1987-09-22

[Stage Direction]
36 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 22, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: 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. 332-2953, 3322954, 332-2956 to 332-2958 inclusive, 332-2960 to 332-2963 inclusive and 332-2965.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning, perhaps quite appropriately since we are debating Bill C-55 at report stage, to present a number of petitions which come basically from across the country. I have petitions from London, Ontario, and Medicine Hat, Alberta. I have another one from the City of North York. The next are from the Vancouver and Edmonton areas. I have a petition signed by over 100 people from the City of Victoria, British Columbia, and the last petition originates from my own riding of York West.
Essentially, the petitioners call upon the Government to delete the prescreening stage of Bill C-55, together with the deletion of the safe third country provision. The petitioners feel that these two mechanisms should be deleted, and they are petitioning for a stronger mechanism for appeal so that Bill C-55 will be in line with the Canadian law and justice system. In fairness to the refugees who are deserving of our protection, the petitioners humbly pray that this House of Commons delete the pre-screening, safe third country provisions and beef up the appeal system.
[DOT] (i no)


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 100 residents of Canada who oppose Bill C-55. They urge Parliament and the Government to withdraw it on the grounds that it will in fact keep away or send away many real refugees because of the defects in it.
Although the petition was written prior to the Bill being presented, it is still relevant after the amendment process. The petitioners point out the error of the safe third country concept and the lack of an appeal process. They state that there was a better system proposed two years ago by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
They therefore request withdrawal of the Bill and replacement of it by a Bill that would provide fair, quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such a hearing and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 with regard to a matter which is before the House of Commons today. The petitioners are from eastern Canada, western Canada and central Canada.
They remind the House of Commons that the standing committee of Parliament dealing with immigration has proposed a new procedure for refugees. They suggest that if it is adopted it would fairly and effectively solve the problems of back-logs and the unsubstantiated claims. They indicate that it has the support of a variety of groups, including the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and a whole set of other groups, as well as individuals who are knowledgeable on the matter of refugees.
Therefore they are asking the House of Commons to withdraw Bill C-55 from discussion and substitute it with legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board that is independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada and, of course, the right to appeal on the basis of fact.

September 22, 1987
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 172, 173, 177 and 179.


Mr. de Jong: 1.	In (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986, how many corporations in Canada failed to remit taxes owing and in what amounts?
2.	For the 1986 taxation year, what amount of taxes are owed?
3.	What is the breakdown of the taxes owed by the size of the (a) corporation (b) debt?
4.	How many of the outstanding corporate accounts fall above and below the "over 2 years category"?
5.	For the same years, what was the amount of taxes in dispute?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Income Tax Owed - Corporations
as of March/84	as of March/85	as of March/86	# Number of Corporations	$(000)	# Number of Corporations	$(000)	# Number of Corporations	$(000)81,457	1,054,898	87,713	1,243,068	94,502	895,983: 1. for 1986	The Department has no data based on	size of corporations.	Size of	as of	as of	as ofDebt	March/84	March/85	March/86# $(000)	# $(000)	# $(000)$ 1 to 99,999	80,451 315,736	86,757 325,305	93,602 312,035$ 100,000 to 499,999	766 158,446	756 157,303	721 150,683$ 500,000 to 999,999	137 92,573	108 75,325	91 60,380$1,000,000 & OVER	103 488,143	92 685,135	88 372,885as of	as of	as ofAging	March/84	March/85	March/86# $(000)	# $(000)	# $(000)Over 2 yrs	17,682 285,222	18,490 332,491	21,026 320,963Under 2 yrs	63,775 769,676	69,223 910,577	73,476 575,020Taxes in	as of	as of	as ofDispute	March/84	March/85	March/86$(000)	$(000)	$(000)67.193	365.23!	391.355
September 22, 1987


Mr. de Jong: In (a) 1984 (6) 1985 (c) 1986, what was the amount of tax owed by individual tax filers and what is a breakdown for income groups (i) $100,000 to $499,999 (ii) $500,000 to $999,999 (iii) $1,000,000 and over?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Income Tax Owed - Individuals
# Number of	# Number of
Individuals	$(000)	Individuals	$(000)876,329	1,680,462	862,947	1,700,836
as of
March/86 # Number of
Individuals	$(000)
914,223	1,698,183
The Department has no data based on income groups.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence kept a DND model deflator for several years for use in computing real increases or decreases in defence spending and, if so, for each of the years 1970-71 to date, what percentage did the deflator show?
2.	Did the departmental estimates switch from the DND deflator rate to the GNE deflator rate and, if so, in what year?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Deflator	Percentage
Year	Rate	Increase1971-	72	7.3	(1.5)1972- 73	10.5	'' (5.3)1973-	74	8.2	2.61974-	75	17.4	(4.3)1975-	76	14.0	4.01976-	77	10.4	2.51977-	78	8.8	3.01978-	79	6.3	2.51979-	80	7.1	(0.2)1980-	81	12.1	3.21981-	82	15.2	3.11982-	83	10.1	5.31983-	84	6.5	7.11984-	85	6,0	5.61985-	86	5,6	(2.8)1986-	87	4,7	(forecast)	2.6 (forecast1987-	88	4.7	(forecast)	0.3	(forecast)
Order Paper Questions
GNE Deflator
Deflator	Percentage
Year	Rate	Increase	1971-72	3.6	2.0	1972-73	5.4	(0.7)	1973-74	10.9	0.1	1974-75	15.1	(2.4)	1975-76	10.1	7.7	1976-77	9.2	3.6	1977-78	7.0	4.7	1978-79	6.9	1.9	1979-80	11.4	(4.1)	1980-81	11.2	4.0	1981-82	10.4	7.5	1982-83	9.4	6.0	1983-84	9.2	4.4	1984-85	2.8	8.9	1985-86	3.4	(0.7)	1986-87	2.9	(forecast)	4.4	(forecast)1987-88	3.9	(forecast)	1.1	(forecast)
2. Yes, in 1985-86.


Mr. Young: 1. For (a) 1977 (6) 1978 (c) 1979 (d) 1980 (e) 1981 (/) 1982 (g) 1983 (A) 1984 (/) 1985 (/) 1986 (k) 1987, did the Government exercise its right under Section 19 of the Patent Act and use patented inventions and, if so (i) on how many occasions (ii) what was the amount of moneys paid to patent holders as compensation for use of those patents (iii) how many patent holders appealed the level of compensation (iv) how many appeals were successful (v) what was the amount of moneys awarded to successful appellants?
2. Is it the government's intention to repeal Section 19 of the Act?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: September 22, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. McKinnon
1.	(i) Number of occasions	(ii) Amount of moneys paid to patent holders as compensation for use of those patents
(a) 1977	-	
(b)1978	-	
(c) 1979	1	None(d) 1980	2	$0.65 (per garment) $5,820.63(e) 1981	1	None(f) 1982	-	(g)1983	-	(h)1984	1	None(i) 1985	1	None(j) 1986	1	None(k)1987	1	None(iii) Number of patents who appealed the level of compensation	(iv) Number of successful appeals	(v) Amount of moneys awarded to successful appellantsNone	None	NoneNone	None	NoneNone	None	NoneNone	None	NoneNone	None	NoneNone	None	NoneNone	None	None
2. No.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have raised a similar point of order on numerous occasions when members of the Opposition in spurious attempts to whip up some enthusiasm for their position table petitions that are incorrectly addressed. I refer in particular to one that has just been tabled by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) who said in his remarks that there were over 100 signatures on a petition from Victoria. In fact, there are only 27 names on the petition.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I might also ask about the peculiarity of a petition dated August 18 not being tabled until over one month later. That certainly does not seem to be urgent action on the part of the Member to look after the interests of some constituents of mine.
I most particularly wish that these Members would quit
exaggerating the number of names on petitions. It is misleading to the House, if anyone were to believe them.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have received over 100 petitions, and a number of them came from the riding of the hon. gentleman. Specifically, there is one petition from Victoria that has over 100 signatures on it. The hon. gentleman may be right when he says that the petition tabled this morning has only 27 signatures. However, there is one petition that I will table in the House that shows clearly that there are over 100 signatures on it of people from the riding of the hon. gentleman.
The reason I tabled the petition today is that it is more appropriate to table it now rather than in the month of August when we were discussing Bill C-84. I thought it more appropriate to table the petition when the House is deliberating on Bill C-55. In August, Bill C-55 was still at committee stage and we did not have an opportunity to deliberate on it in the House. I thought it would be appropriate for the aspirations of his constituents in terms of their sentiments and wishes that the petition be tabled when the attention of the House was specifically and squarely on Bill C-55.
I believe that I have not done a disservice to the riding of the hon. gentleman. What I did is perhaps something that he has not done, that is, bring to the floor of the House of Commons the sentiments and concerns that are very real for the constituents of Victoria. I make no apology for presenting the petition this morning.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) has made a very good point. I would like to draw the attention of my friend, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) to the fact that a
September 22, 1987

petition is presented to the House and the appropriate Ministry is required under Standing Order 106(8) to respond to every petition referred to it within 45 days.
Surely, if we have written the rules as we have to require that the Government and the Ministry involved prepare a response and respond to the petitioners, that has nothing to do with when the House debates a particular law. It is a petitioner, a citizen of Canada, who has decided to sign a petition and to ask the Government for its reasoning with respect to certain matters. The Standing Orders require the Government to respond, which we have done.
I submit that it is an abuse of the process to infer that there are hundreds of names when there are not, and to suggest that there is any relationship between the petition and the debating of a certain law. That argument does not follow. If the reason for a petition is to beg the Government not to proceed with something, then surely that should take place in advance of discussing a particular Bill in the House. I think, with respect to my colleague's argument, that it does not hold water on that basis.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on the same point of order. I wish to apologize to the House if I in any way misled it when I said that there were something in the order of 27 names of people from Victoria on the petition. Only two of them have their addresses down as Victoria. I do not think that accurately represents those petitioners. If the Hon. Member is not going to take the time to read petitions and to see from where they come and learn to differentiate between Vancouver and Victoria, then he ought to ask someone else to table the petition on his behalf.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I understand the embarrassment of the Member of Parliament for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) in not bringing some of those aspirations to the floor. I appreciate and know what the Hon. Member is feeling. I would ask him to look at those seven petitions, count up the number of petitioners from his constituency, together with those that I will be presenting this week. We will then see who is correct and what the numbers total. Perhaps the Hon. Member will have some meetings in his constituency office when he returns this weekend.
With respect to the arguments of the Minister of State (Mr. Lew'is), he is quite correct when he states that the Government has 45 days to respond. That does not mean that the Government has to take 45 days; it has up to 45 days to respond.
However, if the Government was responsive and wished to react genuinely to some of the concerns and aspirations that we are tabling through the petitions of Canadians, obviously it would be appropriate for those responses to be tabled during the parliamentary debate at report stage on Bill C-55. We have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Friesen), and the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). If they are in the Chamber and
Point of Order-Mr. McKinnon
look at the hundreds of people who have signed petitions, then I do not think it would be very responsible for the Minister of State to take the full 45 days.
Certainly, put together-an emotional debate during report stage and third reading, complemented with the aspirations of the petitioners-there is no reason why the Government would want to take 45 days. Obviously the Government must look at the petitions and say, "Look, Mr. Minister, there seems to be some widely-held concerns of Canadians from Victoria to Newfoundland".
Presenting petitions at the same time that we are debating is the fruition of democracy at work. If the Government is guided by a spirit of democracy then it would take those petitions very seriously, make the necessary changes in the legislation, and then we would have participatory democracy rather than ramming and jamming something through a committee on Bill C-84.
The organizations mentioned by the Hon. Member for Victoria had no possible chance of participating in Ottawa. That is why today the Senate is holding hearings. Some of the regional groups from Victoria and eastern Canada will now be able to attend at committee and participate rather than having a committee hearing witnesses from Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal. Canada is much larger than that. We are giving that opportunity in the Senate to the organizations from Victoria.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has a helpful suggestion. Perhaps Mr. Speaker should rule that petitions be submitted only at the time the subject of those petitions is being debated in the House, and at no other time. That may help us.


Mr. Gauthier:: Tell that to the petitioners.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair can comment that there are times when helpful suggestions are given that may have another purpose.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to enter this interchange, but the latest interjection by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock- North Delta (Mr. Friesen) concerned me. There is a long list of ways that the present Government has muzzled Parliament. There is a long list of ways the Government has not enabled the people of Canada to be heard where it has cut off debate prematurely. I am concerned with the suggestion of the Hon. Member that we now muzzle petitioners. Canadians have the right to present their views before Parliament and before the Government.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you do not give any consideration to the suggestion by the Hon. Member for Surrey-

September 22, 1987
White Rock-North Delta when he suggests that we do not allow Canadians to petition the House of Commons. That is a most inappropriate suggestion which has no place in a free democratic society.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has heard the interventions of all Hon. Members. This is not the first time that this matter has been raised. Briefly, the issue is, is it appropriate for a Member to receive a petition and then delay for some period of time before presenting it to the House.
The reason that question is posed is that under the Standing Orders, as the Hon. Minister has pointed out, when the petition is presented to the House, the Government is then under a very severe stricture in terms of the number of days allowed to the Government within which it must answer the petition. Of course, that is a matter of considerable interest to the Chair. I must point out that the Standing Orders do not require any particular time within which that petition must be presented by the Member who receives the petition. In fact, there is no procedural rule demanding that an Hon. Member present the petition.
It is common sense in the general suggestion that it is probably in the interests of the petitioners that, in view of the fact that they are expecting a response from the Government, petitions be filed with the House within a reasonable period of time. That is not an order.
The Chair finds some concern in the other point made by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). His suggestion is that sometimes when an Hon. Member is presenting a petition and rises to describe the contents or, in this case, the number of petitioners who signed the petition, and the place from which those people came, there may sometimes be inaccuracies in the representations made in the House.
I am sure that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) did not intend in any way to deliberately mislead the House. He has spoken on the matter. However, all Hon. Members presenting petitions might take note of today's intervention by the Hon. Member for Victoria and try to ensure that, as much as is possible, the representations made when petitions are presented hew closely to the factual situation. I know that all Hon. Members would wish to do so.
The Hon. Member for York Centre.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with fresh evidence of mismanagement and incompetence within the Department of the Solicitor General. Last week I mentioned one situation, and today I rise to speak on another, namely, the revelation this morning that has shaken public confidence in
the RCMP for mishandling national security informer evidence which may have averted two tragedies.
In light of the submissions that I made last week which have been resolved or settled in the public mind in no way at all, compounded by this morning's revelations which suggest mismanagement and bad direction of the RCMP, I ask again for an emergency debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) is clearly a Member of this House who has had experience as a Minister in this area, and who has been following it very carefully. I wonder if I could ask the Hon. Member to clarify the revelation to which he refers. What is the nature of the incident, and when did it take place?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This morning on the national radio edition of the CBC it was revealed that an informer identified as Paul Besso claims to have told his handler in the RCMP both of the assassination plot against the Punjabi Minister who visited Canada and was nearly murdered, and the downing of the Air India jet, and the possibility of planting bombs on that jet plane.
These revelations are extremely important coming as they do on the heels of revelations last week about information being given to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service which was unheeded. The emergency arises because the public is entitled to be confident that the national security of the country is being protected by the Government. The clear evidence is that in two of the key agencies responsible for Canada's national security there is considerable disorder.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for whom the Chair has great respect, especially on these matters. I am very conscious of the fact that a few days ago a similar motion was made and at that time the Chair did not accede to it.
The reform committee, in dealing with matters of emergency debates, was very clear in the fact that in its wisdom it was not appropriate for the Speaker to give reasons for either allowing an emergency debate or rejecting one. The wisdom of that committee lay in the fact that any reasons the Speaker gives from time to time builds up a kind of jurisprudence of its own and becomes the subject of debate in the Chamber. As a consequence, tempted though I may be to give reasons, I will follow the wisdom of the reform committee and not do so.
However, I draw to the attention of all Hon. Members the following words in the rule.
The right to move the adjournment of the House for the above purpose is
subject to the following conditions:
(a) the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration;
I have commented at another time on what is an urgent consideration.
September 22, 1987

The Hon. Member certainly proposes a matter of extreme importance, but I am not satisfied today that it is a matter of urgency. As I said to the Hon. Member when he rose and put forward a very precise and cogent request a few days ago, in deciding that it is not appropriate at this time does not mean that the door is closed. This is a matter of ongoing importance to the entire country. Most certainly there may be circumstances under which it would be appropriate for the Hon. Member or other Hon. Members to raise the matter again.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, September 21, consideration of Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motions Nos. 18 and 21 (Mr. Marchi, p.9156).
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, just to close off the comments, yesterday in debate the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) was pointing out under the provisions of these motions that the Bill did not fulfil the requirements of the Convention and that in fact it contravened the Convention. 1 would point out again that the UNHCR representative here in Ottawa testified before the committee that the Bill did not contravene the Convention. Given an opportunity to choose between taking the word of the Hon. Member for York West or that of the UNHCR representative, I think I will take the UNHCR. The fact is that the Hon. Member for York West seems to be operating under the notion that if he repeats an error often enough it will become true.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 18?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Marchi moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 19 to 29 at
page 14.
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.
Immigration Act, 1976


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion, and on Motion No. 21, stand deferred.
The next grouping will include Motions Nos. 22, 23, 24, and 30, which will be debated together but voted upon separately.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 25 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"country that complies with".
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 29 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"a member, and would be allowed to return to that country, if removed from Canada, and has the right to have the claim determined therein;".
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 29 to 41 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"a member, and the adjudicator and member of the Refugee Division are satisfied that the person,
(i)	has a right to have the claim determined on the merits in that country;
(ii)	would be protected from refoulement to the country where persecution is feared if found to be a Convention refugee by that country;
(iii)	would be granted adequate protection and firm resettlement by that country, if found to be a Convention refugee by that country; and
(iv)	has no significant ties to Canada, based on duration of time in Canada or close family or friendship ties, such that the choice of Canada as the country of refuge is not logical nor justifiable."
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 5 at page 16 the following:
"The adjudicator and member of the Refugee Division who determines a claimant to be ineligible under paragraph 48.01 (l)(b) shall also during that same inquiry specify the prescribed country to which the claimant may be removed."
He said: Mr. Speaker, these four amendments concern the question of what has been called "safe third country", although that wording does not appear in the present clause as amended by the Government.
What I am concerned about in general is that a person might be sent back to a so-called safe third country and might not be safe. He might not be safe because that country might not accept him and might send him on to somewhere else. If the country sends him back to Canada, there may be provisions for dealing with his situation justly under the revised laws. However, if a country does not send him back to Canada, but sends him on to still another country, we do not know what will happen.

September 22, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
There is no guarantee in the clause as it is written that the person will be accepted by that country either allowing him to stay as a permanent resident, which would have an effect similar to being accepted as a refugee, or allowing him to make a refugee claim.
I have tried several ways of dealing with this question, and two of them are reflected in Motions Nos. 23 and 24, and there is a slightly different way reflected in Motion No. 30.
Before going to that, I wish to deal with the fact that the Government appears to want to reduce its obligation under the United Nations Convention regarding the protection of refugees. At the beginning of the committee clause by clause debate the Government introduced something like the present clause on page 14 of the Bill, Section 48.01 (l)(b). It said that the claimant would be returned to a country:
-that has been prescribed as a country that complies with Article 33 of the Convention-
Later in the day the Government changed that and only wanted to concern itself with whether the country complies with Article 33 of the Convention. I have explained this point previously in another connection but the point is important. Allowing a person protection means essentially and basically not forcing him to go back to the country in which he is being persecuted in the case of a refugee, and not doing so to a person who claims to be a refugee unless the claimant is allowed to state his claim and is found to be not a refugee. In the case of a refugee or a possible refugee, the rule is not to send him back to his country.
The most obvious way of sending him back to his country is to handcuff him, put him under guard and compel him to depart or in some way legally compel him to depart. A less obvious way of sending a claimant back to his country is to make sure that he lives in such miserable conditions in the country in which he has sought protection that he is indirectly forced to return; for instance, if he is not allowed to earn a living, if he is not allowed liberty and kept in detention for no reason other than that he claimed refugee status or for other trivial reasons. In other words, if a person is not allowed to live something like a normal life-he does not have to live like a prince-then he is not really receiving the protection of the country.
I have already listed Articles of the Convention which ensure a person protection under the law, liberty of movement, the right to earn a living and other normal rights of residence in such a country that are also supposed by the same Convention to be assured. But our Government has very carefully said, "We don't care whether the person can really live in that country so long as we can dump his body back inside those other borders and we can wash our hands of him". That is why in Motion No. 22 I proposed that we change line 25 so that it reads,"a country" that has been prescribed as "a country that complies with the Convention"-the whole Convention, not just one Article of it.
Clause 23 and Clause 24 attempt more positively to get at the same point. In Clause 23 I propose that a person "would be allowed to return to that country, if removed from Canada, and has the right to have the claim determined therein".
I do not think we should send a person back. I know all of the witnesses who spoke to our committee were concerned with this. We should not send a person back to a country unless we know positively that he will be accepted and either allowed to remain or allowed to have his claim determined there, preferably allowed to return and have his claim determined. That is what I asked for in Clause 23.
In other words, if somebody comes from the United States to Canada and says, "I am a refugee from El Salvador", we will be sending him back to the United States. The Government has never assured us that it will not, but the Government ought to be responsible for knowing that the United States will either let him live in the U.S. or have his claim determined there. We know that the Americans' way of determining a Salvadran's claim is very different from determining a claim of someone from say a country like Poland. At least our Government should be held responsible for making sure that the person has that minimal right even in the United States. There has been some legal amelioration of that practice in the United States. I hope the Americans will give more just treatment to Salvadoran claimants in the future, although that remains to be seen.
I wish to speak about Clause 30 in particular, Mr. Speaker. This would amend the matter, I think, adequately. I still do not think the safe third country system is a workable one in the way it is being used. When the adjudicator and the refugee division member have examined a person and decided that he should be returned, say to the country from which he came, which may not be the country of his persecution, they should make sure, as it says here, that they send him to that country and not leave it up to some immigration officer or enforcement officer to figure out what country they might send that person to. Motion No. 30 reads:
The adjudicator and member of the Refugee Division who determines a claimant to be ineligible under paragraph 48.01 (l)(b) shall also during that same inquiry specify the prescribed country to which the claimant may be removed.
There is a small typographical error in line 2. The word determines should be the word "determined" since it applies to the adjudicator and member of the refugee division collectively. Their decision that a person is ineligible would have to be made by the two of them together. It could not be made by either of them without concurrence of the other, according to the Bill. That is quite agreeable to this side of the House.
They should also then have this responsibility so that if a person is returned to a country where he is not safe, at least it is the adjudicator and the member of the refugee division who have taken that responsibility. Better still, if when they announce that a person is to be returned to country x, the claimant and the claimant's lawyer, if he has one present,
September 22, 1987

should have an opportunity to object in that hearing, in that decision-making body, where it is on the public record.
In other words, this decision is one that should be made at the same level of responsibility as the decision to send a person away. The decision to choose which country a person may be sent to should be part of that decision. Those people who may be more qualified to make them, than say an enforcement officer, should be held responsible on the record for at least what happens in the sending away of a person, even if we do not know what will happen when that person arrives in the other country.
I would support, since I can speak only once about the four motions, any and all of these motions. I would ask the House to do so. Although they will be voted on in sequence, I think the last one perhaps would mend the problem in a minimal way if the other three are not acceptable.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few comments of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), I think he was dealing with Motion No. 30 which has to do with the need to specify the country of return for someone who is determined to be ineligible to enter Canada on the basis of having prior protection.
I would direct the Member's attention to government Motion No. 53, and I think we are in accord. What the Member is trying to achieve through Motion No. 30 is part of what the Government is trying to achieve through Motion No. 53. It certainly was an item that we discussed at great length in committee. We had some difficulty in arriving at the kind of draft we thought would fit. I do not believe the Member's drafting of Motion No. 30 is quite as solid as the Government's drafting of Motion No. 53, which is a little broader and covers all the situations that I think need to be covered. However, I believe we are in accord on the basic thrust of the motions.
In Motion No. 22, the Member is attempting to remove the phrase which we inserted during committee hearings after a great deal of thought and on the basis of a great deal of testimony.
The issue of prior protection hinges on the notion of refoulement and the notion of protection. Many of us expressed concern about this. In my initial speech at second reading I expressed my concern about the work of Cabinet and the need for Cabinet to determine the list. The committee deliberately specified that Cabinet must attend to Article 33. The statutory power and regulatory authority relates to Article 33, which is the obligation under the Convention to nonrefoulement in a direct or indirect way.
While I respect my colleague from Spadina, I think it is a mistake for the House to accept Motion No. 22 and remove those words "Article 33". I think it is very important that Cabinet be conscious that the countries they put on the list
Immigration Act, 1976
must have an unblemished record in terms of meeting their Convention obligations related to non-refoulement.
Motion No. 23 is essentially designed to achieve something very similar to what the Member is trying to achieve in Motion No. 30 and which I believe will be achieved if the House supports Motion No. 53. There is no basic quarrel with that.
Motion No. 24, however, is the most disturbing of his amendments. The first line of his amendment would remove some lines of the Bill and thereby obliterate the notion of safe third country and the whole notion of eligibility and credibility. I do not understand how one can argue in committee for the need for speed, then attempt to move an amendment that would make speed impossible. We either believe or do not believe that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the claimants who came to our shores in the last 18 months have no need for the protection of Canada. If we believe that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of those claimants in the last 18 months have no need for the protection of Canada, then we must have a speedy and cost efficient system to deter future abuses like that. Speed is the deterrent and if the House were to accept Motion No. 24 that speed would be lost.
While the additions the Member is trying to make look attractive on paper, they would essentially eliminate the possibility of putting any country on the list and allowing that list to function. It is essentially a redefinition of the Member's view of the obligations of all the countries that signed the Accord. Surely the United Nations system allows sovereign countries to remain sovereign and to meet their obligations within their own systems. I do not think it is appropriate that this House pass a piece of legislation that would require those sovereign countries in Europe and other places to redesign their total domestic law to conform to something the Member would like to see happen. If this is an issue about which we feel strong, perhaps it should be raised with the UNHCR and in committee meetings around the world. Surely, however, it would be premature and inappropriate to include a provision in the Bill which would make it inoperable in terms of one of its major principles.
I urge the House to vote favourably for Motion No. 53 when it comes up for discussion later because I believe it accomplishes what the Member is seeking in at least part of his assertions. I urge the House to reject Motions Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 30 on the grounds that I have outlined.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am surprised, to put it mildly, at the comments of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). For some time he was a member of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and knows of the report that was tabled. Surely he knows that there is very little relationship between what is contained in this Bill and what the Standing Committee recommended.
The Standing Committee was comprised of an overwhelming majority of government Members. It considered in great depth the whole question of immigration and made some very

