the French families during the two World Wars.
Mr. Speaker, when you see those valleys, those fields of poppies, you are constantly reminded of all the war movies. That is why we have to give a kind of new faith to those who fought and, naturally, honour them. The Department of Veteran Affairs wants to honour their memory by building monuments. During the centennial year of our national parks, in 1985, the Department erected about 12 monuments in parks. Nice things can be engraved on steles, reminding us of those who gave their lives, who are buried on various continents or in the seven seas. But for the survivors, there is only bitter memory of lost years, lost income and of the one thing they won like everybody, freedom. It is up to us to add something to that and I think that what I propose in the motion is worth considering, if not in total, at least in part.
I have always had a lot of respect for veterans. I saw one yesterday who spent 14 years in the Royal Canadian Air Force. He had to get out because of various personal problems, but after 14 years, Mr. Speaker, he has no pension, nothing. In 1938, he was making $33 a month, he fought throughout the war, but he got no pension, no veteran's allowance after the war because he did not have 20 years of service. He was in the regular forces and now he must rely on social welfare. He is frustrated as are many others, not because he fought to give us a future, but he is frustrated when he realizes that Canada is not very grateful for what they did.
Mr. Speaker, I know that much has been done for veterans. However, I think that the tremendous service they rendered Canadians will always exceed all services which could be made available to them at any cost. I hope the House will pass this motion which obviously is not binding on the Government since it asks the government to consider the advisability to do something in accordance with the substance of the motion.


Moreover, on behalf of the veterans, it would be quite difficult I think for the Hon. Members to do otherwise. And I am sure that perhaps some of our friends ... I see the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) wriggling in his seat. No doubt he would like to rise. I hope that he will not try to bury us under heaps of figures because the purpose of this Bill is not to resolve an equation, but merely to try to reward those people who rendered services to all of us as a community and whom we still cherish.
I hope that there will be no more war, but for those who were eyewitnesses of those disastrous wars which have become necessary to defeat the enemy and regain our freedom ... I would like us to find a small tangible way, Mr. Speaker, to improve the lot of those who are 65 years of age and over, since most of them live near the threshold of poverty.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder why the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) should be afraid of mathematics or a series of figures when he knows that an engineer will respond on behalf of the Minister of Finance. He should not be afraid, and I believe that our Government has shown that we have as much compassion as rational sense, with both feet on the ground.

I would like to take this opportunity, as did the Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), to pay due homage to the veterans of Canada in general and to the wonderful riding of LaSalle in particular. I have an opportunity today to air the problems of these veterans. When I go to Legion 212 these veterans, most of whom are now aged, tell all sorts of horror stories to which the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer just referred.
The Ladies Auxiliary of Legion 212 maintains the morale of the active members and of the members who are hospitalized in Sainte-Anne de Bellevue Hospital by greeting them a few times a year so that they are not forgotten. La devise of Quebec is Je me souviens and it is translated at the Legion as "Lest we forget". Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to the members of all Legions of Canada and, in particular, those in the riding of LaSalle.
[ Translation]
And speaking of horror stories, Mr. Speaker, we are too young to have been directly involved in World War II, but we did have, if I may put it this way, the opportunity to take part in the Korean War or in other wars, in other peacekeeping missions undertaken by Canada throughout the world. I must recall the pathetic death of a member of my community, more specifically, when I was young, Private Jacques Lefebvre who fell in Normandy and whom I had gotten to know very well on my home street. This was a young man who went to war, who saw action and did not come back. Parents had to live with this kind of situation for many years, and I want to pay tribute to
Income Tax Act
all those soldiers who fell on the battleground, who were killed in action, but particularly to the one I knew, Private Jacques Lefebvre whom I still remember as representing the sacrifice many Canadians had to make, namely sending healthy sons away so they would maintain peace in the world.
Still, notwithstanding the compassion we must show for our veterans, we have to keep both feet on the ground and deal with this tax problem with appropriate objectivity.
Mr. Speaker, the motion urges the Government to consider the advisability to amend the Income Tax Act for the purpose of creating a special deduction for veterans, thus recognizing services rendered to the nation in wartime.
First, it is important to emphasize that the income tax due by an individual is based on that individual's ability to pay. In that sense, the tax legislation must be general and uniform. This means the past or present occupation of a taxpayer has no impact on the amount of tax he or she has to pay. In that light, it does not seem appropriate to grant individuals a general exemption in recognition of past services. This is a matter of general policy.
Many groups in our Canadian society are in need and would certainly deserve our help. Some assistance already has been given to retirees, by increasing and indexing the Old Age Security pension, and also the guaranteed income supplement, as well as to war veterans directly and their families by increasing the veterans' allowance and the veterans' disability pension. The numerous amendments made these last few years to the tax legislation substantially increased available income, and thereby the purchasing power of small- and medium-income people.
The Canadian Government is aware of the debt Canadians as a whole owe our war veterans and it is attempting to help them within its resources. A number of federal acts already provide for the payment of pensions, allowances and various benefits to war veterans. This includes the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans' Allowance Act and the Pensions Act. Benefits paid to war veterans under those acts are not included in income, which means they are tax exempt. That approach has the merit of recognizing the special contribution of War Veterans to the protection of our country, our heritage and world peace in general.
On the other hand, where a war veteran has other sources of income such as employment, business, investments, etc., it seems reasonable that he pay the same amount of tax as other Canadians with similar income and circumstances.
The tax reform initiated by this Government, the outline of which will be made public in a few minutes, will reduce the tax burden of low income families, and thereby of many veterans who are in that particular situation.
To sum up, the Income Tax Act already grants preferred treatment to war veterans, and in view of the measures the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will be announcing later


Income Tax Act
tonight, establishing an extra income tax deduction for war veterans may not appear needed or even appropriate.
Such a deduction that needless to say would reduce employment, business or investment income would favour war veterans to the detriment of other Canadian taxpayers who might be just as deserving.
Nonetheless, it is not to be ruled out that the Government might increase its help to War Veterans. Simply, it does not seem appropriate that such additional help be provided through the tax legislation. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is best able to identify and dispense help to war veterans in need. That role should not be relinquished to the Minister of National Revenue.
Mr. Speaker, this measure is quite in keeping with this Government's leitmotiv, which is to help the people most in need, which means unfortunately that we have to mitigate the benefits extended to those who are less in need.
What the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) is proposing would afford an advantage to people with high incomes and little advantage, if any, to people with no income. This is in total conflict with any social measure one can imagine. We believe that those in need, including veterans, are not getting enough compared to what they have contributed.
However, we must realize that we will certainly not give more to those who are most in need by collecting less revenue from those who are able to pay.
So, given all these considerations and with due regard and compassion, of course, for these brave fighting men and those who sustained their action away from the front lines, we believe that this motion should not be encouraged by our Government since it is almost anti-social and would certainly not help those who need it most.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) for giving the House an opportunity to discuss matters affecting Canada's veterans. All too often the House does not have an opportunity to discuss policy matters as they affect those individuals who, at great personal sacrifice, fought for Canada and world freedom, especially in the last two major wars.
I have been associated with the Hon. Member for Hull- Aylmer for quite a number of years through our joint activity on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I know he brings a great deal of knowledge and experience to this debate. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Hon. Member and for the effort, energy, and enthusiasm which he puts into those matters affecting Canadian veterans.
As I understand it, the intent of the motion of the Hon. Member is to provide a benefit through the Income Tax Act to
those Canadians who served in Canada's Armed Forces in time of war. As I understand it, this benefit would be in the form of a tax credit and would be designed to give recognition to those Canadians for the sacrifice they made on Canada's behalf during wartime.
As will undoubtedly be pointed out in the course of this debate, those veterans who were wounded during the war, suffered through illness as a result of wartime experience, or were prisoners of war, will have benefits available to them under various programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I understand that this motion would provide a degree of recognition to those Canadians who were not prisoners of war and do not receive any other additional benefits under the various programs provided by the existing veterans legislation. The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer is attempting to tell those veterans that while fortunately they are ineligible to become a recipient as a result of a war injury, illness or of being a prisoner of war, the federal Government and indeed Parliament wants to extend an extra recognition to them for the service they gave to the country during periods of armed conflict. In that sense, I think it behoves all of us to give full consideration to the sentiments being advanced by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer.
The Hon. Member, like myself, is not a tax accountant by any means. We are simply Members of the House who want to recognize the value that a number of Canadians have given to this country over the years. We are interested in the sentiment and recognition expressed in the motion.
The motion also gives us an opportunity to examine how we are treating a number of others in our veteran population. There is some urgency to the Hon. Member's motion that we give some additional recognition when we consider that Canada's veteran population is declining at a rate of some
25,000	a year.
I am sure the Hon. Member who moved the motion does not want to leave the impression that nothing is being done because I have heard him say on many occasions that all of us appreciate the efforts of the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) to the pressing problems facing our veterans. In fact, I have said in the House that since I came here in 1980 I do not know of any other Minister of Veterans Affairs who has moved so quickly in such a short period of time to resolve many of the outstanding problems facing veterans, even going back to the 1914-18 war.
I could not believe it when one of the first pieces of legislation the Minister of Veterans Affairs introduced in the House corrected a grievance that had existed since the 1914-18 war. Numerous delegations from the Canadian Legion appeared before the Veterans Affairs Committee over the years to seek correction of that injustice. The Minister took that action. I do


not know why previous Ministers of Veterans Affairs had such difficulty in resolving many of these simple problems.
While I support the intention of the motion and praise the work done by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, it does not mean that there are not other matters that must be addressed soon on behalf of veterans.
One matter which I want to raise specifically concerns an issue that defies logic. It is a policy dealing with Canadians who served overseas during the war and, at the termination of the war, elected to remain in the country in which they served rather than return to Canada. According to the legislation, before these veterans can become eligible for the War Veterans Allowance, they are required to reside in Canada for a 12-month period. These are people who made a great sacrifice to themselves and their families and volunteered to fight not only for Canada but on behalf of free people everywhere in the world. While serving in those countries they may have met their spouse, married in the country in which they served and raised families. Many of them now are at an age when they are infirm and need some extra financial assistance in order to lead as normal a life as possible.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has indicated that it is willing to give these people assistance but, before doing so, they must uproot themselves from their family and return to Canada for 12 months to receive the benefits under the various pieces of legislation for veterans. I, nor those veterans, understand the logic behind that policy. I know that the Minister is quite sympathetic to the problem facing these veterans. I believe it is time for action, but I also understand and appreciate that it involves a cost to the treasury.
I have proposed a suggestion to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Canada is very generous to allied forces who are not Canadians but come to Canada and reside here for 10 years. After that 10-year period they become eligible for benefits under our veterans' legislation, quite properly so. I have suggested to the Minister that perhaps negotiations should take place with the United Kingdom and other European countries on the basis that we treat their veterans very generously in Canada and perhaps a reciprocal agreement with those Governments could be arranged to ensure that Canadian veterans living in those countries are treated as well as veterans who decide to live in Canada.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important matter. It deserves all the support that the motion calls for.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate because the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) is entirely in keeping with the approach this Government has taken with respect to veterans.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) will probably go down as the most popular and effective Minister of Veterans Affairs that this country has ever seen. It has been a
Income Tax Act
great pleasure and honour for me to have served as his parliamentary secretary.
When I visit Legions and Army and Navy units across the country, representing the Minister at Veterans Affairs functions, I hear nothing but the highest praise and respect for the Minister, particularly for the advanced legislation that he has brought forward over the last couple of years.
I am a life member of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans. In my Legion in Winnipeg, every time I visit, I am asked about my Minister. It is the same in the Charleswood Legion in my riding. They often comment on the Minister's advanced legislation.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs made two very important announcements when he took office. The first announcement was that veterans were very special Canadians and that they would be treated as such by the Department of Veterans Affairs and by the Government of Canada. Following this was a second announcement that the overriding policy at the Department of Veterans Affairs would be summarized in three words: courtesy, generosity and speed. Those statements were strongly endorsed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and, indeed, by the entire Government. Since that time, I am confident all Hon. Members would agree, the Government has honoured the commitments given by the Minister of Veterans Affairs in September 1984.
It might appear easy today to say this is no big accomplishment. However, that was certainly not the case when we took office. Those of us who were here in the last Parliament can recall only too well how dreadful things had become at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, constituents' complaints about Veterans Affairs ran second only to complaints about the Post Office. That is how badly the Department had slipped. In fact, matters were sufficiently serious to cause the previous Government to establish an independent committee of inquiry to try to sort it all out. The new Government scrapped that committee, rolled up its sleeves and went to work on behalf of Canada's veterans. The result in a very short time of less than three years has been dramatic.
Unquestionably, the number one complaint across Canada was delays in the pension process. Some veterans were waiting up to five years just to get a final ruling on their claims, and their chances of getting a favourable decision were not good at all. Thanks to this Government, delays in the pension process have been slashed by at least half and, in some cases, by over three-quarters. No one wants to hear the statistics anymore because there is no news in good news, yet our accomplishment is not only incredible but a source of real and genuine pride for all associated with it.
I use the word "incredible" and I know it is a very overworked word. Nonetheless, the slashing we have done with pension processing times has been achieved in the face of an