September 22, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
excellent recommendations. Now we see the recommendations and proposals of the standing committee virtually rejected.
The Member for Calgary West, rather than urging the Government to at least consider with some sympathy the recommendations of the standing committee, is saying that the House should reject these amendments which I believe try to amend the Bill to include some of those recommendations.
Let us consider some of the recommendations made by the committee in its report which was tabled in November, 1985, and was based on a study asked for by the then Minister of State for Immigration. This report contains a proposal for a swift, fair system of refugee status determination. The committee proposed that a refugee claimant be sent directly to the refugee board first, without a lot of immigration procedures. The board could decide on that status, being trained and authorized to do so, and the Immigration Department could take over from there and either admit the person on refugee grounds or, if there were no other humanitarian grounds, expel the person from the country. The Government would have been required to reply in four months.
The Government has never dealt with this report. Instead, it introduced this Bill last May. According to this legislation, a refugee claimant is first sent to an immigration inquiry to determine whether there is any reason not to remove him or her. The immigration adjudicator, a member of the refugee division, may only examine the eligibility and credibility of the claimant. This means that they do not judge the merits of his or her claim, only whether he or she could have been safe in another country through which they passed and should be removed to that country, or whether the country from which the claimant is fleeing is in fact one that does not produce refugees. On either of these grounds, they may prohibit him or her from going to the Refugee Division to state their whole claim.
We oppose this Bill and these provisions because it will prevent most claimants from having access to an otherwise good refugee determination system.
We also oppose the harsh restrictions on time to find a lawyer, except for ones paid for and provided by the Minister, and the severe restrictions on the right of appeal to court.
I have another reason for opposing this Bill. I am somewhat hesitant to say it publicly, but I think it needs to be said. We have a long record in this country which is documented so vividly in the book: "None Is Too Many", written by Irving Abella. That book demonstrated conclusively that, unfortunately, there were and are officials with a great deal of power in the Immigration Department who were and are prejudiced against certain types of people, such as non-whites.
We have a perfect example of that in this new committee which has been given some prominence because of the membership of former Justice Clyne of British Columbia. That
committee was organized by a former senior official in the department and it is saying our immigration policy has to be changed so that we permit only people who are acceptable to those whose views are such that anyone to the left of Genghis Khan is a communist and therefore undesirable. They want this country to adopt the immigration policy it had for many years until, I suppose, the late 1950s or early 1960s. That policy was that the only people acceptable to this country as immigrants or refugees were white people.
It is time not only that we have a good law but that the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) exercise his authority and take steps to see that we get rid of those kinds of people in our Immigration Department. There is no place there for people with those kinds of views, and I am satisfied there are still too many of them.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the cumulative effect of Motions Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 30 with respect to the safe country concept. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) made reference to the fact that the Government made amendments to this legislation to try to better define the safe third country concept and then suggested we would be able to deport, as it were, individuals to countries which subscribe to Article 33 of the UN Convention.
For the benefit of my colleagues and for those who may be watching this debate, Article 33(1) says that "No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion."
It is very curious, however, that the Government of Canada was not prepared to say that we would not deport individuals to countries who do not subscribe to the entire Convention. There are some 46 Articles in the Convention and the Government of Canada very conveniently sought to limit it to those countries who subscribe to Article 33. Article 32 talks about expulsion. Other Articles talk about the rights of individuals not to be returned indirectly or directly to a place of torture. Article 33 is quite limited because it does not suggest that a safe country, on paper at least, may not be safe by the end of an individual's journey.
I think we can best look at the concern involved by looking at the country to the south of us. Some time ago I received a letter from an individual connected with the Anglican Church and its efforts to help refugees. I was told a story which shows the faults of the safe third country concept advocated by the Conservative Government. Essentially it was a story of a mother with three children whose husband was murdered in El Salvador because he was involved in the labour movement there. After he was murdered the mother and three children were told by officials that if they did not leave El Salvador they would face the same fate. The mother wasted very little time and escaped. Many of her fellow villagers who unfortunately did not escape faced that very same fate.
September 22, 1987

The mother and her children went to the U.S. where, because of that country's policy on Central America, they had to hide in the basement of an Anglican Church for fear they would be deported to El Salvador and certain death. The U.S. Anglican Church contacted the Canadian Anglican Church and asked if they could help this mother and three children. The church here co-operated, brought those people to the Canadian border, and they are now living safely in Canada.
What would have happened to that family if Bill C-55 was the law of the land? They would have been asked at our border where they were coming from. They would have had to answer that they were coming from the United States. Our officials would then have gone through their little directory of safe third countries and noted that the U.S. is on that list. They would then have said, "we are sorry, the U.S. is on our safe third country list, and with all due respect we suggest you go back there". Keep in mind that she was hiding in the basement of an Anglican Church in the U.S.
1 am sure that according to the provisions of Article 33 of the UN Convention the U.S. would not have tortured that woman, probably not have imprisoned her, would not have treated her in a brutal physical manner. What they might have done was say, "we are sorry, but for us El Salvador is safe. You do not face any problems there. It is not our problem and therefore we will provide you with a ticket on the first airplane back to your country". That is what would have happened and the statistics bear that out.
The vast majority, some 95 per cent, of refugee applicants from Central America are deported from the U.S. Why? Because of that country's foreign policy and not because of its refugee policy. Ronald Reagan has a vision of Central America such that it dictates who is and who is not a bona fide refugee.
In this case Canada would have said we have satisfied ourselves. We did not send them back to El Salvador, we just sent them back to the U.S. That is the Pontius Pilate routine of washing your hands of the problem.
Why can the Government of Canada not take it one step further and include the other 45 Articles which deal with protection of refugees? If it did, we would have to ask ourselves with respect to this mother and three children whether the U.S. is going to keep them in that country. Are we sure they will not be put on a plane to El Salvador? Are we sure, based on all the statistics, that we can guarantee the safety of this mother and her children and sleep easy at night? If those answers are unclear, how can the Government espouse its morality of offering individuals protection in the United States when it knows that we would indirectly be guilty if that mother and her three children ended up in the same town from which officials told her to escape? This one example illustrates the mistake of this policy.
Immigration Act, 1976
I have advocated personally to the Minister, and through my motion yesterday, that if the Government cannot accept deletion of the safe third country concept, it should allow the refugee division to draft the list of safe third countries. In that way Parliament and Canadians can at least be assured that the most knowledgeable, apolitical, and concerned people would be drafting the safe third country list rather than the Cabinet which would be under international and domestic political and diplomatic pressures.
I call upon the Government again today to support the principles of these four amendments with regard to the safe third country concept. We are not saying that everyone who comes here is legitimate, but let us not make a mistake in judgment on individuals who legitimately need our protection.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has done excellent work in committee. He stayed to the very end and never missed a meeting, unless for debate in the House. No one can fault him for not having shown genuine interest in the welfare of refugees. That goes without contradiction. He is the one member of the opposition Parties who has shown that consistent interest. His motion has been clinically analyzed and dissected by my friend, the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).
Prior to committee stage the Bill did contain the term "safe third country". As a result of committee stage hearings that term was dropped and a more definite term was adopted which incorporated Article 33 of the Convention. As a result of what we heard from witnesses in committee we changed the terminology in order to assure the people working with refugees that the people they are concerned about would be protected under this provision and to assure the refugee claimant that this provision would protect them.
Some of the things which the Hon. Member for Spadina asks are impossible to provide. They would make the system unworkable because they, in effect, give the claimant a choice in where he would be sent. How could we ask any government official to give a claimant a choice of destination?
The Member has said frequently that this Bill could return genuine refugees. I think that in a few very rare cases that is true. The question is to where. We and the U.N. High Commission are satisfied that if they are returned they will not be returned to a place where they would be persecuted. They will be protected. That is the point which must be emphasized.
While I respect the desire of the Member for Spadina to expand the provisions and give unlimited protection to refugee claimants, I hope he will accept that it is not Canada's obligation to ensure that every other country in the world fulfils the Convention provisions in the same way as does Canada in order for it to be a safe third country. I think that is an unreasonable request to make. In order to make the

September 22, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
determination system work it is mandatory to reject these provisions.
A few minutes ago we heard the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) casting aspersions on the Immigration Department and officers within it with regard to racism. That is intolerable. Members of his Party always trumpet themselves as being the civil libertarians of the world who believe that everyone has a right to dignity and fair trial and the right not to be castigated by such wild accusations. My friend, the Member for Spadina, did much the same yesterday when he made references to colour. This Party wants to present itself as the enlightened group, but almost at the first opportunity it makes remarks which reflect on the character and motivation of others. That is really not becoming to them.
We must reject these provisions because they are unworkable. I think the country and the refugees will understand that when they see this Bill working very well.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the Member has criticized some of the comments I made I would like to ask him a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is possible, as the Hon. Member knows, only if there is unanimous consent to that effect. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) to ask a question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to join in debate on these motions put forward by my good friend the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). These motions accept a determination of the Government to have persons who may very well have genuine claims for refugee status shunted off to safe third countries. The Hon. Member for Spadina is endeavouring to ensure that if the Government is determined to establish that sort of procedure there be safeguards.
I want to speak very strongly in support of these attempts to strengthen the Bill to ensure that there are safeguards which the Government did not accept in committee and which, in spite of the protestations of the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), are not in the Bill. Particularly for those persons who are watching this debate elsewhere and do not have the text of the motions before them, to have an Hon. Member suggest that the Government's Motion No. 53 provides for matters the Hon. Member for Spadina has put forward may sound very convincing, but it does not take a lengthy consideration of the motion to see that it is not so.
Perhaps, since I am endeavouring to provide what other persons in other parts of the country may not have, I will read part of Motion No. 53:
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 17.
(b) by striking out line 3 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"public in Canada.
(2) Notwithstanding subsections 54(2) and (3), no person who has been determined not to be eligible to have a claim to be a Convention refugee determined by the Refugee Division on the basis that the person is a person described in paragraph 48.01 (l)(b) shall be removed from Canada to any country other than the country from which the person came to Canada as determined for the purposes of that paragraph unless
(a)	the person is determined not to have a credible basis for the claim on a hearing under section 48.03;or
(b)	the person, following a reference of the claim to the Refugee Division pursuant to subsection 48.03(5), is finally determined under this Act not to be a Convention refugee."
That motion standing in the name of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) says absolutely nothing about the safeguards which my friend, the Hon. Member for Spadina, is trying to include in the Bill. There is no safeguard that the country that has been singled out as a safe third country, to which this person is to be sent, will in fact provide properly for that person.
Surely, it is a little less than proper debate for the Hon. Member for Calgary West to put forward that the Government has in fact responded to this concern. What he suggested was that the proposals the Hon. Member for Spadina is putting forward would interfere with the speedy administration of claims, or the desire to put forward claims, by possible refugees. This only strengthens the concern I expressed yesterday about the freighting of human beings which the Government seems ready to establish. We are going to be air freighting people back to one country or another, and the Member suggests that a proposal that we have some sort of assurance that persons who want to put forward a claim within our borders are going to be all right somewhere else is going to get in the way of the speedy process the Government wants. But the people of Canada, who are concerned about the provision for refugees would not necessarily want that air freighting done. The suggestion by the Parliamentary Secretary in his argument that this assurance would make the whole process unworkable only underscores this fact. He, of course, supports the Government's efforts to create a process to get people out of Canada by this process of freighting human beings as fast as we can, and suggests that any proposal put forward to be provide for humanity is going to make the thing inhumane.
There is a real danger of sort of a sleight of hand in this debate that may well strike some viewers as verging towards the dishonourable. I want to note in that particular regard, the suggestion made yesterday in debate that the Bill was not in violation of the Convention of the United Nations. I use for that purpose testimony within the committee by a Canadian authority on these matters, Professor James Hathaway, who was asked about this very specific point and responded at page 38 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-55:
September 22, 1987

As regards Mr. Van der Veen's remarks, I think you mis-characterized them. I have discussed the evidence with Mr. Van der Veen.
That is Mr. Van der Veen of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
He did not say that the legislation complied with international law. He made the statement that the UNHCR had not taken the position that it was contrary to international law. Those are two very different things.
He made some observations on the dependence of the United Nations on the funding of member countries, including Canada. He then goes on to say:
The aide-memoire, with which all of you are familiar, is an incredibly strong statement.
I have spent the last six years of my life ploughing through tens of thousands of pages of UNHCR documents and I have yet to see the language of a critique addressed to a western country that even comes close to this degree of specificity. While it may not say that the bill violates international law, that aide-memoire makes very specific recommendations for changes in order to bring this bill into compliance with the international standards set out by the executive committee.
On that point, I think it is imperative to note, since we are referring to primary sources in the convention, that Article 35 of the convention obliges us to co-operate with the UNHCR. That is a very unusual provision in an international convention, extremely unusual.
We have set up the executive committee to facilitate that collaboration. Canada has been a long and devoted member of that committee. Canada, along with the others, unanimously developed certain standards, which we are now not respecting.
He concludes with some observations on the practice of states being important to the development of international law. There is surely the truest observation, the truest appreciation of what the United Nations really thinks about this matter of how Canada is treating refugees, and to quote two lines from the official's testimony is quite unfair. It is, therefore, essential that we take very seriously the kinds of proposals the Hon. Member for Spadina has put forward.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has recognized, the Hon. Member was there from beginning to end, other than his having to speak in the House at some point. He was there early and he was there late. He was there listening carefully and gathering those impressions that are necessary in deciding how we should regard this particular Bill. When the Hon. Member puts motions forward, even if government Members regard them as making speedy operation of the new system unworkable, and even if it is going to make it unworkable as a whole, those it seems to me are words of praise for procedures that are designed to ensure that Canada will live up to the United Nations Convention, a Convention to which we are signatories and with which we have worked over the years.
Surely, with legislation of this sort, with procedures of this sort in effect, we deserve to be booted off the committee to wait for a new government to establish proper standards for this country, standards of humanity for refugees, to ensure that this country really lives up to our traditions.


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


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 22, 23, 24, and 30 have been grouped for debate but will be voted on separately.
The first question is on Motion No. 22 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour 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 nays have it. Shall the recorded division stand deferred?


Benno Friesen: There are only three Members standing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are only three Members standing. 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 22 (Mr. Heap) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 23 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour 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 nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 23 (Mr. Heap) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 24 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.

September 22, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it, I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 24 (Mr. Heap) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 30 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour 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 nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 30 (Mr. Heap) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next grouping includes Motions Nos. 25, 31, 32 and 33. They are grouped for debate but will be voted on separately.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie) moved:: Motion No. 25
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 37 to 41 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) by an adjudicator and a member of the Refugee Division as not being eligible to have the claim determined by that Division, other than a claimant declared ineligible pursuant to paragraph (a) who has been returned to Canada by the country which has issued the valid and subsisting travel document by that country pursuant to Article 28 of the Convention or a claimant declared ineligible pursuant to paragraph (b) who has been returned to Canada by the prescribed country, or as not having a credible basis for the claim."


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 31
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 5 at page 16 the following:
"(6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (l)(c), (l)(e) and (3). a person is eligible to have a claim determined by the Refugee Division if the claim is based on facts that arose since the claimant's most recent departure from Canada, and in the opinion of the adjudicator and the member of the Refugee Division considering the claim, the claim is not manifestly unfounded."
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 6 to 26 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) In determining whether a claim to be a Convention refugee is manifestly unfounded, the adjudicator and the member of the Refugee Division shall consider whether the claim is:
(a)	clearly fraudulent; or
(b)	not related to the criteria for granting refugee status in the Convention."
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 6 to 26 at
page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) 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 by the claimant at the inquiry or hearing and may consider any other evidence, including;
(a)	the factual basis of the claim, and
(b)	the record with respect to human rights of the country that the claimant left, or outside of which the claimant remains, by reason of fear of persecution."
[ Translation]


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to take part in the debate, particularly because for some time now I have been able to express my views on Bill C-55. I repeat that as far as I am concerned we should not even be debating Bill C-55 as it is now drafted.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have to clarify many things before I mention something about the motion that I want to be accepted. 1 was elected very democratically in the riding of La Prairie, Quebec. I came to the House of Commons to find out that there are a great many committees here. There was one committee in particular in which I was very interested. I refer to the McGrath Committee.
The McGrath Committee was convened so that backbenchers would have the right to participate more in the workings of the Government in terms of the legislative work that the Government has to do while in power instead of twiddling their thumbs on the back benches.
When I came to this place I joined the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. Within two months I was elected Vice-Chairman of that committee. I participated very strongly in the workings of the committee since over one-third of the population of my riding does not speak French or English. They are of ethnic origin. As far as I am concerned Bill C-55 is definitely not what we should have in order to define the status of refugees.
If one reads the comments of many experts in the field of refugees one will find a comment that I myself read three or four times before I got up to speak on this matter. I refer to a comment of Mr. Pierre Duquette, a well-known Montreal lawyer in the field of refugee matters.

And unless I am mistaken I believe Mr. Duquette once worked for the Minister of State for Immigration. Surely if he had been hired it was because he was highly qualified indeed.
Mr. Duquette states:

"In comparison with the current situation, Bill C-55 will put peoples' lives in danger". He suggests that all decisions should
September 22, 1987

be published. He also stated that if the Government wants to leave the Convention, then it should say so openly.
I have been saying that if we are to accept refugees then we should have a fast, fair and just process. Do we have a fast, fair and just process when the refugee to be is screened before he has the right to express himself? Do we have a fair process when a person can be refused by an adjudicator and a member of the division without really explaining himself because he has status in another country? That person can then be deported by the Government back to this country and that country does not want him. He is told, "Go back to Canada". When he comes into Canada he again faces another clause read by the adjudicator who says:

claim already rejected in Canada.

What are we to do with a person who was rejected once because he comes from a safe country and this safe country does not want him? Will we keep sending people back and forth between countries? I really do not understand the true meaning of the word "fair".
1 could give ample examples of specialists who do not agree with this Bill. For instance, the Coalition for a Just Immigration and Refugee Policy stated that the approach in Bill C-55 is incorrect because it is not workable and puts genuine refugees in danger and will not survive challenge in the courts.
Rabbi Plaut is a well-known expert on refugee matters. He was asked to conduct a royal commission on refugee matters, which he did. He has said that Bill C-55 has the wrong focus because its aim is deportation instead of status determination. He also states that the process will not be shorter but longer and more complex. Rabbi Plaut is against Bill C-55 on the grounds that a determination system should be fair for genuine refugees. These are the comments of a man who has been involved for over 35 years, if I recall correctly, with refugee matters. He is a man who is recognized by all Canadians as the best expert, and he is against Bill C-55. Yet there are still some people who want to pass Bill C-55 the way it is.
The Bill has to have a great many changes made to it. As a matter of fact, 77 amendments have been proposed to it at report stage. I have not been in the House of Commons for too long but I am told that there have not been very many Bills to which 77 amendments have been proposed at report stage. So there must be something wrong with Bill C-55. I think that whoever will vote for Bill C-55 should make an examen de conscience.
In June the House of Commons voted on capital punishment. We were told that it was to be a vote according to our conscience. Some Members voted yes for the return of capital punishment, while others voted no. After the vote on Bill C-55 is taken I am anxious to see if some of the people who voted against capital punishment will have voted in favour of this Bill. Capital punishment was used to punish people who were
Immigration Act, 1976
against society, people such as murderers and those who did not want to follow what society asked of them. But Members voted against the return of capital punishment so that we would not have to kill these people. They will now vote and cause thousands and thousands of people to be sent back to their home country where they will be killed or tortured. But it does not matter because they are not people from our country; they are people from other countries.
I hope that whoever votes in favour of Bill C-55 will examen de conscience and think twice before making the decision to vote yes.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 25 states: That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 37 to 41 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor: ... I hope my colleague in the House will vote in favour of adding this subclause:
"(ii) by an adjudicator and a member of the Refugee Division as not being eligible to have the claim determined by that Division, other than a claimant declared ineligible pursuant to paragraph (a) who has been returned to Canada by the country which has issued the valid and subsisting travel document by that country pursuant to Article 28 of the Convention or a claimant declared ineligible pursuant to paragraph (6) who has been returned to Canada by the prescribed country, or as not having a credible basis for the claim."
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. We are in some sort of a bind because Bill C-55 is before the House. But the main amendment which should have been made and considered would have been to refer this measure back to the House just so we could have made sure it would be fair, fast and efficient.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, in debating Motions Nos. 25, 31, 32, and 33, we are mainly concerned with the question of the applicant's credibility, but not exclusively.
Although I support Motion No. 25, on which the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) has spoken, I wish to use what time I have on the other three motions.
Unfortunately, Motion No. 31 has a misprint which probably came from my office. It arises from the confusion between the two versions of the Bill that were printed as of September 15. Therefore, I must seek unanimous consent of the House to amend my motion to read:
"(6) Notwithstanding paragraphs 1(c), 1(0, and (5),..."
There were changes made between the two printings which require this change.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to amend his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