Income Tax Act
almost two-fold increase in caseload. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, cutting turnaround times by well over half while almost doubling one's workload. At the same time veterans' claims are receiving far more thoughtful and considerate attention than was the case previously. Favourable decisions are running at over 50 per cent at first application, 60 per cent at first appeal and over 40 per cent at final appeal. This is the kind of generosity veterans have every reason to expect.
We also came to power with initiatives in mind and our legislative proposals have turned these initiatives into law. Widows of veterans no longer see the married rate of pension reduced within a month of the pensioner's death. Bill C-28 passed in early 1985, continued the married rate for a full year, thus giving the surviving spouse a chance to recover from his or her bereavement. The same principle was extended to exceptional incapacity and attendance allowance payments. Bill C-28 also settled once and for all the very legitimate complaint that veterans and veterans' organizations have raised with regard to the basic rate of pension.
It was always intended that the basic rate of pension, which is the rate payable to single pensioners whose disability assessment is 100 per cent, should be equal to the average take-home pay of four categories of public servants. Unfortunately, no mechanism was ever put in place to make sure the basic rate stayed in line with what these categories of public servants were receiving. The result was an endless circle of veterans falling behind, Parliament voting to raise the basic rate, veterans falling behind again, and on it went. We put an end to that by pegging the basic rate to the average wage I just mentioned while, at the same time, keeping veterans' pensions fully indexed. Veterans can now rest totally assured that the basic rate of pension will never again fall behind.
Action was also taken to remove a very discriminatory practice insofar as former prisoners of war were concerned. What was happening is that former prisoners of war were being denied any POW benefits if their disability pension was paid at the 100 per cent rate. Similarly, POW benefits were reduced if the payment of the full benefit, combined with the veteran's pension, would bring the total over the 100 per cent ceiling. This section of the Act caused hundreds of veterans to lose all or part of their compensation and it hurt the most severely disabled veterans the most. In fact, it was the Hong Kong POWs who were most affected by this unjust and inequitable measure.
Bill C-100, passed in March 1986, put an end to this discrimination. The legislation said plainly and simply that former POWs would receive all the compensation they were entitled to regardless of how much pension they were receiving. That legislation also acknowledged the fact that the Dieppe POWs were being unfairly compensated under the Act. Their compensation was increased from the equivalent from a 20 per cent pension to a 25 per cent pension.
This Government has always been active on the nonlegislative side to assist veterans and their dependents. Eligibility for the Veterans Independence Program has been expanded four times since September 1984 and significant
improvements have been made in the quality and extent of health and medical benefits.
We have also raised the casual earnings and interest income exemptions for war veterans allowance recipients, to say nothing of the almost twofold increase in the amount of education assistance provided under the Children of the War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. More recently the Minister announced that an 11 year injustice done to Canadian veterans held prisoners in North Africa during the Second World War had come to an end. These veterans will be receiving prisoner of war compensation and it will be paid retroactive to 1976, the year they should have started receiving this benefit.
This Government has further initiatives in mind and announcements will be made in the coming months in that regard. Our record to date is one in which I take personal pride because no one fought harder than I did in the last Parliament on behalf of Canada's veterans. We as a country owe veterans a tremendous debt and they richly deserve the very best we can provide. Our Prime Minister and our Government very sincerely believe that, and we have proven our sincerity in word and deed for the past two and a half years.
The Hon. Member's motion has been drafted in exactly the same spirit and I commend him for it. For my part, I would be very glad to see the Hon. Member's suggestion given every consideration by the Minister of Finance, who has himself demonstrated a long standing interest and concern in Veterans Affairs.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) is giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the riding of Levis who have fought in the last wars. Many of them never came back from overseas. Therefore, I want to pay tribute to them as well as to their families and to those who are still living. Each year in November, I meet a number of them. I am pleased today to mention the dean of those former defenders of our country, Mr. Levis Brochu, a citizen still very active in our riding and who took part in the First World War of 1914-18. He told me personally what life was like in the trenches at that time. Therefore, I pay tribute to Mr. Brochu who on every occasion and at every celebration of Remembrance Day manages to come and see me in order to explain what happened during the years 1914 to 1918 and during the subsequent wars.
The purpose of the proposal of the Hon. Member for Hull- Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) is to give to former servicemen and veterans a unique status in terms of our tax system. That suggestion, I think, could have been made between the years 1965 and 1984, when the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer was a member of the Government in office, except for a short period in 1979.
The Hon. Member was also Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). He was also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) where he was in a privileged


position to encourage that course of action for veterans. Therefore, in that sense, may be the proposal comes too late. In another sense, I think that it may be less appropriate today because this Government, in particular this Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), will announce to Canadians new proposals for a major tax reform, the most extensive one since 1971 and maybe since 1917, when the general tax legislation was passed.
Mr. Speaker, maybe this is why one should wonder whether it is advisable to act immediately on the proposal of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer. I reflect on the meaning of his proposal considering the two aspects of the Government's role. The first duty of a Government is to collect taxes to finance state expenditures in terms of goods and services. At present, that financing costs $116 billion to Canadians. From that amount, this Government allocates $57 billion to the protection of disadvantaged people and to bring their standard of living more in line with that of Canadians in general. Fifty-seven billion dollars in our budget are already allocated to the underprivileged, and the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer would recommend that the money allocated to those people be increased through tax expenses. You have to have money to be able to redistribute it to Canadians, and tax expenditures are a loss of revenues for our Government, they already amount to $35 billion a year. So, I do not feel it is appropriate to increase those tax expenditures by such an amount, to increase them by $35 billion.
There is also the fact that the tax system applies to all Canadians and must be fair. Most of the benefits paid to veterans are tax free. This is already a tax assistance which is given to them and which nevertheless protects the integrity of the tax system. It is directly related to payments made in consideration of military service.
Moreover, veterans benefit from other programs and tax breaks like the old age deduction, that is $2,640 in 1987 for those 65 years old and over. There is also the deduction for disabled people, that is $2,890 in 1987, which is now available to a larger number of taxpayers, a deduction for medical costs including the cost of a nursing home insofar as the costs exceed 3 per cent of the net income.
Finally, the pension income deduction: a maximum of $1,000 on payments received from private retirement funds.
Deductions in the calculation of taxable income benefit high income taxpayers, which might not be the purpose of the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer, while they put low income taxpayers at a disadvantage. The tax reform we will announce officially tonight at eight o'clock proposes to change those deductions into tax credits. Any increase in a deduction aimed at lowering taxable income, Mr. Speaker, favours Canadian men and women in the higher tax brackets. Any tax credit that is granted favour Canadian men and women who pay little in taxes. That is why our tax reform
Income Tax Act
will recommend tax credits. The most destitute veterans, whom we take for granted the motion seeks to help, will effectively benefit from measures that will be put forward tonight at eight o'clock.
The adoption of a special deduction for veterans would make our tax legislation even more complex than it is and you know our Government is trying in every way it can to demystify and simplify the whole legislative process in effect in Canada, including the tax legislation process.
So the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer's motion would make the tax legislation even more complex than it is, since it would require that several provisions be drafted to single out eligible taxpayers.
Finally, if such a deduction were to be granted to veterans without regard to their needs and their ability to pay, the government would probably be flooded with claims from groups as much entitled to a similar deduction as the veterans. That would result in a significant erosion of the tax base and a weakened personal income tax system.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, such a reduction of our revenues is altogether contrary to our need to balance the expenditures and revenues of this country. We have been trying to achieve such a balance since 1984. When we came to power, the annual deficit amounted to $38 billion and, according to the technocrats of the day and depending on the way government's planned legislation was being interpreted, it was estimated then that the deficit would reach $40 billion, or $45 billion or even $50 billion a year. Since we came to power and as we want to balance revenues with expenditures, we decided to reduce the deficit year after year and we must keep that objective in mind while addressing the proposal of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer. Moreover, given the fiscal reform to be announced tonight, I suggest the motion is premature.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) for the superb job that he has been doing. The 11 Legions in my riding of Timiskaming certainly respect the job that he has done for them.
I would like to review some of the comments made in regard to further tax treatment for veterans. A couple of the areas which we would like to look at include the disability deduction of over $2,890 which is now available to a large segment of the population. Along with that deduction in respect of medical expenses, nursing care-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42( 1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give the House notice that, at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the order of the day for resuming debate on Motion No. 5, standing in my name, regarding capital punishment, and on the amendment proposed thereto, I shall be moving a motion that the debate shall not be further adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 57.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the Day.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee and the amendment of Mr. Marchi, (p. 7338).
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed Private Members' Hour. It is always a bit disconcerting to have one's presentation interrupted. I understand I had three or four minutes left on my allocated time.
The first point I made is that the current law needs changing. To my mind, the better course at this stage is to have Bill C-55 referred to committee. Once we have the opportunity to hear the testimony of the experts in this area, we can then amend the Bill such that it will achieve what Canadians and Members of this House would like to see it achieve. Before concluding, I should like to leave Hon. Members with a sense of the major issues to which the legislative committee should direct its attention.
The Minister has said that the Bill is not cast in stone. He has said, clearly and consistently, that the refugee board member who conducts the oral hearing at the first stage shall have discretion as to whether or not the case should proceed to a later stage. That is an important principle. If the Bill is not clear in that respect, if the testimony before the committee indicates that amendments are required to make that clear, then I would urge that those changes be made.
There is a lot of concern about the issue of appeal, of review. The words vary from place to place. What is really involved is that in any situation where the object is to protect life, there must be a way of correcting an error. Whether that ability exists in the legislation by virtue of the humanitarian and compassionate grounds allowed the Minister or whether there needs to be wording changes is a point for discussion. In any event, we must not bring the Bill back before the House
without there being some principle in it which will allow for the correcting of an error.
It is inconceivable that the two-person panels across the country would be capable of adjudicating these matters day in and day out, year in and year out without error. There will be mistakes made, and we must have a mechanism to correct such errors.
I would urge Cabinet to be a little less sanguine about the responsibility of naming safe third countries. The Cabinet has a complex task, a complex job. In terms of international relations, it is not unknown to have linkages. Cabinet must deal with trade concerns, concerns about peace and war, concerns related to alliances.
In naming safe third countries, we are dealing with human rights issues. I suggest to the House that we examine the idea that the expert body, the board itself, might propose to Cabinet safe situations, thus giving the elected representatives of this country the final say. I suggest that that might be a better body to propose safe third country situations than that which has previously being considered.
The fourth item relates to the whole issue of abusers. I have read and reread the legislation, and I am still not certain how this whole process begins. Under the current law, an individual claiming to be a refugee is referred to an inquiry. The inquiry is adjourned and another hearing takes place, with evidence taken under oath, and it then moves on to later stages.
Under Bill C-55, the process may start at the same beginning point, where a claim is made and an inquiry starts, and it then has to be adjourned, with a refugee board person then being brought in. That process may result in a backlog. It is that administrative process that may cause a backlog. It may be the mechanism that might benefit abusers. I would urge the committee, and those preparing to testify before the committee, to take a close look at that process.
If what I fear is correct, the solution may be to split the situation so that the refugee hearing is separate from the Immigration Board inquiry. That may be administratively sounder; it may be fairer to the refugees; and it may be cheaper from the taxpayers' point of view. It simply may work best.
People talk about visitor visas. That is the screen that keeps refugee claimants out of this country. It is a broad and brutal brush. I have seen it in operation.
Bill C-55, with careful scrutiny and necessary arrangements, will produce a situation which, I am convinced, will be fairer to bona fide refugees than any system that exists in any country in the world. But, it needs to go to committee. We need the expert testimony and the wisdom of those who work so hard in this area to enable us to understand the complexities of this issue. We cannot achieve that in the House. The Bill must be referred to committee. I would hope that the Liberal Party might reconsider its position and in fact help us get the Bill


before the committee, where we can do the job that needs doing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), to be followed by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to what the former chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration has had to say, and I am heartened by the movement that he has displayed over the course of his 20 minute speech on the motion for the second reading of this Bill. He has articulated, I think very genuinely, some of his concerns with respect to the Bill, and the fact that he, together with the opposition Parties, would like to see some very significant amendments in order to make the Bill supportable.
I am unsure as to what he meant in the last portion of his remarks when he said that it was his wish that the Liberal Party allow the Bill to go to committee. I do not think the Liberal Party has the liberty of stopping it from going to committee. We will certainly be there and we will be moving amendments and calling witnesses. We are certainly going to play an active part in committee consideration of the Bill.
I heard the Hon. Member speak of his concerns about the safe third country concept, as well as the appeal process. I may have missed the portion of his remarks wherein he discussed the prescreening stage. I am wondering what his views on that are. The Minister seems to suggest that it is not a prescreening. The constituency, on the other hand, feels very strongly that this does is in fact undermine the effectiveness of the refugee board in doing the work that we all want it to do.
I am curious as to how he views the role of the two officers at the border point and whether he favours a removal of that provision, or whether he favours a provision which would call for both Members to be from the refugee board as opposed to one being from the immigration team.
I am wondering whether he would care to share with the House his views on that very fundamental and important first step, a step that could be the last step for many refugees, if those provisions are allowed to stand.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Let me say at the outset that the motion which the Hon. Member moved, if passed by the House, would halt progress of the Bill through the House. It would never be considered. That is why I urge the Liberal Party to rethink its position on it.
The more important issue which the Hon. Member raises is the matter of the first stage hearing. The advantage that this legislation provides is the fact that we would have, for the first time, an expert body, a group of people whose sole concern would be refugees, a group of people who are knowledgeable about country-specific conditions, handling these matters. If that board has discretion, then, in my view, there is universal
Immigration Act, 1976
access to an oral hearing in stage one. If that board is not to have discretion, then it amounts to a screen.
There are lawyers who tell us, very clearly, that the way the fine print now reads, it is a screen. The Minister has said many times in the House that that discretion is there for the board person. But if it is the expert person who is deciding and the decision is that there is not the slightest bit of evidence that the claimant needs the protection of Canada, then that is an absolute decision; or the decision could be that there is some doubt as to the matter, in which event it proceeds to stage two.
I believe that a properly functioning board person, with that kind of expertise and that kind of discretion, would always err on the side of sending the matter forward for a more complete examination, thus providing more time for the claimant to produce the necessary evidence to substantiate the claim for refugee status.
It is at that stage when the board itself hears the case and says that there is not the slightest scintilla of possibility that the person needs the protection of Canada. If that is what they are doing, then I say that it is universal access and it is a hearing. A fuller hearing can take place at stage two if there is any possibility that a person may need the protection of Canada.
I think that would work. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the discretion lies at the heart of it.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have three questions. I will try to list them quickly and ask the Hon. Member to respond.
I am certainly interested in his expression of concern or sympathy with some of the objections raised with people in the public who have expertise about the Bill.
My main question is: when this goes to committee, does the Member envisage that the committee and the majority members on the committee, namely members of his caucus, will be willing to allow the time to go into the amendments which have been suggested by the public thoroughly and to deal with them fairly, or will they just say. "Well, a couple of meetings, then back to report"? That sort of thing has happened not on all Bills, but on some Bills.
Second, when he says that Cabinet should be less sanguine about naming third countries and perhaps give the first round to the refugee board, would he go so far as to advocate amending the law so as to include in it the criteria of the safe third country?
For example, must a safe third country be one which guarantees not to refoule the person to the country from which he says he is fleeing, or is a safe third country that will give the person a refugee hearing which meets Canadian standards, with of course the guarantee not to refoule if he is found to be a refugee? What other criteria, less than that or more than that, would the Member consider for the safe third country? Would he be willing to write those into the law?


Immigration Act, 1976
My third question is on abusers. Would the Member be willing to see the process begin without the presumption of guilt, that is, without the inquiry first to stamp the person as either an abuser or a probable abuser with the issuance of a deportation order or a conditional deportation order? Can we start the actual refugee hearing without putting that stigma on the claimant?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with those three questions in the order they were presented.
Recent history tells us clearly that a law which is not legally sound or in accordance with the Charter and all those things is a bad law. The courts will turn it down. We have had that happen to our Immigration Act in recent history. That is the reason which led to a lot of the changes in the Immigration Appeal Board.
I believe that no one in this Chamber wants to put in place a law which will be struck down. To be as sure as we can be that it will not be struck down requires expert testimony from government official and private sector people about the fine print.
I do not think in this particular case, given the complexity, the history, and the problems, that there is any danger of cutting off debate. What 1 do think-and I may differ from the Hon. Member who raised the question; I am not sure-is that we need expert witnesses. I do not think we need witnesses who want to attest the Parliament of Canada about their concerns about refugees. I think that is a given shared by all Members. What we need is expert testimony about the fine print.
Turning to the third country concept, it is possible to entertain some amendments which would bind that. 1 have an immediate reaction that that might not be the wisest course, that what we might want there is simply a test. If we are returning to another country, we want to be sure that they do not need the protection of Canada but that they do indeed have the protection of the country to which they are returning. It may be a test rather than an attempt to bind. Sometimes when we attempt to bind things we leave out some things and later, in retrospect, we wish we had them in there; sometimes we put in things we did not intend. We may not have all the wisdom; it may be that some other kind of legal concept would be helpful.
This is why I suggest that the board itself, in its expert wisdom and using what it does to judge individual cases, might indeed be the best body to judge country cases. That might be the more important thing to put in the law.
When it comes to the issue of inquiry first, refugee hearing first, the inquiry is important to stop abuse, and it should happen quickly; that is my view. The hearing on whether somebody might or might not be a refugee is what I see as a separate thing.
In our committee report in October 1985, we drew the distinction between immigration concerns and human rights
concerns. I want as pure a process as we can see for the human rights concern, not for it to be fouled up with the immigration concern. However, I think we would be inviting trouble if we said that Immigration could not proceed to make the decisions which Immigration must make.
It may be that doing the two in the same hearing is better. I have not heard the testimony pro or con or all the reasons. However, I think it might not be the best way. It is the separation, the clarity on the two sides, which concerns me more, not the time.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, there are two very different aspects to Canada's refugee policy. First, there are refugees we select abroad and, second, there are those who make claims in Canada.
The refugees we select abroad are part of a controlled, predictable movement which allows Canada to select the cream of refugees through relaxed immigration criteria. A minority are convention refugees. I want to emphasize that immigration criteria dominate the selection of refugees abroad.
First, we determine whether the claimant is a convention refugee. Second, we determine whether the applicant is capable of becoming successfully established in Canada. We take into consideration, in so doing, all factors used in assessing independent immigrants.
The needs of the refugee are secondary in a process which is shaped by our domestic immigration needs and our domestic policies. Through immigration we seek to foster internal growth by adding skills which are in demand in Canada. We seek to further social goals such as reuniting families. This is all done within the policy goals of Canada and according to our domestic needs.
When we select refugees abroad, Canada's needs are looked after. However, this does nothing to respond to the needs of the refugee who may have to pick up and go quickly, who has no time to apply, whose life may be in danger by lining up at a Canadian embassy or consulate to apply to come to Canada as a refugee judged by immigration criteria.
Selecting refugees abroad, according to immigration criteria, is no help to those who are jumping away from the fire, as Rabbi Plaut put it several weeks ago when he spoke in Montreal. This is why we have the procedure of allowing claims in Canada.
Under the 1951 UN Convention, Canada has undertaken to protect persons who are physically present in Canada, who claim to be refugees, and who seek asylum here. This flow is much less controllable and does not allow for the selection process which is used when we select refugees abroad.
On February 20, the Government introduced a series of measures designed to prevent refugees from coming to Canada to make their claims. These measures include transit visas, abolishment of the non-deport list and the holding of claimants


at the U.S. border. The Government wants refugees to come to our embassies abroad where we can select them according to our own interests and according to our own immigration criteria.
Bill C-55 which we are debating today for the first time introduces the troubling concept of the safe third country. A claimant who comes to Canada from such a country will have no opportunity to be heard on the merits of his or her claim. As "there are no Tefugee-producing st~ateTbh~b~ur~BorBefs of in close proximity to Canada, it is not hard to figure out that as many as 80 per cent to 90 per cent of refugee claimants will be excluded as a result of this provision.
To understand the significance of the administrative changes of February 20 and of Bill C-55, I would like to say a few words about the UN Convention. That Convention was a milestone in the history of the treatment of refugees because it addressed the rights of individuals and the obligations of states. Given the overwhelming tragedy of World War II with hundreds of thousands of people becoming victims because they had nowhere to go, because no country would accept them, it was felt necessary to provide individuals with the capacity to effect some salvation on their own, to move spontaneously to a safe haven. The Convention was a significant deviation from the principle that a sovereign country had absolute control over who it permits to enter its borders. The Convention of 1951, the Universal Declaration of Eluman Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are parts of what has been described as a revolution in international law. Traditionally international law recognized only states. Since the Convention and the Declaration, individuals are recognized under international law.
Prior to the Convention, the capacity to move to a safe haven did not exist. The victims of the Holocaust had no such capacity. Without the Convention, all a refugee has is what the Government wants him to have. The Government wants refugees to apply to immigrate to Canada or to another country from an embassy within the refugee's own country or perhaps a bordering country. If turned down, the refugee, of course, has the right to suffer.
Through the measures of February 20 and Bill C-55, the Government is saying: "It is our right to choose". This violates the UN Convention because the moment we talk about choice, we introduce elements which have nothing whatsoever to do with individual rights. When one chooses, one does not look at the needs of the person involved. It is domestic policies and politics which prevail.
Keeping Jews out of Canada in the 1930s and the 1940s was very popular domestically. Today, in his opening comments and practically in his very first sentence, the Minister referred to the fact that Bill C-55 is popular in Canada, and so it may be. However, the question I put to the Minister is does that make it right? Is legislation right just because it responds to what many Canadians see as being a problem?
Immigration Act, 1976
Perhaps many Canadians are concerned that there have been too many refugee claimants coming to Canada in recent years. Perhaps they feel that our system is somehow being swamped. Whether they are right or wrong, does that make it right to introduce legislation which responds to public opinion but which may be morally unfounded?
What criteria will be used to choose refugees? Again, Canada chose not to take Jews in the 1940s. This clearly was not based on the needs of the victims. I suggest to the Minister that it is wrong to assume that when he or any Minister chooses, those who are most in need will be chosen or they will be chosen according to fair criteria. That is why it is so important and indeed essential that people have the capacity to present their claims. That is why the convention exists.
We do not need a Convention to tell people to line up abroad. It is essential that people have the capacity to have their cases presented and judged on the basis of Canada's international obligations under the Convention and developed through decisions rendered over the past 35 years. That is why the thrust of the recommendations made by Rabbi Plaut, nongovernmental organizations, church groups, human rights organizations and the standing committee is that the claimant should be given the opportunity to be heard by an independent tribunal which would inquire into the substance or merits of the claim for protection. Bill C-55 violates that basic principle because it establishes procedures under which claimants have no opportunity to be heard if they come from a safe third country.
If a claimant comes from a country which is on a predetermined list, established by Cabinet, a list which may have nothing whatsoever to do with personal circumstances, he is out. He is sent back home. The Minister cannot say that no genuine refugee will be returned when he has not established a procedure that will inquire into whether a person is indeed a refugee or not.
In the procedure proposed by the Government, there will be no opportunity for a claimant to present a case if he comes from a country which is on the list of safe third countries. There will be no opportunity to refute the assumption that the country the Government proposes to return him to is indeed safe. The inquiry will be limited to determining from where the person had come. There will be no discretion on the part of the two people who will preside at the initial hearing. The undeniable effect is that we will return people who need protection. It is false for the Minister to say that no genuine refugee will be returned to a country where he or she may face persecution because the procedure he proposes provides no opportunity for the refugee to make his or her claim.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) said that we should study this in committee and hear what the experts have to say about it. I would ask him if he has even read the legislation. I believe any first-year law student could tell him that no discretion is given to those who will preside at the initial hearing. Every lawyer to whom I have spoken who has read this Bill feels that there is no discretion in it. How can