September 22, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: 1 thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all Hon. Members for their assistance.
On this motion, I am attempting to protect a claimant who came to Canada, left, and returned. Under categories 1(c), 1(f), and (5), the claimant would be excluded from consideration. I am not arguing against those categories as such, I am arguing that if the claimant offers evidence that something has happened since he was last in Canada, for example, perhaps he returned to his own country and got it in the neck from whoever it was that he thought may persecute him, and who Canada did not think would persecute him, but he returned and it did happen. If the claimant can present any such evidence he should be considered.
Notwithstanding those exclusionary clauses 1(c), 1(f) and (5), a person is eligible to have a claim determined by the refugee division if the claim is based on facts that arose since the claimant's most recent departure from Canada and, in the opinion of the adjudicator or the member of the refugee division considering the claim, the claim is not manifestly unfounded.
It is a simple matter, it speaks for itself, and I believe it is generally in keeping with the clause as it stands. It does not ask for a major departure. It asks that there be the opportunity, probably in a very few cases, to take account of events that may have happened to that person since he was previously in Canada.
In Motion No. 32, I wish to suggest a fairer test of credibility than the Government has offered in order that a claimant would not be rejected merely by having the merits of his claim examined by people who are not, as a body, competent to do that, or officially asked to examine the merits of his claim. I have proposed what is well known in international law, and frequently used in Canadian discussion, although I do not think that it appears in Canadian law, as the manifestly unfounded claim.
There are two grounds on which the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and many other countries, agree that a claim is not worthy of further consideration if it is found to be manifestly unfounded. First, it may be manifestly unfounded because all the facts stated by the claimant, even if they are true, have nothing to do with refugee status. To get into the ball park, a claimant must show that he has reason to fear persecution for one of five reasons: nationality, race, religion, political orientation, or membership in a certain group. That could be a class or any type of group.
If the claimant states that he came here because he cannot stand his in-laws at home, or because there is no work at home, we may be sympathetic, but he is not a refugee under the UN Convention. He is not a refugee from persecution as defined therein.
The other ground would be if the statements were clearly fraudulent. In Canada, and elsewhere, the manner in which that is often expressed is that if any reasonable person listening
to the facts does not believe them-two and two do not make six; if the claimant came from Amsterdam, he did not come from Calcutta; the story does not hang together-and it is plain that the essential facts presented on his persecution would not be believed by any reasonable person, that is a semisubjective judgment, but it is one that has strong support internationally.
Mr. Girard, the head of the Refugee Status Task Force has stated that that is a very weak test and that they wished a stronger one. He did not explain why they wished a stronger one, he just stated that they wished a stronger one. I believe that there is no good reason that Canada should wish a stronger test, that is, a more restrictive test than has been found workable by our colleagues in the United Nations, and our colleagues who support the United Nations High Commission and is strongly recommended by the UNHCR.
A while ago the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary commented on whether the UNHCR found Canada in contravention of the Convention. Of course, it is quite true that they did not. They do find that we need to make improvements in this Bill. This is their diplomatic way of putting it. We need to make improvements in the Bill in order to fully comply with the Convention. According to their aide-memoire of some months ago, this would be one of the tests which needs improvement. They are a body that can only work by eliciting co-operation. They are not in a position to act like policemen or judges and state, "You have contravened it, you go to jail". They have no enforcement powers. They rely upon persuasion, and they have asked us to bring the test more into line with the standards that they recommend.
To put the question "are we in contravention" is to put an irrelevant and, by its nature, misleading question to the UNHCR representative. They had already made their position very plain, that the law needs improvement in this respect.
Finally, in Motion No. 33 I have made a further attempt or an alternative attempt, in case it better suited Hon. Members opposite, to amend the same procedure by asking the officers to consider any evidence, including that in subsection (a) or that in subsection (b), but not to rely upon the record of other people who came from the same country where the person fears persecution. That is not a test which is respected internationally. That is not a test which can be seriously applied when things change as fast as they do now.
If there is a blow-up in country x, and a change of government with violence, and that country is on our safe country list, it will not be changed that fast by the Cabinet. What I am asking is that consideration be given to not relying on the record of the country from which the person is fleeing or the record of acceptance by Canada of refugee applicants from that country.
The United Nations has made headway in international law in the 1948 UN declaration for human rights by establishing
September 22, 1987

that individuals have rights over and against those of states. That is new in international law. Until then it was only the rights of states. The UN Convention on refugees enlarges on that point and says that a refugee claimant as an individual who has rights which very slightly limit the rights of sovereign states.
What they are saying on this point is that we should examine the person's case individually and not treat him collectively by saying, "Well, you come from country x so we know you are not a refugee".
Sometimes Hon. Members opposite undertake to defend the rights of individual human beings and suggest that democratic socialists do not respect the rights of individuals. It is very ironic that it is Hon. Members opposite, government Members, who in this passage wish to deny the right of the individual to state his claim and to submerge him in some collectivity by identifying him only by the country from which he has fled.
1 hope that Motion No. 33 will be supported by the House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 25 was moved by the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) and seconded by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). I want to assure both Hon. Members that the issue which they raised in Motion No. 25 was carefully considered and discussed in committee, and that the amended Bill reported back to the House takes care of their concern. However, since the two of them suggest that they might find disposition, at least on the government side, for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion if they chose to do so-and I do not see either of them in the House at the moment-at a later stage, it really is not relevant because the amended Bill has taken care of the "refugee in orbit" phenomenon to which their amendment was addressed.
Motion No. 31 brought forward by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) provides an opportunity system for bogus claimants once again. I think everyone who is knowledgeable about this matter is concerned about changing circumstances. In terms of true refugees, those will occur rarely.
The humanitarian and compassionate provision under the Act provides a mechanism for taking care of unique situations. I believe that our history shows that we have taken care of them in the past and that we will take care of them in the future.
We must be careful in the scheme of this Act not to provide another legal opportunity for bogus claimants to delay their removal from the country. What Motion No. 31 would really do is enable another legal process to occur, which would be used by bogus claimants almost as a matter of habit and would not occur in terms of legitimate claimants very often at all.
In committee we discussed the intent of Motion No. 32. Certainly we heard a lot of testimony which wanted us to use the concept of "manifestly unfounded". The committee listened carefully to all the testimony and indicated that the basic problem with the original drafting was that perhaps it
Immigration Act, 1976
was not assertive enough in terms of the rights of legitimate claimants.
The redrafted version brought back to the House has that characteristic. If there is anything in the evidence or testimony which might lead the refugee division to conclude that the person was a legitimate refugee, then we want that case to go forward.
In both Motions Nos. 32 and 33 the Hon. Member is removing the obligation to provide evidence of refugee board hearings about similar cases in similar countries. If we look at it from a barrier point of view, surely the Hon. Member's arguments have some cogence. If we look at it from the point of view of how the clause is now worded to protect better our rights and obligations under the Charter, the removal of the principle wherein the Crown must provide evidence would take protection away from legitimate refugees. It is there so that the rights to a hearing of a refugee claimant, that frightened individual who comes from another country and meets a stranger who becomes his duty counsel, are protected by the evidentiary requirement that the Crown must provide evidence on prior determination hearings and their consequences.
I think the Hon. Member will find that that particular evidentiary requirement will be the mechanism which enables people to go forward quickly to a refugee board hearing, the kind which the Hon. Member indicated that he would value.
It would be a sad mistake for the House to take that obligation away from the Crown. It is perhaps one of the most solid pieces of this legislation in terms of providing protection for legitimate refugees. On that basis I urge the House to vote against Motions No. 32 and 33.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the opportunity to join in debate on these motions, particularly Motions Nos. 31, 32, and 33 in which the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) is trying to ensure protection for persons who have been sent out of the country, returned to a supposed safe third country and returned again to Canada. Each of these motions deal with very precise matters. They open possibilities in the law and are very important.
If, for example, a claimant has some experience, having left Canada, which could create a new situation and wishes to present it to immigration officers, it is most important that the law include provisions which will ensure that the officers consider the particular information.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has been trying to assure us that the evidentiary provisions, the rules which prevail in the country, should provide that protection. However, I suspect that these officers are less trained in judicial proceedings and more urged on to deportation action and so on these days than we might well like. In those circumstances, it seems to me very important to have these possibilities provided.

September 22, 1987
I say quite explicitly that the Hon. Member has offered assurances on other items before. He indicated to the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) that Motion No. 25 might be withdrawn and so on. These proposals do not impress me very much.
I want to say about these matters and the others that I think there is a very jealous regard for humanity, for the lives and safety of these potential claimants or quite possible refugees. We want to be absolutely certain that nothing will go awry.
May I call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the statement attributed to J. V. Clyne in the Vancouver Sun of September 19 that he would like to see Canada remain white to safeguard the country's heritage must be vigorously rejected and condemned from the floor of this House. Explicit in that notion is that Canada's interest is best served by the white race. If that were not offensive enough, what is implicit in former Judge Clyne's statement is that one race, white in this case, is superior to others.
As we take pride in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms adopted in 1982, we know we have an obligation to respect and practise the principles contained in that Charter. What is disturbing about Mr. Clyne's statement is that it comes from a former Supreme Court Judge and Chancellor of the University of British Columbia who should know the spirit, if not the letter, of the Charter.
We do not want in the Canada of today and of our children to be trapped by a distinction between white and non-white Canadians. If the future of Canada is to be a great one, it will be because we will look at ourselves not in racial terms but as a cohesive, varied society drawing strength from diversity and not from domination of one race over another.



MOTOR SAFETY


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada between January, 1982, and September, 1986, there were roughly 2,000 injuries and 109 fatalities resulting from accidents involving off-road vehicles. Many of these accidents involved young Canadians in their early teens. In Saskatchewan last week an unfortunate incident occurred in which a 14-year-old boy died in an accident involving an all-terrain vehicle.
These alarming statistics give rise to the need for federal and provincial legislation dealing with motor vehicle safety policies. It is my understanding that Transport Canada has submitted a proposal to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to include within it legislation dealing with all-terrain vehicles. This proposal is intended to make the use of protective equipment mandatory, and increase public awareness of the dangers involved in using these off-road vehicles on public roads where, incidentally, a high number of accidents occur.
I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to proceed expeditiously in regard to these matters and to work in concert with regional transport officials, giving priority to the concerns of minimum age requirements and the provision of public awareness programs focusing on driver responsibility and the safe use of off-road vehicles.



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it has been recently brought to our attention that certain domestic submersible well pumps manufactured between 1964 and 1980 with oil-filtered motors contain dangerous PCBs. The PCBs which have been found in certain pumps' capacitors or cooling oil pose a serious threat to drinking water because of their toxicity and tendency to accumulate in organisms.
Where wells have been abandoned, where pumps have stood idle for long periods of time or where pumps have malfunctioned there exists a serious threat that PCBs will enter the groundwater thereby spreading the threat of contamination.
Considering that many of the pumps containing PCBs are imports, the federal Government should take immediate action to evaluate these imported products and launch an immediate initiative to provide testing of groundwater for PCBs. At the moment in parts of Canada the only way to check for PCBs in groundwater is for an individual to remove his submersible pump, have it destroyed and then examined for PCBs. This is costly and mitigates against people volunteering to have their pumps destroyed in order to be tested. Surely the threat of
September 22, 1987
PCBs to our groundwater is serious enough to warrant a government sponsored and funded initiative.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, "Persons with disabilities have the right to participate in all aspects of the economic, social and cultural life of Canada". Following the Prime Minister's "Declaration on the Decade of Disabled Persons" in 1985 was the announcement of the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of responsible Ministers earlier this year.
Considerable progress has been achieved by the Government toward this objective. This includes housing and transportation measures, improvements in employment opportunities, and economic incentives, such as increases in Canada Pension Plan disability benefits and greater deductions for income tax purposes. We still have a long way to go but our Government has certainly started off on the right track.



ABORIGINAL PEOPLES


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were touched by the moving sincerity of the visit of Pope John Paul II to Fort Simpson in the Northwest Territories.
The Pope championed the cause of our native peoples in seeking self-government and a just land claims settlement.
Unfortunately, these goals are still some way off from attainment. In the meantime, natives of Canada continue to suffer social, economic and health problems which most other Canadians would find unacceptable, according to the Canadian Public Health Association.
In the Association's most recent journal, they also point out that only 50 per cent of native on-reserve houses have running water and sewage disposal, that 10 per cent to 15 per cent of natives suffer from diabetes compared to a rate of 2.2 per cent for the rest of Canadians, and that infectious and parasitic diseases remain as significant risks to the northern Canadian population.
Clearly, in the spirit of Pope John Paul's visit the federal Government must do significantly more to address these public health issues which are affecting our native Canadians.
Yet too often the outcome is simply the movement of natives from reserves to central cities where the federal Government refuses to accept responsibility.
Perhaps the Pope's visit will remind the Government how much still needs to be done with our native population right now.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the three words "flow through shares" themselves generate visions of economic development in the northern regions of our country. The same three words send shivers down the spines of the socialist Members opposite.
Last December the finance critic for the New Democratic Party rose in the House and stated that no one but the rich benefit from flow through shares. I challenged his statement during that debate on Bill C-23 and I challenged his ignorance of the North again in January.
Now I understand that this same critic has stated that the NDP actually endorses flow through shares. What has caused this 180-degree change in direction?
Could it be that the NDP saw the screaming headlines and negative editorials from across the North? Could the NDP have been talking with the United Steelworkers whose employers depend so dearly on continued exploration and development? Could that Member and his Party be attempting to mend the damage done by their policy against flow through shares?
They were against flow through shares nine months ago, and for them today. Where will the NDP be tomorrow? Can the NDP finance critic tell the House?



COMMUNICATIONS


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, five months after the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture submitted to the House its extensive fifth and sixth reports on specialty services and broadcasting legislation, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) chose this morning to elaborate on her four and one-half page meagre response.
In her original non-comprehensive report she raised four questions, while supplying negligible responses. This morning



September 22, 1987
was an elaboration of her abdication of ministerial responsibility and lack of vision, when she read a 28-page report containing 27 new questions.
Among them she posed the earth-shattering question: "What is a television program?" while asking for further guidance on the impact of technology, and how to find incentives for Canadian programming content. These are all interesting but not germane to the major concerns of this $8 billion industry.
The Minister's fascination with technology has prompted her to forget that it is only a means to an end and not an end in itself.
The Minister seems to expect that time, the CRTC, and 25 applications for specialty service licences will stand still while she makes up her mind about the kind of broad general policy she believes should guide us and viewers and what they see on our TV screen. At this critical juncture in the broadcast industry's history, we need more answers from the Minister, not more questions.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to conclude negotiations with the Whycocomagh Indian Band Council.
The claim itself was admitted in 1984. There is no dispute as to the liability of the Government of Canada to these native people for land that was wrongly taken. A lengthy and detailed appraisal process has been agreed to and settled. It is now time for the Government to make an offer.
This band has strong leadership. Chief Googoo and his council want to invest the proceeds from the settlement in developments that will benefit their membership. This will also benefit the entire region.
These people have been patient. It is now time for real action. To date, successive changes by the Department of Justice as to which lawyer will handle the file have frustrated efforts to conclude the matter. Internal bureaucratic transfers and promotions do not justify these delays.
I look forward to news from the Department that bona fide negotiations have been resumed and that a bona fide offer has been made to my constituents.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, while the out-of-court settlement between Alcan and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) preserves the Nanika River which flows into the Morice and Skeena systems, it does so at a very high cost to the Nechako, one of the main tributaries of the Fraser River. The agreement will reduce water flow on the Nechako to 58 per cent of the minimum flow required for Chinook salmon.
Alcan has made vague promises about industrial development in northern British Columbia but it has no plans to develop a new smelter in the area, and the agreement has absolutely no job guarantee. At the same time the agreement ignores the present or potential needs of downstream users such as irrigation farmers. The Water Control Board does not have a representative on it of the commercial fishing industry.
At the very least the Minister should ask the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to travel to northern British Columbia and hold hearings on the agreement. We must make sure that vital public questions about fishing runs on the Nechako, job guarantees, and downstream users have adequate answers.



HOUSING


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday 80-odd representatives of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean housing municipal offices gathered for a regional conference in Alma in my riding.
The representatives took this opportunity to emphasize the problem of waiting lists. Like them I consider that the shortage of low-priced housing units is very serious, and I would suggest it is particularly important to raise the issue in this year of the homeless.
Still it is interesting to note that our Government has made a tremendous effort since 1984, so much so that in the riding I represent we have invested in excess of $6 million to build or manage this kind of housing units for families and elderly people. I intend to continue to defend the rights of these people so that additional funds be earmarked for my riding.
September 22, 1987



IMMIGRATION


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this Party, and I certainly hope all members of the other two Parties do likewise, feels ashamed and degraded that a former judge of the B.C. Supreme Court should advocate in this day and age that our immigration policy should cater to noncoloured immigrants. What arrogance to suggest that a country, which originally belonged to the native Indian people, and which has been developed by people from many races, should cater only to Caucasian immigrants.
We in British Columbia are proud of the contribution of all our citizens. We oppose discrimination, both subtle and, as in this unfortunate case, obvious. Chinese Canadians built our railways and then their families were excluded by legislation at the beginning of the century. Japanese Canadians also contributed greatly to our culture and economy, yet we discriminated against them as well. Indo Canadians built our forest industry. It is time that we recognized all our citizens and chastized such persons as Mr. J. V. Clyne.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter which will significantly affect Canada in coming years, that is, corporate concentration. That results when a firm or conglomerate dominates the market in which it operates. The causes of this domination range from relative efficiency to collusion among a small number.
The recent collapse of the Principal Group clearly illustrates that corporate paper games are severely damaging to the individual, to the credibility of financial institutions, and to government. These corporate actions do not create economic growth or jobs, they just make the whole economic pie smaller as specific interests gain control over a greater piece.
I call upon the Government of Canada to take specific action with regard to the collapse of the Principal Group, and also to curb these corporate concentration games being played by a select few.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is with regard to the destruction of Air-lndia Flight 182 off the coast of Ireland over two years ago. According to an ex-RCMP informer the RCMP and the Security Intelligence Service had advance warning with regard to the bombing of Air-lndia Flight 182 which claimed the lives of 329 individuals.
Mr. Paul Besso, a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, claims that he was personally present and carried a listening device given to him by the RCMP when several individuals discussed bombing the Air-lndia plane.
In view of these most serious allegations by an ex-RCMP informer, will the Prime Minister of Canada immediately initiate a Royal Commission inquiry into the bombing of Air-lndia Flight 182 and also into the behaviour and conduct of officials of the Government of Canada in advance of June 23, 1985?


Hon. Janies Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as I have on a number of earlier occasions in this House, I would like to refer to the response of the Minister of Transport at that time as reported in Hansard of June 25, 1985. He said:
Mr. Speaker, from time to time there were requests for additional security
by Air-lndia authorities. There were extra RCMP deployed both at Toronto
and at Mirabel, as there has been for some time. I should point out to the
House that there was no indication that there was a specific threat to Flight
I fully reinvestigated the matter this morning. That statement stands. It was true then and is still true right now.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO INFORMER
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are wondering why the Government of Canada has refused to initiate a Royal Commission inquiry into this particular tragedy. There was a Royal Commission inquiry into the Hinton rail disaster, there was a Royal Commission inquiry investigating the Ocean Ranger tragedy, and there was a Royal Commission inquiry costing Canadian taxpayers close to $5 million into the conduct of a former Minister of the Crown.
Yet, with regard to the most serious, most gruesome, and most hideous crime in Canadian history, the murder of 329 individuals, the Canadian Government is refusing to come clean and have a full and complete investigation. Canadians are wondering whether the Government is hiding something.
Mr. Besso-

September 22, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John V. Nunziata: -also indicated to me that while a paid informer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police he handled explosives. He said:
Between a week and three days before Air-India flight went down, I was
told by two Sikhs that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not the place of the Speaker to comment upon the substance of a question except to say that all Hon. Members know that this is a matter of considerable concern to all Members in this House and to the Canadian public. I would expect that as the Member is the lead Member for the Official Opposition he would be given a courteous hearing. The Hon. Member will put his question.


John V. Nunziata: Is the Prime Minister aware of Mr. Besso's statement, and I quote:
Between a week and three days before Air-India flight went down, I was
told by two Sikhs that Air-India was a definite target of theirs, that they
wanted to do in a plane, an Air-India plane.
Is the Prime Minister aware of that particular statement by Mr. Besso?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Why don't you finish the quote?


John V. Nunziata: And can he comment on whether or not he was made aware of Mr. Besso's statement?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again we have another example of selective reading by the Hon. Member. Why does he not go on and finish the statement where it is alleged Mr. Besso said:
Now I wasn't told a specific flight or day or anything like that-?
Again, 1 repeat the statement made by the then Minister of Transport who said: "I should point out to the House that there was no indication that there was a specific threat to Flight 182".
I re-examined the matter fully this morning. The Commissioner of the RCMP was also involved. I can tell the Hon. Member that this statement stands. It was true then and it is true now.


EXAMINATION OF LUGGAGE
John V. Nunziata: The Solicitor General knows and the Prime Minister knows that in June of 1985 there was one Air-India flight a week.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: One!


John V. Nunziata: The Government admits it received advance warning. Air-India, in its statement of claim, is alleging
negligence on behalf of the Government of Canada. It says it gave written notice. Mr. Besso says he was a paid informer and that in fact there are tapes showing there was advance warning to the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


John V. Nunziata: If in fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member, with good reason, has been given considerable latitude on preamble. Perhaps he could put his final question.


John V. Nunziata: Again my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. If in fact there was warning in advance of something happening, or something about to happen, to an Air-India flight, would the Prime Minister of Canada tell us why each and every piece of luggage was not hand-searched? Why was it that 75 per cent of the luggage went through an X-ray scanner and the remaining 25 per cent was simply X-rayed by a handheld wand? If in fact there was advance warning-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John V. Nunziata: -why did the Government ridt insist that each and every piece of luggage be hand-searched?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to quote from a statement, this time from the Royal Commission conducted in India. At page 154 of his judgment, the judge stated:
Air-India had also requested and had received and arranged for extra security for the month of June, 1985.
As the Hon. Member well knows, not only is there an ongoing civil action, which is sub judice, but there is an extremely active criminal investigation into this heinous crime. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to do anything that would in any way impede the successful completion of this investigation.


Some Hon. Members:: Resign!


POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY-MINISTER'S POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General concerning another aspect of the problem.
This informer, Paul Besso, revealed his identity as a police informer because the RCMP failed to keep their promise to provide him with new identification papers and protection as witness after he infiltrated a terrorist group. The Government had been aware of problems related to this program since last December when a Nova Scotia informer, Leonard Mitchell, was denied the protection of a false identity as an informer.
The Minister should have corrected the problem last December. Is he now prepared to accept his political responsibility in this case? Does he now intend-as he did in the case
September 22, 1987

of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, when he shifted blame on the shoulders of Ted Finn-to shift the blame on to the RCMP Commissioner?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, this Minister has at all times shouldered his responsibility.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: I have stood here day after day, as is expected of me, and I have answered fully and frankly every proper and sensible question put to me.
With respect to Mr. Besso, as I am sure the Hon. Member well knows, he has commenced a civil action against the RCMP for services rendered. That is presently pending and is now before the courts. He has his remedies which may be available to him in that action.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS OF RCMP
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister wants the House to accept that the only political responsibility of a Minister is to answer questions and never to resign. In the case of the security service it was the director who had to resign. Who will take the responsibility in connection with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for this serious failing that has been revealed?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit that a Minister's responsibility is to do more than to stand here and to answer questions fully and frankly in the House. I have also been doing the other bit. Each and every time that a problem has arisen within the Force, immediately upon it coming to my attention I have taken prompt and efficient action to remedy any problems.
If the Hon. Member has some specific allegations to make, then why does he not come forward and give them to me and I will see that they are looked into fully?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I just did!


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO INFORMER
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that he is prepared to take all the actions appropriate to his sense of responsibility. I want to follow up on what he said earlier.
Mr. Besso's accusation, as everyone knows, is extremely serious. He has said that he provided information which in his judgment, presumably, was sufficient to have headed off the destruction of this Air-India aircraft and saved, presumably, all those lives. He has further added that there is documentary proof of his allegation to be found in RCMP files. The Minister categorically said just a few minutes ago that he
Oral Questions
checked this out, that he has come back and is satisfied that there was no wrong-doing or incompetence.
Can the Minister tell us if he checked with Mr. Besso or did he simply check with the RCMP, about whom Mr. Besso was making those charges?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear that the then Minister of Transport made a statement in 15*85, and again I quote: "I should point out to the House that there was no indication that there was a specific threat to Flight 182".
I fully reinvestigated this matter this morning with the assistance of the Comihissioner of the RCMP with respect to this particular story. What I am saying quite clearly and plainly to the House is that that statement still stands. It was true then and it is true now as I stand here. I do not see how I can be more clear than that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the question is not one of clarity, the question is one of competence. That is what is at stake here.
Since the accusation was made about the incompetence of the RCMP and since the person making the accusation said that documentary evidence exists that supports his case, does the Minister not feel in terms of his obligation to the House that he has an obligation to check for the evidence that Mr. Besso says is available, and not just ask the RCMP?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am answering the accusation. I went to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I went to the Commissioner. We fully discussed it. We looked into the allegations. The RCMP reviewed their files. They were in touch with their officers on the West Coast. I am telling the Hon, Member that I accept the evidence, the integrity and honesty of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: -over a person who is an alleged informer and who was looking to receive services for something he told us. That is not true or accurate.