Immigration Act, 1976
the Government now tell us that a refugee will in all cases be given the benefit of the doubt? How can the Minister say as he had said umpteen times, and that is what is so infuriating about his attitude, that even when there is a shred of evidence supporting the claim, the claimant will be entitled to a hearing? That is a lot of garbage. It is just not so.
The Government suggests that the opponents of this Bill are advocating an open-door policy, a policy of taking in millions of refugees. One would think that hundreds of thousands of people were standing in the pipeline, as Rabbi Plaut put it several weeks ago. You would think that 155,000 Tamils had come to Canada last August. Last year we had 18,000 claimants, no more than would fill an average size hockey arena.
The NGOs, the churches, human rights organizations, lawyers who work with refugees, Rabbi Plaut, and the standing committee all called for a process which would discourage abuse by dealing with claims quickly. There is abuse today because the process is cumbersome. Anyone who comes here today is assured of two to five years of procedure and appeals. A person can get married and appeal to the Minister on compassionate grounds. There is an incentive to abuse the system. However, if the process turns these people around in three months there will be no incentive to abuse. That is the way to deal with abusers, not by imposing an arbitrary screening procedure such as is proposed in this legislation.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the real question is how many can Canada accept? What evidence is there that the Canadian society cannot absorb any more refugees or immigrants? Have we reached our saturation point? All signs point to the contrary.
May I remind you of what Canada did five or six years ago to help refugees from Indochina. At the time, the Government had appealed to the generosity of Canadians who then organized refugee sponsoring groups in various parts of the country. We opened our military bases and we chartered planes to bring in refugees from Indochina. Since 1979, we have received over 100,000 such refugees, including over
60,000	in 1979 and 1980 alone. Seven or eight years later, all these people are contributing something to our country.
In fact, since the war, Canada has received over 500,000 refugees. But can anyone claim sincerely that Canada is doing more than its share compared with other countries, especially those which have common borders with the refugee producing countries? I should like to quote a few figures, Mr. Speaker. Today, Pakistan has some 2.7 million refugees from Afghanistan within its borders; Sudan, 1.2 million; Somalia, 700,000; Hong Kong, 200,000; Thailand has welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Today, there are still some 250,000 refugees in camps situated along the Cambodian border. Mexico has some 175,000 refugees; France, 174,000; West Germany, 134,000; England,
135,000.	Who, then, can say that Canada has done more than its share?
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that Canada is the second largest country in the world. We have a very small population, compared to most other countries. Our natural resources are unbelievable. Which country will maintain a generous attitude toward refugees if not Canada? Canada should play a leading role in the protection of refugees. And it is not with the type of a bill introduced by this Tory Government that Canada will assume its responsibilities.

Therefore, in conclusion, I wish to indicate that 1 support the amendment proposed by my colleague from York West for a six-month hoist. I do not agree with the Hon. Member for Calgary West that this Bill merits second reading.
I would like to make an additional comment. The Minister and other spokesmen for the Conservative Party have said very few countries will be on the list of safe third countries. The Minister tells us to have faith in him because he is a good guy. I remind him that the basis of protection is in law, not in speeches of the Minister. When the people who preside at the initial hearing have to decide the case they will look at the Act, the regulations and the manual. They are not going to look at the speeches the Minister made all over the country trying to promote his Bill. This law will be applied long after the Minister is gone. I ask him, why have a provision if it is not going to be applied?
It is incredible to suggest that the public, legislators, and people who work with refugees should rely on the Minister's good faith and not on what the law says. That is what the Minister has been telling us for the past few weeks. I say to him in all sincerity that that kind of an argument is totally unacceptable. We cannot pass a law on the basis of the Minister's good intentions. We have to study, judge and pass a law on the basis of the very clear language in which it is written.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his remarks. He was very interested in this issue long before this legislation arrived here for second reading. No one in this Party wishes to stop this legislation from going to committee. Obviously we look forward to having another round with witnesses who can again make their representations on this legislation. What has worried us the most is that after three years of consultation a major segment of what was proposed by the NGOs were not listened to. As a result, we are afraid that the same process will take place in committee for a second time.
We heard from the Hon. Member for Calgary. We heard from NDP Members. Both myself and the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) have spoken as well. All of this was in the hope that the Government will pay attention to the needed


reforms and amendments and show some movement so that everyone can be happy with the legislation.
1 would like to ask the Elon. Member if he can share with us his views on an appeal mechanism based on points of law rather than on the circumstances faced by the legitimate refugee in his homeland.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, 1 have heard the Hon. Member say on a number of occasions that the determination process is only as good as the appeal process. If you do not have an appeal on interpretation of fact, there is no appeal. This recommendation was made unanimously by all groups which have been heard from in the past several years as well as by the standing committee. It points to what the Minister is asking us to swallow.
I have heard him say publicly on a couple of occasions that this Bill is not perfect. I heard a Conservative Party member speak at a conference in Montreal last Friday night on the right of internal asylum and say that the Bill is not perfect. However, the Minister was quoted in the papers yesterday as saying that he will not amend the Bill. Perhaps he was misquoted.
What are we supposed to believe? He goes around the country saying he is a nice guy. Six months ago he told people that if a Bill was presented which he could not accept, he would resign. This Bill violates every basic principle which has been laid down and talked about for the past few years, yet he does not resign. He says, "I'm not perfect but I won't amend the Bill".


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is making all kinds of statements about things I am alleged to have said or not to have said. Why does he not answer the question and not try to enter into debate on something on which he has no evidence or facts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair believes that is a matter of debate. The Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) has the floor.


David Berger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is incredible that the Minister would go around the country saying that the Bill is not perfect and that maybe we can improve it, then say the next day that they will not amend the Bill. He wakes up one day and is Mr. Nice Guy. The next day he may have been kicked by his wife in bed and tells us that he will not amend the Bill. Is this the kind of basis upon which parliamentarians are expected to evaluate and judge a Bill?
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question and make a few comments to my colleague from Laurier (Mr. Berger), for I know he is open-minded about the immigrant and refugee issue.
Immigration Act, 1976
Keeping in mind the fact the the Minister of State responsible for immigrants-and keeping in mind the open-mindedness of Montrealers and the ever generous welcome they extend to refugees, particularly in Montreal West, I should like to ask him this: How can the people of Montreal and the people of Dollard understand their Member now, when we know that the people of Montreal West have always been very generous with these people, always welcoming them, and now a former mayor of Montreal West who today is the Minister responsible has been making speeches in the Montreal region and trying to make people believe he has an open mind, whereas in fact here he is the most hard-hearted man for refugees, a man who has changed completely?
I wish my colleague from Laurier would tell me: Is it because the Minister is under supervision here, he does not carry any weight-all he has is a limousine and the extra $40,000-he is powerless and has been given orders, or is it simply that he is showing his true colours here and showing his other face in his riding? I would like to know the opinion of my colleague on this.


David Berger: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It should be said that the people of Montreal West are not the only ones who have been generous to refugees and immigrants in the last several years. As I have already said, only a few years ago, in 1979 and 1980, Canadians welcomed with open hearts thousands of East Asian refugees.
The Minister makes generous speeches. He says that he is meeting all the expectations of the population and that he will treat refugees fairly. This is a spurious statement and this is why the government is deceiving the Canadian public.
Let me just quote the words of a Toronto lawyer who met with the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) and with various groups representing refugees in Montreal and other organizations from throughout Canada who were in Montreal a few weeks ago. This lawyer said: "You know, Mr. Minister, there are two Bills C-55. There is the Bill tabled in the House which we now have before us, and then there is the other Bill C-55 to which you refer in your speeches."
He added: "We have not seen this second Bill". As for us, Members of Parliament, we have to deal with the Bill which was introduced in this House on March 5. It is a fact that the Canadian public welcomes the speeches of the Minister because they deal with a bill that does not exist, except in his imagination.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise).


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate on Bill C-55, a very important Bill, which is concerned with equity, justice and compassion for refugees. And at this point I would like to extend special greetings to the refugees in the riding of Chambly, who are very well received, need I add.


Statements by Ministers
Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand why the Official Opposition, the Liberals and the New Democrats, are opposed to this Bill or want a six-month hoist on referring the Bill to committee, while claiming at the same time that our Bill does not go far enough in facilitating the admission of refugees to Canada. They should make up their minds once and for all and decide whether they would rather deny refugees the right to enter Canada, so we will have to go on working with boards and hearings and calling additional witnesses while we know that the existing system is already much too slow. And that is why it is so important for this Bill to have these important provisions that facilitate the entry of refugees in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to have Bill C-55 adopted, not for our own benefit as parliamentarians but for the benefit of refugees. We want to make things easier for them. And when we talk about public opinion polls, it is obvious Canada was built thanks to the refugees who came to our shores, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) is the first Minister of State for Immigration among the last five we have had who has managed to table a valid and serious piece of legislation that will make refugees better aware of their rights and make it easier for them to enter Canada. That is essential, and I think we have a duty to let this Bill, Bill C-55, go to committee as soon as possible. Of course there may be a few minor changes, but I think that on the whole, in this Bill the Minister wanted to take quick action to facilitate refugee access to this country and enable Canada to maintain its international refugee policy.
Mr. Speaker, our purpose in tabling Bill C-55 was certainly not to turn our backs on refugees. In fact, we want to offer genuine protection to those who need our help. However, if we are to focus our efforts on protecting bona fide refugees, we must rationalize the process and clamp down on abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I see I have very little time left, but I am glad to give up my time so that Canadians, once again thanks to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Conservative Government and our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), will experience a historic moment in their lives: tax reform.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made Friday, June 12, 1987, the House will now revert to Statements by Ministers. The Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, tonight I am proposing sweeping changes to Canada's tax system. These changes will directly affect all Canadians for many years to come.
Our tax system should be a strong force in meeting the challenges that face our country.
It must help individuals and businesses deal with the challenges of the 1990s and into the next century.
It must reinforce our ability as a country to continue to provide the social programs needed by our people.
It must generate the hope and opportunity that will motivate Canadians to build a strong country in a very competitive world.
But to do this, the tax system must have the respect of Canadians. We know that it does not. And we know why.
We all know that the tax system allows many profitable corporations to avoid paying a fair share of tax, year after year.
We all know that it allows some people with very high incomes to pay less tax than the average Canadian wage-earner, year after year.
We all know that it allows those who are able to use special tax breaks to shift the burden to others less able to carry it.
Canada needs a tax system that raises revenues in a fair and reliable way; a system that supports our national effort to promote economic growth and create more and better jobs.
Over the years, our tax system has become a crazy quilt of special incentives, special deductions and special write-offs.
Each special incentive gives a break to someone. But each special tax break means that taxes have to be higher for everyone else. Special breaks have made the income tax more and more complicated, and less and less fair.
During the past two years, I have acted to strengthen the integrity of the tax system. Many tax breaks have been eliminated. But further action is needed to restore faith and trust in the system, to ensure that it works for the benefit of all Canadians. Tonight I am taking that action. I am proposing sweeping reforms to the personal and corporate income tax system. Beginning January 1, 1988:
We will reduce or eliminate many special tax breaks. Those high-income individuals and profitable corporations who currently pay little tax will carry a greater share of the tax burden.
We will further increase the fairness of our personal income tax by converting tax exemptions and deductions to tax credits, with particular benefits for lower-income and elderly Canadians.
We will reduce the burden of taxation on those who have not been taking advantage of special tax breaks. As a result, 80 per cent of Canadian households will have lower personal income taxes in 1988. A typical family of four earning $30,000 will pay about $500 less in taxes. Federal income tax will be


completely eliminated for 850,000 Canadians, 250,000 of whom are senior citizens.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Tax reform is much more than simply fixing what has gone wrong with our tax system.
We have an opportunity to build a new tax system that will be fairer and more progressive.
A tax system that will assist, rather than hinder, our ability to grow and prosper.
A tax system that will complement and support important initiatives that will shape our future.
A tax system that will keep Canada competitive in a freer trade environment, one that is compatible with new approaches the government is planning on child care, and that reinforces other key priorities.
The reform proposals are far-reaching in their scope and impact. They are explained in the documents that I will table tonight. Tomorrow, booklets and pamphlets will be available in most supermarkets and shopping malls across the country. I would urge Hon. Members and all Canadians to study the tax reform package carefully.
The proposals have benefited from ideas, suggestions and recommendations from many people and groups across the country and from members of this House. 1 have also had constructive consultations with provincial ministers of finance.
This package reflects these consultations. It reflects basic principles of good and fair taxation, and in a way that recognizes Canadian reality and Canadians' priorities.
[Stage Direction]
The proposals will be implemented in two stages. Income tax changes will take effect beginning in the 1988 taxation year. In the second stage, the existing sales tax will be replaced by a new sales tax system. The existing sales tax has long been recognized as unfair to Canadian industry, workers and consumers. The new sales tax will be linked to the personal income tax through an enhanced sales tax credit to improve the fairness of the tax system.
[Stage Direction]
I want to emphasize that the reform proposals I will table tonight are a package.
They work together in a consistent, comprehensive way.
They strike a responsible balance among the many objectives that our tax system must serve in addition to raising revenues: objectives such as targeting assistance to those who need it most, promoting regional equality and encouraging greater investment in Canada's future.
Some will argue that the government should have wiped out more tax incentives. But I am not prepared to abandon key
Statements by Ministers
national and regional priorities. The incentives that will remain in the system are there for good reasons.
Others will argue for retention of some of the tax breaks being eliminated. But let us not forget that they are asking for special tax breaks for some which mean higher taxes for many others.
Our reforms are designed to be neither a revenue grab nor a windfall. On balance, the reformed system will raise about the same revenue as the current system.
But, by shifting more of the tax burden from individuals to corporations, and by lowering rates and removing preferences, the reforms make fundamental changes in who pays and how much.
Those who have made extensive use of tax preferences will pay more tax. Many corporations and some individuals will pay more. Most individuals and some businesses will pay less. Corporations will carry a bigger share of the total tax load. Sales tax revenues will be increased.
Canadians want personal income taxes to be lower. They will be. We will have both lower rates and a fairer system.

[Stage Direction]
Federal personal income taxes will be reduced by about $2 billion in 1988 and more than $11 billion over the next five years.
Most Canadians will pay lower taxes because of two far-reaching changes: a new structure of federal income tax rates and the conversion of exemptions and deductions to tax credits.
Currently there are 10 rates of federal income tax, rising with income to a top rate of 34 per cent. Beginning in 1988, there will be only three rates: 17 per cent on the first $27,500 of taxable income, 26 per cent on the next $27,500 and 29 per cent on taxable income over $55,000.
Despite having only three tax brackets, the personal income tax system will be more progressive.
The key to making the system more progressive is the conversion of exemptions and deductions to tax credits. This will completely eliminate federal income tax for 850,000 Canadians, 250,000 of whom are senior citizens. Let me explain how credits make this happen.
If the Government were to introduce a program to help the elderly or the disabled, and if the program were set up so that richer people got a bigger payment than poorer people, most Canadians would think that was unfair. And they would be right.
But, that is exactly what our current system of exemptions does.
For example, we now have a deduction of $2,670 for Canadians 65 and over. For a senior citizen with $15,000 of income, this is worth about $455 in lower taxes. For another
[Stage Direction]

Statements by Ministers
senior with $100,000 of income, the same deduction would be worth $910-about twice as much.
Exemptions reduce the amount of income that is subject to tax. This makes their value greater for those with higher incomes because higher-income people have higher tax rates. Credits reduce tax payable. They are worth the same regardless of income.
We will replace exemptions with tax credits. In the case of the age credit, it will be worth $550 in tax savings to all seniors.
The new credits will ensure that the vast majority of Canadians pay lower income taxes.
This will mean, for example, that nine out of 10 Canadians 65 and over will pay less federal tax in 1988. A typical elderly married couple with $25,000 of income will pay about $650 less.
Tax credits also support the objectives we set in the February, 1986, Budget-to target assistance more effectively to those with lower incomes and reduce the after-tax value of transfer payments to those with higher incomes. Converting exemptions to credits does just that, while maintaining universal access to family allowance and old age security payments.
[Stage Direction]
The personal income tax reforms reflect a number of priority areas for this government.
We all want our younger Canadians to receive a good education. This is critical to Canada's future. The new education and tuition credits can be claimed either by the student or a supporting spouse, parent or grandparent. This will substantially augment the availability of tax assistance for students pursuing a post-secondary education.
Our communities are strengthened and enriched by the contribution of volunteer organizations. The new tax credit for charitable giving has been designed to provide a substantial incentive for donations, particularly for low-and middle-income earners.
The tax reform proposals will continue to help Canadians become more self-reliant by saving for their retirement. The fairer and more flexible system I announced last October will not be changed. However, the $15,500 limit for RRSP contributions will be phased in more slowly.
[Stage Direction]
Tax reform recognizes the important role of agriculture in Canada. The farm community will continue to benefit from the existing $500,000 capital gains exemption for farmland. I am also proposing new rules to increase certainty about the tax treatment of farm losses. These rules will provide objective tests to determine when farm losses should be restricted for tax purposes.
Canadians have created 840,000 jobs since September, 1984. Much of this is the result of the efforts of individual men and women, each striving to build and grow in their own way.
To reinforce the job-creating potential of the small business sector, I am proposing that the $500,000 capital gains exemption for shares of small businesses become effective on January 1, 1988 rather than January 1, 1990.
This Government has encouraged small business, risk-taking and entrepreneurship, and will continue to do so.
But the most effective tax incentive is lower tax rates. Lower rates mean more reward for that extra effort.
And to provide that incentive for all taxpayers, we must restrict and remove a number of tax deductions and exemptions.
Self-employed Canadians are entitled to deduct expenses they incur in earning income. But some deductions are for expenses which represent an element of personal consumption. To recognize this, the deduction for business meals and entertainment will be restricted to 80 per cent of expenses incurred. In addition, where home offices and automobiles are not used exclusively for business purposes, deductions for these expenses will be limited.
The lifetime capital gains exemption for all property, other than qualifying farm property and small business shares, will be held at the 1987 level of $100,000. To reduce tax shelter possibilities and to better match deductions with income, capital gains will qualify for the lifetime exemption only to the extent they exceed net investment losses after 1987. This will not reduce an individual's lifetime exemption limit.
The taxable portion of capital gains will rise from one-half to two-thirds in 1988 and three-quarters in 1990. The dividend tax credit will be reduced to directly reflect the reduction in the corporate tax rate. The tax system will continue to give preferential treatment to capital gains and dividends in recognition of the risks associated with investment.
Currently, those who receive investment income or make extensive use of tax preferences pay consistently lower taxes than others. After reform, they will pay more. About 1.5 million households will have an average tax increase of about $665. They will continue to pay lower average effective rates of tax than those with similar income derived mostly from employment. But the gap will be narrowed.

[Stage Direction]
Corporate income tax reform will meet three major objectives.
The jobs of many Canadians depend on a corporate income tax system that is competitive with other countries, particularly the United States. Tax reform will improve the overall competitive position of Canadian business and industry.
Tax reform will return the profit motive to investment by rewarding success. It will encourage investment decisions to be based far more on the imagination and creativity of research,
[Stage Direction]

engineering and marketing experts, and far less on the advice of tax specialists.
And it will ensure that profitable corporations carry a bigger share of the total tax burden. Federal corporate income tax revenues will increase by about $5 billion over the next five years.
To maintain a competitive tax system, corporate tax rates will be reduced, effective July 1, 1988. The general federal rate will fall to 28 per cent. The rate for small business will fall to 12 per cent and the manufacturing rate will be reduced by 1991 to 23 per cent.
Income tax revenues from corporations will increase because these lower rates will apply to a broader tax base with fewer special incentives. Capital cost allowances will be reduced to bring them more in line with actual rates of depreciation. The rate of tax on capital gains will be increased. Deductions for meals and entertainment expenses will be limited. Small manufacturers will be taxed at the same rate as other small businesses.
Many profitable financial institutions and real estate companies are paying little or no tax because of existing tax provisions. New rules will be introduced to ensure that they pay their fair share of tax. I am also announcing changes, effective immediately, to reduce the tax advantage available to non-taxpaying companies that issue preferred shares.
More balanced development across all regions will continue to be strongly supported through the tax system. The reform proposals retain the investment tax credits in the Atlantic and Gaspe regions, Cape Breton, and special investment tax credit regions across Canada. The rates of credit will be reduced in line with lower tax rates, but the relative incentive effect will be maintained.
The mining industry is important to regional economic growth and to isolated communities across Canada. Earned depletion, which provides a tax write-off in excess of actual costs, will be phased out by mid-1989. Flow-through shares and the ability to write off all investment against the income from a new mine will be retained.
The average tax rate of the mining sector will remain one of the lowest. And for a new investment in mining, the tax rate will be lower than in any other sector.
The reform proposals also recognize the strategic position of Canada's oil and gas industry. The industry will benefit over all from tax reform. The lower tax rate will more than offset the slightly broader tax base. The industry will continue to have access to flow-through shares.
In current world oil markets, many major projects with long lead times face very high risks. Accordingly, as in the past, the government will consider what adjustments in non-tax assistance would be appropriate to encourage major oil and gas projects which provide important regional or national benefits and which are fundamentally economic.
Statements by Ministers
The agriculture, logging and fishing sectors are important sources of employment and income for many regions of Canada. After tax reform, they will have the lowest average tax rate of any sector.
[Stage Direction]
The changing composition of our economy and the importance of adjusting to technological change make it essential that our reform proposals look to the future as we prepare for the 21st century. The reformed system will strongly support two key priority areas for this government: research and development and labour-intensive economic sectors.
Firms engaged in R&D in Canada will continue to benefit from one of the most favourable tax regimes for R&D in the industrialized world. The current tax incentives for R&D costs will not be changed, with the exception of buildings claimed for R&D.
Canada's wholesale and retail trade and service businesses are leaders in employment growth, yet they are the most heavily taxed of any corporate sector. By lowering their taxes, tax reform will encourage new investment in these sectors in all parts of Canada.
The further reduction of the low tax rate for manufacturing will maintain its competitive position.
[Stage Direction]
In recent years, tax planning in Canada has become more sophisticated and aggressive. Canadians quite rightfully resent it when they find that others avoid paying tax by bending the rules of the tax system. We must be assured that the tax burden will be fairly shared. The reforms I have outlined will make our income tax system substantially fairer than it now is. Lower rates and fewer preferences will reduce the incentive and opportunity for tax avoidance.
But further action is required. Over the past two years, I have dealt with an increasing number of complicated transactions designed primarily to avoid tax. I am proposing legislative changes that will provide a stronger basis for reassessing artificial tax avoidance transactions. Information reporting requirements for investment income and tax shelters will be strengthened to help identify avoidance and evasion. Penalties will be increased for chronic offenders.
In reform of the income tax, I have set out to make the system fairer and more efficient while retaining its fundamentally sound principles. No such reform is possible within the current federal sales tax. It is beyond repair and will be replaced by a new system in the second stage of tax reform.