AVAILABILITY OF EVIDENCE
John Edward Broadbent: With respect, I think that the Minister has just proven beyond any question that he is totally incompetent in terms of getting to the bottom of the problem.
In fairness to the integrity and reputation of the RCMP, and all the RCMP people who wish to do a good job-

September 22, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What arrogance.


John Edward Broadbent: I remind the Conservatives that there was incompetence in the RCMP in the past, and they know it very well. I wish to ask the Minister-


Mr. Siddon:: Are you questioning the Commissioner's-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Did you never hear of the McDonald report?


John Edward Broadbent: Read the McDonald report some time.


Mr. Hees:: You would have never said those things!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the seriousness of the allegations, does the Minister think it appropriate to request the Commissioner of the RCMP to bring to his attention the evidence that Mr. Besso stated is available?


George Harris Hees: That is what he said.


John Edward Broadbent: No, he did not.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, of course it is a serious allegation. I am not suggesting for a moment it is not. Perhaps the Hon. Member is not, but I am very concerned about the integrity of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their reputation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why the cover-up?


James Francis Kelleher: That is why, immediately, I went to the Commissioner, bright and early this morning-


John Edward Broadbent: You are so thick.


James Francis Kelleher: This is why he has spoken-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You don't trust the RCMP?


James Francis Kelleher: -to his officers. They have fully reviewed the file in question, and they have come back, and I told you that the statement that was made in 1985 was true then, and it is still true now as a result of their reinvestigation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Get Bob White to investigate.


John Edward Broadbent: He will do it about 10 times as fast.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Self-appointed guardian of the RCMP? You have come a long way.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs.
The Coopers & Lybrand Consulting Group has now confirmed in its report that indeed there was serious mismanagement in the Manitoba region of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
We wish to know from the Minister how he intends to clean up this disgraceful mess in Manitoba. When will the Minister show some interest in his job and meet with the bands in Manitoba and work with them to develop a financial regime that is more appropriate to the goals of self-government?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed. I thought a Member with his concern and time in the House would have read the report.


B. Keith Penner: I read it in detail.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: A Member with the time and concern that the Hon. Member has would have read the report and the allegations that were made. I as Minister asked the Office of the Comptroller General to investigate those allegations, and 1 as Minister asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to investigate accusations of criminal activity. The report that has been put forward does not, as the Hon. Member states, talk about gross negligence within the region.


B. Keith Penner: Serious mismanagement.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I have received the report. I will be working with the Office of the Comptroller General on those recommendations. Hopefully, by working together we will be able to rectify any and all financial problems that may be associated with the Department, and Indian bands and tribal councils in Manitoba.


Mr. de Corneille:: Your time has come.


DEPARTMENT'S SERVICE TO INDIAN PEOPLE
B. Keith Penner: The Minister knows that the phrase I used was "serious mismanagement". The Minister ought to know by now that both he and his Department are more part of the problem than they are the solution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: I wish to quote from Hansard what his predecessor stated in June, 1986, when he was talking about departmental mismanagement, "-it is a matter that obviously needs to be investigated in all regions of the country-"
September 22, 1987

I wish to know what the Minister plans to do in order to ensure that his Department, where it is still needed, begins to serve Indian people instead of always looking after itself?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read briefly from the report, "although the region satisfactorily complies with most parliamentary and government policies and requirements where it-" meaning the Department, "delivers services directly to Indians, it fails to fully comply with these policies and requirements where administrative responsibilities have been devolved to Indian bands, tribal councils or their representatives".
We are being criticized for transferring resources and funds to Indian Governments to allow them to administer those funds. The Hon. Member is suggesting that the Department should be more rigid, more paternalistic-


B. Keith Penner: You know better than that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -more demanding of Indian Governments. We will comply, but we will not stifle the ability of Indian people to govern themselves with the funds provided.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
Last week we learned in the House that CSIS negligence and failure to inform their political masters may well have led to the possible death of a visiting cabinet Minister.
Today we learned that the RCMP may have been negligent in failing to inform those who were responsible for the possible attack on Air-India which led to the deaths of 329 people.
Does the Minister agree that Paul Besso did alert the RCMP to the possibility, in general terms, of an attack on Air-India, several days before that attack? I am not talking here about the specific flight or date, but if the Minister accepts that, how can he possibly explain the failure of those responsible to ensure the safety of those 329 passengers?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, naturally I will attempt to answer the question. Again let me repeat what was stated by the Hon. Minister of Transport in June of 1985: "I should point out to the House that there was no indication that there was a specific threat to Flight 182".
I am aware of the story to which the Hon. Member refers.


Roland de Corneille: Resign!
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: I am aware of the statements he is alleged to have made. I have fully reinvestigated the matter-


John Edward Broadbent: Have you looked at the evidence? You haven't even looked at the evidence.


Roland de Corneille: Resign!


James Francis Kelleher: I have fully reinvestigated the matter this morning.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Thanks, Sherlock.


James Francis Kelleher: I have fully investigated the matter again this morning. I have fully discussed it with the Commissioner of the RCMP who has gone through the files again, and discussed it with his people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Sounds like a cover-up, Jim.


James Francis Kelleher: The statement that was made in June of 1985 was true then, and it's still true now notwithstanding the story that has appeared.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this Minister has to be the most appalling example of incompetence that this House has seen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member has strong views, but I know that the Hon. Member would wish to use a preamble to set the facts upon which he bases his question. The Hon. Member will put his question.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER EXAMINE DOCUMENTATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister a very straightforward question.
In view of the serious allegations by Paul Besso suggesting that he informed the RCMP several days ahead of time of the possibility, in general terms, of an attack on an Air-India flight, I wish to ask the Minister why has he not personally reviewed the documentation which Besso turned over to the RCMP? Why has the Minister not personally reviewed that documentation, listened to the wire-taps himself, and examined this very serious allegation? Why is the Minister failing to accept his responsibility, and in the process casting a shadow over the RCMP? Why will the Minister not act?


Mr. Jelinek:: Don't you trust the RCMP?


James Francis Kelleher: I don't think it should be the obligation of the Solicitor General to start involving himself personally in investigations and reading all of the evidence, because the first thing that I would then hear from the Hon. Member is of the political interference by the Solicitor General.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

September 22, 1987
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: The Hon. Member tries to have it both ways. He wants to be in a position to charge me either with political interference or not involving myself.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. KASD1 MERBAH
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 want to draw Hon. Members' attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Kasdi Merbah, Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and member of the Political Bureau of Algeria.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SPECIAL CANADIAN GRAINS PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true if there is a future pay-out to farmers under the Special Canadian Grains Program, the formula will be based upon actual production for eastern farmers and upon an area average production for western farmers? If so, why?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's continuing interest in the economic well-being of Canadian farmers. No doubt his question is prompted by the third meeting of series two which we held in Winnipeg on August 27. It was attended by about 50 farm leaders.
A suggestion was put forth by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture after a great deal of consultation with other farm groups. It met with overwhelming approval. I believe there were one or two dissenting associations. I told them that if it met the test of fairness and equity, we would give it very serious consideration. That is exactly the process we are going through at the moment.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
Yesterday the Minister certainly clarified the position of the Government with regard to the use of strike-breakers in the coming mail strike.
Now we know that Canada Post is allowed to advertise for strike-breakers and to train them, and that it is planning to use them to deliver mail during a strike, with the agreement of the Government, despite the dismal failure of the previous attempt to use strike-breakers which led to violence on the picket lines and an embitterment of the climate around the negotiating table.
Will the Minister not order Canada Post immediately to cease hiring strike-breakers-


Some Hon. Members:: Why?


Jacques Guilbault: Scabs, that is what they are. If the Minister will not ask Canada Post to stop hiring scabs and, rather, to negotiate honestly without confrontation, are Canada Post and the Government really serious about delivering the mail?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, again we have the Liberal Party giving contrary advice. The former Postmaster General, the Hon. Member for Papineau, says that what the Government should do is cut the umbilical cord, stop directing Canada Post in its operations, and let Canada Post operate.
That is what we are endeavouring to do in the circumstance. They must obey the law. The law provides that they can have strikes and that the employer can continue to operate if possible, within the law. Canada Post will obey the law.
If members of the Liberal Party are suggesting that there has been bad faith at the negotiating table with respect to Canada Post, let them provide me with that evidence and I will raise it with management, but there is no such evidence to imply that.
If members of the Liberal Party are suggesting that Canada Post should acquiesce to the union totally or shut down the Post Office in view of a strike, let them take that position publicly and defend it to the public that has to go without postal service.


Jacques Guilbault: If government Members feel content to follow suit with the management of Gainers by hiring strike-breakers and scabs, let them do it. Now we know that they want to do it.


REQUEST THAT CANADA POST BE ORDERED TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, in fact the Minister is acting as though he did not fullly grasp the implications, and that is what is likely to happen when scabs are hired. Yet the Minister did see that it led to violence the last time. The Minister knows the climate at the bargaining
September 22, 1987

table has grown worse. This is why I want to convey to the Minister the message of thousands of Canadians who feel that the Government is taking the wrong approach. What I want to tell the Minister is this: Wait a minute, you are taking chances! And I want to ask the Minister to direct Canada Post forthwith to negotiate in good faith, not under the sword of Damocles of scabs, but to negotiate in good faith, without confrontation so as to reach a negotiated settlement. It is the only way to ensure mail delivery.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that of course Canada Post should negotiate in good faith; so should CUPW. Both parties should be negotiating, trying to seek a solution to the dispute without resorting to a strike.
Nobody wants a strike. It is absurd to suggest that anybody wants a strike. It is also absurd to suggest that one should acquiesce in the face of violence. It is absurd to suggest that something went wrong with the system in terms of the previous LCUC negotiations, because a negotiated settlement resulted which was satisfactory to both sides. Those who engaged in violence are facing charges before the courts, and properly so.
I think we would be doing the public a favour if we counselled non-violence to everybody-obey the law-and in the meantime tried to reach a negotiated settlement without a strike.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Southam Press reports government officials as ready to change the Auto Pact, despite the Industry Minister telling Canadian auto workers and producers just a week and a half ago that the pact was not even on the table.
This looks to me like a desperate last minute effort to pull out a free trade deal which will save the Prime Minister's face-


Mr. Speaker:: I ask Hon. Members to be careful in their preambles to be setting the fact pattern for a question, not just making an announcement, no matter how interesting that announcement might be. The Hon. Member will put his question.


Steven W. Langdon: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your interest.
Why is the Prime Minister prepared to trade away this pact which has benefited so many workers across the country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is not at all the intention of the Government to
Oral Questions
trade away the Auto Pact. It was the Government of Canada which negotiated the Auto Pact itself-the federal Government, 22 years ago-and the NDP was quite strongly opposed to the Auto Pact at that time.
Had we followed the protectionist advice of the NDP and the United Auto Workers at that time, there would have been no Auto Pact which has brought such benefits to Canada and to Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The premise of the Hon. Member's question is quite false and totally misleading. I have already responded to the Leader of the Opposition with regard to automotive issues as raised at the First Ministers' Conference.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT IS WILLING TO DESTROY AUTO PACT
Steven W. Langdon: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Why is the Prime Minister willing to destroy the Auto Pact, which has created jobs in so many communities? Why is he willing to do so?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question was false in English and it is also false in French.


MARKETING OF POTASH-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION IN SASKATCHEWAN
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary.
In view of the legislation being enacted in the Province of Saskatchewan on control of potash marketing, has the federal Government given consideration to the constitutional and legal implications of this legislation, particularly in respect of trade?
If so, would the Parliamentary Secretary be willing to make a statement in the House?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that the federal Government supports Saskatchewan's right to act in the interests within its own jurisdiction. As we know in Canada, the Saskatchewan Government is responsible for the natural resources of the province.
The people of Saskatchewan are being hammered right now, not only on potash but on uranium and subsidized wheat. We share their outrage at the unwarranted attacks by the Americans on trade. Our Government will continue to support their fight in any way we can.

September 22, 1987
Oral Questions


AUTO PACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, i would like to raise a supplementary question with the Prime Minister on the matter of the present negotiations being conducted with the United States on the trade package.
It is clear the Government is backtracking on a number of previous commitments it made to protect Canadian interests. Statements were made in the past that the Auto Pact would not even be talked about but we know it is on the table today being negotiated.
Has the Prime Minister given clear instructions to our chief negotiator that, as the Americans bring this pact forward for negotiation, we will not in any way allow the safeguard provisions of the Auto Pact to be negotiated away considering that it is the primary provision which guarantees jobs for Canadian workers in the auto industry?


Right Hon. Brian IVlulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the statement in regard to backtracking is quite misleading. There has been no change whatever in the position of the Government of Canada from the very beginning. The principles that the Minister for International Trade and I have laid out on behalf of the Government of Canada have been consistently followed by Ambassador Simon Reisman and his very excellent and worthy group of officials who are, at this very moment, conducting very delicate and complex negotiations on behalf of the people of Canada. I know my hon. friend would want to do nothing that would undermine their efforts.


AUTO PACT SAFEGUARDS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in defence of those interests and in defence against the undermining that appears to be taking place, did the chief negotiator have clear instructions from the Government of Canada? As we are now negotiating the Auto Pact, which the Prime Minister said we would not do, is it clear that the Government will not negotiate away the safeguard provision which is the guarantee in the Auto Pact that jobs will be protected in Canada? Why doesn't the Prime Minister simply say that those safeguards will be safeguarded?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the statement is inaccurate and misleading. We are not now negotiating the Auto Pact.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is on the table today.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now the Member says it is on the table. The Member just said "We are now negotiating the Auto Pact".


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, today. Right now.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am-


Lloyd Axworthy: Right now.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry put a question, and while I know other Hon. Members would like to put questions as well, perhaps there could be a proper turn for them to ask their questions. In the meantime perhaps the Right Hon. Prime Minister can be given a chance to answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the statement of my hon. friend is inaccurate and completely misleading. This Government in the area of automotive products and the Auto Pact has defended consistently and, I think, well, the interests of Canada and the Province of Ontario in regard to the importance of that very critical trading instrument. It is indeed a model for other sectors of the growth economy.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is not free trade.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have indicated many times that the Americans are quite satisfied with the Auto Pact and very pleased with the way it has developed. If, however, they have some ideas that can contribute to jobs, greater wealth, greater prosperity for both sides, then, of course, we will listen. Surely my hon. friend would not want us to turn away an opportunity for greater jobs and prosperity. That matter has not yet been broached by the Americans at the table. If indeed it is, I will be happy to confirm it. But I can tell my hon. friend that the statement he made some moments ago is false and misleading, no doubt inadvertently.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that I am immensely relieved.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONSTITUTION
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and all the provincial Premiers have said that in drafting the Constitutional Accord they had no intention whatever of putting in question women's hard fought for, hard-won equality rights. Why then should there be any difficulty at all for First Ministers making explicit in the Accord what they say they intended?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, may I say respectfully to my hon. friend, who exemplifies the very best of the fight over the years for equality, that at all times that important concept has been protected and defended during the Meech Lake Accord discussions. My understanding is that the weight of the evidence fully supports that view.
September 22, 1987

I think my hon. friend can be fully satisfied, and 1 think my hon. friend has indicated her satisfaction in the past, with the value of this approach and the fact that it in no way erodes or diminishes those rights.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the First Ministers will not clarify in the Accord what they say they intended to put there on women's equality rights.


REQUEST FOR MEETING OF CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, representatives of national women's organizations have requested a meeting of their constitutional experts with the Government's constitutional advisers to discuss the potential effect of the Accord on women's equality rights.
Will the Prime Minister facilitate such a meeting between the constitutional experts in the national women's organizations and the Government's experts, and will he do so this week?


John Edward Broadbent: Say yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of meetings in this regard. As I say, the weight of the evidence clearly supports the view subscribed to by the majority in the Meech Lake Accord report.


Pauline Jewett: I am asking for a meeting.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is indicated here that the New Democratic Party members of the joint committee do not believe that the linguistic duality of the distinct society interpretation clause abrogates, supersedes or overrides-


Pauline Jewett: I am asking about a meeting.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -sexual equality rights or any other rights guaranteed by the Charter. I share that view.


Pauline Jewett: Why don't you answer the question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: In the process of completing the Constitutional Accord which brings Quebec in, it also allows us to have many meetings dealing with some fundamental issues. I will be happy to meet with my hon. friend or to follow up on any suggestion that is made at that time. But I think first things first. I think we must proceed with the Accord and take some important decisions in regard to the nationhood of Canada.


Pauline Jewett: You didn't listen to the question.


John Edward Broadbent: He didn't get the question.


PROTECTION OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when discussing the Meech Lake Accord the Prime Minister stated in the House with respect to rights provided in the Canadian Charter:
Oral Questions
-fundamental assurances can be given as to the protection of those rights
without any changes being made in the wording of the distinct society clause.
What fundamental assurance is the Prime Minister referring to? Assurances of politicians are not binding in a court so why won't the Prime Minister commit them to writing in the Accord itself for the judges and the courts to follow, to ensure that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians, including women, are not affected by the Meech Lake Accord?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That matter has been frequently and appropriately responded to by me and others in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member for Mount Royal on a short supplemental.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that is not the view of everyone in Canada and I will proceed to ask a supplementary question.
The Prime Minister knows that by including multicultural and aboriginal rights in Section 16 of the Meech Lake Accord he may be excluding or diminishing other rights. Why will the Prime Minister not clarify that the Accord does not take away rights granted to Canadians in the Charter? Why will he not include a brief statement that the Meech Lake Accord does not weaken the Charter of Rights? Why don't you answer the concerns of Canadians in that regard?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that the Meech Lake Accord does not reflect the views of everyone in Canada. I am aware of that.


Sheila Finestone: I asked about the Charter of Rights.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Perhaps my hon. friend should keep Party disputes off the floor of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Cheap shot.


B. Keith Penner: Tell us about Pat Nowlan.


An Hon. Member:: What are the assurances you were talking about yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members would want to extend the appropriate courtesies. I would ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to answer the question and ask Hon. Members to give the Prime Minister a chance to answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I say with respect that we do not accept in any way the legal opinion of my hon. friend. That opinion has not been accepted by the majority of members of the Meech Lake Accord report which is submitted here.

September 22, 1987
Oral Questions


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Who are they?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend, the Opposition House Leader, says: "Who are they?". They are right here, where it is signed under "those for" and signed under "those against", but the Liberals are listed under "abstentions".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Earlier today he said something deeply disturbing about his responsibility as a Minister. It concerns the allegation by Mr. Besso, who claims that he will submit to a lie detector test to support his claims that the RCMP had relevant information before the Air-India crash that we were discussing earlier, and that will support his claim that the RCMP has documentary evidence that he provided. He is willing to do this.
The Minister said earlier that for him to pursue it further would be to indulge in some kind of political interference. I have a copy of the Act. Section 5 of the Act, dealing with his responsibilities, states that: "The Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be known as the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and management of the Force in all matters connected therewith".
Considering that this holds the Minister responsible for the direction, presumably to be involved if there have been allegations of mismanagement, will the Minister exercise his responsibility to the House properly and investigate directly the serious allegations that have been made about the RCMP?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I will try once again to make myself quite clear to the Hon. Member. I did discharge my duties. I did pursue it further. I went to the Commissioner of the RCMP and asked him to reinvestigate the matter. He contacted the officers in charge. He has fully discussed it with them, both on the West Coast and here.
The Commissioner has discharged his duty to me and I to the Canadian people. I have looked into it fully. I guess the difference is that 1 have faith and trust in the integrity of the RCMP and the Hon. Member does not.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not understand the seriousness of the situation? He is asking the RCMP to be the judge in their own case, which is a violation of all serious administrative practice. Since the serious accusation has been made about RCMP incompetence
that could have led to the deaths of hundreds, does the Minister not agree that he should accept his responsibility as described in the Act and look at the evidence directly, and then make a judgment? If he does not, will he do the proper thing and resign his office right now?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate from any source that there was any specific threat against Flight 182. There were certainly allegations made that some harm might come to Air-India flights. Those were taken and considered and, as we have already stated, additional security was indeed supplied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police both at Mirabel and at Toronto.
Everything that should have been done was in fact done, and we again reinvestigated the matter this morning. The story stands. It was true then, and it is true now.


AIRPORTS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Transport but in his absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that next week Transport Canada, in an effort to crack down on the bungling of security at airports across the country, will be requiring cleaning personnel and everyone working in all airports to begin being fingerprinted.
At the same time he should be aware that there are reports from Edmonton International Airport that, as a result of the policies of the Government's customs intelligence division, customs officers have actually been planting drugs in the luggage of passengers who are embarking on international flights in order to check the olfactory sense of drug sniffing dogs, to see if they can actually sniff drugs. Does he not think it is a little ridiculous that, on the one hand, the cleaning staff will now be fingerprinted while, on the other, the Government is allowing the security intelligence service of Customs actually to plant drugs in the luggage of passengers who are embarking on international flights, thus placing those passengers in an untenable position?


Mr. Benjamin:: Sniff that one out.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Government is going to the dogs.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the very serious allegations that the Hon. Member has outlined. I am sure that the Hon. Minister of Transport will want to look into them.


Lloyd Axworthy: Speaking of dogs.
September 22, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On his behalf, I will take that question as a representation. I should point out that in May of 1986, the Department of Transport, under the authority of the Treasury Board, increased the funding for airport security by some $33.6 million, with additional resources. I believe that the security and surveillance system at our airports has one of the highest standards in the world. 1 know all Members will join me in supporting their efforts in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that at page 9150 of yesterday's Hansard I may have inadvertently left the impression that I accused some specific individual in this House of a deliberate attempt to deceive. I want to say categorically that it was not my intention. If people have been hurt by that, I apologize. If I ever come to the point where I think it is happening, I will be very specific about it. It was not my intention and I apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has risen on a point of order of his own volition, which may very well obviate the necessity of hearing another point. However, there is an Hon. Member who has given me notice of an application. The Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) on the same point.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the explanation of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). He spoke about an individual, but I would have liked him to mention the name of this individual because I was personally involved. I do not believe that his excuses were personal. They were very general. I would therefore like him to explain his point of order. Who exactly did he attack?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to limit any Hon. Member's right in this Chamber when it comes to a matter upon which the Hon. Member may feel grieved. I would invite the Hon. Member for Calgary West to rise, perhaps just for a moment, and be absolutely specific. I think that might end the matter.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) in mind. I had no specific Member of the House in mind. I did not put my remarks in that context and I am sorry offence was taken. I do apologize and I will try to be more careful with the way I string my thoughts together in future.
Privilege-Mr. Boudria


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is about as abject as we are likely to get in this Chamber.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to raise before the House and Your Honour an action which I believe to be in contempt of Parliament, thereby impeding this House in the performance of its function and affecting the privileges of all Members of Parliament. Let me say at the outset that if you deem I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to refer the subject matter to the appropriate parliamentary committee.
The issue I raise concerns what I believe to be a misuse of the word "parliamentary" by the Progressive Conservative Party or an agent of that organization in the offering of a service to be known as the Parliamentary News Service. I bring to your attention the communique released by one Ken Lawrence on behalf of the Parliamentary News Service which says:
We are the mechanism to get you and the Progressive Conservative MPs together.
It goes on to describe other ways in which Conservative Members of Parliament are to be communicated with by means of this so-called Parliamentary News Service.
Erskine May's Twentieth Edition, speaking to the issue of contempt of Parliament, at page 143 states:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.
Clearly we are talking about a situation which has never arisen before. 1 also want to bring to your attention the definition of privilege which is important to your adjudication of this case. It is described at page 11 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
I submit that an organization should not refer to goods or services as parliamentary, thereby leading the people of Canada to believe that a service originates from Parliament Hill when such is not the case. I cite some rulings for your information.
On May 6, 1985, the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) raised before this House what he said was a misuse of the words "Member of Parliament", by a former

September 22, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Boudria
MP. The Speaker said at that time, and I quote from page 4439 of Hansard:
It should go without saying that a Member of Parliament needs to perform his functions effectively and that anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member's identity creates the possibility of an impediment to the fulfilment of that Member's functions.
If it was true that anything that confused people as to a Member of Parliament's identity could be an offence, then by extension I say to you that anything that confuses the identity of what is parliamentary or Parliament itself would have to be adjudicated in a similar manner.
I also want to bring to your attention the case of Sperry & Hutchison, a firm that used Hansard for publicity in the past and was deemed to have been in contempt of this House. Therefore, if the use of a parliamentary document for something that was not parliamentary was deemed to be an offence, the word "parliamentary" I submit should be treated in the same matter.
In 1983 there occurred an incident where advertisements were placed in the Ottawa Citizen and two other newspapers by an individual named Harry Rosen which depicted Parliament Hill and a caption with the words:
Madam Speaker, I move we adjourn so we can all go to the opening of Harry's new store!
Counsel, on behalf of the Speaker, wrote to Mr. Rosen and the newspapers in question ordering them to cease and desist. I have a copy of that advertisement and it was designed in such a way as to confuse people into believing that parliamentarians had said or were purported to have said that they were doing something they were not in fact doing in Parliament.
I am not saying that all unauthorized usage of the word "parliamentary" is improper. That would be ludicrous and I am sure you would agree. However, in my view it is improper to attempt to mislead people into believing something belongs to Parliament when it does not. For that reason I think you should investigate the case I am bringing before you.