[Stage Direction]
A fair and effective sales tax is an essential part of the overall balance of Canada's tax system.
[Stage Direction]

Statements by Ministers
The present tax is fundamentally flawed. It is a hidden, arbitrary and capricious tax.
Many Canadians are unaware of this tax because it is normally applied when a product is manufactured and is hidden in the price of goods which are eventually sold to consumers. By the time it reaches the consumer, a dollar of tax paid by a manufacturer can raise the price to the consumer by a lot more than a dollar. And the purchaser does not know by how much.
The existing sales tax hurts our economy. It puts more tax on Canadian-made goods than it does on competing imported goods. It puts a hidden tax on our exports that makes them less competitive. That does not make much sense for a country that trades as much as we do in tough, competitive, world markets. That extra tax penalty is costing us jobs and creating them in other countries.
[Stage Direction]
These problems with the sales tax are not new. They have been known for 40 years. They have been growing worse. What has been lacking has been the political will to fix them. It is time to get on with the job.
The existing sales tax will be replaced by a new sales tax that will apply to a much broader base. The result will be a lower tax rate and a fairer system.
Sales tax reform will eliminate the hidden tax in the prices consumers pay. It will remove the tax burden on exports and will treat our domestic producers on the same basis as their foreign competitors. It will make us more competitive in world markets and will enhance our trade initiatives.
The new sales tax will be fairer for low- and middle-income Canadians. It will be accompanied by important changes in the personal income tax system to achieve this goal. The most important of these will be to substantially increase the refundable sales tax credit introduced by the government in 1986 and to extend this credit to many more Canadians,
The new sales tax credit will be paid regularly and in advance.
The level of the credit and the income threshold for eligibility will be established to more than offset the impact of the new sales tax on low-income Canadians. In addition to the credit, when the new sales tax is introduced, the personal and corporate income surtaxes will be removed and there will be further income tax cuts for middle-income taxpayers. These measures will make the combined personal income and sales tax systems, after tax reform, more progressive than they now are.
Compensation will be provided to small businesses to help offset the cost of complying with the new system.
The Government is considering three alternative forms for the new sales tax. One is a National Sales Tax which would replace both the present federal sales tax and provincial retail sales taxes with one national system. Two federal-only sales
taxes are also being considered: a Goods and Services Tax and a Value-Added Tax.
The discussion about which of these forms to implement will have a direct bearing on three important decisions that remain to be made: the level of the tax rate, the scope of the tax base and the design of the sales tax credit.
The new sales tax must raise enough revenue to replace the existing sales tax and provide for additional income tax cuts and the enriched credit.
Decisions about the tax rate and the design of the tax credit will depend on how broad the tax base is. The decisions are closely linked. A broader tax base would result in a lower tax rate for everyone and require a bigger tax credit for those who need it. With a narrower tax base, involving exemptions for such things as food and clothing, the tax rate would be higher on the remaining items and the tax credit could be smaller.
The Government is committed to sales tax reform. It will proceed after consultation with provincial governments and other interested Canadians.

[Stage Direction]
Responsible tax reform must be fiscally responsible. Our progress in reducing the deficit is essential to our success in reducing interest rates, increasing growth and lowering unemployment.
Sales tax reform will follow the reforms to our personal and corporate tax systems. In the interim, we must make the existing sales tax more reliable. We must deal with its worst competitive distortions. And we must raise more revenue, in conjunction with corporate income tax increases, to help fund the personal income tax cuts.
I am proposing a number of changes to the existing sales tax, effective January 1, 1988.
To reduce competitive distortions and protect against avoidance, the tax will be applied to marketing companies which do not operate at arm's-length with a manufacturer. It will also be moved to the wholesale level for a limited range of products.
To raise revenue, the tax will be extended to most telecommunications services at a rate of 10 per cent. The charges for basic residential telephone service will be exempt from tax.
To further protect lower-income Canadians from the impact of these changes, the existing refundable sales tax credit will be increased from $50 to $70 for adults, and from $25 to $35 for children.
Finally, in order to improve cash management and to offset some of the transitional revenue effects of tax reform, I am proposing to accelerate the payment of sales and excise taxes, effective April, 1988. The remittance of personal income taxes deducted at source will be further accelerated, effective January, 1990.
[Stage Direction]

These two measures will not increase taxes on Canadians. They will ensure that the Government receives money it is owed on a more timely basis. This will reduce our need to borrow and will yield ongoing savings in interest costs.
The proposals I am presenting tonight are fiscally balanced. The personal income tax reductions are made up by increases in corporate and sales taxes and the acceleration of tax collections.

[Stage Direction]
I am tabling with the tax reform proposals an updated economic and fiscal outlook.
[Stage Direction]
Our economic prospects for this year are little changed since my February Budget. I am very much encouraged by the strong employment growth and declines in the unemployment rate we have seen in recent months. Since September 1984, Canadians have created 840,000 jobs. The unemployment rate, at 9.1 per cent, is at its lowest level in more than five years. But what is most encouraging are the indications, from both employment data and recent surveys of investment intentions, that growth is becoming better balanced across the regions of Canada.
[Stage Direction]
Over the medium term our economic prospects will depend greatly on the success of the industrialized countries in reducing the large international trade and fiscal imbalances that cast a shadow over world growth. Canada is playing a constructive role in this regard. Much progress has been made in recent months. The recent economic summit in Venice underlined the determination of the major industrial nations to continue that progress. Canada shares fully in the commitment expressed at that summit to take further action to achieve our shared economic objectives if that proves necessary.
Our prospects will also depend on what we do at home. Making further progress on tax reform, on our trade initiatives and on the deficit will strengthen investment and growth in all regions of Canada. This will provide us with greater strength and resilience to cope with an uncertain world and with a better capacity to sustain needed social programs.
Our fiscal outlook continues to be encouraging. The most recent estimate for the fiscal year just ended suggests that stronger revenue growth at the end of the year will result in the deficit being about S31 billion, $1 billion lower than I forecast in February.
As I stated in the Budget, 1 expect the deficit for this fiscal year to be $29.3 billion. It will decline moderately over the next two years. The deficit and financial requirements show substantial declines in the medium term. The debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to stabilize by 1991-92. This is a key objective which the Government has set for itself since coming into office in 1984.
Statements by Ministers
I wish to table this White Paper and the related Ways and Means motion and supporting documents.

[Stage Direction]
Tax reform is a major and complex exercise. It goes far beyond changing some sections in the Income Tax Act. The results must be judged not only in the tax savings of individual Canadians. They must also be judged on how we can contribute to a stronger, more just and more vibrant Canada, in the 1990s and beyond.
The package I am now placing before Parliament and the nation respects our needs today and will help us build a better tomorrow. It reflects the concern we share for our senior citizens and the challenges facing our young people and our entrepreneurs. It respects the importance of our farmers and our resource industries. It recognizes the competitive battles being fought daily by our manufacturers and the challenge of the future for our technology and service sectors. It provides tax savings to individual Canadians and gives them the freedom to spend, save or invest as they see fit.
Some are being asked to pay a greater share through a reduction in tax preferences. In making these decisions, I have considered carefully the key goals of greater fairness and competitiveness. And where the impact is substantial, the change will be phased in over time.
But in the final analysis, this package will be judged on whether we have given to our senior citizens more peace of mind and security; to those in greatest need, a fairer and reduced tax burden; to our young, a greater sense of opportunity and hope; and to our working people, more incentive, stability and freedom.
I believe we have met these tests.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to tell you that I do not take any joy in what I am about to say, because no amount of applause from the Tory benches can disguise the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has not delivered a White Paper on tax reform tonight. He has delivered a budget, and he has violated the long-standing tradition of budget secrecy. Because he has done so, parliamentary convention and tradition demand the immediate resignation of the Minister of Finance.
Today in Question Period the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) said that the statement of the Minister of Finance was going to be a discussion paper in the same way the White Paper of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) was a discussion paper. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance know that there are important differences. The White Paper of the Minister of Defence asks Canadians to discuss a proposal for nuclear submarines. Those submarines may never be built.


Statements by Ministers
At the other end, the budget statement of the Minister of Finance which was just delivered in the House clearly outlines in a Ways and Means motion that we had the opportunity to see during the lock-up this afternoon specific tax changes, some of which are effective at midnight Wednesday, last night. Tax changes affecting farm property, passenger vehicles, limited partnerships, research and development, dividends received by financial institutions, life insurance reserves, multinational insurers, these and other tax changes will take place immediately. Other tax changes to take place at a later date were also announced by the Minister of Finance in the Budget Speech and the documentation he tabled with his speech.
How can the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance pretend that the Minister's statement is only a discussion paper? Tonight the Minister of Finance has delivered a Budget. It is a Budget that has been available to a select 31 individuals at least a full day before its official release. If the Minister of Finance does not understand his responsibilities in these circumstances, the Prime Minister must assume his responsibility and remove the Minister of Finance from the important public office he holds.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is not a matter for public debate. The Minister's duty is clear. It is a question of restoring public confidence in one of the most sensitive and important ministries of any Government. As a former Minister of Finance, I am well aware of the propriety expected of such an office-holder. I say with regret that I know, and the Minister of Finance knows in his heart, that he has committed an unforgivable breach of his duty and he must go, and go now.
I believe that all Hon. Members know that I am not one to make such statements lightly or without good cause. It is important that the House debate and debate fully the tax changes announced in the Government's Budget this evening. However, such an important debate cannot properly occur in the shadow of the loss of confidence in the Minister of Finance of Canada. I say to the Minister of Finance, if this evening the Minister has still not clearly understood the action expected of him now, that I hope for his sake that he will have submitted the proper letter to the Prime Minister by tomorrow morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister may laugh but he knows in his heart that he committed a mistake, a very important one, and he does not deserve to serve as Minister of Finance in this House.

Mr. Speaker, what we had this evening was not a White Paper but a Budget. A Budget that contains tax increases, including some that will be effective as of midnight yesterday
evening, not even tonight. There are 17 or 18 tax measures, in fact there are more in this evening's statement than there were in the Budget Speech last February, a Budget we said was not a Budget but a Minister's Statement. And today the reverse is true. Today, we had a real Budget Speech. Mr. Speaker, I think that with this Budget Speech we had a few statements on tax reform.


An Hon. Member:: Name them!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I am being asked to name them. I may refer the Hon. Member to the Motion of Ways and Means, where he will find they are all listed with the effective date as midnight last night.
Mr. Speaker, in the tax reform which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has unveiled this evening, except for the measures which will be included in a real Budget, everything else is related to a question of credibility. The Minister is telling us that the sales tax which will be imposed eventually will be fairer, more equitable for everybody. The Minister of Finance claims that the changes he is making in the personal exemptions system through tax credits will benefit the Canadian taxpayer. I will get back to this question.
But first I will tell him that his credibility with respect to what can happen in the future is not very strong.

In fact, this tax reform is related to the trust that one can have in the Minister of Finance. What has the Minister of Finance said in the past before the election of 1984 about tax increases? On March 6, 1984, a few months before the election, he said, as reported at page 1827 of Hansard:
We would cut spending. We would not raise taxes. Tax levels in Canada are already too high.


John Napier Turner: He said that?


Raymond Garneau: He said that on March 6, 1984.

"We will cut spending, we will not raise taxes. Tax levels in Canada are already too high", he said.

On August 8, 1984, a month before the election, the now Minister of Finance said to CITY-TV in Toronto: "We have no intention of raising income taxes to Canadians".


John Napier Turner: Who said that?


Raymond Garneau: The Minister of Finance.


John Napier Turner: He said that?


Raymond Garneau: On August 8, 1984. That was before the election.
Let us see what he said after the election. In November of 1984 he said: "Our immediate goal is to reduce the deficit through expenditures and not through major tax increases".

The Minister of Finance told us: "Our immediate goal is to reduce the deficit through expenditures and not through major tax increases." That is what the Minister said before the election. Let us see what he did immediately after his election. Mr. Speaker, if we take the lists one after another, and you can see I have a few of them: the 1986 announcement about the deindexation of the tax system at a cost of $635 million to the Canadian taxpayers; the elimination of the Registered-

The elimination of the Registered Homeownership Savings Program effective May 22, 1985, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $105 million. The elimination of the federal tax reduction which benefited low-income earners effective 1986, a cost to those Canadians of $650 million. Changes to marital exemptions for years of marriage, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $20 million.
An increase in excise taxes on cigarettes and tobacco effective May 24, 1985, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $320 million. A 2 per cent increase in excise taxes on alcohol effective May 24, 1985, a cost to the taxpayer of $20 million. An increase of two cents per litre in the excise tax on gasoline effective September 3, 1985, a cost to the taxpayer of $930 million.
An extension of the sales tax on candies, soft drinks, etc., effective July 1, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $400 million. A general 3 per cent surtax effective July 1, 1986, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer in one year of $1,200 million.
A general 1 per cent increase in sales tax effective October 1, 1984, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $1 billion. A general 1 per cent increase in sales tax, another increase, effective January 1, 1986, a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of an additional $1 billion.
A general increase of 1 per cent in sales tax effective April 1, 1986, the third one, an additional cost of $1 billion to Canadians. Equalization of sales taxes on leaded and unleaded gasoline, another $30 million in taxes. An extension of the sales tax on snack food effective July 1, 1987, $60 million. An increase in taxes on alcohol and tobacco effective February 27, 1986, $150 million. Increase in tax on cigarettes and tobacco by 4 per cent effective February 19, 1987, $70 million. Increase in air transport tax effective May 1, 1987, and August 1, 1987, a one-year increase of $45 million. An increase of 1 cent per litre excise tax on gasoline effective January 1, 1987, $450 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Stop!