Mr. Speaker, on October 29, 1980, as shown on page 4214 of Hansard, the Speaker had this to say about contempt of Parliament:
I can assure all Hon. Members that the dimension of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privileges of Members, or of the House.
This is what Madam Speaker said on October 29, 1980. [English]
Perhaps Joseph Maingot, Q.C., in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada said it best when, on page 196, he stated:
Contempt is whatever House finds as contempt.
While we are dealing here with an issue which has not occurred before, I submit that it cannot be argued by anyone as not being contempt simply because the issue has not been brought to the attention of Parliament. Indeed, what I am
describing is the service of a satellite to broadcast propaganda on behalf of a political Party. That could be offensive in itself, but to do so under the name of this Parliament I believe is in contempt of this House.
I also believe there could be potential breaches of Acts of Parliament such as the Parliament Hill Act, the Trade Marks Act, and the PC Party may even be guilty of what lawyers call "passing off'; trying to make someone believe that a service is something other than what it really is.
In summary, I submit that the dignity of this institution is such that we have the authority to stop anyone and anything attempting to diminish the authority and dignity of the Parliament of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to put my case before the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has raised this important matter today. I suspect many of us have been in our constituencies over the weekend and have been approached by constituents asking about this new service emanating from Parliament Hill and whether it was a parliamentary service or whether it was what has been referred to at times as "Tory TV" or the "Tory Good News Network" or other such terms.
I think the issue at hand is very serious. As Members of Parliament, we are all too well aware that Parliament means certain things to Canadians. The institution, which includes the House of Commons and the Senate, is clearly understood by Canadians. Parliamentary traditions, institutions, practices and procedures are well known to Canadians to a greater or lesser degree. Parliament is symbolized as a place where different views from across Canada come together and are debated and where decisions are ultimately made.
The dictionary describes Parliament simplistically as an assembly which makes a country's laws. This is the assembly, the House of Commons and, unfortunately, the Senate. I say "unfortunately" because I do not know if that is the appropriate continuance.
The people of Canada have come to respect what they refer to as Parliament. Parliament has become a very important symbol for free people everywhere.
I hate to mention this to you, Mr. Speaker, but it relates to whether or not a question of privilege exists. On the weekend people reminded me that there are official news agencies in countries around the world through which the official news is related. I do not need to cite the specific names of these news agencies as we are all well aware of them. Last week it was announced that there would now be an "official view" of the news, which would be the Government's view, not Parliament's or the Opposition's, but the Government's view of the news.
September 22, 1987

I do not think this will fool Canadians. They realize that this is much more than a press release. All Members of Parliament give press releases to the media with which it does as it wishes. The media may take excerpts from them, ignore them, or use them later in editorial comment or whatever. We do not expect the media to publish our news releases verbatim as though they are the news. Yet, that is what the Parliamentary News Service is attempting to do.
This is a matter of extreme importance. If we really believe that the word "parliament" refers to the place where free and open debate takes place and decisions are ultimately made on legislation, it is very important to bring to a close quickly the matter of a Parliamentary News Agency as a reflection of the views of Parliament when it is in fact the propaganda vehicle of a political party on Parliament Hill. That is very clear.
I believe that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) has raised a most important point with regard to the integrity of Parliament. If we believe, as we say we do, that Parliament is the ultimate forum where the points of view of Canadians are debated, then it must be free of any impression that it is the voice of any single political party or single ideological view which then becomes the true news. Such is not the case. I believe that my hon. friend has brought to the floor a very important point. I look forward to a number of other interjections on this important matter.
I have spoken with a number of constituents on this matter and know that ordinary Canadians are concerned that the news will be manipulated. This adds to a cynical view which, unfortunately, growing numbers of Canadians have of the Government of Canada. I do not want them to have that view of the institution of Parliament because I believe that people distinguish clearly between the political parties in Parliament and the institution of Parliament. We must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that Parliament continues to mean what it always has, a forum of free and open debate in a democratic society.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to continue to publicize the efforts of Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament to bring the Liberal Party, kicking and screaming, into the electronic age. If we have time, we might get to the NDP too.
The Hon. Member who raised the question of privilege is claiming that he is prevented from discharging his duties.


Don Boudria: Not necessarily.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I submit that that is what a question of privilege is.


Don Boudria: You don't know your rules if that is what you think.
Privilege-Mr. Boudria


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There is the odd rule I have missed, I admit, but there is the odd thing the Hon. Member has missed as well and I will get to that in a minute.
We have no difficulty with the New Democratic Party using the word "communique" in its generic sense, even though the Hon. Member who wrote this particular communique imparts a lot of information and makes a lot of comments that are clearly not true. We have not raised a question of privilege on that.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nun-ziata) uses the words "communique" and uses the print media as a form of communication. We understand that and have never complained about the Opposition using the print media to further its cause. That is part of the game, whether done individually or as a political party. When we do that we do not breach the privileges of the Hon. Member.
The Hon. Member's biggest complaint is with the use of the word "parliamentary". Let us review the word "parliamentary". Are we going to stop Mr. Pierre G. Norman-din who publishes the Canadian Parliamentary Guide? I apologize for using an exhibit, Mr. Speaker, but I took these exhibits right from the Table. On the table is the Canadian Parliamentary Guide. Does it breach the Hon. Member's privilege because it uses the word "parliamentary"? Carswell publishes Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Is that an abuse of the word "parliamentary" and of the Member's privileges?
Let me go on to London's Butterworths printers which publishes A Parliamentary Dictionary. I wonder whether tomorrow, in an effort to delay debate, there will be a question of privilege because Butterworths is using the word "parliamentary". The next example is really bad because it uses the word "Canadian" too, that is, the Canadian Parliamentary Handbook. This is clearly an abuse perhaps even worthy of shutting down the House. This is published by Borealis Press, Ottawa, Canada. Where is the abuse of the Member's privileges in that?
I go now right to the foundation of parliamentary practice, Erskine May abusing the Hon. Member's parliamentary privilege by using the word "parliamentary". This Member's privileges have been so badly abused through the use of the word "parliamentary" that it is a wonder he can even walk let alone function as a Member of Parliament.
I invite the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to join us in the twenty-first century where we use electronics- the radio, electronic mail and computers, rather than only paperwork. I do not knock paperwork, but the radio has been around for awhile and television even came in the other day. When is the Hon. Member going to avail himself of the tools of communications? I am sorry to see that the New Democratic Party uses the word "new" in their official party name. I know we have described them as Luddites from time to time, but this is awful.

September 22, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Boudria


Don Boudria: You use the word "progressive" in your name.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: They also join in this argument that the Member's privileges have been breached.
Is the Hon. Member saying that he never uses television or radio in order to espouse his causes? We have no difficulty with the Parliamentary News Service, just as we would have no difficulty if the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party ever had the expertise, the gumption, or even the story to tell in order to raise their own parliamentary news service.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I just want to participate in this because I have never heard such unadulterated horse feathers in all my life. First, the Parliamentary Secretary rose and accused us of using "New" Democratic Party-


An Hon. Member:: The Minister.


John R. Rodriguez: Pardon me, the Minister. I would not want to violate his privilege. In the same fashion, how can those Members opposite call themselves "Progressive" Conservatives? It is a contradiction in terms.
Let us make a distinction between that and what the Minister says when he tells us we have Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. One could hardly accuse Beau-chesne of propagating Tory propaganda. I understand the problem with which that Party is faced. It has bungled miserably, and members of the press, who observe impartially in this House, are reporting exactly what they see and hear.
The Conservative Party wants to circumvent this truth that emanates from Parliament Hill, reported by an impartial press. What it wants to do, of course, is to put out its own propaganda, its own "parliamentary" news. That is a clear violation because it is not parliamentary in the sense that people in Canada understand the term "parliamentary". It is simply Conservative propaganda, telling one side of the issue, not accessible to members of either opposition Party in this House or to the independent Member. At the very least, it is false advertising to call it the parliamentary news. It is simply Tory propaganda to circumvent what has been reported about the bungling of the Government on issue after issue.
I think the Hon. Member raised a very good point in terms of privilege with respect to the use of the word "parliamentary". I hardly think that when Beauchesne writes in impartial terms about parliamentary rules, the conduct and behaviour of Members of the House and what constitutes privilege, one can actually say he is abusing the privilege of any Member of this House. In fact, it is an erudite study of the way in which the rules of any Parliament should be conducted.
What the Tories are doing has nothing to do with Erskine May, Beauchesne, or with any of the educated parliamentary tomes written by people who are knowledgeable. What the Tories are simply doing is misleading the Canadian public by
putting out their garbage called "Parliamentary News Service" which it is not, but it is certainly a violation of the privileges of Hon. Members, I would argue.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I very seldom rise to participate in procedural debate, but I would like very briefly to make procedural points, strictly unpolitical points.
The Minister of State referred his arguments to the Parliamentary Guide , Beauchesne and so on. I make the very simple argument with respect to the Parliamentary Guide that the word "Parliamentary" refers equally to all of us. It mentions all Members of Parliament, be they in the House of Commons or the Senate. We are all treated equally, which is the point the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) was trying to make. However, we do not all have equal access to the new parliamentary service. I think the use of the word "parliamentary" is what really bothers us.
Second, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms refers to all of us with respect to how we conduct ourselves in this place. Therefore, I do not think a very strong argument has been made by the Minister of State. The parliamentary dictionary refers to all of us, to parliamentary terms and references and so on. It does not refer to one particular political Party, be it my Party or the other two Parties. It is the same with the Canadian Parliamentary Handbook, and Erskine May as well.
I make the argument that what the Minister is referring to is the use of the word "parliamentary" in books and references which refer to all of us equally. The central argument in terms of procedure is whether or not the use of the word "parliamentary" is proper in terms of how it infringes upon our privileges to represent our people.
I say to you very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that the word "parliamentary" will lead people to a certain perception that this service is available to all of us because it is a parliamentary news service. That service is not available to me. It is available to the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) but not available to me as the Member for Yorkton-Melville. I would suggest that you take a very serious look at this issue, Mr. Speaker, because I think in a way it misleads the people of Canada.
The last point I want to make is that in some ways it is almost like a copyright or patent. The word "parliamentary"- I do not want to use the word "sacred"-is a very important word to describe the activities of all of us who are elected here as equals. When one political Party, be it my Party or any other, starts to use that word in terms of getting out its own message, I think it infringes upon the rights of all of us, regardless of which Party we come from, in a similar way that a copyright or patent might do. It is the word "parliamentary" in the name that really concerns me.
I would not object to this news service in the procedural sense if it were called the "The Government Members' News
September 22, 1987

Service", "The Conservative Government News Service", or the "P.C. Government News Service". That is a different thing because its title conveys very clearly that it is a news service of one particular political Party.
I know that the wise Member sitting in the back, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), certainly agrees with me because he is giving me his very wise and shrewd look. I am sure that if he were not a Member of the Ministry, he would rise in the House and make the very same arguments I make today. I know he supports me. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look very seriously at the arguments we have made.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up what the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) just said. He referred to the fact that "parliamentary" refers to all of us. I think it may be a significant point, especially when 1 look at the communique of the New Democratic Party which has its logo appropriately at the top of the page and the words: "The New Democrats". At the bottom it has the logo of the House of Commons.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: No.


Benno Friesen: 1 suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that while the bottom of the page may refer to all of us, the top of the page certainly does not, especially when the news release indicates that: "Mr. Broadbent will address delegates of the Nova Scotia NDP convention in Halifax". That is something that is not of great interest to all of us.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It should be.


Benno Friesen: He purports, by using the House of Commons logo, to make it something of general interest to all of the House of Commons. I assume he avoided the word "parliamentary" because that Party has rejected the other place, otherwise they would have incorporated both.
I then refer to a news release communique put out by "John Nunziata, official Opposition critic for the Solicitor General", appropriately in red. It has the House of Commons logo on it, plus the words "House of Commons". I would suggest that this is not something of terribly great interest to the entire House or to the entire general public, but it does give the impression when the Hon. Member uses the House of Commons logo, that it has the imprimatur of the entire House of Commons. It seems to me that there is a blatant misuse of what is probably House of Commons stationery, but what is certainly the logo and the rights of all Members, when those Members try to give the impression that this is a House of Commons matter when what the New Democratic Party put out was propaganda about the tour its Leader was putting on in Nova Scotia.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the bogus issue the Hon. Member raised ought to be dispensed with as quickly as possible.
Privilege-Mr. Boudria


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has raised a very important topic this afternoon in his question of privilege. I think we all understand the battle the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has had with the CBC and the media generally. We may even sympathize with him. However, we do not agree that he should be using the name "Parliamentary News Service" to overcome those difficulties.
It seems to me that the name "Parliamentary New Service" sounds a lot like the CBC News Service. So when a listener in some remote part of the country is listening to a report which is called "Parliamentary News Service", he would not realize that this is part of the Government's propaganda machine. The fact that government Members opposite are guffawing at the prospect of the CBC News Service being confused with the Parliamentary News Service, which they are trying to put forward, shows exactly the problem.
It seems to me that a person watching the Parliamentary News Service will see Ken Lawrence, who is a regular member of the Press Gallery who has been running programs from a TV news service which he operates or for which he has worked, suddenly presenting favourable stories on the Government. However, there is a conflict there in that he is not a regular member of the Press Gallery in the normal sense of the word. He is a person working for the PC Party and promoting its position. It seems to me that it is easy for people to be confused since everyone is not closely watching these things the way that Members of the House watch them.
I think the Hon. Member's question of privilege bears close study by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. I hope that Your Honour will find that there is a prima facie case of privilege so that this matter can be referred to the committee where it can be fully aired.
When the committees of the House were set up at the start of this session of Parliament there was small representation on most of those committees by members of the Official Opposition and members of the New Democratic Party. Those committees were usually composed of between 12 and 15 members. We fought very hard to ensure that there had to be at least one member from the Opposition at those committee hearings. If that were not the case, then a committee composed of only government Members would travel across the country or hold public hearings here in Ottawa portraying itself as a committee of the House of Commons when in fact the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons, includes both government Members and opposition Members.
There is the same type of conflict in the use of the name "Parliamentary News Service". It seems to me that if Your Honour rules that there is a question of privilege here with respect to the word "Parliamentary" then it should not be used and the Government should go back to calling this service the "PCP News Service", "Information Tory", "Prop Can", or

September 22, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Boudria
whatever. It seems to me that there is still the question of regular members of the Press Gallery being there and working as supposed impartial journalists while being paid by one political Party and portraying their news reports as balanced news reports.
I hope that the Chair will look closely at this matter. It is a serious one, one that needs to be ventilated and examined at this time. This is a service which has been put forward as a service to embellish or help the Government's position while taking advantage of the word "Parliamentary" which would suggest that it is impartial and represents both sides of the House, not just the government side.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to what has been said. If I may, I would like to make a few extemporaneous comments. I believe that-

I believe that the matter under consideration is very important. We would probably like to reflect much longer on this issue. If Members of Parliament would like to reflect more on the issue then I am sure that Your Honour may very much welcome the suggestion to take this matter under serious consideration and reserve your decision.
In listening to all the points of view expressed today I find there could be some implication with respect to the Election Expenses Act, as has been suggested in many newspapers. However, I do not think that we should prolong unduly this debate today. Your Honour may like to take this matter under consideration to return at another time to the House with what is your customary Solomon-like decision.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave any false impressions. I will take a minute or two of the time of the House to reiterate again that all use of the word "parliamentary" is improper. In reviewing my notes I see that earlier in the debate-and I invite the Speaker to verify this at the appropriate time-I was not saying that all unauthorized use of the word "parliamentary" is improper but, indeed, that it is improper when such words are used in an attempt to mislead the people of Canada into believing that something is parliamentary or belonging to this institution when such is not the case. There is a significant difference between that and a person publishing a parliamentary guide or another tome or volume designed to assist Members of Parliament or anyone else to understand how this place functions.
I also said very clearly in my remarks that not only was this question of privilege not specific with respect to my own privileges as a Member of this House but that it is within our collective privileges as parliamentarians, as well as the privileges of this institution, to operate not only without
personal instruction to myself but that the House should be unhindered in the way that it functions. I also said very clearly that I believe that the actions taken were in contempt of Parliament. I have reflected upon that and I still believe that such is the case.
I have indicated to Your Honour, with the citation of appropriate decisions of the Speaker in the past, actions which I believe are similar or by extension should be applicable in this particular case to determine that in fact this action by Ken Lawrence Enterprises working for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is improper and should not be allowed to continue.
Again, I would ask that Your Honour take the matter under advisement and give it your usual full consideration with a view to referring it to the appropriate committee. Again, I will move the appropriate motion at the time that Your Honour makes his decision on what I believe is a very important case, a case without precedent. After all, we are dealing with something that did not exist a number of years ago but which is nevertheless a very fundamental issue in terms of how Parliament will be able to function in the future without being impeded by anyone or anything.
I repeat what I said earlier. I believe it is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold the dignity and the authority of this great institution. I am sure Your Honour will consider that point when you render your decision.


Mr. Speaker:: First, I want to assure the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) that the Chair is as aware as is he that this is a novel question for the Chair to have to consider. However, the fact that it has not come before us before takes nothing away from the issue and the necessity to make a decision on it.
I want to thank all Hon. Members for their contributions to the debate on this issue. I will, as I often do, take the very wise advice of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who can teach us a great deal about procedure in this place. I think that he has given the Chair very wise counsel. I will take the matter away and think long and hard about it. 1 thank the Hon. Member.
It will probably be at least a few days before the Chair returns on this matter. Again, I take the matter as something which is, as I have said, new, but that does not lessen the importance of the interventions that remain. I listened to them very carefully. I will, of course, review Hansard. I hope that I will be able to come back with a report to the House which is appropriate under all the circumstances. Again, I thank all Hon. Members.
September 22, 1987



Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise a question of privilege. It is a rather different type of question of privilege which relates to the translation services required by Members of Parliament.
At the outset, I wish to note that Beauchesne's Fifth Edition elucidates the matter of privilege to which I wish to relate my comments on the services that we require.
Citation 16 states:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
It further states:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members;
In Citation 75 it states:
Many of the privileges of the House extend also to its committees ... Committee reports and the verbatim transcripts of committee hearings are documents published under the authority of the House and are entitled to the same absolute privilege as House documents.
Noting these particular citations from Beauchesne, I wish to consider several instances that have arisen in the last months, one during the past 10 days, in which the translation services of the House of Commons and of the committees of the House have been hard pressed to fulfil their obligations, and to enable Members of Parliament to complete their work and carry out their duties.
For some time there has been concern about this issue on the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. As a member of that commmittee, I have been concerned about this issue. Last spring when the Standing Committee on Multicul-turalism was hard at work on a report for which various drafts had to be considered, the provision of translation of documents into the other official language was not always available. Quite definitely that impeded the work of the committee.
During the last 10 days, as the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord was endeavouring to conclude its work and make the results available to the public in a report published in both official languages, difficulties arose in completing the work. The committee was forced to delay for one week the tabling of the report in the House.
In the course of those delays, there were reflections made upon the quality of the work. Without wishing to endorse those particular observations, which came from a member in the other place who is a very keen phraser and definer of terms, and who is very concerned about the quality of the work, let
Privilege-Mr. Ernie Epp
me say that It is quality of the work that is an essential aspect of this matter of translation services.
In the past, the question of translation services has been raised. In 1968 a Member raised the inadequacy of translation services as a question of privilege. I note in all candour that Speaker Lamoureux did not find it a prima facie case of privilege.
I would appreciate your consideration of this, Mr. Speaker, in your understanding and appreciation of the importance of these services. To of us who are still too close to being unilingual in English and perhaps have a greater appreciation of the importance of the Translation Bureau there is objective evidence for concern in this matter.
The Translation Bureau was created in 1934. It experienced a budget freeze during its fiftieth anniversary year in 1984. At that time there were 1,150 translators at work in the bureau. In the three years that followed there has been a decline of 150 translators who are available. That is a decline of over one-eighth in the number of persons available. In January, 1986, no fewer than 82 translators were declared surplus to the operations of the Translation Bureau.
I would submit that at that time difficulties were beginning to appear. The present difficulties, which are the basis for my question of privilege, are the end result of a decade-long process of reduction of staff and contracting out of translation work that has been going on since 1978.
Demand for translation services has markedly increased from some 254 million words annually to 320 million words. On the other hand, by 1987 the staff has declined from some 2,000 person years to 1,450 person years. That is a decline of more than one-quarter. At the same time, the volume of work contracted out has doubled to 60 million words. In comparing 60 million to 320 million words in total there is recognition of the fact that approximately one-fifth of the quantity has been contracted out. The result is that there are now some 278 contractors to whom the Translation Bureau looks for assistance.
Unfortunately, the result has been a decline in quality. Quality has been sacrificed to quantity in the enormous amount of work to be done. There is less checking of the work of the translators, which creates the possibility that our work may be immediately impeded. We will not understand the proceedings in committee and we will waste time in our deliberations. Our own words going forth may be misunderstood in one part of the country because they have been improperly translated.
The work-load that has fallen on the shoulders of the translators who remain has had a serious effect on morale. There is a resentment about the fact that their work is professional work and it has not been appreciated.
Although this is less germane to the question of privilege, the costs have been rising. In the capital area the costs of contracting out have been increasing substantially, particularly

September 22, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Ernie Epp
during the past summer when the Elouse was sitting in August and committees were at work. Even during the spring, the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for this area conceded that the costs of contracting out were beginning to exceed the cost of work done in house. That strikes me as a most serious situation. Inefficiency is created or resulting from a situation which costs us more than it would to do this work properly within the Translation Bureau.
This is an important matter of national culture. I wish to conclude by pointing out that this country has been practising institutional bilingualism for almost 20 years. It requires the provision of high quality translation, interpretation and terminology services by the federal Government. Any breakdown in such arrangements, as the basis for our institutional bilingualism, 19 years after the Official Languages Act was passed, and following the previous ruling by Speaker Lamou-reux in 1968, I would submit, can be regarded as a question of privilege.
1 would appreciate your careful consideration of the question, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to move the necessary motion if, in your insight and wisdom, you find this to be a genuine question of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to participate very briefly in this debate. Unlike the Lion. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) I did not have time to get prepared to debate the matter at length. What I do know and what all Members of the Elouse know is that it is an important question. But there are also very special considerations that must be kept in mind when discussing translation versus interpretation, and in this case I do not think the Hon. Member is referring to the quality of interpretation in the House. I think it is a facility of which we are very proud and which all Members view as an outstanding service.
Of course the matter of translation has always come under the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) who, through his department, is responsible for providing translation services for the House of Commons. This service is not provided by the Chair, but by a Government department, namely the Secretary of State. To the extent that I can appreciate it, service has long been of exceptional quality and, to me anyway, a source of inspiration in terms of the translation of the remarks made by Hon. Members in this House.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, we went through exceptional times this summer. The House was recalled on August 11. The Committee on the Constitution held hearings and, like the Hon. Member, I agree that there were some delays related to translation.
The point which should be made is that as a client of the Department of the Secretary of State, whose services the
House of Commons has purchased over the years, we have had some difficulties in terms of the two main problems to which the Hon. Member alluded. Of course, one problem is the cutbacks in the public servants who are usually attached to the translation service. There have been some serious cut-backs, which have reduced the translation capacity, although at times, I must admit, I have many good words for the high quality which has been maintained in many circumstances.
There is also the fact that much of the work is now being contracted out by the Secretary of State Department according to a policy which the Government has espoused over the three years that it has been in power. It believes that a lot of contracting out saves money and is a way of cutting expenditures. I do not believe that. I do not believe that it maintains quality. I do not believe that it does anything for the services which are essential to the operation of the House.
Therefore, the contracting out and cut-backs in public servants have had a direct effect upon the work-load of translators who are sometimes expected to produce much more than the usual 1,100 to 1,500 words per day. Anyone can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that is very difficult in the field of policy, politics, or the very technical language sometimes used in the House.
1 commend the Hon. Member for raising this point with the House. I cannot say that it is a question of privilege, but it is very important to say to the Government of the day that indeed it should recognize the importance of Parliament and the importance of the services rendered to Parliament.
We should not cut back or reduce those services on the basis of some false economic theory which says that we should not give to public servants the amount of work which would normally be acquired but that we should contract it out because it cannot be done in-house. That is wrong.
I also think that cutting back on public servants whose work-load is increasing day in and day out is wrong. It is wrong for the Government to maintain those two policies-one of cutting back on public servants and the other of cutting back on the amount of work being done.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are not surprised to see me rise to take part in this debate. On several occasions in the past I raised this issue from a constructive perspective.

Every time we talk about bilingual services or bilingualism, I know that an aura of nervousness hovers over the House. I have always tried over the years to be very cool about the matter. This is why I often raised the question with you, Mr. Speaker, and with previous Speakers as gently and as fairly as I could in private. Very rarely did I participate in a debate of this kind in the House, but I did so eventually in public because we needed action.
September 22, 1987

I know that Your Elonour is very sensitive to this question. I have had the honour of discussing it with you often. I have always said to many of my colleagues: "Try to put yourself in our shoes".
For instance, in my office all my staff is totally bilingual. This represents a major difficulty in recruitment for the same salary for the same services.
I say that in English, but I will repeat it in French. I have the same version for those who say that I would not dare to repeat it in French.
I insist upon serving my electorate in both languages, which is their right from a federal Member. A large portion of my electorate expects me to communicate with them in English. Your Honour understands the immense difficulty which this represents.
As soon as I came to the Hill-and it has been the story of my life for 23 years-I was very happy to chair most of my committees, by choice, in English. I chose to do that. It is my privilege.
I would say in French that it was my privilege, that it was my choice, and that it was my wish.
I learned English at no expense to the country. When I make a mistake, there is always a fine gentleman or lady to remind me of how to say it in English. I learned it. It did not cost Canadian taxpayers a penny.
However, as I said, I did it by choice. If I were obliged to chair a meeting or to work in English, I imagine that there would be quite a fight. Because the choice is there for me, I take it.
I may look very gentle and calm, but I must say that I am getting very impatient. There will have to be effort and understanding, at least within the boundaries of the Hill.
What made me rise today is that I know Your Honour is very sensitive to the issue and that you are doing something about it privately at the moment. I know that, and it is good for the public to know that you have had many representations, Mr. Speaker.
I should not look for supplementary work, but I am willing to accept a mandate some day from Your Honour to chair again a committee which I had the privilege to chair-the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services-and to look in private at what are the frustrations of various Members in various committees concerning bilingualism. I say willingly that I would accept such a mandate so that we will not have this kind of discussion too often in the House of Commons.

1 simply wanted to say that I took a few notes while my colleagues were speaking, including my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It is not easy to manage in a bilingual country, but when we consider all the attendant
Privilege-Mr. Ernie Epp
benefits it is not so much a question of the huge outlay involved to enable Members, if they are unilingual francophones-most Members of the majority realize that many of their new colleagues who first came here after the 1984 election-and this was a rather new phenomenon-were unilingual francophones, because indeed there are unilingual francophones.

As I was saying in French, there is a phenomenon in Canada which may not be understood. There are millions of people who function intelligently in French, who are totally unilingual, and who are equally good Canadians as the millions of people who function exclusively in English. However, one must understand-and my colleagues and Your Honour understand it-that there is no doubt that these people are frustrated.
I may be more patient because I have been around here for some time. If I compare my twenty-fourth year with my first year, I have to be honest and say that many changes have taken place. Therefore, because of that, I am more patient. However, my colleagues who have just arrived here, and rightly so, do not understand why I am so patient. It is because I know the differences between 24 years ago and now. This is no excuse for not having the necessary service. It is tough enough to function in one language and to be an expert in almost every domain instantly. This leads one to see how tough it is to do it in both languages. I do not complain. I just want to make sure that Members who have these kinds of frustrations will have the services.
I repeat again, Mr. Speaker, that when we talk about this question of translation, interpretation, French and English- and I would like the Hon. Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey) to be very serious because it is a serious matter-it is too easy to explode on these questions and it is not in the best interests of Canada nor in the best interests of the relationship between French and English-speaking Canadians. That is why 1 have always had this approach.
I can be much more flamboyant denouncing a system which does not work as well as we would like, but if I did that I know I would not be producing anything. I am offering my help, but if it does not help you, Mr. Speaker, you could ask others who might be able to do so. I want, however, for people to take the matter seriously within the confines of this Parliament, especially the various Ministers who are responsible, namely, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski), because I know the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is very sensitive to questions of reconciliation and understanding. If it is true- and I know it is true-action will have to be taken.
I will conclude by saying that I am getting rather fed up at having to stand up in my country having to talk about such a subject. Those who are unilingual English-speaking take it for granted, but I have to get up time and time again to repeat the

September 22, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
same thing time and time again. I would prefer to devote that time to other matters which are much more important, such as foreign affairs, Quebec or British Columbia difficulties, rather than having to use half of my time defending this position while my colleagues, who happily function only in English, can focus their attention on other subjects because this problem is not their major preoccupation. I do not mind that, but I hope they will understand that for some of us it is a loss of energy having to participate and make representation.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that I had better sit down because I am getting impatient, but I know these things are in your good hands. I know you will react to this and later on we will not have to come back to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe this is an important subject, and therefore I am very grateful to Hon. Members for their contribution, among others the hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and more particularly the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). This is not a new issue but it is very important and, as the hon. Member for Saint-Denis pointed out, it has been raised before in the House. It also happens to be a very serious problem for the Chair, and I consider it is very important that all Members of the House enjoy similar privileges. It is clear that because of the delay-as raised in the question of privilege of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay Nipigon-the privileges are not similar, it is not the same thing.
So the matter is serious and unpleasant, and I can appreciate the concern and preoccupation of francophone Members.
All documents and complete files are immediately available to Hon. Members who speak only English, but the situation is not the same in the case of francophone Members.
I thank my colleagues for their comments. I think this is a very important issue and I will defer my ruling to make an exhaustive study of the problem.
Again I thank the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon for raising the issue because, as I have said, it is a very important matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 25 (Mr. Jourdenais, p. 9180), Motion No. 31 (Mr. Heap, p. 9180) (as amended),
Motion No. 32 (Mr. Heap, p. 9180) and Motion No. 33 (Mr. Heap, p. 9180).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has debated Motions Nos. 25, 31, 32 and 33 which had been grouped for debate, but they will be voted on separately.
The first question is on Motion No. 25 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais). 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 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the recorded division stand deferred.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 31 as amended standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the recorded division stand deferred.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 32 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
September 22, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the recorded division stand deferred?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 33 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the recorded division on the motion stand deferred?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 35
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 15 to 26 at
page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) the disposition under this Act of claims to be Convention refugees made by other persons who alleged fear of persecution in that country, is of the opinion that there is any credible evidence on which the refugee Division might determine the claimant to be a Convention Refugee, the adjudicator or member shall determine that the claimant has a credible basis for the claim."
He said: Mr. Speaker, regarding this motion, if it is in order and if there is unanimous consent, I would like to propose a deferral of consideration.
I find that, in the haste of preparing this motion, there were some details of the wording which perhaps would be better done in a different way. If I could have some time to consult about this, I would like to seek the consent of the House to
Immigration Act, 1976
make certain very small but possibly necessary changes to the wording of this motion. Therefore, if it is appropriate, I move:
That this motion be deferred to the call of the Chair.
Is that the appropriate phrase and procedure, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In order for the Hon. Member to be able to take the motion up later, he needs the unanimous consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 37 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and Motions Nos. 53, 57 and 70, standing in the name of the Minister sponsoring the Bill, will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 37
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 16 the following:
"(8) Where a person claims to be a Convention Refugee and is denied access to the procedures outlined in Sections 45 to 48 and 70 and 71 pursuant to Section 48.1, the Minister shall notify the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of this fact; and
(9) a person to whom subsection 48.01. (1) applies shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to contact the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 53
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 17
(a)	by striking out line 18 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor: "55.(1) Notwithstanding subsections 54(2)"
(b)	by striking out line 3 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor: "public in Canada.
(2) Notwithstanding subsections 54(2) and (3), no person who has been determined not to be eligible to have a claim to be a Convention refugee determined by the Refugee Division on the basis that the person is a person described in paragraph 48.01 (l)(b) shall be removed from Canada to any country other than the country from which the person came to Canada as determined for the purposes of that paragraph unless
(a)	the person is determined not to have a credible basis for the claim on a hearing under section 48.03; or
(b)	the person, following a reference of the claim to the Refugee Division pursuant to subsection 48.03(5), is finally determined under this Act not to be a Convention refugee."
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 18
(a) by striking out line 35 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor: "any representative or agent of the United Nations"

September 22, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
(b)	by adding immediately after line 16 at page 35 the following therefor:
"(12) If the Refugee Division determines that a claimant is not a Convention refugee and does not have a credible basis for the claim to be a Convention refugee, the Refugee Division shall so indicate in its decision on the claim."
(c)	by striking out lines 36 to 39 at page 39 and substituting the following
therefor:
"40( 1) has been issued, or".
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line
38 at page 43 the following:
"(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), no appeal lies to the Federal Court of Appeal from a decision of the Refugee Division under section 71.1 on a claim, if the Refugee Division, pursuant to subsection 71.1(12), has indicated in the decision that the claimant has no credible basis for the claim."


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have proposed Motion No. 37 in order to take account of an aspect of the Bill which I believe does not fully meet the goals and standards of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. The general situation is that in Canada, as in other countries, there can be a conflict between a duty to protect the country from the entry of a person who should not be admitted and the duty under the Convention which we have signed to recognize a refugee or, more particularly, give a refugee claimant a chance to state his claim.
It is possible that a person can be both inadmissible under the sections with which we are concerned here and also be a refugee.
Some may take the view that it does not make any difference and we should not bother finding out if the person is a refugee if we are not going to admit him. That is not the view of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who believes that it is necessary, as a principle, that the matter be pursued and that a person who claims to be a refugee should be examined and a determination made whether he or she is a refugee.
However, it has been decided in Bill C-55, as in Bill C-84, that we will not do it this way. When a person is determined to fall into those inadmissible classes, that person is excluded from the refugee status process. Section 48.01(1) states that a person is not eligible to have the claim determined by the refugee division if he falls within the criteria under paragraphs 48.1(1 )(a),(b),(c),(d),(e) and (f). Paragraph 48.01 (1 )(e) states:
the claimant is
(i) a person described in paragraph 19( 1 )(e),(f)(g) or (j).
Which are the criminal types, and:
27(1 )(c) or (2)(c),-
Which is close enough for our purposes to be treated in exactly the same way.
I am asking that we add the simple rider that at least we will get in touch with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees with respect to a person who might be a refugee.
Therefore, I have suggested a Subsection (8) which states:
Where a person claims to be a Convention Refugee and is denied access to
the procedures outlined in Sections 45 to 48 and Sections 70 and 71 pursuant
to Section 48.1 the Minister shall notify the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees of this fact;-
This could either involve a phone call to someone in Ottawa or a letter to someone in Geneva.
My motion No. 37 would also add:
(9) a person to whom subsection 48.01. (1) applies shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to contact the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
There may be another country that does not view the situation the same way as Canada and by whose standards that person would not be inadmissible. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is in the business of determining where such a person might be admissible. Therefore, part of the purpose of my motion is that we amend the clause simply by adding those two paragraphs in order to recognize that the United Nations might be willing and able to help this person find another country. Otherwise, he might be returned to the country from which he says he is fleeing on account of persecution.
If he is a security risk to us, that may not necessarily be sufficient reason to have him go to death or imprisonment on grounds that are not related to that security risk, which could be the case. That is a matter in which the United Nations High Commission specializes and that is the main point 1 wanted to make.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has referred to Motion No. 53. I believe it does go part way in the right direction, but not as far as some other amendments which have been defeated. It is good as far as it goes, so I hope it will have the support of the House.
Motion No. 57 would give the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees the right not only to send a representative, which I take to be a full-time employee, but also an agent, which could be a part-time person on contract, which gives him more flexibility and an opportunity to be present at these refugee division hearings. I think that is clearly a useful motion.
I do not agree with paragraph (b). It authorizes the refugee division to classify a rejected claim as having no credible basis. If that were just a matter of words, I would not mind, even though I disagree with the phrase "credible basis"; I think it is too harsh and I would have preferred had they said "manifestly unfounded". I can see the difference between saying that this was a "maybe" case but we decided no, and saying that this case has no merit whatever. Where the hurt comes in is as a basis for Motion No. 70, which I consider quite harmful
September 22, 1987

because it denies the right of appeal to claimants whose claims were classified as not having a credible basis. They have already been through that screening once or they would not be at the refugee division.
It seems to me that if the initial inquiry said that they have a credible basis, but the refugee division decided in a full hearing they do not, then there is room for a difference of opinion. In fact, there would be a difference of opinion and there would also be room for error. I believe it is unreasonable to deny that claimant the right of appeal, however limited it is, which is available to the rest.
We have to remember that a mistake here is not like a mistake in granting a building permit or driving licence. A mistake in turning away a claimant who is a real refugee could result in death or imprisonment unjustly. Therefore I think we should not be in such a hurry to cut off the few claimants who are likely to get through determination and then be found not to have a credible basis for their claim. I hope we defeat Motion No. 70.
I want to hear further debate on Motion No. 57 since, as I say, it contains a good one and a bad one as it looks to me right now.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille)- External Affairs-Mozambique-Request for more assist-ance/Request for co-ordinated measures to aid African frontline states; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Energy-Price of natural gas in Manitoba/Govern-ment position; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Trade-Canada-United States negotiations-Domestic price of wheat/Canadian position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motions No. 37 (Mr. Heap, p. 9207),
Immigration Act, 1976
Motion No. 53 (Mr. Weiner, p. 9207), Motion No. 57 (Mr. Weiner, p. 9207), and Motion No. 70 (Mr. Weiner, p. 9208).
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, if I can say en passant, I find the remarks of the Hon. Member rather mystifying when he says that the person could be sent back to imprisonment or death. I think he will accept the fact that we have included protection under Article 33 of the Convention, which would forestall just that kind of eventuality.
Let me begin at the beginning with Motion No. 37 which stands in the name of the Hon. Member. He will recall that in committee we already made provision for the UNHCR representative to be present at the proceedings. In this subsequent amendment we refined that provision. The motion put forward by the Hon. Member would require the Minister to notify the office of the UNHCR every time a criminal, terrorist or subversive is denied access to the refugee determination system and to give all other ineligible claimants an opportunity to contact the UNHCR. That has the consequence of putting an obligation on the Minister and also on the UNHCR.
I do not know if that is the intent of the Hon. Member, but since we have already provided protection under Article 33 of the Convention, I would think the Hon. Member would accept that we have taken care of those people he sees as being at risk.
Motion No. 53 standing in the name of the Government deals with Clause 17. The change is simply to make the text of Section 55, as found in the reported Bill, subsection 55(1), in order to accommodate the following subsection. At committee stage a difficulty in the interpretation of the proposed amendment to Section 55 was identified. Officials undertook to identify a solution to the problem. This amendment resolves the problem in that subsection 55(2) will ensure that a person denied access to the refugee division because he or she comes from a country which complies with Article 33 of the Convention can be returned only to that country. The individual may choose to go elsewhere. This limitation will cease to be in effect when the claimant has been reintroduced into the refugee determination system pursuant to Section 48.03, and the adjudicator and refugee division member have either determined there is no credible basis for the claim, or referred the claimant to the refugee division which has determined that the claimant is not a Convention refugee.
Motion No. 57 deals with Clause 18. This amendment will provide a consistent wording between subsection 71(3) and subsection 48(5). Subsection 48(5), added by the committee, allows the presence of agents of the UNHCR at inquiries. It is recognized that the UNHCR does not have representative offices in most Canadian cities. In recognition of that fact, it will be possible, with the consent of the claimant, for local agents of the UNHCR to attend hearings before the refugee board as well as to attend inquiries.
Notwithstanding the screening mechanisms in place before the adjudicator and refugee division member, it is possible that

September 22, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
some claims referred to the refugee division will be completely without merit. This amendment will enable members of the panel of the refugee division which hears the claim to indicate in their reasons that there is no credible basis for the claim. Consequential effects on the appeal rights of those claimants will be covered in an amendment to Clause 19. The division is not required to make the second determination in every case. The provision can be used to correct the most obvious abuses of the refugee determination system that pass initial screening at inquiry. The amendment corrects a clerical error in that it deletes reference to a provision of Bill C-84. All of the consequential amendments following from Bill C-84 are dealt with, conditional on the passage of that Bill, in Clause 35.
Motion No. 70 deals with Clause 19. This amendment is consequential on amendment (B) to Clause 18. Where a claimant is determined by a panel of the refugee division not to have a credible basis for the claim, the claimant will not have the right of appeal, pursuant to Section 83.3, to the Federal Court of Appeal. The unsuccessful claimant will still be able to undertake an application for leave to seek judicial review pursuant to Section 28 of the Federal Court Act. It should be noted that judicial review under Section 28 is considered on the same grounds as the appeal pursuant to Section 83.3. The major difference between the two routes for redress is that pursuant to Section 28 of the Federal Court, the court cannot substitute its decision for that of the original decision-maker.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, 1 am just wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary knows what he just read to the House of Commons. It seemed to be drafted by the same people who put this Bill together.
First, on Motion No. 37, I would like to signal our support proposed by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). I believe it has its origin in some of the testimony provided to us by Joe Stern of the Refugee Advisory Committee. He said it would be important for our refugee determination system to have at least a safeguard where an individual is barred from proceeding in the determination system for a series of reasons. It would be helpful if the Government, through the Minister, got in touch with the local UNHCR representative or in fact their office in Geneva, for the very same reasons that the Hon. Member stipulated earlier. The UNHRC would be in a good position, since it administers the Geneva Convention on a daily basis, to take a second look at the case of that individual and perhaps find a home for him rather than sending him back from where he came to face possible persecution or death.
That is a check and balance which I do not think is too onerous for the Government to accept. There would be no onus upon the UNHRC to find a home for such an individual, but the UNHRC would have that opportunity. If a decision is made against an individual, he or she will be leaving the country anyway. The UNHRC may be able to find a home for that individual in a country which Canada has not checked out, thereby ensuring that person's safety. I do not think that is
too much to ask the Government to accept. I seriously suggest that Members on the government side take a hard look at Motion No. 37 because I believe it is meritorious.
We will not oppose Motion No. 53, but that does not mean that we are satisfied with what it does in terms of cleaning up a portion of the Bill which we find repugnant. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that Motion No. 53 would do that job. We very strongly disagree with that, and that is one of the reasons we moved amendments to remove the safe third country concept and the pre-screening provisions. We believed that by doing that we would offer maximum protection without prejudging. In order for that amendment to be successful the Government must show enough movement for subsequent amendments to be meaningful. I do not think the Government did that. I do not think the Minister signalled that at committee.
With all due respect to those who drafted them, the amendments with regard to the key areas of pre-screening, safe third countries, and appeal do not measure up to amendments to which witnesses wanted the Government to agree. Other groups suggested from the very outset that the Bill was so badly drafted that it was unamendable. Motion No. 53 is better than that which now exists but is a lot worse than it could have been.
Motion No. 57 is problematic, and I seek the advice of the Chair as to whether we could split Motion No. 57 into two parts. We find no problem with the provision to allow a UNHRC representative to act as an observer at the refugee board. In fact, we would go even further and suggest that the UNHRC representative should be in a position to present evidence at the refugee board hearing. However, the second part of the same amendment which says that the representative shall indicate the decision if the claimant is not a Convention refugee or does not have a credible basis for a claim, is problematic.
It goes without saying that Motion No. 70 is problematic because we do not believe in the credible basis test. Most of the witnesses who came before the committee pointed out problems associated with the credible basis test for a claim. The Canadian Bar Association, the Inter-Church Committee, the UNHRC, the Coalition for a Just Immigration and Refugee Policy, the Mennonite Central Committee, Rabbi Plaut, Ken Zaifman, the Hispanic Congress, Pierre Duquette, the Montreal Refugee Coalition, Amnesty International, the Nanaimo Immigrant Settlement Society, Professor Angus, Professor Hathaway, the Eelam Tamil Society, the Canadian Bar Association, the Sikh Professional Association of Canada and Mr. Arthur Helton all said that the "credible basis" definition is very vague and that the preferred definition would be "manifestly unfounded". It has a definition under the Convention which is well accepted and well understood. However, the credible basis test is not defined and is therefore very dangerous.
September 22, 1987

The credible basis test looks at the statistics of other applicants from the same country. Therefore, an individual claim can be judged on group claims made previously. It is not healthy to have that in the equation because the Convention is based on the circumstances of an individual. The system should not tolerate claimants who make fraudulent claims and misleading statements and tell frivolous stories. However, the fact that individuals from a certain part of the world made frivolous claims should not impact upon an individual from the same country who arrives subsequently.
I do not believe there is any legislation on the federal books today which uses groupings of statistics to impact on individual cases, whether geographically, culturally or by profession. Our system is to look at the merits of an individual case. However, the credible basis test in this Bill takes into account previous applications made by people from the region from which a claimant has come. Therefore, Motion No. 70 is in opposition to our way of thinking.
I would ask the Chair whether it is possible for Motion No. 57 to be divided into two portions so that we can vote in favour of or against having a UNHRC representative present at the hearings and in favour of or against the decision being made on the question of credible basis. We would like to vote in favour of one and against the other.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member has asked for the guidance of the Chair. If the Member would be willing to move an amendment to Motion No. 57, he may achieve the results he wishes.