Raymond Garneau: It is not finished. An increase of 1 per cent in the excise tax on gasoline effective February 19, 1987, $450 million. There was also a 5 per cent and 10 per cent surtax effective for part of 1986, $500 million.
Statements by Ministers
There was also some tax reduction. The lifetime $500,000 capital gains. That was goodies for the rich. They received a gift of $700 million.
That is the man who said to Canadians before the election that he will never raise taxes. If we add all those taxes they amount to $22 billion. It took three years for the Minister of Finance to raise personal taxes by $22 billion and he will take five years to return $5 billion with tax reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, when we look at the tax increases plus tax reform, what is the net result? That man made great publicity about his tax reform. He was supposed to transfer part of the tax burden from individuals to corporations. In 1984-85 when that man became Minister of Finance, the total personal and sales taxes paid by individuals amounted to $36.8 billion. After tax reform in 1988-89, probably the election year, the total amount of taxes paid by individuals will have risen to $59.1 billion according to the figures we have in the White Paper. That is an increase of 93 per cent.
Let us look now at the corporation side. In 1984-85 corporations paid $9.4 billion in taxes. At the end of the five-year Tory mandate they will pay $11.1 billion, an increase of 7 per cent. A 93 per cent increase for individuals and 7 per cent for corporations.


John Napier Turner: Even after reform.


Raymond Garneau: Do you think that is fair?

Do you think it is fair to have a 93 per cent increase in revenues coming from individuals and an increase of only 7 per cent in revenues coming from corporations?
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the consequences for individuals, one by one. The Minister did not spare any expenses, he has a lot of paper to advertise. The figures given, Mr. Speaker, reflect the impact of the three Budgets tabled by this Minister of Finance, 1985, 1986, and 1987. I already mentioned those figures in the House during the Budget debate and nobody challenged their validity.
If you take a married man with an income of $15,000, whose wife stays home to look after their two children, for this man the last three Budgets mean an increase in taxes of $489 in 1987. That is the cumulative result of the three Budgets. Let us look now at what it will be after the fiscal reform, in 1988. To give you an example of how devious those documents are, they give as one figure the benefits for both federal and provincial income taxes.
It is then very difficult to compare, but the Minister cannot claim that he is lowering taxes that are not his.
That person whose taxes have gone up $489 in three years, will see them decrease, after the fiscal reform, by $270. In short, his taxes have gone up for three years, but now he is given some slack, he gets an electoral break of $270.


Statements by Ministers
If we consider now a family of four where the bread-winner has an income of $30,000, Mr. Speaker, do you know that the last three Budgets meant for that family an increase of more than $1,000 in taxes?
When we look at that tax reform, despite all the computations he gave, his tax reduction will be $370. So after his taxes were increased by more than $1,000, they reduce them by $370 and people are saying hear! hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Raymond Garneau: They refer to senior citizens. The Minister said in his Budget speech, because that was a Budget speech, senior citizens would benefit from that thing, that speech.
Mr. Speaker, I submit again the Minister is hiding the truth or does not want to tell it all. A single individual aged 65 or over with a $15,000 income saw his income tax increased by $383 since the Conservatives came to power. That same single individual earning $15,000 will recoup only $66, or thereabouts, in tax reduction after tax reform. First a $383 increase then he recoups $66, and they are saying hear! hear! across the aisle.

I am convinced it will be very easy for us to explain to the Canadian people that the Government is hiding something. It is just like-

-just like that merchant who raises his prices two weeks before he announces a sale. He raises his prices 25 per cent, 30 per cent and then he advertises: Come to my sale, all prices slashed 10 per cent. This is a scam, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Minister of Finance that in all the examples he gave in his Budget documents nowhere is the increased sales tax taken into account. Nowhere. They are only showing the benefits from the income tax side, and which are minimal anyway. But nowhere is reference to be found to the $1 billion the Minister is quietly getting from that tax reform.
We have been told this evening that Canadian taxpayers will pay $1 billion more in 1988 in federal sales tax and it has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this tax reform is expanded solely for discussion purposes. I say calmly about the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House: either he did not know what his Minister of Finance was doing, in which case he made a serious mistake, or else he did not want to say ... And we know certain unparliamentary terms prevent me from saying the truth about the matter. And I truly question the sincerity of the Prime Minister this afternoon when he answered the questions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


John Napier Turner: He also misled the Speaker.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with some other aspects of the tax reform which will have substantial effects in several regions. However before this I should like to raise another aspect of the tax reform. The Minister, who was then applauded by Tory members, said:

He gets a round of applause because 850,000 Canadian taxpayers will be taken off the tax rolls. I have people who have been working on that. Because of the 31 people who were informed of the Budget before tonight, we had all sorts of leaks in the paper this morning. One of them was exactly that, that we were supposed to have 850,000 people taken off the tax rolls.
What a coincidence. People who have been researching the matter for me sent me a note just before I rose to my feet. They tell me that many more than one million taxpayers have been added to the tax rolls because of the last three Budgets. This will be proved tomorrow through further research but they have researched the fact that the Conservatives have added more than a million taxpayers to the tax rolls since they have been in power. Now- big deal-they are subtracting
800,000.
This tax reform will affect regional development. The changes in the flowthrough shares will affect the mining industry. The earned depletion allowance is affected.


Some Hon. Members:: Bye-bye, Mike.


Raymond Garneau: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister told me he would have to leave before the end of the day.
With regard to regional development, not only will the mining regions be affected but also the Maritimes, the Gaspe and other regions which, until now, were benefiting from tax credits. The tax reform in this Budget will affect regional development once more.
There is nothing in this tax reform which will help women who have to look after their children and work at the same time. There is nothing in this tax reform to help single parent families. The tax credit for the increase in sales tax is not sufficient. Since none of the tax credit is reimbursable, this scheme does no good for the poor and the middle class.
Many people close to me know that I am a history lover. When I heard that the Minister of Finance was going to table his White Paper on tax reform on June 18,1 recalled that June 18 is the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. That battle took place on June 18, 1815. The World Book Encyclopedia says the following: The Battle of Waterloo-
-fought on June 18, 1815, was the final battle of the French military genius, Napoleon Bonaparte. It put an end to his political ambition to rule Europe. His defeat was so crushing that, when a person suffers a disastrous reverse, we say the person has "met his (or her) Waterloo."
I suggest that the Minister of Finance has met his Waterloo.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday 30 experts who were signed on by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who were prepared to work for free apparently, were given an advance look at the White Paper. These were tax experts, tax lawyers, and accountants who move comfortably in the world of taxation which is much more understood by people in corporations on Bay Street and St. James Street than by ordinary Canadians.
If the Minister of Finance had had the good sense, which he did not, to give 30 farmers, fishermen, working men and women, housewives or pensioners an advance look at his tax reform and ask them for advice in order to find out whether or not he was on the right track with tax reform, they would have told him to take his tax reform back and have another go at it because this is not tax reform to benefit ordinary Canadians.
The fact is that we do need real tax reform in this country. We did not get it tonight in the announcement of the Minister of Finance. I regret the lost opportunity and I want to talk about what Canadians were looking for in the tax reform package, what they failed to get, and what we did get tonight in the Finance Minister's paper.
The answer to the question of whether this was a budget measure is self-evident. I have lost count of the number of specific tax measures which take effect tonight or tomorrow as a consequence of the Ways and Means motion tabled by the Minister of Finance. That issue was dealt with today by you, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Commons and will be dealt with tomorrow in the House of Commons. Tonight we are talking about whether Canadians got the fairness and frankness to which they were entitled in the tax reform measures which were announced.
Canadians have been waiting a long time for tax reform. I guess it was naive to expect real tax reform from a Conservative Government. Our mistake was hoping that somehow, despite the general direction of the Government, some good tax reform would come from the Finance Minister with his Bay Street background and the Party he represents in this House of Commons.
People always ask me whether I can say anything good about things coming from the Minister of Finance. I can say that his rhetoric was just great. In terms of calling for a simple, fair, and progressive tax system and of condemning the archaic sales tax and so on, the Minister of Finance was right on the money. The problem was that he failed to match his rhetoric with reality. In other words, he has maintained the faults of the present tax system and has not made the fundamental changes which Canadians were seeking.
I can sum it up by saying that the average family will get a tax cut in the first round of $295 per year or $6 per week, not now, not in December, but sometime in July or August of 1988. That is a fat lot of help for people who need the help right now. Three-quarters of the Canadian families earning $100,000 or more will get tax cuts as well. The tax cuts for
Statements by Ministers
those rich Canadian families will amount to $4,365 per annum on average or $85 per week.
Therefore, tax reform for the average family means a couple of Big Macs and maybe fries on the side every week. Tax reform for the wealthy Canadian family means dinner at Winston's or the Beaver Club, candlelight, imported French wine, tournedos and those kinds of things. That is the disparity which the Government is perpetuating with its tax reform.
One asks oneself why wealthy Canadians who benefited in last year's Budget, who got the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption in 1985, and who seemed to always come out on the winning side in Budgets of Liberal Governments, should come out on the winning side yet again in this tax reform proposal of the Minister of Finance.
If Canadians were looking for fairness, they are disappointed in what they heard tonight.

As for equity, analysis shows that the Conservative tax reform means that three out of four wealthy families will pay an average of $4,365 a year less in taxes, that 60,000 profitable companies will continue to pay not one cent in taxes and that the average Canadian family will pay about $1,000 a year more in taxes than in 1984. I submit to the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) that, since 1984, the taxes paid by the average Canadian family have increased by some $1,300. We are now asked to believe that this is a real tax reform,'that this same average family might pay $300 less in taxes in 1988, while wealthy families will benefit from a tax decrease 14 times higher than that of low-income earners.
As for integrity, the Conservatives have unfortunately decided to keep the bad news for after the elections.
The new sales tax, whatever form it takes, will nearly cancel out the tax rebates for average families. In addition, the Government will probably be taxing for the first time ever basic necessities such as food and housing. By itself, the tax on food products would mean $300 more for the average family. Canadians deserve more honesty. They deserve to get the full picture this evening. Once more, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have taken some good ingredients, but they have used the same recipe which benefits the rich and spares big companies. The final result is still the same: The average family will foot the bill.
PC tax reform means favouring wealthy Canadians, favouring thousands of profitable corporations that will continue to go tax free and it means allowing average families to pay more while not getting anything back in what they have paid in increased taxes since 1984. At the same time, the Conservatives are hiding the bad news in that sales tax increase which will wipe out any income tax cuts for the average Canadian family.


Statements by Ministers
It is quite clear that the Government intends to proceed with the tax, including the tax on food and other household essentials, despite overwhelming adverse reaction. I have talked to my constituents and I have received telephone calls from across the country.


Thomas Hockin: You just heard the speech.


Michael Morris Cassidy: We knew this would be in the speech. We have been asking the Government to back away from tax on food since the announcement by the Minister of Finance just over a month ago about what would basically be contained in this package tonight.
Did the Conservatives back away? No. Were they even prepared to admit that there was a problem? No. Instead, they reiterated their belief that food should be taxed so that when people go to Woodward's, Safeway, Loblaws, the A&P, the IGA or Boushey's grocery store in my constituency, they will have to pay a 6 per cent tax on food.
That is very clearly sketched in this package. My friend, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) was with me in the lock-up and we were frankly shocked at the way the Government continues to ignore the advice it receives from ordinary Canadians.
I say to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) that he should tell his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that while Dalton Camp was hired at more than $100,000 a year to advise the Government on how to keep out of trouble, he failed because he did not persuade the Government and the Minister to abandon the sales tax on food.
I understand that even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appealed to the Minister of Finance not to put this in the White Paper. He also failed in having it removed. The Government is making a tragic mistake. We realize that the Government is low in the polls and experiencing problems. We know it will continue to stay down in the polls if it threatens in 1989 to take back this reduction in income tax with the sales tax they propose on food and other items.
Let me point out the figures which the Government has put into its estimates of revenue on sales tax for 1988 and 1989. It indicates that sales tax revenue in that year will increase not by the $1 billion that was announced by the Minister tonight, but by $2 billion over 1987. In fact, in 1988, the Conservatives will have doubled the sales tax burden on average Canadians since they came to office. Canadians tell us that they are prepared to accept taxation on the basis of the ability to pay. That means on the basis of their income, not on what they buy.
Let me deal with personal income tax. We welcome the conversion of the Conservatives to the tax credit system. It is long overdue in our tax system and we welcome that. However, I deplore the fact that in implementing the tax credit system the Government failed to make it essentially any more progressive than it is now.


Thomas Hockin: It is much more progressive.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Minister of State for Finance says that it is much more progressive. Let us look at the cuts in taxation for the winners. People earning less than $15,000 will receive a $140 tax cut in 1988 or thereafter. Those earning $15,000 to $30,000 will receive a $405 tax cut. Those earning $30,000 to $50,000 will receive a $470 tax cut. This is a system which rewards those who have, not those who need because as one's income goes up, one wins more.


Thomas Hockin: They are paying more in tax.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Those in the $50,000 to $100,000 income range receive a $700 tax cut. When we get to the blue circle people earning over $100,000, we see that they receive a tax cut of $4,365. That is a tax cut which is 30 times the tax cut for people who earn under $15,000.
What kind of tax reform is that? Why can we not have tax reform that benefits poor Canadians and ordinary Canadians rather than putting money into the hands of the rich?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: What sophistry.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Minister of State for Finance has obviously not been privy to the secrets of his colleague, the Minister of Finance. Otherwise, he would realize what a paltry job has been done with this particular tax reform.
The real measure of tax reform is the amount of cash that goes back into people's pockets. The amount of return to people earning under $15,000 is equivalent to eight-tenths of a per cent of their income. That is not exactly revolutionary. The amount of return for those in the income level between $15,000 and $30,000 is 1.4 per cent, somewhat better.
The amount of return for those earning $30,000 to $50,000 is again eight-tenths of a per cent, the same as those earning less than $15,000. Apparently, people in the $40,000 bracket need as much back in proportional terms as poor people.
Those in the $50,000 to $100,000 range are not quite so well off since they only receive back six-tenths of a per cent.
Our wealthy friends earning over $100,000 receive back in proportion to their income an amount equal to 1 per cent of their income. This means that tax reform that is meant to make the system more progressive puts a higher proportion of income back into the hands of the very wealthy than it does to the very poor. That is Tory tax reform, not real tax reform. I believe it is a pitiful excuse for the kind of reform Canadians were expecting. It is no wonder that average Canadians ask why, under Liberals and Conservatives, wealthy Canadians get a break in every budget while poor Canadians do not get any breaks.
Ordinary Canadians wonder why they have had to pay $1,300 more a year while wealthy Canadians receive the breaks. Average Canadians will wonder whether it is simply a coincidence that 850,000 Canadians will be taken off the tax roll when, according to our calculations, that is the number of


Canadians who have been put on the tax rolls by the Conservatives since they came to office in 1984. What a coincidence.
The personal tax system yields approximately $42 million or $44 million in revenue a year. While the Minister's announcement that some 800,000 people will be taken off the tax rolls seems good, it is not so remarkable when one considers that those Canadians pay some $300 million to $350 million in tax. The Minister's grand gesture which is designed to dress up his tax reform amounts to less than 1 per cent of total revenues for personal income tax. Big deal.


Thomas Hockin: Would you tax them?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Average Canadians wonder why the Government continues to favour capital gains. If the Government acknowledges the principle that capital gains should be treated like any other income, why does it continue to tread on eggs and give special treatment to people with investment income and people with capital gains?
Now that the Government acknowledges that its $500,000 capital gains tax exemption was one of the most stupid measures to be included in this country's tax system, Canadians will wonder why it has left part of it in the tax system rather than following the advice of the tax experts and removing it completely.
My Party supports exemptions for farmers and exemptions for the transfer of small businesses. My Party does not support, however, this continued belief that somehow capital gains of any kind are a sacred trust that should be honoured by the Progressive Conservatives because of their constituency.
My Party wonders as well about what we call the "T. Eaton" amendment which appears will allow Timothy Eaton's heirs, grandsons, great grandsons, that whole clan, to benefit from the small business amendment on capital gains exemption just as much as someone who makes a few dollars because of a gain on a very small family-owned business which does not have to be public traded.
Average Canadians will wonder why is it this Government, in putting forth what was meant to be a progressive tax reform, continues to maintain deindexation, this time of the credits rather than the deductions, so that over time those credits will be worth less and less and, therefore, the system will systematically become less and less progressive and more and more regressive.
I guess what Canadians are wondering is if there was a tax reform package which had made the wealthy really pay their fair share, then moderate and low income families could have had real tax breaks. Average Canadians ask why could they not have had those kinds of tax breaks rather than the kind of tax things they are getting from the Government now.
Statements by Ministers

Mr. Speaker, as far as corporate taxation is concerned, the Canadian taxpayers will ask why a minimum income tax has not been introduced for those thousands of profitable companies which do not pay one cent, so that they assume their fair share of the tax burden. After this so-called tax reform, there will still be 60,000 profitable companies not paying one cent in income tax. And this issue, Mr. Speaker, has been raised by the NDP. We are the ones who told the House of Commons that some 79,000 Canadian corporations did not pay any income tax. In other words, 25 per cent of all Canadian companies do not pay any income tax at all.
Now the Government recognizes that there were not 79,000 but rather 110,000 profitable companies in this situation. And the Government will somehow reduce that proportion, but there will be nevertheless 60,000 of them without any tax to pay, which indicates that this system is unfair. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we do need a minimum tax on corporations and it is unfortunate that such a provision has not been imposed or proposed in this tax reform. Taxpayers will ask also why it is that the total increase of income tax on corporations is only $470 million, less than one quarter of the tax increase resulting from the U.S. fiscal reform and half the amount received by Olympia and York through a tax loophole in 1985 under the Conservatives. They will ask why this minimal increase does not even cover the $6 million that will be saved on differed taxes by corporations such as CP, Bell and Imperial Oil.

I wonder about this. We are told by the Minister of Finance that it is wonderful he is raising corporate taxes by $5 million over five years. He has not mentioned that the reduction in tax rates is the largest in any field for corporations, from 36 per cent to 28 per cent, and he has not mentioned that that one cut will save large companies such as CP and Imperial Oil $6 billion because of the reduction in taxes on deferred taxes they have on their books. So over the next five years, those big corporations will save $6 billion. At the same time the Government will be getting $5 billion more in taxes from corporations. As I perceive it, that means a balance of a deficit of $1 billion over the next five years. That is not tax reform. That is moving backwards.
Average Canadians believe and know that corporations should be paying their way. They should be paying a fair share of the tax system. They are not paying it now and they will not be paying it under the tax reform proposals tabled by the Minister of Finance in this House tonight.
Canadians will also wonder about the sales tax changes which have been introduced. I really wonder about the Minister of Finance who says that the sales tax as we have it now is a hidden, arbitrary and capricious tax and then proceeds to impose new sales taxes, according to the present system, which, of course, will also be hidden, arbitrary and capricious.


Statements by Ministers
When we reach out and touch someone by telephone, we will be paying a 10 per cent tax. It will not be to Ma Bell this time, it will be to Uncle Michael Scrooge over there, who has now imposed this particular tax on telecommunications services. If we try to pretty up our house we will have to pay extra tax on the wallpaper. If we try to provide equitably for your cat, we will be taxed on its kitty litter. Games and toys for kids are going to be additionally taxed.
The Government has made it very clear that its proposals on sales tax are no longer options, that it is intent on pushing forward with a tax which, in its view, ought to include a tax on food. The Minister's paper on tax reform states that the Government proposes to replace the existing federal sales tax with a broad based multi-staged sales tax which extends the retail level. This multi-staged tax will be a form of value-added tax. The Minister of Finance is saying quite specifically that taxable sales will include sales of most goods and services in Canada. The Minister's White Paper indicates that he understands that the taxation of food is an emotional and controversial issue, and then proceeds to explain why the Government is intent on rolling over the objections of Canadians in order to tax food.
The Minister of Finance tries to indicate that the people who earn below average incomes spend less over-all on food than people with above average incomes. There is a good reason for that. They have less income to go around. However, the lower one's income goes, the more of it one will spend on food. If a sales tax is imposed on food, we therefore have a regressive tax which will cost more to ordinary Canadians with lower incomes than it costs people with higher incomes. It is not fair to tax people not according to their ability to pay but according to their need to consume, which means that average and below average earners will be hit harder by the tax on food than the people who have high incomes and can afford to pay.
The Government's arguments in this White Paper are specious and wrong. The New Democrats are going to oppose them in this House, in the committee on finance and everywhere else those arguments are proposed.
The Minister of Finance is just plain wrong if he tries to impose that kind of tax. He is mean and wrong. It appears he wants to go ahead. He wants to do it in 1989 because of electoral politics. Canadians out there should understand very clearly that they should not go and spend the $200 or $300 the Minister tells them they will receive next year because the Minister is going to take it right back in sales tax increases in 1989. That is his plan and he is trying to hide it from Canadians by means of a two-step tango.
The Minister of Finance should have had, of course, one package rather than two but he did not and what he has done instead is to bring in a little bit of a sales tax credit, trying to say that that will alleviate the burden for ordinary Canadian families. Canadians should know that the sales tax credit only applies to people far below the poverty line. It only applies to people with incomes of less than $16,000 or $17,000 a year. Above that level, one still has $6,000 or $7,000 to go before
one reaches the poverty line for a Canadian family living in a major Canadian city. So thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Canadian families below the poverty line, will pay that tax on food and get nothing back.
Thousands of working families where there are possibly two spouses working in order to make ends meet, to pay the mortgage, to pay the rent and put food on the table, are going to find they are hit with this tax and will receive no recompense at all.
The Minister is not being frank. He is not being fair, and his tax system is not simple, either. I have here the 1986 General Tax Guide and Return for residents of Ontario which I had the privilege of filling out this year. It was about 84 pages long. The Minister says his new system is simple because he has put in three rates rather than 12 rates which applied before. In the back of my book there is a federal and Ontario tax table. I always calculate my tax that way. There could be a hundred different rates, it would not make any difference to me. The fact is that the tax return form in 1988 and 1989 will be just as complex and just as long as what we have now. The Minister has not simplified the system. In fact, he has probably made it more complex because of the new bells and whistles he has put into his particular system.
I want to close off by saying that I welcome some of the concessions that have been made by the Minister of Finance. For years we have been condemned by Liberals and Conservatives for saying that it was wrong to give special privileges for capital gains; for saying it was wrong to give special privileges for investment income; for saying it was wrong to give special privileges for dividends and give them tax concessions; for saying it was wrong for corporations to be able to transfer dividends tax-free; and for saying it was wrong to continue to have deductions when we advocated there should be tax credits. Suddenly everything we were saying that we were told was wrong is right. The Minister is bringing in tax credits. He is acknowledging that the dividend tax credit is wrong. Except he is not taking it away. He is only taking away a bit of it. He acknowledges that we were right to say that capital gains should be taxed just like any other kind of income. Except he then kind of loses the thread-he will only tax capital gains a bit more heavily than now. But he will still favour those kinds of income over the income that is earned by the sweat of the brow of workers, farmers and small business people who pay income tax on all their income, as all Canadians should pay tax on all of their income.
So the Minister accepts our arguments but only in principle. When it comes down to cases, when it comes down to practicalities, he does not accept them enough. When the people judge the Minister of Finance on fairness, they should not just judge him on his rhetoric, they should judge him on his results. Any proposal that can cut taxes on average Canadians by $6 a week but cuts taxes for the wealthy by $85 a week is not real tax reform.


Any White Paper that leaves 60,000 profitable Canadian corporations not paying tax is not real tax reform. Any fiscal package that leaves companies paying a lower share in 1990 of federal government revenues than they paid in 1984 is not real tax reform.
But wait, some Elon. Members will say, the corporations are paying more. Surely that is what the Minister of Finance said. That is what he said, but his figures say otherwise.
In 1984, corporations provided 20 per cent of federal government revenues from income and sales tax. In 1990, after these reforms are in place, it will only provide 17 per cent. In other words, rather than moving forward to a more equitable system we are moving backward.
Any tax package that gives tax cuts to a majority of Canadians in 1988 but then clearly intends to take those tax
Statements by Ministers
cuts back in 1989 by means of a sales tax change is not tax reform. Any proposal that hands back to rich Canadians more of their income than is handed back to people who are poor is not tax reform-it is tax fraud.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will meet this Minister on the hustings. We will meet him in the House of Commons. We will meet him in the Finance Committee. We will meet him out across the country. This is a fraud on Canadians. It is not real tax reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.43 p.m., pursuant to Order made Friday, June 12, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. in accordance with Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.43 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 19, 1987