Sergio Marchi: In compliance of the advice of the Chair I would like to move that Motion No. 57(a) be voted upon separately from Motion No. 57(b).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would invite the Hon. Member to come to the Table. In the meantime, we will proceed with the debate. The Hon. Member's rights are reserved concerning the amendment on Motion No. 57.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this motion in particular because Hon. Members will recall that Motion No. 65 and Motion No. 69 were entered in my name. Motion No. 69 is identical to the Minister's motion No. 70 and was stood down by the Speaker. On closer examination, I discovered in Motion No. 57 there was a one word difference between the Minister's motion and my motion, at least in paragraph (b) in my Motion No. 65. Therefore, I asked and received the consent of the House to stand down my Motion No 65 as well.
Motion No. 65 and Motion No. 69 were linked in my mind-now it would be Motion No. 57 and Motion No. 70- and I have heard the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and the Hon. Member from York indicate that they do not intend to vote for those motions. I think that is the thrust of what they had to say. I would like to express as clearly and as
Immigration Act, 1976
cogently as I can that I think they are making a mistake. The philosophy of the Bill, from the time it was first introduced into the House, I think is clear and consistent. We need as quickly as possible to sort out those who are the bogus claimants from those who are people with legitimate refugee claims.
It is also clear from the structure of the Bill that we must do that in an atmosphere where the benefit of the doubt at all times goes to the claimant.
It is inherent in the Bill that in the case of the two-person refugee panel or in the inquiry at the first stage with the adjudicator and refugee board member, in any split between those two people at either level, the benefit of the doubt goes to the claimant.
The committee worked very hard on the notion of credible claim. We made a lot of amendments to the structure of that and the way that it sits. I think that during the inquiry it is a very important principle for the protection of refugees that the benefit of the doubt on the issue of credibility in the inquiry be given to the claimant, that the claimant go forward to a hearing and that the hearing be full and complete.
If the refugee board itself, after that very thorough examination of all the evidence put forward by the claimant, in a non-adversarial manner, concludes that the claim was not well-founded in the first place, the consequences of that decision should be the same as if that decision had been reached in the inquiry. If we approve Motion No. 57 and Motion No. 70 as a pair, we will have accomplished that in statute law.
It will be an encouragement, I believe, in all cases of doubt as to whether or not the person might be a claimant, that they "shall" move the case forward to a full refugee board hearing. I think that those human beings who serve the functions of adjudicator and refugee board member at inquiry, will be able to do that in all cases of doubt when they have the assurance that when the claim is fully heard, if indeed it was not credible to begin with, if indeed it was not founded, that they can so designate on the decision at the refugee board hearing, and the consequences for removal will be the same as if it had been decided in the inquiry itself, and that is speedy removal for those who attempt to abuse the system.
During the inquiry people may present false evidence that leads the inquiry to conclude, because they did not discern it as being false, that the person indeed might be a refugee. On fuller examination some six, eight or 10 weeks later, it may be readily apparent that the information provided to the inquiry was false. There should be absolutely nothing to be gained by that claimant through the presentation of that false evidence. Surely, it is common sense that if that kind of thing is discovered, the board itself should be able to reach the decision, not only that this person is not a refugee, but that the claim was not well-founded in the very beginning.
I would also like to deal very briefly with Motion No. 53 and Motion No. 37. I hope the House will support both parts

September 22, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
of Motion No. 53. It is an important motion related to safe third country. In committee we tried wording of one kind and another to make it very clear under statute law that people who came from a country of prior protection could be returned to the country of prior protection and nowhere else. Motion No. 53 is essential. It is the chosen wording that will accomplish that task. When people come from prior a country of protection, they can be returned to the country of prior protection and nowhere else. That is a very important principle. The wording of Motion No. 53 gives effect to it, and it is a very necessary part of the Bill.
In terms of Motion No. 37 put forward by the Hon. Member for Spadina, I do not think there is any disagreement in the House that, in the ease of people denied entry to determination on the basis of security and criminality, it would be a wise idea for us to inform the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It goes on today and it is not part of statute law. I suggest it will go on tomorrow and it need not be part of statute law. Indeed, there may be advantages for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to have informal information about a situation rather than formal information. Therefore, I think handling that matter administratively is preferable to trying to handle it statutorily.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by the colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). I do that because it makes such eminent sense to me. The intention of the amendment as proposed is to mitigate a departure from the principle of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees which we believe is contained in Bill C-55. Section 48.01(l)(e) starting at the bottom of page 14, excludes certain classes of persons from access to the refugee status determination procedure, persons who may engage in spying, subversion or violence and war criminals or persons convicted in Canada of a very serious crime.
The UNHCR does not ask us to accept such persons for landing, but does ask us to determine whether they are refugees and, in that case, act in the light of that recognition. One practical application is to allow time to inquire, with their help, whether another country may accept and protect a person which Canada does not wish to keep. This amendment would not delete or reverse the clause in the Bill, but it would perhaps prevent a real refugee from being returned to the country that was persecuting him or her. It may cost something for detaining that person, but in only a few cases. I think this makes sense.
I want to take the opportunity to say something about some remarks I made earlier today, to which the Parliamentary Secretary took exception and for which he criticized me for, as he said, dealing with individuals.
Let me make clear first of all that in my dealings with representatives of the Department of Immigration here in Ottawa and in Winnipeg, I have met with nothing but cooperation, help and fairness. When it has turned down a case I
have been asked to take up with the Department, the explanations given to me have been reasonable. The officials have pointed out that the law or the regulations did not permit the request, and explained why. I have no complaints. The fact is the Department is made up of human beings with all sorts of points of view. There have been and are people in the Department who have prejudices against certain individuals or certain groups because of their race or religion.
I will be very happy to expand on this at the next sitting of the House.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have not checked with my colleagues but I think that there would be a disposition to have a voice vote on this set of motions tonight rather than to carry them over until the morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member who just had the floor wants to terminate his remarks today or whether there is another Member in the House who has not spoken on this set of amendments and who wishes to speak. I have spoken, but I am not sure that there are not other colleagues on other sides who wish to speak on this issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There has been a proposal asking for unanimous consent to proceed to a voice vote. Do I have the unanimous consent of the House in that respect?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I could finish my remarks now if the House wants to let me finish. That is all right with me. However, I certainly want to finish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the House allows the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) to proceed with the remainder of his speech, he has to two minutes left and the House could then proceed with a voice vote. Would there then be unanimous consent to start Private Members' Hour at approximately 5:10 and extend it until 6:10?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed. Thus, Private Members' Hour will start for a full 60 minutes after we proceed with the voice vote on the motions that are now on the floor of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that I have clearly understood what you have just said. It means that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) would close the debate on the motion, if I heard the Chair properly, and no one else could speak on it. There may be some others in the House who may want to speak to this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I asked if someone else wishes to speak-
September 22, 1987


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Things are going very smoothly and we are making progress on this Bill. There may be others who might want to speak. We are now moving into Private Members' Hour. I wonder if it might not be in the best interests of us all just to set this matter aside until we resume tomorrow and pick up where we left off. I am afraid that if we start moving into Private Members' Hour there may be others who want to speak. Before we know it, we will begin to set some kind of precedent, which I do not think is in the best interests of the procedures of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration for a full hour of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE SENATE SUGGESTED EQUAL PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL ELECTED REPRESENTATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Taylor:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing the appropriate measures to abolish the Senate and create a new Senate composed of Senators elected by the people of Canada on the basis of equal representation for each province and territory, and to initiate discussions to that end with provincial and territorial governments at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move:
That the House now hear from the Hon. Member for Parry Sound- Muskoka.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 believe that the motion put forward by my hon. friend is out of order, since the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party had been recognized in his place and had already begun to make his remarks. 1 believe that a point of order suggesting that another Hon. Member be now heard is in fact out of order.


George Albert Proud: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. To facilitate the business of the House and notwithstanding the high esteem I have for the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), an outstanding Member of the Committee on External Affairs for a good many years, I regret to say that the motion presented is certainly out or order because the Hon. Member, as pointed out by the spokesman
The Senate
for the third Party in the House, did say he had begun his remarks. You had recognized him and he was delivering his speech.

I say, with great respect to my hon. friend who wants to participate, that he will have to wait and speak after the Hon. Member whom the Chair has recognized has spoken.


Mr. Clinch:: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no need for me to hear the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Clinch) on a point of order.
I recognized the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), yet at the same time the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) was on his feet. I recognized that Hon. Member on a point of order. Therefore I find the motion in order. 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 to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. 1 declare the motion carried, on division.
Motion (Mr. Stackhouse) agreed to.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in order to refresh the memory of Hon. Members in the House, Motion No. 18 states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing the appropriate measures to abolish the Senate and create a new Senate composed of Senators elected by the people of Canada on the basis of equal representation for each province and territory, and to initiate discussions to that end with provincial and territorial governments at the earliest opportunity.
Coming from the Province of Ontario as I do, which has slightly over nine million people and well over one-third of the entire population of Canada, I believe that I can hardly be criticized too much for stating that the idea of equal representation from each of the provinces and the territories seemed to me to be absolutely ludicrous. When I think of the Province of Prince Edward Island, which in size is not as big as my own riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, although I will admit that it has a few more people in it, I am quite sure that the people will not accept this motion in its original form. I assume that the great Province of Quebec, whose population is over six million,

September 22, 1987
The Senate
compared to, I believe, Prince Edward Island's population of
120,000-


Mr. Gass:: 128,000.


Stan Darling: The Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) states that the population is approximately 128,000.
When one considers the population in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, which is considerably less, I think you will agree that this motion should not carry as it is.
In view of that, I am pleased to present the following amendment:
That the motion (M-18) of Mr. Taylor seconded by Mr. McCuish, be amended by deleting all the words after "new Senate" and by adding the following words:
"after referring to a Conference of First Ministers such matters as the method of selection, the strength of representation of the provinces and territories, and the powers to be assigned thereto."
If this amendment were adopted, the amended motion would read:
That, in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of introducing the appropriate measures to abolish the Senate and to create a new Senate after referring to a Conference of First Ministers such matters as the method of selection, the strength of representation of the provinces and territories, and the powers to be assigned thereto.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will continue the debate, and in one minute I will make a decision on whether the motion is in order.
I realize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) wishes me to rule immediately on it because the speech is over.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I ask for the indulgence of the Chair. 1 was ready to speak on this debate, and for some reason that is still unclear to me, some Members did not wish me to speak at this time.
1 wish to read the amendment carefully before speaking to it. It has an impact, and it does have some importance. This is Private Members' Hour, therefore, we on this side have not been duly recognized. The last five speakers were from the Tory Party. I was not being unreasonable by standing in my place hoping to be recognized.
I do wish to give you time to look at the motion, decide whether it is appropriate and in order. If so, I wish to have a copy sent to me immediately in order that I can address the important amendment before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does find the motion to be in order and will make sure that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier receives a copy immediately.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I say from the outset that the motion under consideration,
Motion M-18 as amended, is an interesting proposition for us in the Canadian minority. I guess I am not revealing a secret by stating publicly that I am in favour of an elected Senate, I am for a Senate which is representative of Canada, and I am for a Senate which will be elected within our federal system and which will have a very specific mandate, very definite and very clear powers which, I hope, will be distinct from ours in the House of Commons. Because I am not the first one to say so, Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of studies, commissions, special committees, for instance the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform in January 1984, co-chaired by Senator Gildas Molgat and the Hon. Paul Cosgrove, M.P. The Pepin-Robarts Commission, the Task Force on Canadian Unity, also examined the question. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs under the chairmanship of Senator Carl Goldenberg released a report on this question in 1980, and generally speaking most of them were in favour of an elected Senate.
The motion calls for an elected Senate, but as I understand it, the amendment, which I do not have before me, would have us refer the whole issue to a federal-provincial conference to determine the specifics of this reform, including the method of electing the senators, their exact role, as well probably as the powers of the new Senate.
I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I agree that we must act quickly in this regard, and because I am firmly convinced that the Senate must represent minority interests in this country, whether regional, linguistic or sexual, and I am thinking especially of the need for women senators, for representatives of the native people and of the many groups of new Canadians of all races and cultures who should also be represented in this elected Senate.
How can this be done? That is the problem, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with the Hon. Member that it would perhaps be appropriate to ask the first Ministers to examine this issue in depth at one of their meetings.

Indeed, the amendment in one swoop takes away the Triple E Senate, which I think my hon. friend, who moved the motion, believes in and strongly supports. I know for a fact that many of his western friends support a Triple E Senate, which is effective, elected, and equal. We could debate those three points logically and rationally in the House and what we mean by equal representation, effective representation, and the manner in which the Senate is to be elected. The whole process of election by province is a problem in itself.
My friend from Parry Sound alluded to the imbalance in population. Would the question of equal representation be based on population, or would it be strictly on a provincial basis? The Hon. Member who moved the motion made the strong recommendation that we ask the Government to consider the advisability of introducing the appropriate measures to abolish the Senate and replace it.
September 22, 1987

The original motion made a lot of sense. As a matter of fact, I was going to attempt to amend it further by including the word "effective" which he believes to be important. There have been statements made by the Hon. Carl Goldenberg when he made his study of the whole question of the Senate. He stated that the Senate has not always been the protector of minorities. The Senate did not speak when Japanese Canadians were interned during the last war. The Senate did not stand up for them at that time. The Senate did not stand up for Ontario during the 1911-1917 period when French was abolished as the language of instruction. The Senate did not stand up, at least as far as I know.
$
Sometimes the Senate does its work very nicely. I refer Hon. Members to the following report:

-the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I could read passages of this report at great length, Mr. Speaker, for instance where it says on page 29 that the Senate has not played a major role in protecting linguistic or other minorities. Certain critics have accused the Senate of not having defended efficiently the interests of racial, religious or linguistic minorities, and I could go on, Mr. Speaker. I am one of those who would prefer an elected Senate. There is no longer any argument about this point. There have been studies and commissions and too many people have supported this view.


George Albert Proud: Our party took this position last November.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, as the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis has just reminded me, our own party, the Liberal Party, officially endorsed last November during its national convention in Ottawa the idea of an elected Senate. This is quite clear and simple. It now seems that we should sit down and determine the specifics of this elected Senate to have a truly effective elected Senate which can defend the interests of our minorities and regions, as there are many Canadians who, God knows, do not have the same opportunities as the people of Southern Ontario, for instance, as regards job creation and economic development in general. I think that is an essential role the Senate must play, and I will vote with my colleague in support of the motion and the amendment aimed at referring the whole question to a group of provincial premiers gathered in a conference.

I will read the amended motion again because I think it is worth putting it into context:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing the appropriate measures to abolish the Senate and to create a new Senate after referring to a Conference of First Ministers such matters as the method of selection, the strength of representation of the provinces and territories, and the powers to be assigned thereto.
The Senate


George Albert Proud: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, we had a short debate initiated by a Member who was complaining about the Translation of the documents I am looking at, on something as important as this, and here I want to draw your attention-

I will say it in English because I do not want to be misunderstood by my hon. friend, and if I have a friend in the House it is he. He has nothing to do with the fact that the motion is strictly in English. It is his right to work in his own language and to table it, but if there is a place where services should be available, it is in the House.
It has nothing to do with the fact that the motion was put in English, because that is the way the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) works better. If I had to present the same kind of resolution, I would have put it in French, because one is more precise when one functions in one's own language. It is not for me to do the work in order for the House to function better; it is not for me to do the double work.
This is the time for me to raise this point of order on the same day as the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) raised a question of privilege in the debate of which I participated. I said that I was tired of coming back to this question time and time again.
This is no reflection upon Mr. Speaker, upon Mr, Deputy Speaker, or upon the Hon. Member. However, I would hope that the question will be raised again with Mr. Speaker.
It is a very important motion. By the way, I intend to vote for it, but I like to make sure exactly what I am voting for. It is better for me in my language. The Hon. Member knows what he is proposing. I would like to vote for it, so now I have to study it very carefully and decide whether that is the meaning I really want.
I am sure this is a point of order. Once again we are not equipped, and we should be equipped at least within the boundaries of Parliament if not within Canada. If it is not all across Canada or across Ontario or in Quebec, it should be at least within the boundaries of the fence surrounding Parliament that we should be equipped quickly.
If I must propose something in French or in English, my hon. friend who speaks French or English better should be equipped quickly, so that he will be on the same footing as I am when reading what is about to take place in the House. I just wanted to put that point before you, Mr. Speaker.

September 22, 1987
The Senate

And I hope my message will be conveyed to whomever it may concern.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) for his representations. I believe he has others.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I have the floor, but I would like to move a subamendment. However, I suppose Your Honour will rule me out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows the procedure quite well.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the additional comments which will be made by my hon. friend in a moment or two. I am certain that he will have an appropriate amendment to make.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words with regard to Motion M-18. We have seen quite a change of venue this afternoon. The original proposal was for consideration to be given to a Triple E Senate with equal representation from each province, whether the province was British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, or the Territories.
That approach has some interesting connotations, yet we have heard from many constituents about the validity of giving equal weight to an area of Canada with a few thousand people as opposed to a few million people. 1 ask in all innocence: Is that the best way to proceed?
What has necessitated this discussion and has resulted in the amendment of the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) was the fact that there are other alternatives. Perhaps a Triple E Senate is one way to enhance regional voices in the decision-making of Parliament, but there are other ways of recognizing regional voices.
It is fair to say that we have some very fundamental questions before us today. For example, why do we have a Senate? Of course there are two fundamental reasons. One is that it is a Chamber of sober second thought. However, when we look at the record we see that that has not in fact occurred. By and large the Senate has been a rubber stamp for government business over the years.
As a matter of fact, if we look at the business conducted by the Senate, we find a list of how long the Senate sat each day. Month after month the average day's sitting was a little over an hour. The Upper House sits a little over an hour per day, while the House of Commons sits for many, many hours.
If I think back to legislation on which so-called sober thought was given, I can think of very few pieces of legislation when regional representation, the second reason for the Senate, came into play.
As I said, the Senate was to provide sober second thought and a forum for regional voices. However, what we are hearing in the Senate today are not regional voices but partisan political voices wherein the Liberal Senators are doing one thing and the Conservative Senators are doing another. Of course there are no New Democrat Senators, perhaps for some obvious reasons.
The Senate has become partisan, as one would expect of an Upper House. Therefore, if we are to have regional voices in our Upper House, is an elected Senate the appropriate way to accomplish that? Is a Triple E Senate the appropriate way to accomplish that? I think there are many doubts that this would accomplish the theory of what the Upper House is all about.
By the way, without any reflection upon the individual involved, I noticed today that there was a Senator who showed up only once in three years, three years of being a Senator and receiving his remuneration, and he managed to show up on one day. We have the famous Senator from British Columbia, Senator Lawson, who shows up to collect his pay cheque every now and then, and that is about it.
We have some real abuses in that House. On the other hand, we recognize that there are some outstanding individuals who make a contribution in their own way. However, as far as the question of the Senate being overworked is concerned, when we look at the amount of time spent by the Senate we find that it does not come out that way.
As a parliamentarian from western Canada I am concerned that the regional voices from western, northern, and eastern Canada are lost in the present decision-making of Parliament. The overwhelming numbers in central Canada dominate the issues of the day and the general sway of events moves us, in terms of the issues and concerns relevant in central Canada, away from the regions of the West, the North and the East. For that reason there has been a cry for a change in the way Parliament is set up. The Triple-E Senate has been proposed and, as I say, there are many other institutions that I could talk about, for instance, CRTC and the various boards which all lack western representation in terms of fair representation, but that goes beyond this debate.
In an effort to provide as many open doors as possible, my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka has broadened the debate to go beyond the Triple-E Senate. I think that is valuable. I think we need to go even further than that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we need to have any limitations. Our country is the second largest country in the world geographically and we need to ensure that those vast regions play a role in the national decision-making when it comes to the federal Government and Parliament. I do not think we want to close the door on any one of those possibilities.
Therefore, I move, seconded by my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
September 22, 1987

That the amendment be amended by deleting all of the words at the end of
the amendment by adding the following:
"or initiate discussions with the provinces and territories as to how regional
interests can be more adequately integrated into the legislative process of the
federal Government.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We could debate procedure all afternoon, but I would like to say that in my evaluation it will be very difficult for you to accept such a subamendment. I could go on for very long, but this amendment is not in the nature of a subamendment. A subamendment has to be very restrictive and address itself to the amendment. The amendment is very well done by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). His was a real amendment, but the one moved by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is not a subamendment. It is much larger.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are taking that under advisement together with all your advisers. In my very humble evaluation, Your Honour, I do not think this is a subamendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will take this into consideration for a few seconds.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I submit that in my opinion the amendment to the amendment is out of order. It does not fulfil the requirements of the subamendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleagues, the amendment does amend the amendment. It does not change the amendment. It recognizes the value of the amendment and simply provides, if you like, a variety in expanding the general mandate expected. I think you will find the subamendment to be in order. There is no reason it would be out of order. If we are going to get into a debate on the propriety of the subamendment, I would ask Hon. Members to quote the appropriate citation they are using, because it is obvious that the subamendment is, in fact, just that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley).


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to rise this afternoon on the question of Senate reform. Having recently witnessed amendments and amendments to amendments I think it is very fitting that this is happening this afternoon because it identifies the long history of Senate reform in Canada.
It has been said by many wags over the years that on July 1, 1867, Canada's founding as a country was commemorated through the British North America Act which brought into being the legislative, judicial and executive functions of Government. On July 2, they all got together on how to change the Senate. It does not quite go back that far, but within seven years of Confederation, it is noteworthy that the first serious
The Senate
attempts were made to amend the Senate that had been created.
Our challenge as Canadians from all parts of the country is obvious in trying to evaluate the role of the Senate as we see it today. As is clear to anyone who sits in this Chamber, I think the way the Senate represents the interests of Canada is questionable at best.
As it is not appropriate to comment with disdain on the other place, I think recent events will indicate to us that the Senate does not speak for the regions of Canada or for the aspirations of the different sectors of Canadian society as well as it should. Beginning at this point we should ask ourselves, should there be a Senate? When one talks about the very existence of the Senate, we can look at the amendments we have been moving today. There are Members, particularly in the New Democratic Party, who have risen and said that the Senate should be abolished altogether. I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker. As a western Canadian I see the need for the House of sober second thought, as it was phrased in 1867. I see the need for a senior assembly or Senate, but how we effect this institution is of prime importance to all of us.
I am interested in the amendment by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). It refers to having a conference of First Ministers deal with the question of Senate reform and "such matters as to the method of selection, the strength of representation of the provinces, the territories and the powers assigned thereto". I agree in substance and specifically with this amendment because it provides us with the will to change the Senate. It allows us the flexibility in the method of changing the Senate.
Since 1968 there have been 16 concrete proposals federally and provincially by interest groups on ways to amend the Senate. We have had the Canada West Foundation model, the Canadian Bar Association model and a number of other models involving such things as a provincial House of Assembly. It is clear that we must find a way in which to change the Senate.
I think that by following through on the initiatives taken in the Meech Lake Accord and keeping Senate reform at the top of the agenda, if the House were to pass the motion as amended that we refer the question of the conference of First Ministers to deal with the questions of representation, powers and method of selection, this would be a significant first step by Members of this House in saying that while we all may have different views and different methods of balancing the Senate, we agree with changing the Canadian Senate.
If you go back to the 16 models since 1968 for Senate reform, there are a number of them which fall into a general category that involves abolishing the Senate and starting from the ground up. Obviously in the few short moments remaining, there is not enough time to comment specifically on whether we should abolish it altogether or simply try to convince the First Ministers of Canada to make a couple of concrete

September 22, 1987
The Senate
amendments to our Constitution to amend the powers of our Senate as it exists.
As a western Canadian I have some very strong and personally held views on Senate reform. First, there is the question of representation. It is fashionable, in fact it is very popular in western Canada to support what is called the Triple-E Senate. While those who support the Triple-E Senate certainly have the interests of western Canada and the regions at heart, we have to ask ourselves as western Canadians a few fairly tough questions. Triple E, of course, stands for elected, effective and equal. I think we should move with the greatest of haste to an elected Senate. I think that in a sense would make it more effective. I do worry about the equality of having 10 provinces all with literally the same numbers of Senators. It is often fashionable as well to say, "Well, they do it in the United States". Between tiny Rhode Island and the State of California, which is larger than all of Canada in population, there exist 48 other states with other Senators, 96 in all, who represent the interests of those 48 states. It is not practical to say that in Canada Prince Edward Island should have as many Senators as Ontario. We must consider that there are eight provinces between those two extremes in population.
While I am not ruling out an equal Senate, I believe that it is time, as Canadians who aspire to speak for all regions, to look at this question of balance.
In addition to a balanced Senate, we should examine how we want the process of Senate reform to take place. I know very few Canadians who do not agree with an elected Senate. I suggest that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers could meet, with this question of Senate reform at the top of their agenda, they could even consider for the short term keeping the Senate largely the way it is now, made up of 104 members based on the four regions, with 24 Senators from each region and other Senators representing Newfoundland and later entrants to Canada.
I ask Members to consider a formula by which we can elect a Senate with the same number of 104 Senators. One formula which has been suggested is that of proportional representation. As a western Canadian I would far rather see a form of proportional representation rather than "the first past the post" system we use in this House.
That form of proportional representation would balance the same regions we have now. We would have a Senate that represents the political Parties in a completely different configuration in each of the regions, with Senators who legitimately speak as elected representatives. Of course, under my system we would still have Parties, but I would hope that because we would have Senators elected on a slate, by region and by province, the interests of those Senators for regions and provinces would come first.
While political considerations would be factored into any legitimate disagreement with the House of Commons, those
Senators would still speak as representatives of strong regions of Canada. That is just one example. There are many considerations when one examines the many possibilities and combinations for Senate reform.
Let us consider the motion we are debating here today. It calls for a conference of First Ministers and for this conference to establish the parameters, the powers, the representation, and the means of selection. I do not believe any Member of the House would disagree with that very generally worded motion.
I would call upon members of all Parties to consider this as a very loud cry from the House of Commons to get serious about Senate reform. We can leave the specifics to other times. There have been a number of thoughtful representations made over the years by joint House of Commons and Senate committees, interest groups, and other public advocacy centres. All of the provinces have spoken very strongly in the past about Senate reform. However, I believe as a Member of this House that we should pass this motion calling on the First Ministers to work toward arriving at that formula.
Canada is a country with five main regions, with one-third of Canadians who represent neither of the two official founding cultures, and a further third of the people who represent the French language. We live in a country that is very diverse and very challenging. Certainly, the present method of Senate appointments and Senate structure does not accommodate the regions and does not accommodate the unique interests that make up this country, and certainly does not accommodate in a democratic sense the grass root thoughts of most Canadians.
Let us consider this motion as an opportunity to ask serious questions about the Senate. I certainly favour the effective and elected portion of a Triple E Senate. We can have an effective Senate if we elect it. I think we can leave the question of representation to the First Ministers and joint parliamentary committees in order to determine a way to forge a proper balance of the Senate representing the regions of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) on a point of order. First, I want to ask if the Hon. Member is aware that the amendment in fact adds words to the amendment of the Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). It does not delete anything. I think there has been some confusion because a document was circulated in the House which in fact deleted and would have made the amendment out of order.
The amendment that was proposed does in fact add words, and the Chair intends to rule it in order. The Chair is willing to hear the Member for Scarborough West.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to refer to the admissibility of the proposed subamendment. I submit with respect that it is contrary to the intent of Citation 438 of Beauchesne, that it enlarges upon the scope of the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). It indeed brings in foreign matter in so far as
September 22, 1987

the amendment is quite clear in referring the substance of the motion to a First Ministers' conference. The subamendment begins to deal with a much larger frame of reference, namely provinces and territories, without designating whether the reference is to governments or to legislatures or any other body so named.
Therefore, it is really enlarging upon the scope of the amendment in a most amorphous way and is contrary to the intention of Beauchesne. For that reason, like the Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I submit that the subamendment is not in order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce the argument just put. Indeed, the subamendment does not meet with my interpretation of the rules and procedures of the blouse. The Member quoted correctly Citation 438 of Beauchesne.
If you examine the subamendment closely, it adds: "Initiate discussions with the provinces and territories".
Citation 438 states:
The purpose of a subamendment (an amendment to an amendment) is to
alter the amendment; it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment
but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment;-
I submit that the subamendment tabled by the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) enlarges the mandate and therefore would not be proper as to form, nor in keeping with Beauchesne's rules of procedure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) rising on a point of order? Very well.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I think we want to proceed with the debate because it is very interesting and important. However, I rose on a point of order on intuition, and I still believe I was right in expressing my views as to the acceptability of the subamendment. I share the opinion expressed by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse).
While I will abide by your ruling, I still believe that this is not a proper subamendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are anxious to get on with the debate, but I simply draw your attention to the fact that the subamendment was made in the context of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 441(3) which states:
A subamendment which proposes an alternative to the original amendment
is in order provided it is relevant to the question.
Of course, in this case, it is certainly relevant to the question and provides an alternative to the original. It was in that context that the subamendment was suggested, following the strict interpretation of Beauchesne.
The Senate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has studied the subamendment and, with respect to the contrary opinions submitted by some Members of the House, finds it to be in order. Debate.


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, had I moved the motion I would have presented it in French and shortened it, because I would have proposed that the Senate be abolished, quite simply, and the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) would not have felt the need to raise the point of order which led to this series of points of order.
That being so, I could very easily have provided him with a translation, something which my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) was not in a position to do. So, in English, it would have read:

"I propose that the Senate be abolished".

So, Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes or even the few seconds I have left I will explain why I would abolish the Senate. We have seen that every now and then, for political reasons, as the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) pointed out earlier, or for other reasons, whenever it is convenient or useful, a Member will drag out the issue of abolishing or changing the Senate.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Senate has been in existence for 120 years and has yet to play the role which the Fathers of Confederation intended it to play. I do not have time to read what they said about the Senate. Anyway, in his remarks a moment ago the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) referred to the many studies, the many commissions and the many reports concerning changes to or abolition of the Senate.
Now we are talking about an elected Senate. I want to say to my colleague-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a mistake, but I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean that, in spite of what the motion of the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said originally, with this amendment, if we read exactly what is before us, we find no mention of an elected Senate.
My point of order is this.

My point of order is the following. The Hon. Member is talking about a motion for an elected Senate. The way it has

September 22, 1987
The Senate
been amended and subamended, nowhere do we talk about an elected Senate. This is regrettable.


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis seems to have been thinking of something else when 1 spoke about the motion. For my part, I propose that the Senate be abolished. This is what I said. First, I would like the Senate to be abolished.
Mr. Speaker, when a building has never properly met the needs for which it was built, instead of being renovated, it is simply pulled down and rebuilt. As long as the Senate has not been pulled down and rebuilt, there will not be-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the debate. [English]
On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I ask the right to close the debate.
I would like, first to thank all those who participated in the discussion and moved amendments. The motion is important.
The basis of the House of Commons is representation by population. There is no reason why the Senate should have the same basis. That would mean people in the far-flung corners of this country would not have representation.
I cannot agree with the motion moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). It retains the election of Senators but leaves out an essential part of my motion, namely equal representation for each province and territory. An elected Senate would be an improvement as Senators would then be responsible to the people who elect them. However, without equal representation from each province and territory, the West and the Maritimes may not be equal partners in Confederation. That is an important point. Without equal representation for each province and territory in the Senate, as they have in the House, some future Government could well pass another "National Energy Program" designed to destroy one part of this nation.
I believe Canada's salvation depends on all provinces and territories having equal representation with elected Senators from each province and territory. Then, with the powers of the House of Commons, we can have a united nation where every region can play its part in Confederation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the time provided for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this being Private Members' Hour, in keeping with our practice this session when dealing with recorded divisions in relation to Private Members' Business, having discussed it with my colleagues from the other Parties, I think you will find there is unanimous consent to proceed with the taking of the votes row by row starting on your right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to proceed row by row?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will then proceed as follows: As is customary, Members in favour of the subamendment will be asked to indicate their position first, followed by Hon. Members who are opposed. I will ask all Members in the first row to my right who are in favour of the subamendment to rise together, whereupon their names will be called by the Clerk beginning with the Hon. Member seated closest to the Chair. When the name of the Member in the row has been called and recorded, that Member will resume his or her seat.
When the taking of names of Hon. Members in the first row to my right has been completed, I will ask Members in the second, third, fourth and fifth row to my right to proceed in a similar manner. I will then ask Members in the first row to my left, regardless of their Party affiliation, who are in favour of the subamendment to rise and remain standing until their names have been called, and we will carry on similarly with the other rows on my left.

When the votes of all those who are for the sub-amendment have been recorded, I shall ask those who are against the subamendment to rise. We shall then start with the first row to my right, continuing with all the other rows to my right. Afterwards, we shall begin once more with the rows to my left. I repeat that the names will be called beginning with the Hon. Member seated closest to the Chair and going down to the end of the row. This will be done to my right without distinction of functions and to my left regardless of party affiliation.
September 22, 1987

The question is on the amendment to the amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
(Division No. 243)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
	YEAS	
	Members	
Althouse	Keeper	ParryBenjamin	Manly	RiisBlackburn	McCurdy	Robinson(Brant)	McDonald	RodriguezCassidy	(Broadview-	SkellyEpp	Greenwood)	Young-21(Thunder Bay-	McLaughlin	Nipigon)	Mitchell	Heap	Nystrom	Jewett	Orlikow	
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
The next question is on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
	Members	
Belsher	Hardey	ReidBradley	Hawkes	ReimerBrowes	Horner	St. GermainCaldwell	Jourdenais	St-JulienCardiff	Kempling	ScottClinch	Ladouceur	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Comeau	Lesick	ScowenCook	Lewis	SparrowCote	Lopez	Stackhouse(Lac-Saint-Jean)	MacDougall	StevensDarling	(Timiskaming)	ThackerDomm	Martin	TowersEpp	Mazankowski	Tupper(Provencher)	McCurdy	TurnerFennell	McKinnon	(Ottawa-Carleton)Friesen	McKnight	ValcourtGagnon	Nicholson	Van De WalleGass	(Niagara Falls)	VankoughnetGervais	Oberle	WenmanGraham	O'Neil	WhiteGray	Oostrom	Winegard-61(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	Parry	la-Madeleine)	Pietz	Greenaway	Ravis	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Epp	KaplanAlthouse	(Thunder Bay-	KeeperAxworthy	Nipigon)	ManlyBenjamin	Foster	McDonaldBlackburn	Gauthier	(Broadview-(Brant)	Gormley	Greenwood)Boudria	Gottselig	McLaughlinCassidy	Grondin	MitchellClark	Heap	Nickerson(Brandon-Souris)	Hopkins	Orlikowdc Corneille	Jewett	Penner
September 22, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Prud'homme	Rossi
Riis	Skelly
Robinson	Taylor
Rodriguez	Young-35
[DOT]	(1830)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the motion of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), as amended.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


George Albert Proud: On division.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion 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:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT]	(1835)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, on August 21 I asked the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), to inform the House of Commons regarding the Government's proposals to help strengthen and diversify the economies of Mozambique as well as the other front-line states bordering South Africa. The reply of the Deputy Prime Minister was totally inadequate. It lacked content or information of any kind.
I feel it is necessary to reiterate to the Secretary of State for External Affairs the crisis situation in Mozambique. South Africa has mounted a deliberate campaign of aggression aimed at destabilizing the independent nations of southern Africa to make them more dependent than ever on trade and transportation links with South Africa. With this strategy in mind, Mozambique warrants special attention because it is a major transportation and communications link to all the front-line states. South Africa invades Mozambique periodically, while bands of terrorists it sponsors roam the countryside spreading terror and destruction. As a result of these repeated attacks,
September 22, 1987

the Government of Mozambique has been unable to deal with the unprecedented drought and floods that have plagued Mozambique throughout this decade.
The destruction of the economy and the communications system has made Mozambique the runaway winner of the International Index of Human Suffering, which is devised from a rating of human misery in more than 100 countries. Mozambique rated 95 out of the highest possible level of suffering, which is 100.
Statistics released by UNICEF in January of this year revealed the startling fact of the human tragedy in Mozambique. The 1983-84 famine in Mozambique resulted in the death of at least 100,000 people. The contributing factors which resulted in the famine other than weather or agricultural policy was the dislocation of rural life and food production in southern Mozambique by South African-sponsored rebels. The 1986 statistics state that approximately 140,000 children both from Mozambique and Angola have died from war and destabilization-related causes. In view of this tragic situation in Mozambique, it is clear that these people require more than emergency food aid and some $24 million from CIDA.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs in a letter in response to my question of August 21 failed to provide any long-range proposals to help Mozambique rebuild its economy. Ottawa has responded in terms of emergency aid, but humanitarian assistance without attacking the root of the problem is futile. The amount of money given to Mozambique is pitiful compared to some of the other front-line states. I am speculating that the reason for this is the Marxist slant of the Mozambique Government. In spite of that Government's political ideology, men, women and children are suffering at the hands of South African-backed rebels.
Mozambique desperately requires help to rebuild its economy by way of defending its borders. Mozambique is a virtually poverty-stricken country. Part of this problem lies in the fact that 42 per cent of its budget goes to its defence in an effort to prevent South African-backed rebels from destroying its transportation links.
I have repeatedly asked the Minister to assist Mozambique in a manner that will benefit the people economically. It does not make sense to give small amounts of money for rebuilding when rebels keep destroying the reconstruction. The Minister has stated that he is committed to hastening the end of apartheid, but still has given no firm proposal as to how this end will be achieved. The Canadian High Commissioner in Britain stated that the Government of Canada may provide non-lethal military aid by way of jeeps and boots, but that will only allow the people of Mozambique to die with their boots on.
The Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Mr. Ram-phal, has also stated that both the Commonwealth and Canada
Adjournment Debate
will have to be more serious about meeting the needs of the front line states.
Mozambique needs economic stability and secure borders. I have suggested that the Minister undertake to get the Commonwealth to support the stationing of Commonwealth or United Nations peacekeeping forces in Mozambique to prevent further raids, and block South African weapons and supplies from reaching the roving bands of terrorists operating within Mozambique.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has not provided any concrete responses or proposals to the House regarding a role Canada will play, if any, in helping Mozambique. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs now inform the House of the Government's intention to help derail South Africa's plan to destabilize the front line states and how such a plan will help Mozambique strengthen its economy and internal stability?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is well aware of the grave situation in Mozambique. The Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) travelled to Maputo last year following the tragic death of President Samora Machel. The Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) and a Canadian fact-finding mission reported to the Government on areas where they thought Canada could be of greater assistance to Mozambique. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) also visited Mozambique this summer. This is to say that we are closely monitoring the situation there and have responded generously to their needs.
This year CIDA will spend approximately $33 million in Mozambique. This includes $15 million worth of food aid; $1 million to the United Nations Disaster Relief Organization; $450,000 to UNHCR for its work with refugees; assistance through the Southern African Development Co-Ordination Conference for the rehabilitation of the Nacala Railway; assistance to NGO projects and a bilateral rural development program administered by CUSO.
Mozambique is suffering from drought largely exacerbated by civil strife. The well-being of Mozambique is crucial to its neighbours who depend on vital transport links via Mozambique to the Indian Ocean. We know this and that is why Mozambique is currently one of the largest recipients of Canadian aid in sub-Saharan Africa.
ENERGY-PRICE OF NATURAL GAS IN MANITOBA/GOVERNMENT POSITION.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on September 16 I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) concerning the discrepancies in the price of natural gas being sold in Canada by the producing provinces, principally Alberta. I did this in light of the promises made by the Prime Minister during the 1984 election campaign, specifically in Prince Albert, where he promised that Canadian gas sold to

September 22, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Canadians will never cost more to Canadians than it does to Americans.
The example I cited is the fact that as of November 1 this year, natural gas from Alberta passing along the pipeline across Manitoba into Minnesota will be sold in that state at a price of $1.80 per thousand cubic feet. The same gas, having already passed through Manitoba, will cost Manitobans $3 per thousand cubic feet.
The answer I received from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was very unclear, to say the least. Tie spoke of a National Energy Board ruling which is consistent with the market-oriented policies of the Government. Further, he spoke of provisions within the ruling which provide adequate protection for consumers. Some joke.
Let us examine both of the points he made. The dispute between producing and consuming provinces is not new. Certainly the Manitoba Government has made its concerns known to Alberta for some time and the federal Government knows about this.
As 1 indicated in my question on September 16, the Prime Minister made a commitment in Prince Albert in the 1984 campaign that Canadian gas sold to Canadians will never cost them more than it costs Americans. We now have some evidence on that point from the National Energy Board. Its report released in August showed that B.C. gas buyers paid five cents more per gigajoule than U.S. customers paid for the same gas. This difference contravened the deregulation agreement of October 31, 1985, which said "the price of exported natural gas shall not be less than the price charged to Canadians" when terms of sale are the same. When asked about the discrepancy, the NEB said "We are watching and monitoring the situation". Isn't that nice? They said "The story may well change in the next reporting period." In other words, "wait until next year".
What is missing here is any sense of fairness to Canadians. When the Alberta export price to the U.S. is $2.19 a gigajoule and small volume users in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are being charged $2.59 to $2.79 a gigajoule, then it is clear that consumers and small users are not benefiting from so-called deregulation. As a matter of fact, the Ottawa Board of Education is losing an estimated $27,000 a month because the Alberta Government has yet to approve a supply deal which that board negotiated with an Alberta producer.
These small users try to take advantage of market pricing, which the Deputy Prime Minister talked about, by forming large buying groups and dealing with gas brokers in Alberta. Yet they are being denied gas because the Alberta Government will not grant removal permits to so-called core market users.
There we have the supposed market system, a willing seller and a willing buyer, being frustrated. The truth of the matter
is that cheaper gas applies only to large industrial users, some of whom have won discounts of as much as 66 per cent. The small user, public institutions and similar organizations are supposed to be the captive market that pays as much as they did before. The Alberta Government justifies this by saying these customers must pay for security of supply, a security which has been substantially decreased by the continual dropping of natural gas reserves required by the NEB before exports are permitted.
Clearly there is a day of reckoning coming. The first part is perhaps simpler. Customers who cannot get cheaper gas because of the Alberta Government may very well get other compensation in the form of rebates and non-price favours from suppliers. Alberta may well find the market will work despite its attempts to maintain higher prices for certain classes of users.
Second, we have the long-term impact. We are exporting relatively cheap gas from Alberta and British Columbia. When that gas is gone we will be captives to expensive gas from the high Arctic. The NEB insist that proven reserves more than take into account the total use in Canada and our exports. This is the same agency that predicted 300 years of gas in the 1960s and then found we had substantially less only a few years later. It is even now predicting a possible shortage by 1996.
It is time for the Government to live up to its election promises, let the market work and let consumers purchase gas at the cheapest price they can negotiate with suppliers.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member began his statement by quoting from the Prince Albert declaration because it was this Government's determination to dismantle the NEP which enabled the oil and gas industry to become emancipated and begin serving the Canadian consumer and providing for Canada's future energy self-sufficiency. I want to remind the Member of the day last week when he asked the question in the House. I refer to page 8997 of Hansard which reads:


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think we all know the position of the New Democratic Party. It would like to control market prices and production and phase out any export of natural gas or oil from the country.


John Edward Broadbent: Another lie. Keep it up. Do you ever tell the truth? Just once tell the truth.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is not true.
I have the policy handbook of the New Democratic Party dated 1986 which is prefaced with the indication that it is still up to date. At page 156, item (4) says:
Our current surplus of conventional natural gas should not be exported.
At page 159 under "Public Ownership" it says:
Recent developments have confirmed the necessity of asserting public control over the oil industry in Canada. Only under government ownership and
September 22, 1987

control can all Canadians be assured of a secure supply of petroleum products
at a fair price.
At page 160, item (f) says:
We therefore recommend the phasing out of such exports between now and
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was right, and I am waiting for the Leader of the New Democratic Party to withdraw his remarks. It is a good thing that the Government did dismantle the National Energy Program and we are now beginning to see the benefits of that.
With regard to prices paid in the British Columbia market, the export price for B.C. gas has been quite volatile, responding to competition from residual fuel oil and U.S.-produced gas in the Pacific northwest. While recent information indicates that B.C. consumers have paid more for gas than those in the adjacent U.S. market, this relationship between domestic and export prices for B.C. gas is likely to reverse quite dramatically over the next review period to reflect the decline of export sales during the summer months.
In his question in the House on September 16 the Hon. Member was referring to an export price on interruptible sales with respect to those in Manitoba. Some of those interruptible sales are of a very erratic nature-on one month and off the next. This is not the type of service that Manitoba wants. Manitoba wants and requires firm service. It is a logical fact of life in the natural gas business that long-term dependable firm service commands a higher price than that of short-term interruptible service.
I am sure that the House will be interested to know that during 1986 the average price paid by residential consumers of natural gas in Manitoba was $5.49 Canadian per thousand cubic feet versus $6.88 Canadian per thousand cubic feet paid by North Dakota residential consumers. While more recent figures are unavailable at this time, we are confident that over time Canadian consumers will continue to reap the benefits of deregulation.
TRADE-CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS DOMESTIC PRICE OF WHEAT/CAN ADI AN POSITION


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on September 15 I asked a question of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) with regard to the free trade negotiations with the United States. The provincial Premiers had met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) the previous evening and had commented that there was a great deal of pessimism about the free trade talks. There seemed to be no decision in sight on a number of key issues, including agricultural subsidies.
I asked what commitment the Minister could make with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board and the domestic price of wheat to guarantee that these two important elements of the Canadian western economy would not be bartered away.
Adjournment Debate
In the interview which Premier Bourassa gave to the press after the meeting with the Prime Minister, Premier Bourassa said that there were different formulas they were discussing to reach an agreement but that they had agreed not to talk about them publicly while the negotiations were under way.
It seems clear to me from the comments qf Premier Bourassa that the Government is considering various bargaining positions, perhaps including bargaining away the domestic price of wheat, which is earning close to $300 million a year in additional revenues for Canada's wheat producers. There are a number of such issues in our agricultural economy which the Americans want to get rid of. Our concern is that they will be bargained away in order to get a bi-national disputes handling mechanism.
In my second question to the Minister I inquired if the Minister could make it clear that agricultural programs such as our supply management systems marketing boards and support programs will not be bartered away in the final hours of negotiations. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary this evening will be able to give a clear commitment that the Government in those final negotiating hours, which we assume will come a week from this Sunday, will not bargain away the Canadian Wheat Board, Canada's right to set its domestic price of wheat and the supply managements system, the marketing boards and the systems for quotas and tariffs which underpin the supply management programs we have for the dairy and poultry industry, because we have a better system than does the United States.
The United States Undersecretary of State for Agriculture has made it very clear that the United States will not have a trade deal without agriculture being in it. It will not have a trade deal without doing away with the supply management systems we have in this country for poultry, for dairy products and for other commodities. They want that out of there.
I was simply asking for the Minister to make a commitment that the Government would not bargain these away in the final hours of negotiation. Her only comment was that it has to be a good deal for Canada. There is a small percentage of people in agriculture, yet it is vitally important, and if they were to be sold out it would not be a good deal for our farmers.
The Minister made the very profound comment that there is no agreement until there is an agreement. That is fairly selfevident. The Minister says the suggestion that there are tradeoffs is simply not true. Clearly, from the comments made by Premier Bourassa, the Government is definitely considering trade-offs.
I simply ask the Government not to trade away our supply management, our Wheat Board, our ability to have a domestic price of wheat, because if it does, it will not be serving the national good. It certainly will not be serving agriculture because the programs and mechanisms we have in this place for providing an adequate income to our dairy, poultry and

September 22, 1987
Adjournment Debate
wheat producers and to our farmers, in my opinion, are better than those in the United States and we should not be trading them away, regardless of how hard the United States trade negotiator pressures in the final hours of negotiation. I certainly hope the Parliamentary Secretary can give those assurances this evening which the Minister failed to give on the floor of the House of Commons on September 15.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by correcting the Hon. Member. The Minister has given those assurances a number of times, as has the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
By now everyone should be aware that the Canada-United States trade negotiations are in their final, most critical and most sensitive stage. Our negotiators are in almost constant session with the U.S. negotiators and Ministers are meeting frequently on the issue. In this situation it would not be helpful nor in Canada's interest for me to comment publicly on the specific positions or issues.
However, with regard to the specific question about the Canadian Wheat Board, I would like to recall that the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and other cabinet Ministers, including the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), have repeatedly made this Government's position clear
on marketing boards. We have repeated the message many times: Canada will retain the right to decide, in Canada, what types of marketing systems are best for Canadian agriculture. We are not about to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board, or any other marketing boards.
I remind all Hon. Members of the resolution passed overwhelmingly in the House on March 16 which states:
That this House supports the negotiation of a bilateral trading arrangement with the United States, as part of the government's multilateral trade policy, while protecting our political sovereignty, social programs, agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry, and our unique cultural identity.
We are engaged in a comprehensive trade negotiation with the United States in which we are discussing all barriers to trade. There is nothing surprising about the U.S. making requests for us to modify some of our domestic trade mechanisms. However, Canada's response to specific requests will depend on whether there is a good package for agriculture.
We will not sign any deal unless it is a good deal for Canada and Canadian farmers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, September 23, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers