1987-09-01

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), 1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-2964 and 332-2974.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have some petitions signed by residents of British Columbia dealing with the refugee situation.
They point out that a standing committee of Parliament proposed a new procedure for refugees which, if adopted, would fairly and effectively solve problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims. Those alternatives have widespread support among all Parties in Parliament as well as the various churches, bar associations, and other groups knowledgeable about refugee issues.
They therefore call upon the House to withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation which embodies the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of British Columbians who have indicated an interest in the progress of Bill C-55 and have raised some concern.
They suggest that the House of Commons consider the
recommendations of the standing committee of Parliament
which has proposed a new procedure for the processing of
refugees which, if adopted, would fairly and effectively solve the problem of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims.
They have indicated that this particular motion has the support, not only of all Parties in Parliament which sat on that committee, but also the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and other groups that are familiar with the refugee issue.
They call upon the Government of Canada to consider the committee's recommendations.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition which has been approved in form by the Clerk of Petitions.
It is signed by a number of people from Halifax and Windsor who object to Bill C-55 on the grounds that it will result in many, perhaps most, real refugees who reach our borders being turned away without their claims being heard on the merits of their cases partly because there is no proper appeal on point of fact which is the question of credibility for most of these refugees.
Therefore, the petitioners request that the Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact. In duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 106 will be answered today.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	At present is (a) platinum (b) magnesium (c) chrome imported into Canada from South Africa and, if so (i) in what quantities (ii) by what companies?
2.	Are any sanctions imposed on these minerals at the present time or are they contemplated?

September 1, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. In 1986, according to Statistics Canada, $5.9 million of chrome (of which $4.7 million was ferrochrome), and $5.4 million worth of platinum was imported into Canada from South Africa. No South African magnesium was imported into Canada. Under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and because of the proprietary nature of the information involved it is not possible to divulge the names of the companies concerned.
2. At the present time no sanctions exist or are proposed against imports of South African chrome, platinum or magnesium.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Minister has been answered.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 159 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, nongovernmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto
and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very short point of order on which I would like to seek some guidance from the Chair. It is with regard to the situation which arose late in the day yesterday. Members of
the House had been informed earlier in the day that there would be a vote called at six o'clock as per the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders provide for a 15-minute bell in that case.
I would like to make the point that Members of Parliament work not only in the House of Commons giving presentations and voting at the appropriate time, but also carry on their responsibilities and duties in standing, special and joint committees as well as carrying out their regular responsibilities as Members of Parliament. In order to do that effectively it is important that Members have the opportunity to schedule their day's events.
This is not an earth-shattering situation and I do not want to suggest that it is. However, we have Standing Orders so that we can understand what we are doing here. The reform committee which studied this matter for a considerable length of time made its recommendations in order to facilitate the business of the House of Commons so that Members of the House would have a clear understanding of what was transpiring at any time.
I draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because you were conducting business elsewhere at the pertinent time last night. I thought it would be appropriate for you to make a comment at the appropriate time. Members were assembled at the appropriate time for the vote and five minutes passed and then 10 minutes and then 15 minutes. It is understandable that Members of Parliament became concerned. After the vote a number of people asked me, as House Leader of the New Democrats, why we waited for so long.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this is not the most important event in Canada today, but if we are going to facilitate the business of the House and take it seriously, it is important that rules, regulations, conventions and traditions be followed unless there is good reason to depart from them after discussion and concurrence of the Parties involved. I draw that to your attention, Mr. Speaker, to reflect the view of my Party that there was concern that the business and planning of a number of Members in my caucus, and I suspect in all caucuses, was disrupted yesterday. At the appropriate time I would appreciate a comment from the Chair on this matter.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. There is more than a question of orderly business involved in this matter; it becomes, at a certain point, a matter of discipline. If there is a 15-minute bell it means that Parties should be able to produce their respective votes at the end of the 15 minutes. When a longer period of time is allotted, in this case to the Government because the Government Whip, as I understand it, was not present, it perhaps means that the Government is not ready for the vote at the end of the 15 minutes. As it was a 15-minute bell, the question should have been put without the Government being ready for it. Otherwise, what would be the point of insisting that the bell be limited to 15 minutes and that the vote take place thereafter?



September 1, 1987

Therefore, it is more than a matter of orderly business. If the Government is to be allowed additional time at the end of 15 minutes through the device of not having the Whip available, then similar consideration might be asked for in the future by the Official Opposition. If that is the way in which the situation devolves, what happens to the rule that calls for the vote to be put after 15 minutes?


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Actually, I tried to raise this point of order yesterday afternoon, after the bells had rung for more than fifteen minutes. However, I was unable to do so because we were in a vacuum. The bells were ringing and no one could speak in the House.
The point I want to make is that in Standing Order 13(2) which is very clear, we read the following:
(2) When, under the provisions of any Standing Order or other Order of this House, the Speaker has interrupted any proceeding for the purpose of putting forthwith the question on any business then before the House, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes.
The first question that comes to mind is why the bells had not stopped, since they were supposed to stop. The Standing Orders are clear. 1 may remind Hon. Members that before the Standing Orders were amended, the bells could go on ringing for an indefinite period. There were times when opposition parties took advantage of this fact and prolonged the ringing of the bells to make a certain point, and this has occasionally created a chaotic political situation in this country.
When our Party negotiated with the Government to amend the Standing Orders of the House, we agreed to a time limit on the ringing of the bells, fully realizing that this would put certain constraints on an opposition party that would no longer have the means of using the bells to get its point across. Since we as the Opposition Party agreed to discipline ourselves and to change the Standing Orders, thus losing a mechanism, in fact a weapon, it could otherwise have used in the House, I think it is only fair that the Government should observe the Standing Orders, since they apply to both the Government and the Opposition.
I realize that according to our parliamentary tradition, the bell stops ringing when the Whips enter side by side and walk onto the floor of the House.
However, the Standing Order I read earlier is quite clear: The bells shall ring for not more than fifteen minutes.
1 think that, eventually, the Chair should make a statement in the House-at least that is what I would suggest-to clarify the interpretation of this Standing Order so that all Members know what the situation is. That is what I would urge you to do, Mr. Speaker.
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague raising this point because I think it is fair to say that this is one of the rules of the House which works both ways at various times. I am aware, without being able to state exactly on what dates it happened, that there have been accommodations given by the Government to the opposition Parties with respect to Members who were having difficulty arriving for a vote, when perhaps for the Government's purpose we would have appreciated a 15-minute bell in order to go to caucus. However, we allowed for a half hour bell so that planes could arrive and so on.
I think it is fair to say that this is a rule that has not been abused by either the opposition Parties or the Government in the past. I also submit that it was not abused last evening.
There were many Members who showed up for the vote. It would be partisan of me to comment that there was a noticeable absence of opposition Members from Montreal, so I will not do that.


Jacques Guilbault: Order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Everyone knows the interest that Bill C-22 had in the Montreal area. I compliment my friend-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister, of course, has alluded to what he was not going to do. Having chosen the words he did immediately after having alluded to that, he did not have to allude to what he was not going to do. The Hon. Minister will, of course, keep that in mind.


Philip Derek Lewis: Thank you for dispelling any illusions that you are not following my allusions.
Having said that, I take the point that the opposition Members have made. However, it is not a rule that has been abused to the best of my knowledge. There will be occasions when this happens in the future and accommodations are asked for by all Parties of the House. That happened yesterday evening. I take the comments of my colleagues to heart and hope that in the future when this happens we can settle it among the Members of the House without lengthy discussions on the floor.


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Minister said about waiting for two or three minutes. However, I totally disagree with his allusions that some Liberal Members from Montreal may have stayed away from the House.
At least I will have the decency to refrain from telling him the real reason-that the minutes-


An Hon. Member:: You know the reason?

September 1, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Carlo Rossi: -yes, I was waiting to walk onto the floor of the House as Whip. I know the real reason, but I shall not blame the Conservatives and I shall not challenge them to tell us how many Conservatives were missing, because percentagewise, there were a lot more missing on your side than on ours.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. The point is that the two or three minutes, as the Minister said . . . True, that could happen in all three parties.
I would like to submit something that may simplify the procedure and prevent the recurrence of last night's incident. It is true that, according to our procedure, the bells do not stop ringing until the Whips walk onto the floor of the House. In an emergency, it is of course possible . . . However, I think that if at a given time, the Speaker of the House says-and it is his responsibility . . . : It is now 6.18 p.m., and we were supposed to vote at 6.15 p.m.. The bells stop ringing at the Speaker's request, and Members may rise and be recognized by the Speaker, after the bells have stopped ringing. But as long as the bells keep ringing, everything is at a standstill, and no one can speak. So it might be better to say: The bells will ring for fifteen minutes, thirty minutes or thirty-two or thirty-three minutes, and then the Speaker can order the bells to stop ringing, the Whips can walk onto the floor of the House and everybody, I would imagine, would be happy. All we need is probably just a slight change in procedure.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to add a short comment in response to the Hon. Minister's intervention. It concerns the fact that this is one of the Standing Orders that has not been abused, as he has indicated. From time to time there is accommodation made. I think it is important that we recognize that for this particular vote to which we are referring in the deliberations this morning, Members and Party Whips had three days notice. It was not as though the motion and the vote came as a surprise. When that does happen, often we end up voting very quickly and accommodations are made back and forth, as I hope they will be from now on.
Considering the advance notice that all Parties had, and the advance recognition that there would be a vote at six o'clock and the bells would ring until 6.15, I simply thought it was appropriate that we follow the rules of the House of Commons under those conditions.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has mentioned, there was three days notice given for this vote. The Opposition has been fighting this legislation for months now, yet, there were only 33 out to vote. I hope it may occur to him that perhaps we were trying to accommodate the Opposition to help them vote on a Bill to which they were opposed so much.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary
Secretary-


Mr. Fulton:: One hundred of your guys were missing.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been in the House a long time and, as all Hon. Members know, has made a very significant contribution to the matters that come before this House. However, while I very much regret that this happened last night, what is before me is a case where the bells went on for a considerable length of time. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address himself to that particular issue and I know all Hon. Members would want to refrain from breaching the rule, which we have for a good reason, that we do not comment on the absence or otherwise of colleagues in the House. The Hon Parliamentary Secretary.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to violate the rules of the House. It was my understanding that it was improper to refer to the absence of any particular Member, about which I have been very careful. I was simply making a comment in general about the general absence of opposition Members when they had a chance to vote.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. 1 cannot stand the allusions being made by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister. If they want to know the truth, let them ask the Government Whip why he was not in the House. He knows why, and I know why, and I will say so. I know the reason.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fully understand what the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) is saying. I also know why he is saying it. But I think that we probably do not need a lot of comments about the absence of Members, whether they belong to the Government or the Official Opposition or to the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment which has nothing to do with the presence or absence of particular Members, Members in general, or anything else of that nature.
[DOT] (M30)
With respect to the issue of a designated 15 minute or 30 minute bell, what happened last night was very dangerous, even given the fact that in the past there has been accommodation in the order of minutes between Parties, which is a kind of mutual courtesy. I hope that will continue. However, what happened last night went beyond that. I was glad that it came to an end and we finally had the vote before the person, whoever it was we were waiting for, arrived.
The fact is that if that were to happen more than once; if the House was to be put in a position where we could not have the vote until the Whips came in and the Whips were not coming in until a particular person were to arrive, we would be very soon back in the position we were when the bells rang for 16 days, or at least the possibility would be created.
September 1, 1987

The Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons of the House went to a great deal of trouble to eliminate that possibility. One of the ways in which we were to eliminate that possibility was by having a 15 minute bell when the bell would ring for 15 minutes and then there would be a vote, and if there was a 30 minute bell, the bells would ring for 30 minutes and then there would be a vote.
This point of order is not over nothing; it is about something which could be very dangerous. I say that to Members because they know it. I could see it on their faces last night. They knew what was happening. This should not happen again. It is as simple as that.


Mr. Speaker;: The matter that has been raised this morning was brought to my attention earlier today and I very deeply regret that it happened. I will consider carefully what Hon. Members from all three Parties have said. I do want to reiterate that there is a tradition in this place that sometimes the Chair is guided by the disposition of the Whips. That is a tradition which we may well not want to abolish completely.
However, the extension of the bells last night was lengthy. I think the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) probably, if he had been less inclined to be the gentleman he is, might have indicated at least part of the reason for that extension. I think Hon. Members perhaps know that part of the reason for that extension was a courtesy extended in the best traditions of this place to those from one Party to another.
The point that has been raised I take seriously and I will come back with some comments which I hope will be of some guidance to the House, without at the same time being so severe that Whips among themselves will be constrained from exercising upon occasion some appropriate common sense.
What happened last night was regrettable, and I am very sorry it happened. 1 will do everything I can to ensure that it does not happen again. I will come back with some measured comments which I hope will be accepted by all Members of the House. I thank all Members for intervening this morning. Their comments were helpful to the Chair.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business:
Second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-258, an
Act to amend the Criminal Code (War crimes and crimes against
Humanity)-Mr. Kaplan.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have before the House an amendment to the Criminal Code, Bill C-258, dealing with war crimes. I moved the Bill in the hope that whether or not it was passed, it would encourage the Government to bring in its own Bill. The Government has done so.
Immigration Act, 1976
The Bill has received three readings and has been sent to the Senate.
In light of that, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw my Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Government took independent action as a result of the Deschenes Commission and brought forward the report. The legislation which was brought forward by the Government flowed directly from the Deschenes Commission report. We passed it last weekend. We are satisfied that we have taken action finally, after a long, long time, and, therefore, we are prepared to give our consent that the Bill be withdrawn.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly prepared to concur with the request.
I would also like to use the occasion to recognize the contribution made by the Hon. Member, in co-operation with other Members of the House, namely, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), for many, many years, in terms of focusing attention on this issue, and the Government, as the Minister has indicated, has acted.
I think that shows that when Members of the House of Commons are persistent and steadfast in their commitment to seeing certain legislation introduced, in the end it works well. Again, Mr. Speaker, we certainly lend our consent to the request.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for his comments and I must say I agree with them.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, August 31, consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 25 to 40 at page
8 and lines 1 to 14 at page 9.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this clause of Bill C-84 has aroused more comment than perhaps all the other clauses of the Bill put together, among many people, not just those directly engaged in refugee work but editorialists and others.

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
What this clause does in the present law is make criminals out of thousands of people if they continue to do what they have been doing for years with no suggestion from anyone that they were doing wrong.
Clause 9, Section 95.1 states:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa, passport or travel document where one is required by this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence-
It goes on to indicate the punishment upon conviction of up to $10,000 fine, or on summary conviction a fine of up to $2,000, or imprisonment for as much as five years on indictment or six months, or both.
Section 95.2 describes the offence in the case of a person who brings in more than 10 people in the way they are described and the punishment in the form of fines and imprisonment are appropriately much larger. That is to say they are appropriately larger if they are appropriate at all.
What we have here is the creation of a new offence, the offence of bringing a person to a Canadian border point and saying that the person, in many cases, does not have a visa or travel document of any sort but is claiming to be a refugee, that he was brought there in order to tell the immigration authorities, as the Minister has told us should be done, and have them decide whether in fact he or she should receive any protection from Canada as a refugee. That does not mean that he will be admitted as an immigrant, only that he will receive protection as a refugee.
This has been done in the past. The law has been quite clear to Ministers, officials and thousands and thousands of Canadians. What is an offence is an attempt to evade immigration authorities. The existing law states in Section 95(a):
95. Every person who
(a) comes into Canada at any place other than a port of entry and fails to
report to an immigration officer for examination as required by subsection
12(1)-
is guilty of an offence and is liable-
In other words, if he evades the point of entry, if he evades the examining officer, then he is guilty of an offence. This was clearly done in certain recent cases that were much publicized, cases of people landing by ship and not coming to a regular port where they might have met an immigration officer.
The Bill also states that anyone who knowingly induces, aids or abets or attempts to induce, aid or abet any person to contravene any provision of this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence. That is clear. If a person enters in an evasive way, and if someone else helps that person to do so then that second person who gave the help is guilty of an offence. That is found in Section 95 of the Act, subsections (a) and (m). Section 95.1 states that any person who:
knowingly contravenes any existing term or condition subject to which he was granted admission or contravenes any term or condition added-
In other words, a person who knowingly feigns refugee status when he knows that to be not the case would be in contravention of the Act and any person who counselled him to do that would also be in contravention of the Act. It may be that some people are now about to be tried in court this month in Toronto for charges of that sort. But the existing offences under the present Act all depend upon whether there is an attempt to evade the regulations, to evade examination, to get in without being examined by an immigration officer who would have the responsibility of saying, "come in" or "stay out".
The new offence that is described here would be an offence without any attempt to evade, without any attempt to deceive, without any attempt to put forward a false refugee claim. Very simply, if a person brings an undocumented non-Canadian to a Canadian port of entry and to the immigration office there then that will now be a serious offence punishable by a fine of several thousands of dollars or several years in prison.
Many members of the public and many Members of Parliament at first thought that there was an error in the drafting of this Bill. When my Leader first spoke to the Bill he suggested there was an error in its drafting. There were attempts made by members of the public and by members of the Opposition in committee, with the assistance of many delegations which appeared before the committee, to correct such an error if in fact it was an error. The motion I moved in an attempt to provide for the creation of an offence that would not attack people who are innocent of any attempt to evade was as follows:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet a group of ten or more persons to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent claim-
Likewise:
-to enter in a manner that avoids normal entry procedures is guilty of an offence and is liable.
That amendment and all proposed amendments were turned down by the government members of the committee. In fact, at the end of the debate, or toward the end of the debate on that clause, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he believed it would be impossible to find any words better than the words that were there. In other words, we were mistaken in assuming that the Government had made an error in drafting. In fact, the Government intends to make criminals out of thousands of Canadians if they continue doing what they have been doing in good faith.
The people at Fort Erie who have welcomed refugees are aiding refugees. People who give refugees true information about the Canadian law are aiding refugees. They are aiding people to come into Canada. Many of them will come in without proper documents. That is to say, not sneaking in but coming to an immigration office. Therefore it is clear that the Government wishes to intimidate Canadians in order to persuade them to stop helping refugees to come to Canada, unless those refugees have a passport.
September 1, 1987

Last night the Parliamentary Secretary stated that it is not necessary to help them in that way because they can get a visa at the consulates in the United States. That is false for a great many of the people who are in genuine need as refugees because we have a quota. There are only so many hundreds of visas to be issued to such people in a year in the consulates in the United States, and also because they examine them not primarily as refugees but as immigrants. If they do not match up to our economic requirements for immigrants, then they are turned down for a visa, notwithstanding that they may be in great need as refugees.
I am forced to the conclusion that the Government has decided firmly and clearly to make a major change in Canada's refugee policy, but not to announce it as such. It had made a major change in which it will say, "No more inland claims will be accepted unless those people have come on a visitor's visa", which very few will be able to get. Usually only well-to-do people, diplomats or celebrities are able to get them, unless they happen to be transiting through Gander from some country in Eastern Europe, in which case of course their case will be handled quietly, not through any refugee determination procedure but simply on a so-called humanitarian basis at the time of arrival, meaning it will be completely closed to the public, totally subject to political pressure of the current government, whichever government might be in power.
I think it is unfortunate that the Government has chosen to make such a basic change in our refugee policy, a basic denial of our obligations to the United Nations, without any announcement. That is the only conclusion I can come to from the Government's considered refusal to accept any kind of clarification or amendment to Clause 9 of the Bill.
Therefore my motion is that we delete Clause 9 as being quite offensive, both to thousands of Canadians and to our international obligations.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Motion No. 16 put forward by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Yesterday I moved an amendment to change the wording of the proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 of the Bill. I did so because I think everyone recognizes that proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 could have and should have been amended. I do not believe there is a Member of Parliament or a Canadian who would concur with the powers granted to the Government under those sections.
The Hon. Member who spoke before me was correct when he said that despite the objections of the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretary this clearly creates a new offence. The offence would be operative around the word "documentation" and the word "visa" and somehow any Canadian, any priest, any individual assisting, aiding or abetting an individual refugee claimant who does not have a proper visa in his or her back pocket is liable to a fine and to imprisonment. If it is a group over 10, that fine can be up to $500,000, and up to 10 years in prison.
Immigration Act, 1976
It is 1987 and we live in what we would like to believe is a progressive country, which it is, because its progressive element is rooted in the people, and perhaps not in the Government. But imagine enacting a piece of legislation that would in law, place an individual who acts out of humanitari-anism for fellow human beings in attempting to assist the refugee claimant in the same category as the sleazy smugglers and consultants whom everyone wants to put out of business.
Before the committee studying Bill C-84 prior to report stage, the churches and other organizations clearly stated that they have never counselled fraudulent applications, that they have never counselled evading the law of Canada, and they have never suggested that any claimant rip up his or her documentation before arriving in Canada.
Those organizations went on the record in support of amending proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2. I tried to do this and was unsuccessful in committee, and in the House yesterday. Those organizations would be in favour of making it an offence to evade the law, and counsel fraudulent claimants, whether or not they have documents.
During the Portuguese scam people came in with their documents, and their claims were largely unfounded. Making those actions liable to a fine or to imprisonment would receive the approval and the blessing of the church organizations and the non-church organizations. There is no disagreement with the witnesses who came before the committee and suggested that action. Obviously, those organizations would object strenuously and passionately if those proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 were allowed to stand.
We have had a song and dance from the two Ministers of immigration-the Cheech and Chong show-when they suggested that the churches do not worry. They also suggested to individual Canadians that they should not worry; we will not put you in prison, or fine someone who assists refugees. Canadians are asking, if that is the intention, why at the same time is legislation being enacted that would allow the Government to do the very things that it is suggesting it will never do? Why create a law that will imprison or fine people that it does not want fined or imprisoned? It is hypocritical. It is attempting to straddle two sides, and that simply cannot be done. If the Government is serious in its intentions, it should be reflected in the legislation.
It is the ultimate responsibility of Members of Parliament to create laws, and ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are wisely spent. Those two elements are fundamental. We have to draft laws that protect Canadians, our country, and our civil liberties. Those laws must ensure that regardless of who is the Minister tomorrow or next week, or who is the Government tomorrow or next week, there is a law that cannot be undermined, abused, or misused.
This is a clear and flagrant abuse in drafting legislation. It is irresponsible for a legislative assembly, particularly the

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
national institution of Parliament, in 1987 to draft legislation that would allow and permit a fine against an individual, a priest, a nun, who is assisting a refugee claimant who has no documentation. It is not a signal or legislation that we should be proud of. I do not know of any progressive country in the western world that has in its legislation such a repugnant and regressive element. Surely, if we are to draft legislation to target those who are the culprits, those who circumvent our laws, let us not have legislation that is so wide and encompassing that it throws a blanket around everyone and treats them as potential criminals. That is not the manner in which legislation is drafted. It has an objective, a target, and we must provide the legal tools and wording to enable us to zero in on the real abusers and not make criminals out of those who wish to help their fellow man.
This is not only the position of the Opposition. George Cram, of the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees stated:
I do not want to be guilty of committing an offence for doing humanitarian work. I do not want to feel inside myself that what 1 am doing is illegal, and I do not want to be liable for prosecution. The offence is what you are creating, not the prosecution.
Another member of the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, Nancy Pocock, a woman who has dedicated most of her life to assisting refugees, and not assisting refugees to circumvent the law, stated:
If my government tells me it is a crime to help these people, I will have to say I am obeying a higher law and I am going to continue to help them when they need me.
In what was very moving testimony, at committee, Rabbi Gunther Plaut stated, referring to the committee and Parliament:
You can render the Canadian people and the refugee community of the world and causes of humanity in general a true service if you manage to eliminate from this Bill clauses that treat such people worse than the worst of criminals.
There was a second reading of this Bill during which these concerns were outlined. There was a legislative committee that heard from Canadians, and the Government had a chance to listen. Thus far in report stage the Government has declined to accept any amendments, wording changes, or inclusions of the words humanitarian, church, non-profit, charity, volunteer, which would state clearly that beyond intentions, which are not worth the paper on which they are written if we have this legislation, we are not after individual Canadians who complement the work of the Government's elected officials by doing a job that would ultimately cost the Canadian Government and taxpayers millions of dollars. This is volunteer work, work that is done by people who are moved from the gut and the heart. The Government is moved by neither its gut or heart to make those actions liable under the law to a fine or imprisonment.
I again call upon the Government, at report stage, now at the eleventh hour, to heed these concerns, listen to the concerns of Canadians who are saying to the Government to go after the culprits, the smugglers, and the consultants who are
charging $15,000 a head, but do not place them in the same sleazy category that is occupied by those smugglers.
That is the challenge and the purpose of this amendment. I look forward to having a more progressive and enlightened response from the Government, rather than pretending to ignore legitimate, substantial, and real pleas.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: The motion of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) deserves the full support of every Member in the House, as explained by those who preceded me in this debate.
Yesterday during a similar debate in the House on a motion by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen) said something that was revealing and important. As reported at page 8626 of Hansard, he said:
1 have never once felt threatened by the law because of my interest in
refugees.
That is because under the present legislation, no one is threatened by the law for his or her interest in refugees.
Under the auspices of the Government and steered by the Parliamentary Secretary for the second day, because both Ministers of Immigration are absent, the Bill before us includes a clause which the Hon. Member for Spadina wants to delete, and quite rightly so, as it is a clause that will threaten anyone who gets involved in refugee work. That is why we are very upset about this matter and have raised it at second reading stage, in committee and here today at report stage.
Yesterday in Ottawa there was a group of Canadians including the Committee of Canadians Representing Human Rights Activists, the Anglican Bishop Edward Scott, the President of the Canadian Council of Churches and representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Ethno-Cultural Council, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and a number of lawyers described as experts in immigration, refugee law or the Charter of Rights. They actually went much further than we are going in this debate today in that they urged the Government to scrap its callous new refugee legislation. One of the reasons they proposed this yesterday is this particular clause, the clause the Hon. Member for Spadina wants to have removed for the reasons just given by the Hon. Member for York West.
A number of Canadians have commented on this legislation, particularly on this clause. I would like to draw to the attention of the House the words of George Cram of the InterChurch Committee for Refugees. He said that he does not want to be guilty of committing an offence for doing humanitarian work. Clause 9 of the Bill amends Sections 95.1 and 95.2 to make individuals or members of organizations,
September 1, 1987

volunteer organizations or church organizations that help refugees, guilty of an offence for becoming involved in legitimate work with refugees. That is the clause to which we object.
Once this legislation is passed, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Immigration will not be able to claim that he can feel safe and secure under the new Canadian law when he becomes involved with refugee work. He cannot claim that, no matter how much he rejects that notion, because if he does he is not reading what is printed in the Bill we are passing today.
Clause 9 of the Bill reads:
95.2 Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of a group of 10 or more persons ... is guilty of an offence-
Even if only one person is involved, such a person becomes guilty of a criminal offence. Is that what the Government wants to do? If the answer is no, then this clause must go, as we urged on second reading and as the Hon. Member for York West and the Hon. Member for Spadina urged in committee.
There is no place for this kind of clause in sound legislation that would take into account the legitimate work of Canadians who are involved in human rights and legitimate refugee work. There is no way that this ought to be allowed.
As others have already said, this clause will become the object of contestation in the courts and of constitutional action. Before we know it this legislation, which was intended by the Government to be the solution to an urgent problem, will become entangled in the higher courts. What an incompetent way of dealing with the problem facing us.
What is so astonishing is that having been warned, the Government is not taking into account all the submissions which have come not just from the Opposition but from groups that are legitimately active in the field of helping refugees.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Spadina is one that commands attention-not only attention but support. We hope that when it comes to a recorded vote government Members will support the motion. I hope they will not be silent and allow to pass into law Clause 9, a clause which runs counter to all our traditions and commitments and the recognition of decent work done by Canadians in the field of refugees. There is no place under the sun for this clause in good Canadian statutes.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have to say at the outset that of all the motions before us, this is probably the most astounding one. All during the debate we heard opposition Members say that everyone is subject to the law. I should say all opposition Members with the exception of the Leader of the New Democratic Party who said in his speech that according to his reading of this provision, the church people are subject to the penalties under the law and that is totally unacceptable to the members of his Party. He said that as though church leaders do not have to obey the law. I find that
Immigration Act, 1976
unacceptable. The members of his Party later modified their Leader's position.
Opposition Members have said that we must stop the abusers and shysters, but at the same time have introduced a motion which withdraws from the Bill all of the provisions that are designed to stop the abusers and shysters. Frankly, I fail to see the logic of that kind of a mind-set.
On the one hand, we have heard a chorus of opposition Members and witnesses saying we must stop the abusers, and we provided a provision in the Bill that would stop the abusers. Then, on the other hand, the Hon. Member for Spadina has said that he thinks we should withdraw that clause. I do not know how we could carry on a refugee determination system with no provisions to protect genuine refugees.
All of us here are over 21 and we are all entitled to different points of view. However, we do have a responsibility to be accurate and to base our views on accurate information. I mentioned last night that church workers working on behalf of refugees have no reason to fear this legislation. They are not the target group.
I will repeat what I said last night in order to give myself the opportunity of correcting what the Hon. Member for Spadina said this morning. Church leaders who want to work with refugees have no reason to fear this legislation because their major concerns are with the flow of refugees from Central America. That flow comes principally through the United States of America. Last night I asked why any of them could not go to a Canadian consulate anywhere in the United States, whether New York, Detroit, or Seattle and apply for refugee status? There is no reason that they cannot do that. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) says they cannot do that because there is a quota system. That is absolutely false.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: True, there is. I have been told by the officers.


Benno Friesen: It is false. There is no quota on sponsoring refugees. The Member cannot hide behind that. It is unlimited. I cannot understand why the churches would not simply advise claimants to go to a consulate in the United States and say, "We want to sponsor this person to come to Canada." That would be better for the claimant. He can do all of his paper processing there. He can come directly to Canada and qualify for a work permit as soon as he arrives and begin the process of integrating, if that is what he intends to do, into Canadian society. The churches are not using the sponsorship program very well.
I will repeat the numbers that I read yesterday. Of Central American landings in 1986 from the United States, the Government sponsored 1,018 refugees from refugee camps in the U.S. The churches, the humanitarian groups, individuals in total sponsored only 76.


Mr. Caccia:: So what? What is the point?

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Benno Friesen: If they were really interested in sponsoring refugees, that is the way to do it.


Charles L. Caccia: Judge the quality not the numbers.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) says, "judge the quality".


Charles L. Caccia: Yes, of course.


Benno Friesen: First, I am mystified as to what he means by that. Second, the quality is in the integration in Canadian society. If they would get their work done in the United States in a Canadian consulate or a detention centre refugee camp-


Charles L. Caccia: If they are in Nicaragua, what would you do?


Benno Friesen: -on the U.S.-Mexican border, they would come already providing themselves with a fuller way of life in Canada.
Up to June, 1987, the church groups together with private individuals and other humanitarian organizations from the United States sponsored 19. Where is their great concern?


Sergio Marchi: What about the boat people?


Benno Friesen: Is there is something romantic about ferrying people to a border point in Canada? Does it add something to the glow of humanitarianism to see if this can be done clandestinely? Is it the air of excitement? If they are thinking of refugees, they would sponsor them the same way the Government sponsors them.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am certain that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would not wish deliberately to misrepresent the church leaders he is talking about. Rhetorically he asked, is it because they wished to ferry people to border points clandestinely. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary does not seriously wish to charge them either with doing that clandestinely or with having supported the idea of doing it clandestinely in their representations to our committee. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary would clarify the point and indicate that he is not suggesting that church leaders or humanitarian groups have either ferried people clandestinely or have advocated doing it clandestinely.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair takes that more as a matter of a question to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a matter of debate and not a point of order.


Benno Friesen: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Spadina I would want to make it clear that I am not charging the church leaders. I am simply asking them, is there an air of excitement about ferrying people to border points other than through the process of sponsorship? If the humanitarian groups really are looking for the best possible way of helping refugees, it seems to me they would want to do the work outside the country as much as they can
and bring them into Canada already fully prepared to take part in the Canadian way of life and be able to work.
As I said, I find it shocking that the Member who has constantly said that we need to get rid of the profiteers now would introduce a motion that would take away the provisions in the Bill that would help us to get rid of the profiteers.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a moment covering some of the ground somewhat hastily dirtied by the Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago. A little bit of history is in order here, particularly in relation to Clause 95.4, at which all Members of this House should take a close look.
This clause was originally suggested by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), which was then moved by the Government and placed into the Bill. He is suggesting as Members on this side of the House are suggesting, that proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 be removed, for good reason. Those two sections go after church groups and others.
We hear the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and some Members on that side saying, "Well, those church groups don't need to worry because we will not prosecute them", but Government Members, and the Minister in particular, are saying there will be selective prosecution. As someone who used to work in the courts on probation and parole, I know about selective prosecution. 1 know that Members like the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) would like selective prosecution whereby if you do not like a particular church group or a particular group of refugees then you go after that group and by using the full force of proposed Section 95.1 and 95.2 you go after them. But if it happens to be a group you might like in your constituency or that might be politically appealing to you, then it is the wink-wink, nudge-nudge-you know what I mean, Mr. Speaker. It is not the way Canadians like laws to be written, or the way we like to see them used within the courts.
The Parliamentary Secretary and others on that side of the House often ask whether we really want these refugees who come without papers anyway. It displays the kind of ignorance that is symptomatic of that Member in particular and other Members on that side. Some of the bona fide refugees that come from Central and South America, sister countries, are in fact closer to my constituency in my province of British Columbia-if you think particularly of Central America- than is Nova Scotia or other parts of our own country. There are growing relationships between many families, certainly many western provinces, in agriculture, fisheries and the many things in which we have expertise with those countries.
Many people understand why refugees who are persecuted, politically in their own land, do not just sort of drop by the local police station and ask for their papers before heading up to Canada or the United States. They do not just sort of drop by to pick up a driver's licence, a visa or a passport or anything
September 1, 1987

else because the death squads and others terrorizing civilian populations in much of Central and South America do not view very kindly those who are active politically and are attempting to get papers to get out of the country.
Let us take a look at what is being proposed. Let us look at proposed Section 95.4 and see what it says. I quote from the Bill:
Every person who knowingly counsels, induces, aids or abets, or who knowingly attempts to counsel, induce, aid or abet, any other person to make any false or misleading statement in connection with a claim by that other person to be a Convention refugee is guilty of an offence and is liable
(a)	on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both; or
(b)	on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.
That is the standard wording you find with respect to indictable or summary convictions in most of the Criminal Code of Canada.
I think most Members would note that The Ottawa Citizen today ran an article by lain Hunter pointing out what Anglican Archbishop Edward Scott, President of the Canadian Council of Churches, has to say about the orchestration of the emergency involving the 174 people who landed in Nova Scotia. There was the orchestration of another boat supposedly coming along. The Government knew all along that the first boat was coming but orchestrated it to get emergency recall of Parliament, not just to deal with Bill C-84 and Bill C-55, but to deal with Bill C-22, the drug Bill, and the rail back-to-work legislation. Now we find today all kinds of other legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary this morning, quite contrary to the rules of the House, as is often his way, commented on the presence or absence of Members of the House. That is the kind of scurrilous activity we see the Hon. Member involved in all the time. He says, "How was I to know about the rules?"
We are talking about a law which potentially affects refugees whose lives are in danger. It is one thing for the Hon. Member to say they can just drop in on an embassy in Detroit or somewhere else in the U.S., and that there are no quotas. My colleague from Spadina has spoken to officers who work in various consulates in the U.S. and has confirmed that there are quotas in operation. We know what is happening in the U.S. where sections similar to 95.1 and 95.2 have been introduced. We know what has gone on. There have been direct belligerent prosecutions of church groups who have been attempting to assist those whose lives are very much in danger as they try to escape from the terrorist activities of certain groups in Central and South America in particular, but in other areas of the world as well.
Let us look at what proposed Section 95.1 states, keeping in mind what I put on the record with respect to proposed Section 95.4. It states:
Immigration Act, 1976
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa, passport or travel document where one is required by this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and is liable-
Such a person is liable in the same way as proposed Section 95.4(a) and (b). Who is this directed at? Let us think about the evidence given by the Government concerning the number of refugees who came to Canada last year without proper documents, some 6,000. None were found to have any serious criminal record or to have difficulties in Canada. None were found to be terrorists or potential terrorists. This clause is directed specifically at those groups who have been assisting refugees from Central and South America.
The Parliamentary Secretary and others over there laugh and say the church groups do not need to worry. They do need to worry; but it is the law. Government Members say they will only selectively prosecute. We will only prosecute if they decide they do not like you or they get a call from the CIA or the FBI, or for some other reason. It is illogical and bad law. The intellectually dishonest presentation involved has also become the trademark of Members like the Parliamentary Secretary. That is why British Columbians do not like Members like that who involve themselves in this kind of scurrilous intellectual dishonesty day after day in this House, painting false pictures. The Hon. Member knows they are false.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member not to get personal, please. Debate.


Benno Friesen: That is hard to do.


James Ross Fulton: It is hard when one has to deal with the kind of absolutely false information put on the record day after day by that particular Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for the Hon. Member's speech has terminated.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 16. 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.

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976 And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion is No. 19.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 26 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"specified in the certificate, or release the person. Such addition-
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion provides for detention of people who arrive without clear identification or who are suspected by the Minister of being inadmissible for other reasons. The opening part of this new clause reads as follows: Where, with respect to a person seeking to come into Canada,
(a)	the person is unable to satisfy an immigration officer with respect to that person's identity, or
(b)	in the opinion of the Deputy Minister or a person designated by the Deputy Minister, there is reason to suspect that the person may be a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(l)(e), (f) or (g),
an immigration officer shall detain the person-
Then it goes on in 104.1(2):
Where, with respect to a person detained under subsection (1), the Minister certifies in writing
(a)	that
(i)	the person's identity has not been established, or
(ii)	the Minister has reason to suspect that the person may be a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19( 1 )(e), (f) or (g), and
(b)	that an additional period of detention is required to investigate the matter referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
the person shall be brought before an adjudicator who shall continue the person's detention for the additional period specified in the certificate, which additional period may not exceed twenty-one days from the day on which the person was brought before the adjudicator.
In my motion I am asking that we remove line 26 and substitute the words "or release the person". In other words, it would read:
the person shall be brought before an adjudicator who shall continue the person's detention for the additional period specified in the certificate, or release the person.
My point is that an adjudicator is appointed by the Government to be a judge with respect to immigration admissibility. The person is also to be a judge of the necessity of detention after any two-day period which can first be ordered by a senior immigration officer. The adjudicator is selected and trained to exercise his judgment as to whether it is necessary to detain a person for a further period. This clause removes that ability and makes him a rubber stamp. He becomes a clerk who simply says you have to stay here for another 21 days. It means there is no possibility of finding out why the person is being detained except that the Minister says that he suspects that the person may be a member of an inadmissible class as
described in Clause 19(l)(e), (0 or (g). He suspects that he may be.
It is a principle in our country that a person should not be detained without due process. The principle is that if he is to be detained he is to be told the reason and is to have the right of counsel to defend him. Partly on the basis of that principle the law in our country is that if the Minister thinks he should be detained longer, the person being detained should have the right to have that detention reviewed by an adjudicator. Taking away the adjudicator's responsibility to say "keep him in longer" or "turn him loose" on the word of the Minister or someone designated by the Minister takes away that person's right to due process.
The Parliamentary Secretary will get up and read a list of possible criminals, terrorists or others like that in order to suggest that because these people are criminals, terrorists and what not, it is obvious that they should not be turned loose. He talks with mock horror of having them walking our streets. It is a typical Conservative trick to assume that a person is guilty unless he gets a chance to prove himself innocent. Because the Minister has said that he suspects he may be a member of one of those groups, he becomes a member of one of those groups and is guilty of either doing something dreadful or planning to do something dreadful and, therefore, we must lock him up.
That is convenient from an administrative point of view. It means that governments do not have to answer for what they do in cases like that. It is, however, contrary to the intent of our laws and the intent of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even though this person is not a Canadian our Charter, according to the Supreme Court, applies to everyone who is within Canada. It does not extend all rights to everyone who is in Canada. It does not give them the right to vote or to work, but it does give them the right to due process according to the Supreme Court.
I believe that the amendment which I have moved would save the time and cost of a series of Charter challenges on the basis of this line in this clause. It would perhaps save having the whole proposed Section found invalid by the Supreme Court and the necessity of then having to go back to the drawing table and introduce new legislation.
It is not a question of whether the Government should have the power to detain a person to learn his or her identity. It is simply a question of whether the Government should be able to do that for an unusually and extraordinarily long time without making known any of the reasoning for it. If the Government does not trust the adjudicators it should hire better adjudicators or train them better. The Parliamentary Secretary has not given us examples of adjudicators wrongly releasing persons as he has suggested they have done.
The RCMP representatives who appeared before the
committee last week told us that of the 6,000 undocumented
people who came in last year none of them, to their knowledge,
September 1, 1987

was engaged in any of these activities. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary will probably get up and say that if we had been able to keep them in jail for a month or a year we could have found something against them. That is the kind of argument that is used to deny due process and to deny the principle of innocence until proven guilty.
It has about as much logic as the man in Etobicoke who set a strange circle of white stones around his house. When people asked what the stones were for he said they were to keep elephants away. When they said that there were no elephants in Etobicoke he said that that was because of his stones. The Minister's representative is going to prove that because the person is suspected it is, therefore, necessary to lock him up. This is contrary to the kind of law which Canadians want in this country.
Therefore, I am asking Members of the House to support my motion to change one line of this clause in order to allow the adjudicator to keep the responsibility given to him under our present legislation, namely, to decide, after listening to what the Government tells him and to anyone else who has the right to speak on that point, whether to continue detention or to release the person.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Motion No. 19 moved by the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). It will be very interesting to see the reaction of the Government because Motion No. 20, moved by myself, which will be debated next, proposes deletion of the entire clause if the Government does not wish to amend it.
The law as presently written is sensible. It has been supported by previous Parliamentarians. The Members of Parliament in Government, when in Opposition, supported it. The Government now has the power to detain and deport people. The Government has the power to do that which this legislation allows it to do.
It is false to suggest that the Government needs new, greater and unchecked powers to deal with what it considers to be an emergency. To borrow a phrase from a Member of Parliament who spoke earlier, that borders on intellectual dishonesty because it implies that there are currently no statutes or powers to defend our country against those who wish to abuse it.
How naive and misleading can the Government be? That is to suggest that everyone else is either naive or ignorant. It suggests that Canada has not had the mechanisms and powers to protect its shores from those who are undesirable, unwanted, unwelcomed and wish to pose a threat to the nation. There is not one Canadian, not one Member of Parliament, not one priest, nun or layman helping refugees who wants us to accept individuals who will pose a threat to this country.
I think the Government should stop its marketing scheme of implying that it is only the Government that is trying to protect our country from so-called undesirables. That is a false message based on a false premise.
Immigration Act, 1976
The current legislation allows for automatic detainment for 48 hours. Any individual who comes to our shores without documents and who the Government believes may be a problem can automatically be detained for up to 48 hours with no questions asked. That is acceptable to my Party. I assume it is acceptable to many Members of this House. If the Government cannot substantiate the identity of such person, why he or she is here, then with any evidence it may have received from any authority within 48 hours, it has the opportunity to go before an adjudicator and request a further seven-day detainment period. The adjudicator will then decide, on the evidence from the Government, whether the request for further detainment is legitimate or groundless. I believe that is very reasonable.
If the Government still wants to detain a person after the seven-day period, it goes back to the adjudicator; the same thing happens in additional seven-day periods. Those are existing powers that would allow the Government, without great difficulty, to detain people who it believes beyond suspicion, and with actual documentation, should be kept in detention.
While I do not purport to be an expert or claim to have a monopoly on what Canadians believe, my reading of Canadians would suggest that they believe we have reasonable powers now to detain people if necessary and that an adjudicator is the key element in this process, because the adjudicator will decide on the merits of a further detainment based on the information presented by the Government.
The adjudicator can question government officials whether they believe the information is flimsy or whether they should offer more proof. The Government has the opportunity to do so and even has the opportunity to suggest that the information might be so secret that the adjudicator might not be able to be informed in the presence of the claimant or the claimant's counsel. The adjudicator can obviously decide in favour of the Government in the interest of the defence of our sovereignty and well-being. I suggest that this is a reasonable process that is in keeping with our sense of justice.
The Government wants to abolish the 48 hours and be able to automatically detain people for seven days. It may be argued that more time is required in getting the identification of an individual who comes from a country thousands of miles away, but the Government also proposes that after the seven-day period in which it does not have to secure permission it may also detain a person for an additional 21 days.
The key element in this proposal is that the adjudicator would simply rubber-stamp the request because the law says he shall permit the detainment for a further 21 days. The Bill does not state that he may permit a further 21 days in detention, which would offer the adjudicator the flexibility and discretion to weigh the evidence and protect the rights of the individual in our country. The use of the word "shall" means

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
that there is no discretion or flexibility left to the adjudicator. The adjudicator must simply rubber-stamp a government request to detain a person for another 21-day period. That is Draconian and excessive. I think it is essentially not Canadian when one considers that the Charter of Rights protects the rights of individuals not to be detained on unreasonable grounds or for suspicion.
It goes beyond that. We are not merely talking about refugees who deserve rights. After all, they are human beings as well and merit some human rights standards that are applicable to a person arriving on our shores. What would be the ramifications to our society when one Minister is granted the full discretion and flexibility to detain people for periods of up to 28 days without any questions asked? Of course, Canadians believe we need to protect ourselves as a sovereign state from undesirables. No adjudicator would ever lend himself or herself to allowing people who would do a disservice to our country or commit a crime in Canada. They will always protect our flag and protect Canada. We trust the adjudicator. What kind of society are we trying to create by vesting Draconian and excessive powers to a government that one day may abuse those rights? I suggest that if the rights of one individual are abused, the collective rights of our nation are abused and undermined.
These types of powers are not needed. Since the time of Diefenbaker, the Government has had the authority to protect our shores, protect our sovereignty and stand up for our flag, while at the same time offering civil liberties as expounded in the Charter of Rights which states that all men and women, whether rich or poor, black or white, catholic or atheist, enjoy human rights as all Canadians should. That is what is being undermined today if the clause is not changed.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not deprive the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary of his ten minutes, so I will limit my remarks and simply say that the motion presented by the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) is very sensible. The reasons have been eloquently explained by the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
It is an amendment that would at least introduce an element of balance in what otherwise would be a Draconian clause. This amendment, if accepted by the Government, would turn this clause into one that contains some checks and balances whereby the adjudicator would have the option to make a decision on his or her own, motivated of course by the basic principles and guidelines that the Member for York West has outlined.
Again, we find ourselves advancing an eminently sensible amendment which permits a certain latitude to the adjudicator. It is a good amendment.
Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether he will accept it in good grace, in keeping with the ideology of civil liberties that he expounds at home and abroad, particularly at the Interparliamentary Union. He has an opportunity to
apply what he preaches, and we call upon him to demonstrate the mettle he is made of when it comes to the facts and the reality of legislative measures.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for the confidence he has expressed in my view of civil liberties. I certainly hold to those.
Since we have heard from the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) I think we should move back to the Bill and see what it really says, instead of what we have heard.
As the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) rightly points out, the Bill deals with the inadmissible classes, including what we agreed to yesterday; that is, those who have been guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Picture the scene, Mr. Speaker. We have someone arriving on our shores, at our airports, or other port of entry, with no documentation-absolutely none. He has either destroyed it or has given it back to the person who trades in passports and visas so it can be recirculated.


Charles L. Caccia: Some refugees legitimately have no documents.


Benno Friesen: Yes, and some legitimately have no documents. But those persons come to the port of entry and the immigration officer meets them and is supposed to identify them. How does he go about it, especially if there are 30 or 40 coming in at the same time without documentation? The Bill requires that there be a seven-day detention period in order to establish identity. If a person is from Uganda, for instance, where there is a constant state of turmoil at the present time, how does any officer go about establishing identity in seven days? It is not necessarily possible.
The next subparagraph says that the Minister may apply for an extension of another 21 days. Here is where due process, about which the Hon. Member for Spadina was concerned, enters the picture. He cannot just willy-nilly say, "We are going to hold you another 21 days". What he does under Clause 12, proposed Section 104.1(2), is continue the person's detention for the additional period specified in the certificate, which additional period may not exceed 21 days from the day on which the person was brought before the adjudicator.
How does the Minister go about getting a certificate? He goes about it by dealing with the securities forces of Canada to get as much information as he can. If there is reason to believe that this person may be a threat to either Canadian security or to other people in Canada, he has to file evidence which would substantiate the need for a certificate.
The Hon. Member for Spadina knows that that is not the kind of information he can give to the adjudicator. He can give the certificate to the adjudicator but he cannot give the evidence. In the interests of privacy for the individual, to protect his privacy, he cannot give that evidence and allow it to
September 1, 1987

become public. That is why I am saying that this is the due process asked for by the Hon. Member for Spadina.
The Minister cannot just on a whim say, "I want to detain this person another 21 days". There has to be just cause, established to the satisfaction of the officers, that a certificate is warranted. If the certificate is granted, it can be extended for 21 days, for a total of 28 days.
I would suggest to Members that that is not an unreasonable requirement when we realize that the person coming to our port of entry is undocumented, is thought to be a security risk and there needs to be documentation presented. Twenty-eight days, considering communications with some of these countries in the world that are trouble spots and are in conditions of upheaval, where the normal systems of communication are not functioning properly, is not an unreasonable requirement.
What the Hon. Member for Spadina is asking for is that at the end of seven days, if the identity has not been established, we release the individual. I do not think Canadians would like that one bit. We have every reason to provide protection for people who need protection, but as responsible parliamentarians, and as a Government of Canada, we have every responsibility to protect Canada and to protect Canadians. That is what this clause is all about.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is Motion No. 19 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 please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Is it the pleasure of the House that I call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 12.56 p.m. the House took recess.
______________________________8653


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Saint-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we have just learned today that, regardless of the wishes expressed by most Canadians, the Economic Council of Canada is urging the Conservative Government to tax bread, milk and butter.
Mr. Speaker, I want to dissociate myself from this kind of recommendation made by the Economic Council of Canada. It is all too easy for an economist sitting in his sixth-floor office in Ottawa to make such recommendations, he does not do anything but studies.
I would invite the Economic Council of Canada members to travel with me throughout Canada to meet with the real citizens who will be paying this tax on bread and butter. I am sure they will change their mind and make an altogether different recommendation to the Government.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the recent rail strike and the near-strike last night have started many Canadians thinking and talking once again about compulsory arbitration for essential services. The right to bargain collectively is a vital part of our economic, social and democratic way of life. Most labour disputes are settled. Few result in strikes. There are fewer strikes still in essential services.
Strikes in essential services affect not only the parties involved but the general public and national production as well. That is why we need a new procedure, not to prohibit strikes but, rather, to settle disputes in essential services, a procedure called binding arbitration. Neither management nor labour like binding arbitration. In my experience it usually results in higher than normal wages and benefits. But that is the price we pay to avoid the shut-down of an essential service.
Binding arbitration works for municipal fire-fighting services. It can work for all essential services. It is time for the Government to take a serious look at it.

September 1, 1987



AGRICULTURE


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) on his promotion to Minister of State for Agriculture. May he enjoy his new position, and may his answers always be succinct!
Now with three Ministers handling the agriculture portfolio we hope that the Government will give agriculture more attention than has been the case in the past. The Government keeps insisting that it is giving agriculture a very high priority. Yet even though we now have three Ministers in charge of agriculture not one in this so-called high priority sector sits on the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet where all the decisions are made.
Even the hated Liberals had their Minister, their single Agriculture Minister, Eugene Whelan, on this very important committee. It is time the Government took priority for agriculture seriously, actually made it a priority and put one of these Ministers in a position where he can do something.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to a distinguished Canadian, Bob Simmonds, who has provided outstanding service to the RCMP and to Canada.
Commissioner Simmonds, born and raised in Saskatchewan, joined the force in 1947. He began on highway patrol and rose through the ranks to become Commissioner in 1977. He retires today after 10 years of leading the force.
Bob Simmonds has been a trusted public official whose counsel and advice have been called on many times by different Governments. The current and previous Solicitors General have remarked on the professionalism, good judgment and overriding concern for the rights of Canadians which have characterized Bob Simmonds' work. The RCMP, under his leadership, has weathered difficult challenges and maintained its professionalism and formidable influence for good in Canadian society. We are very grateful to him for the leadership he has contributed to policing in Canada.
I am confident that the standards of excellence set by
Commissioner Simmonds will be maintained by the new
Commissioner, Norm Inkster.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the Government and this House that, as I speak, groups interested in regional economic development are utterly confused. As you would know, in recent months the Government has unveiled piecemeal initiatives in Western Canada, in the Atlantic Provinces, in Northern Ontario; the Department itself has been plagued with major financial and management problems. It has become imperative for the Government to come up with a comprehensive regional development policy. Tell us exactly which direction it wants to take, and what kind of treatment it has in store for the underprivileged regions of this country.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we now have two kinds of Canada: the wealthy and prosperous Canada, and the suffering Canada made up of the economically disadvantaged regions which, unfortunately, cannot benefit from the economic recovery and which practically disappear behind unemployment statistics. Realities differ from coast to coast and, sad to say, owing to the confusion and probably the incompetence of the ex-Minister, nobody has a clear idea about the role the federal Government wants to play, the mandate it seeks to undertake, and especially the kind of assistance it can give these regions.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the Government to announce its over-all strategy as soon as possible instead of being satisfied with its week-to-week policies. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, I am afraid the Tories keep their policies under wraps because of the free trade negotiations where they are quite prepared to abandon our country's disadvantaged regions just to please the Americans.



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, the good news continues to roll in. Last week the OECD reported that Canada's economic performance in 1986 surpassed that of all major industrialized nations. Now, Statistics Canada reports this extraordinary growth rate has continued unabated. For the second quarter in a row, Canada's economy grew at an annual rate of 6 per cent.
All indicators have economists searching for superlatives.
Consumer and business spending is up, labour income has
risen, corporate profits have increased, and as a British
September 1, 1987

Columbian I am encouraged by the news that capital spending is up in the vital forestry, mineral, and energy sectors.
This is excellent news for all Canadians. It is proof that the economic policies of the Government are working. I applaud the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for cleaning up the fiscal mess that was left by the previous Government. His actions have restored confidence in our economy, and the results are clearly reaping benefits for Canadians from coast to coast.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the proposed Canadian Virology Laboratory should be located in Winnipeg. Winnipeg already has a solid reputation in the health sciences. The federal Government has appropriately targeted health industries as a priority sector for growth in Manitoba, and it has been working with the Manitoba Government in this regard.
The CVL would serve this goal by its very existence, by attracting private sector activity that values its proximity, and by local subcontracting. Locating the laboratory in Winnipeg would demonstrate a real commitment by the Conservatives to decentralization, and to the policy of fostering regional economic development through the location of national purpose technological investment in areas other than central Canada. If western diversification means anything, surely it means that the CVL should be located in Winnipeg. I call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to make sure that it does.
I remind all Members that the U.S. Centre for Disease Control is not located adjacent to the federal Health Department headquarters in the District of Columbia, but rather in Atlanta, Georgia, fulfilling a national role from a regional location.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of France has made it clear to us what would happen if Canadians were to elect a New Democratic Government.
Mr. Jacques Chirac told us quite frankly that the NDP's proposal to have Canada withdraw from NATO was utopian,
naive and unrealistic, and that it could bring Canada under Soviet domination.

In regard to the NDP policy to pull Canada out of NATO, the Prime Minister of France stated:
-there are always people who are idealists, who imagine that the world is good, the world is beautiful, that one can isolate oneself, that one risks nothing. We have known that in France.
The Prime Minister also stated:
You have to be careful with this kind of Utopia.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about what Mr. Chirac's warning meant: Vive la France librel Vive le Canada librel



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) received the report of the Inquiry on Federal Water Policy. Canadians are puzzled by the lack of action by the Government to formulate a national water policy, given the urgency and importance of this report.
The report emphasizes that public consultation is only the first step in the development of a national water policy. The next step requires action by the Government.
Among the many recommendations, the report calls on the Government to encourage the development of corporate water conservation plans, to establish minimum quality standards for drinking water throughout Canada and to develop a policy on the export and diversion of water. If he wants to do more than just talk, it is high time for the Minister of the Environment to get going and develop for public debate a national water policy for Canadians.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest data provided by Statistics Canada, the country's economy is registering a remarkable growth rate this year. For the second consecutive quarter, the growth rate has been robust to say the least.

September 1, 1987
During the second quarter, Canada's Gross Domestic Product expanded at a real or after inflation annual rate of 6 per cent. This performance, as an article in today's Toronto Star states, has left economists groping for superlatives to describe the health of the economy.
While the 6 per cent annual rate will not be sustained, Michael Manford, Chief Economist of Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., said that Canada will probably turn in the strongest economic performance of the world's seven big industrial countries.
One question being debated is: "Does the Government deserve some credit for this performance?" My answer is an unqualified yes. Beginning after September, 1984, the Government took several key steps to set the climate for strong economic recovery.
Fiscal restraint was established through three responsible Budgets. The deficit is being cut. The National Energy Program was dismantled. The Foreign Investment Review Agency's mandate was dramatically changed to welcome foreign investment. The Government favours divestment of Crown corporations which do not serve a public policy objective. That is why de Havilland was sold. Incidentally, de Havilland has never had a brighter economic outlook.
All these sound measures and others have generated a renewed confidence in Canada not just for foreigners but also for Canadians. Interest rates are down sharply and this is spurring economic activity, particularly new housing starts and small business investment. Last, one of the greatest benefits of all has been a significant lowering of the unemployment rate through the creation of over 850,000 jobs.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, St. Boniface Hospital is the second largest teaching hospital in Winnipeg. Some years ago, people interested in medical research established the St. Boniface Hospital Research Foundation. Its purpose was to raise money for medical researchers to do their work over and above what they got from the Medical Research Council.
To a large extent this project has been a great success because the foundation has been able to bring in for its functions world known people like Prince Phillip, Mrs. Sadat and Dr. Christiaan Barnard. This year it proposes to invite Mr. Sakharov, the famous Soviet physicist and Nobel Prize winner. Unfortunately, the Soviet Government has not yet permitted Mr. Sakharov to leave for Canada.
I would urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to make representations on behalf of all Canadians by telling the Soviet Government that we would look with a great deal of interest and support at its permitting Mr. Sakharov to come to Canada.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post today commemorates the 50th anniversary of Air Canada with the issuance of a stamp. The inaugural flight of Trans-Canada Airlines from Vancouver to Seattle was made on September 1, 1937, carrying mail as well as passengers. Airmail routes were established between Winnipeg and Vancouver, and Montreal was added in 1938.
TCA changed its name to Air Canada in 1964 and has grown to be the world's ninth largest commercial airline, flying to points in North America, Europe and beyond to Bombay and Singapore. Canada Post Corporation is its largest cargo customer.
The stamp was designed by Derrick Carter of Vancouver and Debbie Adams of Toronto. Some of Air Canada's many destinations are highlighted on a stylized version of the globe. In the foreground is an Air Canada Boeing 767 banking as if to land. The Canadian Bank Note company will print 15 million stamps in five colour lithography for all to enjoy.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, one of the serious impediments in the way of an agreement between the United States of America and the U.S.S.R. restricting nuclear proliferation has been the question of verification. Today's report attributed to General Nikolai Chervov that the Kremlin is seriously considering a United States proposal for monitoring nuclear tests, and may even allow the U.S. to explode its own device on the Soviet test range to calibrate its monitoring equipment in exchange for reciprocal privileges, is welcome news.
It is interesting to note the part played by Canada in these developments. Not only have our Energy, Mines and Resources seismic stations been active for many years in recording nuclear blasts, but we have co-operated with the Government of the United States in testing its remote monitoring equipment under Arctic conditions, similar to those which
September 1, 1987

might be found in Soviet test areas. Let us hope, sir, that these initiatives prove beneficial for the future of mankind.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister about what the Government likes to call tax reform.
I acknowledge that some people are doing very well in Canada, and the Government will undoubtedly produce some encouraging statistics. But despite the fact that there are people prospering in our country, there are regions that are suffering and there are Canadians who are hurting. I want to remind the Deputy Prime Minister of the intolerably long lineups at food banks across Canada and at soup kitchens.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify his colleague putting forward a series of tax proposals under the guise of reform that, in effect, really take money away from the poor in Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first, 1 think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will recognize that tax reform has to be considered as a package. In that package some 850,000 Canadians will be taken off the tax rolls. Nine out of ten aged 65 and over will find their taxes reduced. I believe that between 1984 and sometime in 1985 some 263,000 Canadians have been taken off the welfare rolls.
For the first time since 1981 real after-tax income has increased for Canadians, so I think it is fair to say that there has been a tremendous improvement since our Government assumed office.
I would also remind the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that some 875,000 new jobs have been created. The commitment of the Government is to create jobs and stimulate economic activity-


Mr. Broadbent:: And it is a nice day outside too!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and that is recognized by the tremendous growth rate that has been reported in the first half of this year.


FOOD TAX ISSUE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister talks about 850,000 coming off the tax rolls as a result of the so-called tax reform proposals. He neglects to remind the House that during the
Oral Questions
last three years under this Government one million Canadians were added to the tax rolls.


Mr. McDermid:: They found jobs.


John Napier Turner: We have repeatedly pointed out in this Hotise that the tax policy of the Government has had, as a direct effect, the widening of the gap between rich and poor in Canada. There is a wealthy Canada but what about the other Canada? What about the poor, the homeless and the hungry? How in these circumstances can the Government even contemplate a tax on food? Where is the fairness in that? Where is the justification for it? Where is the understanding and compassionate position of the Government with respect to that issue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows there is nothing in the tax reform proposals which specifically outlines a tax on food. He should not try to mislead the House in suggesting that. He also takes issue with the fact there are some one million Canadians, I think was his figure, who are now paying taxes.


John Napier Turner: Added to the rolls.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In addition. I think they are a very welcome addition, because most of those people are now working rather than being on the unemployment roll. That is a positive fact.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WANTS TO INCREASE TAXES FOR LOWER-INCOME CANADIANS AND MARRIED WOMEN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest report of the Economic Council of Canada, in addition to putting a burden on the poor, the Government's tax reform proposal would also penalize married women.
Are we going to help Canadian families by increasing taxes for married women? Are we going to promote equal rights for women by reducing their income? Why is the Government taking this immoral stance of increasing the taxes of low-income Canadians and married women?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do not share that view. There are a number of elements in the tax reform proposals which help the poor and less fortunate. The establishment of more tax credits is, I think, a very positive element. We have moved to impose a minimum tax.

September 1, 1987
Oral Questions
1 might add that this issue was referred to a parliamentary committee for full study and public debate. I understand some 300 briefs have been submitted. Surely that is the appropriate forum and the appropriate way in which Canadians and the Parliament of Canada should be involved in realistic and legitimate tax reform. I invite the Hon. Member to participate in that process.


Mr. Garneau:: Mr. Speaker, the point of view expressed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was confirmed by the Economic Council of Canada yesterday. We are not picking that out of the air.


CHILD BENEFITS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, a leading expert on the Canadian child benefit system, Mr. Shillington, confirmed what I and the Official Opposition have stated time and time again, that the Government does not care about the average Canadian family. Why is the Government slashing child benefits by 46 per cent, from $955 in 1984 to only $508 in 1991 for the average middle-income family?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's allegations need a little more examination because he is using statistics in a fairly selective manner. For example, there were the changes to the child tax credit instituted by this Government. There was an increase in child tax credits as against changes in family allowances. Those changes gave more money to lower-income families. I remind him that we also paid a large part of the child tax credit at an early date so that, among other things, parents could buy winter clothing for their children.
The Hon. Member should remember that social policy groups generally, whether they agree with the tax reform package or not, have generally advocated movement from tax deductions to tax credits. This would benefit families, especially low-income families and the poor. If he wants to look at tax reform, he should look at it as a package based on those principles.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Minister should read tax reform in the Bill adopted by this House. First, the child tax credit was not implemented by his Government but by Monique Begin when she was a member of the Liberal Government.


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


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, when I told the Minister that benefits for middle-income families had been cut by 46 per cent, I included, as did Mr. Shillington in his brief, the partial de-indexation of family allowances, reduction in tax deductions for dependent children,
lowering of the cut-off point for the child tax credit and for the new child tax credit included in the tax reform proposals.
I will repeat the question for the Minister, since he seems to have forgotten what his Government has done. On the basis of all these factors, we have to conclude that the average Canadian family-and this was confirmed by an expert yesterday-will see its child care benefits drop from $955 in 1984 to $508 in 1991, a reduction of 46 per cent.
What does the Minister intend to do about this and what is he going to suggest the Minister of Finance do to make the system more sensible?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Member essentially repeated his question and I, therefore, will essentially repeat the answer. He said that I indicated that it was this Government that instituted the child tax credit. 1 did not say that. I said that we had increased the child tax credit and that that was generally endorsed by social policy groups as more favourable than changes in the family allowance.
I also said that as a principle of social policy social policy groups have generally, for many years, endorsed a movement more toward credits relating directly to families as opposed to whether or not they are in tax-paying income brackets. I said that the tax reform package philosophically moves further in that direction than we are now as a society.
If the Hon. Member wishes to analyse those things he should analyse the entire package rather than selecting any one percentage.


FOOD TAX-OPINION OF ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA- GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. According to the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, the Government should tax food because the rich in Canada spend a lot of money on food. Someone should tell the Chairman that in Canada, the poor spend more on food as a percentage of their income than the rich.
My question is a simple one. Does the Government agree with the line of reasoning followed by the reactionary Chairman of the ECC?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question in response to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Edward Broadbent: No, no.
September 1, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I most certainly did. I invite the Hon. Member to read the answer when he gets a chance.
We are again talking about a presentation before a standing committee which is studying the tax reform proposals. I am not sure whether we will be asked to respond to each and every individual presentation. This view has been expressed by a certain individual representing an institution.
The Government's position is very clear. The tax reform proposals do not contain any provision for the inclusion of a tax on food. Over 300 briefs have already been received. The process has started. I expect that all Hon. Members would want the process to be completed.


FOOD TAX QUERY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 will address my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Ninety-three per cent of Canadians have indicated that they are opposed to a tax on food. Even the Quebec caucus of the federal Conservative Party has indicated that it is opposed to a tax on food. The poverty groups are opposed to a tax on food.
Would it not facilitate rational and fair-minded discussion by the committee if the Government would make its position clear on this issue once and for all and say that it will not accept a recommendation for a tax on food? Answer it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister responded to that question last week. I have responded to it today and other Ministers have responded to it. I can only assume that the NDP wishes that a tax would be imposed on food.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Notwithstanding the fact that they repeat their question, I am now coming to the conclusion that maybe it is the NDP that wants a tax on food so that it can create a political issue and have a little fun.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot understand elementary English. Will he now admit that by refusing to say that the Government will rule out a tax on food, he has now said, to put it positively, that the Government is considering a tax on food? If the Government wants to clear the air, why does it not be candid for once and say that under no circumstances will the Conservative Government accept a tax on food? Come clean.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants to come clean. They
Oral Questions
want to confuse the issue. There is no mention of a tax on food in the tax reform white paper.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are going to tax everything.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The only evidence of a tax on food has been that which has been proposed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and some members of the Liberal Party. That has been answered.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whoever that happens to be today. Yesterday, the Minister of Transport, with his usual bluster, told us that everything is okay in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland because large companies were making more money. However, if one checks with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it shows a constant decline in inshore fish landings over the past four years.
If there is no crisis in the inshore fishery, why has the Minister set up within the past month or so a special task force on the inshore fishery? Is there a crisis in the inshore fishery or not? What is he doing about it?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member recognizes the Minister of Fisheries today. I appreciate his question.
He used the term "crisis". In fact we are concerned about the decline of landings in the inshore fishery, as I made very clear upon my visit to Newfoundland in early July.
I have struck a committee of international eminent scientific people who will spend two or three weeks in Newfoundland in September to provide to us a report determining the adequacy of our scientific data base and our present management approach to the inshore fishery, with a view to bringing amendments into our next year's fishing plans by November 15, when I receive that report.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, what we need are not eminent people and data bases; what we need are fish.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-FRANCE NEGOTIATIONS-CANADIAN COD STOCK
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister sets up a special task force of eminent people, admitting that there is a crisis in the inshore fishery, and leaves cod on the negotiating table in the negotiations with the French. Why is he taking Canadian cod


B660 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
September 1, 1987
Oral Questions
at this time of crisis and giving it to the French? Why does he not stand up for Canada? That is what 1 want to know.
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that the Prime Minister and all members of the Government are indeed standing up for Canada, quite unlike those members of the Government of which he was a part, who sold out our interest to France in 1972.
Furthermore, it is the Hon. Member who characterizes the problem as a crisis. In fact, earnings and the value of landings have increased over the previous year.


Bill Rompkey: For the big companies.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Nonetheless, there is a regional variation in the return of cod to the inshore fishery and we are attempting to find a solution to that problem.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the overspending at DRIE. The former Minister said that as soon as he found out there was some difficulty he launched an inquiry. He noted that he began receiving monthly financial reports very soon after being sworn in as the Minister.
If the former Minister began reading these financial reports as soon as he said he did, and being a chartered accountant himself, why was he not suspicious when six of the eight monthly periods covered from August, 1986, to March, 1987, forecast an overexpenditure? Why did the Minister not notice this, and why did he not bring it to the attention of the Government?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps 1 can answer this question on behalf of the Minister. It is true that certain measures were implemented as soon as the warning signals were sounded. Of course the problem occurred as a result of the additional take-up of the programs we had modified. A lot of slippage had been experienced in the past. In other words, programs were committed but not taken up. The fact that 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the offers were never taken up caused the problem. It is now corrected.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is my understanding that action was not
taken until June of this year.


GOVERNMENT'S AWARENESS OF SITUATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 remind the Minister that the review stated that it was in August, 1986, that the first indication of a potential deficit arose and furthermore, starting in the fall of 1986, very real concerns were being expressed about potential problems in 1987-88. Why was the Government not aware of this much earlier?
Considering the statements by the new Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion on Friday, what other Departments are undergoing this kind of study now?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge no other Departments are undergoing this kind of study. As soon as the Government was aware of the real possibility of an over-run, the measures were taken and the funds were restored. As a result, DRIE will be spending significantly more money on programs that have been positively modified and will have significant benefit to the regions for which they were designed.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It concerns a recent discussion paper from his Department about downgrading the sovereignty or eliminating any reference to Her Majesty in a new oath of citizenship.
Since there appears to be no consensus in Canada, or no group asking for this removal of allegiance to the Queen, will he assure the House that he has no intention of following this proposed report by officials in his Department?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance. The position paper was put out for discussion purposes two months ago and dealt with a variety of issues affecting the Citizenship Act. One of those issues was the one mentioned by the Hon. Member. The volume of correspondence that I have received on it and a number of other matters has indicated clearly that Canadians are interested in continuing the reference to the Queen in the Oath of Allegiance. Therefore, I can assure the hon. gentleman, indeed all Members of the House, that it is not the Government's intention to withdraw Her Majesty from the Oath of Allegiance.
September 1, 1987


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about yesterday's walk-out by reporters at the CBC French network, which deprived Canadians of their usual news program and public affairs programs such as Le Point.
As you know, one of the most controversial items in negotiations between the CBC and its reporters is the unacceptable gap between the salaries of reporters working for the French network and the salaries of reporters who work for the CBC's English network. This in a country where we support the policy of equal pay for equal work.
I want to ask the Government why it tolerates this discriminatory treatment of reporters working for the French network. What does the Government intend to do to help reporters of the French network get fair and equal treatment?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can answer on behalf of the Minister of Communications who is in Quebec City at the summit on government business, of course. She will be there for a day or two and will then return to the House. I will bring the Hon. Member's question to her attention when she returns. At that time he may want to ask her the question directly.


EQUALITY BETWEEN WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental issue and it is about equal pay for equal work.
Since the Minister is prepared to send a message to the Minister of Communications, could I ask him to send another one?
As you know, another very controversial item is that the CBC refuses to treat one-third of its reporters, and I am referring to those who work on contract, on the same footing, especially with respect to termination of employment, as its regular staff. These reporters are full members of the CBC reporters' union, accredited by the Canada Labour Relations Board, which was confirmed by the Courts and in fact by the Supreme Court.
How can the Government let the CBC break this country's laws and ignore decisions made by the Supreme Court? Could the Minister pass this message on to the Minister of Communications?
Oral Questions


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, of course, it is an important question. Of course, it is a fundamental question. That is why 1 think the Hon. Member should get his answer from the Minister responsible, who will be returning to the House, rather than trying to make some politics out of it.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who, as a westerner, will be well aware that the prosperity experienced in parts of central Canada is not a prosperity that most Canadians have experienced. In recognition of the fact that 75 per cent of the budget of DR1E is expended in central Canada, would the Minister explain to the men and women of western Canada, as well as eastern and northern Canada, why his Government perpetuates this imbalance in terms of DRIE spending, focusing where it is needed the least as opposed to where it is needed the most?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the Hon. Member is aware of the $1.2 billion Western Diversification Program that was announced in western Canada. Perhaps I will send him over a copy of the announcement which I think is a clear indication of this Government's commitment to the diversification and the broadening of the western economic base. If the Hon. Member dropped into Alberta once in a while-


John Edward Broadbent: We are.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -he would find that drilling activity is increasing very much. The grants under the Canadian Exploration Development Incentives Program are flowing to the oil companies. There is a Special Grains Program of $1 billion which has been provided plus relief on transportation, relief on fuel taxes. The Minister responsible for agriculture and grains and oilseeds has been meeting with the farmers to work out another program-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can remind the Minister that my question was about DRIE funds, 75 per cent of DRIE funding going to central Canada.

September 1, 1987
Oral Questions


WESTYERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Nelson Andrew Riis: The Deputy Prime Minister mentions the Western Diversification Fund as presumably the Government's major initiative to assist and diversify the economy of western Canada. Perhaps he ought to go out to places like Kamloops, Red Deer, Medicine Hat and Flin Flon and explain to the people out there that this Government believes that spending $32 a year on every westerner is its commitment to western diversification. Is this the $32 solution for westerners in terms of diversifying that economy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, coming from a gentleman whose Party supported the National Energy Program which devastated western Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Wrong again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We certainly do not need to take any lessons from them.


John Edward Broadbent: You have a history problem.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Money is money, and whether it comes from Agriculture, Energy, DRIE, or Western Diversification, western Canada is getting a good chunk of this-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thirty-two dollars a person.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and it is using it well. It is stimulating activity.


James Ross Fulton: It is not even enough to buy two cases of beer, Don.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not even two cases of beer per capita out west.


An Hon. Member:: That is all the NDP can think about.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I simply say to the Hon. Member, because I take the Hon. Member's question seriously and I hope he takes my answer seriously, that the Western Diversification Office is not only providing additional funding, which is the top up, its role is to co-ordinate economic activities and act as a pathfinder, utilizing CIC, Energy, Agriculture, Communications and the various government programs, so westerners can go to Edmonton, Winnipeg or to Vancouver and those decisions can be made on the spot. It is a shift in the decisionmaking process. It is a co-ordinating role and it is topped up with dollars.


CL-215T CONTRACT BETWEEN CANADAIR AND FRANCE- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The decision of the federal Government to favour the Anglo-Italian consortium for the army helicopters has put the French Government in a bad mood and jeopardized a virtually assured contract between Canadair and the French Government for a dozen CL-215Ts, which would create 1,000 direct jobs in Quebec. What I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister for International Trade is this: During his walk in the woods with Prime Minister Chirac, did the Prime Minister apply any pressure to have the contract between Canadair and France signed as soon as possible?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the contract discussed is not expected to be ratified during the visit of Prime Minister Chirac to Canada. The negotiations are still taking place on the proposed sale and the final decision has not been taken.


INQUIRY WHETHER EVERYTHING POSSIBLE DONE TO FACILITATE SALE OFCL-2I5T
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister may reply that the contract was not supposed to be signed during the visit of Prime Minister Chirac, she should know that Mr. Chirac was supposed to visit the Canadair plant because the contract was about to be signed and this was a courtesy visit to finalize the CL-215T transaction, but that after the announcement that her Government favoured the Anglo-Italian consortium, the French have decided to drag their feet. I therefore ask the Minister whether or nor the Canadian Government has offered any excuses to the French and done everything possible to promote the sales of the CL-215Ts which could create 1,000 jobs in Quebec?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that no apology was given and no apology is necessary in this case. I have met with the French Ambassador to Canada and have explained to him that the procedure was dealt with on technical merits only and that the competing bid passed the technical tests in this matter. I can only repeat what I said. The Canadair sale, about which we are very excited, is continuing in negotiations. We hope to have a final decision soon. It is not related to the helicopter sale to which the Hon. Member refers.
September 1, 1987


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, if I could have his attention. The Minister should be aware that since user fees for legal aid services were introduced in Saskatchewan in early August, there has been a sharp increase in the number of people who have appeared in court without a lawyer because they cannot afford the fee. As well, people are pleading guilty to rather serious charges rather than paying the user fee.
Given this shameful situation, is the Minister prepared, in the negotiating process which is currently under way to renew the federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements on legal aid, to withhold the federal contributions until the Saskatchewan Legal Aid Commission withdraws its user fees?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind the House that legal aid is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that fact, I have personally on behalf of the Government taken steps, manifested in real dollars, to show our commitment to an effective legal aid system.
I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that in terms of Saskatchewan, taking into account contributions with respect to young offenders as well as to legal aid generally, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of contributions to the point where, in this past year, the amount of our contributions to legal aid in the Province of Saskatchewan comes to $2.4 million. I think this demonstrates our commitment, in an area which is under provincial jurisdiction, to have a full and effective legal aid system, and the federal Government stands very firmly on that policy.


REQUEST THAT FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION BE WITHDRAWN
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is surely aware that there is an agreement with the province and that in that agreement provision is made that the province should not impose fees if they pose a real hardship and prevent access to legal counsel. Again I ask the Minister if he is prepared to use the fact that the federal contribution is so important, to withdraw that contribution until the Province of Saskatchewan ensures that anyone in need of legal counsel will be provided that counsel and that user fees will not be used as a deterrent, so that poor people will not have to appear in court without the advice of counsel?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most cockamamie suggestions I have heard from the N DP in a long time. What members of that Party are suggesting we do now is withdraw all support for legal aid in the Province of Saskatchewan. If I even thought of that or, if I dreamt of that
Oral Questions
at night, there would be whimpering from the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, like you have never heard before.
I simply say to the Hon. Member that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. There are other provinces which use user-fee systems whereby there is a collection of moneys-


Simon Leendert de Jong: Is it not time you spoke out about it, Ray?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we make a very substantial contribution. If I walked into the province of the Hon. Member's friend, Roland Penner, and told him and the Province of Manitoba how to run their system, we would see convulsions opposite unequalled in the history of Parliament.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A short while ago, the Deputy Prime Minister replied to questions about the intentions of the Government for a tax on food products, such as bread, milk and butter, that there was no evidence in the documents showing that the Government had such intentions.
I see here in black and white, on page 49 of the French version of the paper on the sales tax reform and on page 45 of the English versions of the leaflet sent to Canadians that the Government is considering imposing a tax on food.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why he replied as he did earlier? Is he not aware of these documents or did he simply misinform us?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I responded to that question. I stand by my answer.


Ms. Copps:: You misled the House.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TAX FOOD
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the public will be able to read the reply of the Deputy Prime Minister which clearly shows that he either is not familiar with the documents or that he simply tried to hide the facts.
My supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister did not reply to this, is as follows: Why is the Conservative Government maintaining its option to tax food in spite of the objections of 71 per cent of the population, in spite

September 1, 1987
Oral Questions
of the petitions prepared by the Liberal Party and signed by 25,000 taxpayers and in spite of the representations of the Quebec Conservative Caucus? Why put a tax on bread, milk and butter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a repeat of a previous erroneous allegation. My answer still stands.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence, which 1 understand, I guess I have to direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. If he does not have an answer I hope that he might perhaps be able to inform the House about it tomorrow.
Since the Government has taken a very leading role in human rights in the Commonwealth can the Deputy Prime Minister please explain why the human rights question is not on the agenda of the Francophonie Summit?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well aware of the efforts that have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the question of human rights. He has raised it, as does the Prime Minister, in every country on every opportunity.
As the Hon. Member is well aware, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already explained that this item is not on the agenda because it would be very divisive at this particular summit.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: The issue of human rights and the discussions of human rights will underlie all agenda items.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the new President of the Treasury Board concerning the political rights of federal government employees.
During the 1984 election campaign the Conservative Party promised, and 1 quote: A general abolition concerning the political activities of federal employees, particularly those who are protected by a collective agreement.
Is it still the position of the Conservative Government? When will we see a government Bill to fulfil this promise and give Public Service employees their political rights?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in this matter. It is a matter that is of major interest and concern to the Government. I cannot give him a precise timeframe as to when we may be doing something. Suffice it to say that I will certainly review the situation and try to get back to the Hon. Member as quickly as possible.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that it is still the position of the Government to give to federal public employees the right of political participation that was promised by his Party in the 1984 election campaign? Now that he is President of the Treasury Board responsible for this dossier will he undertake to bring legislation in this fall so that federal public employees do not have to go through more provincial campaigns or even another federal campaign without the right to participate in the political process?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought I indicated that I was going to review the situation and get back to the Hon. Member as soon as I possibly can. I assure him that that will be the case.


IMMIGRATION
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Over the past two months an increasing number of Hondurans have been arriving in Vancouver through the Vancouver International Airport. In fact, last Thursday, a group of 22, the largest yet, arrived off a Japan Airlines flight through Mexico City.
As I understand it Honduras is not a country which we have considered traditionally to be a refugee-producing country. Obviously, this supports the need for quick passage of Bill C-84 and Bill C-55.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
September 1, 1987


Mary Collins: Given the increasing numbers and rates of arrivals in this manner would the Minister consider imposing a visa requirement on Honduras in order to deter those who might seek to come to Canada through the refugee process when in all fairness they should be applying through the regular immigration process?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that the number of people arriving in Vancouver from Honduras has doubled, particularly over the past two and a half months. Quite obviously we are facing the kind of situation we experienced last year in Toronto and Montreal, and we are seriously considering imposing a visa requirement in the near future. If the number of arrivals does not decline we will certainly consider the possibility of imposing visas on Hondurans.


TAX REFORM
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I realize that he is overworked now with all his many responsibilities. However, I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt because I understood him to have said today in the House that food tax was not being considered as part of the fiscal reform package. Again, I would like to repeat in English, in case he did not understand my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie in French-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Some Hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap!


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 would like to ask whether the Minister has read page 10-


Some Hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he has read page 10 of his own Government's little mini-document on sales tax in which it states:
These issues are important in deciding what goods should be included in the
sales tax base . . . These are illustrated below using food as a case in point.
Is this not part and parcel of the Government's strategy to introduce a tax on food? If it is not, why does he not repudiate a tax on food in the House today?
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Hon. Member's observation that I am overworked, I remind her that I am in the House every day doing my job, which is more than I can say about-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, normally, I would not respond, but given that the Deputy Prime Minister is making himself out to be a little bit holier than thou, I wish to ask him whether a member of his family is suffering from an illness?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's a cheap shot, and it deserves the response. I had reason to be away from the House because of family illness.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Wind-sor-Walkerville.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister once again to clarify-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.


SALE OF BENZOYL PEROXIDE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Some time ago I wrote to the Minister concerning the agent benzoyl peroxide. This potential carcinogen is sold over the counter, and it is widely used in the treatment of acne.
My question today is the same as it was in the letter. Why has the Minister not acted on the recommendation of the expert advisory committee that benzoyl peroxide be banned from over-the-counter sale?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will have to bring myself up to date both on the letter and that issue. At this stage I am not aware of the specific recommendation of the expert committee to which the

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Hon. Member refers. I will undertake to examine the dossier and get back to the Member.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: I must confess that I find it quite shocking that an expert advisory committee recommendation made back in April is unknown to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This is a potential carcinogen used by adolescents across the country. It is being advertised on television. The Minister is telling the House that he does not know about it, or about the letter.
Will the Minister urgently examine the recommendation of the advisory committee? Will the Minister go further and consider that, since it is a potential carcinogen, and in view of its ineffectiveness, it ought not to be available at all?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my first answer, I will look at the dossier. I will look at the evidence, and I will look at the expert advice. If there is expert advice in terms of a final recommendation, it comes through the regulatory process. I will look at that regulatory process and act according to the conditions and the manner in which a Minister has to react relative to that process.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be one last question in Question Period. I recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East whom I interrupted a few moments ago. 1 know that the Hon. Member has one single question.


TAX REFORM
Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Given the fact that he did not respond in either English or French-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -whether he can clarify for the House why on page 45-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member in posing her question does not seek to irritate the Minister, but we have to be careful in this Chamber if there is anything that may cause some concern by those whose first language is either English or French. I know that the Hon. Member would wish to put her question succinctly, and I will ask her to do so.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he has read page 45 which gives a more elaborate account, including graphs and documents of the Government's intention to possibly impose a tax on food. Has the Minister read that
paragraph? If so, why has he told the House that the Government is not considering that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which question the Hon. Member wishes me to answer. After various interruptions, there have been approximately three questions posed.
I invite the Hon. Member to read my answer in Hansard tomorrow. Perhaps she can inform herself of precisely what I did say.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I address Motion No. 20, I wish to draw to the attention of the Chair that there have been discussions with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen), and the NDP immigration critic, that suggest following Motion No. 20, Motion No. 23 will be debated by the House, and then we will proceed to the other two amendments.
Motion No. 20 is a carry-through from Motion No. 19. Motion No. 19 was defeated by the Government in committee and again earlier this morning. That motion recommended that we retain the jurisdiction of the adjudicator, and provide the adjudicator with the proper flexibility and discretion in order to make a proper determination on the request for detainment by the Government.
Motion No. 20 would have the effect of deleting the current clause in Bill C-84, and retaining what is presently contained in the legislation. What is presently in the legislation would suggest that we automatically have the powers of detainment for 48 hours. Subsequent to that, we can go to an adjudicator and request permission for a further seven days.
It would seem to me, and to most moderate Canadians- which excludes most Conservatives-that those detainment powers are sufficient to protect our shores from so-called undesirables and unwanted individuals, and at the same time maintain a credibility under the human rights legislation, and protect civil liberties.
September 1, 1987

The Parliamentary Secretary when addressing Motion No. 19, suggested that it would not be unreasonable for a country like Uganda, which requires time to produce the documentation and the evidence, to be given the time required to do that. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Government, does not understand the premise of the problem. 1 am glad that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) is in the House to listen to me. It is not a question of the length of time required to obtain documentation as much as it is who decides, and in what manner it is decided. This legislation provides the Minister and the Government with unilateral excessive powers, which may be, or perhaps will be abused or misused.
A representative from the Canadian Association of Civil Liberties suggested that it was important to maintain the flexibility of an adjudicator to decide if the evidence is correct, and if the evidence warrants further detainment. In the present role, the adjudicator is politically disinterested. He is an objective player. He considers the concerns of government and tempers them with the concerns of the claimant based on the evidence submitted. A Minister of the Crown would be politically interested, not in a personal sense, but in a realistic sense that a politician is faced with pressures on either side of an issue. Mr. Borovoy suggested there should be a politically disinterested individual who makes the decisions on whether further detainments are required. That is the real premise of the problem, and that is the area that I believe we have to safeguard.
It is not a question of the Liberal Party being opposed to individual powers to detain people to find out identification or verify information that has come to the attention of the Government which could endanger anyone in Canada or pose a threat to the country. However, there is the question of the decision-maker which is very crucial in this instance.
I believe that most Canadians would like to retain a check and a balance; a check against anyone who wishes to do harm in or bring a threat to this country as well as a balance that would ensure that no one's rights are infringed and that a Minister or a Government would not move toughly over the rights of individuals.
The testimony of Mr. Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association was very articulate and passionate. He said:
It is a violation of democratic principle to create a power of jailing peopleon the basis of a unilateral, essentially unreviewable decision of a politician . . .
consider the incongruity this creates with our criminal law.
He went on to say:
The powers created by this Bill are excessive, repressive and needless. No
less gratuitous is the rush to get it enacted yesterday.
Those are the words of the representative of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who also went on to say that an individual who either breaks into a bank or murders an
Immigration Act, 1976
individual is not treated as badly or detained as quickly without question as a refugee claimant. We are treating individual claimants much worse than individuals who would commit crimes on the streets in broad daylight.
I think all Hon. Members will agree that there should be a check and a balance on these powers. The Opposition is calling for the deletion of the current clause in Bill C-84 so that we may return to the existing legislation which provides all the detainment powers necessary to keep an individual legitimately detained for as long as the Government can prove the evidence merits it through an adjudicator. As proposed by Bill C-84, the adjudicator would have no discretion. He would become a mere rubber stamp.
In his earlier discussion, the Parliamentary Secretary implied that because some of the evidence that may be used against claimants is of a confidential nature, that evidence would not be given to an adjudicator. The Parliament Secretary is suggesting that somehow Canadians cannot trust their adjudicators. I do not believe that is the case. An adjudicator would have the same feelings as the rest of us about protecting our country from undesirables.
We are saying that we should allow the adjudicator to make the decision his position was created to make. In the process, we will ensure that there is a safeguard for Canada while at the same time respecting our Charter of Rights. Otherwise, as legal experts have predicted, this clause will be subjected to court challenges.
As the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) stated earlier and quite correctly, if we allow too many of these clauses to become legislation they will be challenged in the courts. The legislation will become paralyzed by the courts and Canadians will lose patience with a Government which again missed an opportunity to set the situation right. We would also undermine one of the two major responsibilities we have as parliamentarians, which are to create good laws and to ensure that Canadians' money is spent wisely.
It would be simply irresponsible to pass a piece of legislation which has received the wrath of the Canadian Bar Association, the Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Inter-Church Committee and a wide range of leading authorities. They all predict that if this legislation goes unamended, it will go to the courts and make more disorderly the system that is presently in place. It is in that spirit that we have proposed to delete this clause and retain the powers that exist now to avoid any court challenges, and hopefully we will receive the co-operation of government Members on this.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the clause dealt with by Motion No. 20 is the same one that was the subject of Motion No. 19 and the problem is the same. My friend who just spoke reviewed the grounds for opposing either part of the clause or the whole clause.
The motion I moved previously opposed one specific part of the clause, the part I thought was the most troublesome.

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
However, the Government rejected that motion. Therefore, if we are to do anything to flag this problem, the alternative is to vote to delete the clause as a whole. That, of course, is not really the best alternative theoretically or ideally. What would have been best would have been for the Government to have allowed time for the consideration of this legislation.
The Government probably thinks it was very generous in allowing us a week but, in fact, every witness who came before us referred to the difficulty involved in getting a copy of the Bill, studying the Bill and preparing a considered presentation on it. Nevertheless, most of them did speak against this clause.
It would have been better to give the Bill more study. If the Government had slowed down a bit, perhaps it would have been able to think more cooly and calmly about the entire Bill.
The Government did create quite a furor in July with onesided statements about the people who arrived in the ship Amelie. People who came through other means and manners were mixed up in that furor as well, but that furor has considerably cooled off.
If it were possible to continue consideration of the Bill, or if the Government had waited even a few days to allow further consideration of the Bill before taking up positions pro and con in the usual adversarial way of Parliament, I think a better job would have been done on the Bill. The Government chose for its own political purposes to rush the Bill through in the style of an emergency as though it were not 174 unarmed people who arrived on our shores but 174,000 armed troops invading us.
Experts have told us that this clause is a deprivation of the due process of law. It is a deprivation of the normal rights of a detained person to defend his interests, even while the Government pursues its suspicions or accusations.
It has been suggested that it does not do much harm to reduce or even take away the rights of these people because they are strangers. They are not Canadian citizens, nor are they Canadian residents. They are foreigners. They just came here and therefore we have very few obligations to them as far as human rights go.
That is not the position taken by the Supreme Court when dealing with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is not the position most Canadians have in fact taken toward strangers. In fact, the first Canadians who met the Amelie offered these people food and drink, throughout the world the traditional way to greet a stranger who may be in difficulty.
Treating strangers with an unusual amount of detention and a refusal of habeas corpus or the related rights of review may seem harmless because it is done to these people who have just arrived and whom the Government expects to get rid of. Of course, the Government is treating them as though guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.
I wish to point out that it is a matter of experience, not over
years but over generations and centuries, that what we do to
other people very often comes back to haunt us. If we deny the human rights and if we deny the humanity of strangers, we have undermined or jeopardized our claim to humanity, that is to say, we have called in question our belief in humanity and in the rights of humanity.
That is why it is risky to pass this law which takes away some, not all, of what our court has considered the basic human right of humanity, not of Canadians only, but of humanity. The court did not extend the application of its decision beyond Canada's borders, quite rightly, but it said that a human within our borders does have certain basic rights simply because of being human and being within our borders.
This law encroaches on that principle. It does not wipe it out entirely but it undermines it. I think it would be a mistake for Parliament to proceed with this law. I think it was a mistake to proceed so hastily with Bill C-84. This is one of the parts that should be withdrawn and given further consideration.
The Justice Department, which may have said it is just fine also said that while the law was just fine, it denied an oral hearing to refugee claimants. The Supreme Court said that that was not just fine. Therefore, the Government is not wise to proceed on the advice of the Justice Department against the advice of many reputable private citizens.
This Government, especially, makes a point of favouring the initiative of private citizens over Government. I wish it would remember that principle it preaches and consider the well credentialed and well respected private citizens who have warned the Government against either the whole of Clause 12 or certain parts of it. Therefore, I support the motion to have this Clause deleted from the Bill.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this is another motion made necessary by a repugnant approach in another portion of this Bill. 1 welcome the presence of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) this afternoon in the House. He has finally found the courage to come here and defend his Bill. We have two Ministers of Immigration but neither has had the guts to defend the Bill during the two days that we have been debating it. They have been hiding behind the Parliamentary Secretary who is carrying the Bill in this House because the Ministers have not had the courage to speak up and explain some of the offensive, nasty, vile and mean clauses it contains. Clause 20 is one of them.
I looked forward to the intervention of the Minister of State for Immigration, hearing his voice in defence of this junk, Mr. Speaker. It is high time the Ministers came out from behind the curtains to defend their own bills instead of hiding behind the Parliamentary Secretary who is carrying the can for them.
We are here on Clause 20. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has suggested that it be deleted, as has the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). They are quite right. In the committee hearings we heard interventions by the civil
September 1, 1987

liberties people, the coalition and other organizations. They told us that clauses like this contain flagrant abuses of the Charter and that they will lead to action in the courts. Before you know it, the very intent of the Government in introducing legislation for the purpose that this Government has found absolutely necessary and urgent will be defeated, because there will be individuals and groups who will find measures such as the one contained in Clause 20 offensive from a constitutional and from the Charter point of view.
The Civil Liberties Association told us in committee that detention, search and seizure provisions probably also violate the Charter of Rights. What is the answer of the Minister to that observation on the part of the Civil Liberties Association?
We spent the morning talking about another measure in this Bill which does not make a distinction, so that people who help refugees for non-profit reasons are going to be brought before the law as criminals. We also argued that that clause ought to be deleted. Clause 20 is another offensive clause.
I think the Minister has an obligation, as a Minister of the Crown, to make sure he is not asking the House of Commons and the other place to pass a piece of legislation that is likely to be tied up in the courts, making this whole exercise futile perhaps for months and months or even for years. The Government has been warned, not just by the Opposition, but by credible well established individuals and organizations, that it is producing poor legislation, to put it mildly. It is seeding the elements for action in the higher courts.
Let us hear from the Minister of State for Immigration who has finally emerged out of nowhere after two days of debate. Let us hear from him as to how he will defend Clause 20 and the preceding clauses which we have brought to the attention of the Government in no uncertain terms.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for following a certain pattern of logic in his argument. I may not agree with the premise on which his arguments are based but, given his premise, at least he has argued his position coherently from the starting point of the position that he has taken.
The Member for Spadina asks that the person in question be released. That motion being defeated, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) asked that the entire section be taken out. If we consider it a security risk to relieve the person in question with which that section deals, how much greater is it a security risk to do away with the section altogether? There really is not much logic based upon this particular motion before us.
While I understand exactly from where the Hon. Member for Spadina is coming, it really does not help to accuse the Government by saying that it does not do much harm to take away the rights of strangers and foreigners. I would hope that the Member for Spadina would not make light accusations like that.
Immigration Act, 1976
This section is here mainly to protect the rights of strangers and foreigners. If I could point out to the Member that the present Immigration Act, to which the Hon. Member for York West likes to refer and to which he would like to return, allows an immigration officer, without issue of a warrant, to detain people. The present provisions require the Minister to have a certificate based upon hard evidence presented in order to do that.
It seems to me that what we are doing in this section is preserving the not only Canadian security and the rights of Canadian individuals, but is, in effect and in fact, protecting the civil rights of the person being detained. A person cannot be detained willy-nilly at the whim of an immigration officer. There has to be conclusive evidence to believe that he is a risk. 1 hope the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) will be a little bit more careful about heavy accusations made lightly.
Since this motion would effectively emasculate the Canadian immigration security system we cannot support it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary suggests that if this clause is removed we will have no system for monitoring those who wish to come to this country. He also says the current Act has these kinds of provisions. What he and the Minister do not want to face up to is the fact that it is not just opposition Members of Parliament who are critical of this Bill and this clause. It is just about everyone who has ever been interested in the question of immigration and refugees and who wants Canada to continue to take a humane and generous approach to both subjects.
This Bill was drafted and introduced by the Government in a hurry because it perceived that as a result of this last movement into Canada by ship of a fairly substantial number of Sikhs the public had turned against a humane and generous policy. In fact, that view was very temporarily held. Every single organization which can claim to represent large numbers of people and which can honestly and justifiably say it wants Canada to be generous has expressed its opposition to this Bill and this clause. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary the information contained in an article which appeared in today's Globe and Mail. The heading is "Coalition outlines alternative refugee bill". The article says in part:
A group of prominent Canadians have formed a national coalition that will try to force the Progressive Conservative Government to withdraw the refugee-determination legislation introduced in May.
They want Bill C-55 replaced by a "humane and just" alternative that the coalition has drawn up.
Who belongs to this coalition? Whom do they represent? The article says:
The coalition includes Archbishop Edward Scott of the Anglican Church, president of the Canadian Council of Churches; Bishop Bernard Hubert, president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; Shirley Carr, president of the Canadian Labour Congress; George Corn, president of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council; Dorothy Reitman, president of the Canadian

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Jewish Council: and Fleurette Osborne, an executive member of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
Could you get a more representative group speaking on behalf of millions of Canadians? The article continues:
Msgr. Hubert said at a news conference in Ottawa that he believes this is the first time that the president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has publicly opposed a Government immigration bill.
He said the Church's involvement in shaping Government refugee policy goes back to the Second World War when it helped resettle many thousands of refugees in Canada.
Then they talk about the alternative which they want to see introduced in and passed by this Parliament. It:
-is based on the work of Rabbi Gunther Plaut, whose 1985 report on refugees has been widely applauded around the world, and the 1986 report of the Commons committee on labour, employment and immigration.
As we all know, that committee was made up of members of whom a large majority were and are Conservative government Members. Their advice is being ignored just as much as the advice we got from Rabbi Plaut. The group then lists a number of proposals which they think we ought to include in legislation, and again I quote:
A hearing for all refugee claimants within 10 days of setting foot in Canada before an independent two-member refugee board;
A review and a decision within 30 days if the board rejects the claim;
Removing from Canada, pending a Federal Court appeal, those claimants whose application is determined at the hearing and at the review to be "manifestly unfounded" according to the United Nations definition.
When we oppose this Bill we speak for a large number of people. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is here because about 10 days ago when we were debating this Bill I put through a call to the Mennonite Central Committee for Canada which happens to have its head office in Winnipeg. They told me they are opposed to this Bill. Not only that, they referred me to a Mennonite farmer living in or near the Town of Morden.


Benno Friesen: Morden?


David Orlikow: Yes. There is no area in Manitoba which has been more faithful to the Conservative Party than that area. I spoke to that farmer. He told me he and several others around Morden had helped refugees from Central America to settle and establish themselves in Morden. He felt they had done the right thing and he told me they would continue to do what they had done in the past. If that meant breaking the law which we are now debating, he was prepared to do it. If after he broke the law he was charged and brought to trial and found guilty, he was prepared to pay the penalty, which might well include going to prison. I also spoke to members of the Inter-Church Committee on Refugees in Winnipeg. One of the members, a Catholic, and one an Anglican, told me the same thing. They intend to continue their work in the way they always have. They are prepared, if what they do is contrary to this law, to pay the penalty.
Members on the government side ought to re-evaluate the
Opposition to refugees which developed right after that ship
brought those people to Canada and consider the views of the many Canadians who are well informed, who have worked in this field for many years. Those are the kind of people and organizations I referred to.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 20. 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:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
By agreement we will now proceed to Motion No. 23.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 4 to 6 at page
24 and substituting the following therefor:
"19. This Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation and shall cease to be in force six months after that day."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is my last motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Johnny Carson.


Sergio Marchi: Sits over there.
I was going to say that this is probably the most important motion, i am pleased that the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) is in the House. Like my colleague, the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), I welcome him and urge him, rather than his Parliamentary Secretary, to respond to some of these concerns at report stage.
Motion No. 23 contains a sunset clause which would give this legislation a lifespan of six months, after which time this Parliament would be able to review the workability of the policy, strike out clauses which are offensive and clearly unworkable, and retain those clauses which are reflective of
September 1, 1987

our international obligations-which are probably few and far between-and of our Charter of Rights.
The sunset clause motion is moved as a result of a number of groups, including the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Civil Liberties Association and Rabbi Plaut, advocating it to the committee. It is fitting that we examine the reasons for this clause. There are three reasons for which I suggest that the Government should support this sunset clause.
The first is that most of the amendments presented by the Opposition and witnesses at committee have gone unheard. Amendments were suggested to allow priests, nuns, and other innocent Canadians who aid legitimate refugees coming in to this country to be exempt from fines and imprisonment. Amendments were suggested to allow boats loaded with refugees to be escorted into port, to allow for due processing of the passengers, the return of any passengers who have protection in other countries, the impounding of the boat, and the charging of the captain, thereby deterring other smugglers who would follow the same course.
The Bill still contains unnecessary detainment and deportation clauses. The existing legislation protects our country from undesirables and contains checks and balances to ensure that the rights of individual human beings are not infringed upon. The witnesses who suggested those amendments said that if their amendments were not accepted for the long term, at the very least at the eleventh hour let Parliament give this Bill a lifespan of only six months.
The second aspect is to try to avoid the Charter challenges which every legal expert and witness who came before the committee predicted would be made at the first opportunity by lawyers across the land.
Parliament was called back under the guise of an emergency. The Government has whipped up public frenzy to try to justify its own actions. What will happen 12, 16 or 18 months hence? What will the Government and the Minister of State for Immigration tell Canadians when this piece of legislation is gobbled up by the courts? What will the Minister say when the policy is paralyzed?
Canadians trusted the Government to pass a proper and fitting piece of legislation which would deal with the abuses while protecting rights and civil liberties and keeping the legislation out of the courts. How is the Government going to promote a more progressive immigration policy when every Canadian has lost confidence because this policy has been paralyzed and rendered null and void by the courts?
Apart from not listening to the amendments, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and his officials have refused to make public their legal opinion on this Bill. Until we exerted pressure in the House of Commons during Question Period, Justice officials refused to come before the legislative committee studying Bill C-84.
Immigration Act, 1976
The implication of that is clear. It is obvious that the Department of Justice does not want to defend the indefensible. It knows that this Bill, drafted as poorly as it was, will not meet the test of our Charter and of our Constitution. I believe that the Government knows that, but it is willing to continue nonetheless. It will enjoy short-term gain in return for long-term political pain.
Charter challenges should be avoided. As a legislature we should take our responsibility of drafting proper legislation seriously. If we do not, the Government will pay a much higher price than it would pay now by accepting a number of sensible amendments.
The third and final reason for this sunset clause is in response to the Government's suggestion that it has introduced emergency legislation. My definition of an emergency is "short term", "temporary". An emergency does not last forever. Therefore, it is not necessary for emergency legislation to become permanent. Emergency legislation implies that the new revamped system which we hope to provide through Bill C-55 in an amended form will give us a system of refugee determination that will make Bill C-84 useless and redundant.
The best deterrent to any individual is a processing system of less than six months. No one will spend $15,000 and go to much trouble and pain to come to our shores if they know they will be able to stay for a maximum of only six months. The system presently takes years and, therefore, they take their chances. The ultimate deterrent is a proper, fair and expeditious determination system. If we put that into place, Bill C-84 will not be needed.
It is for those three reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we are suggesting at this eleventh hour at report stage that if the Government really wants to proceed without listening to the amendments suggested by Canadians it should put the legislation into force for only six months and allow Parliament and Canadians to determine the future course of the legislation.
I will conclude with a quote from Gunther Plaut. Some Members did not hear his testimony and I urge them to read it because he offered a very forceful and moving presentation. He said:
Treat the stranger fairly; you should extend your love and friendship to him. Remember that you too were strangers once.
1 think that Draconian and emergency legislation gives the wrong signal, not only to the world but it gives the wrong word to our own people in Canada. 1 ask you to look carefully at some of the amendments suggested. Do not follow the worst instincts of people, follow the best instincts.
1 think the Bill was drawn in undue haste. This is why 1 think we need just a little more leisure to write legislation that makes sense.
I believe that the sunset clause for six months is more than a valiant compromise because there are principles here that are tough to swallow. If the legislation is only on the books for six months, at least it allows our country and this Parliament to

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
escape with some degree of integrity. If it is permanent, longterm legislation, no dignity can possibly be salvaged from this legislation.
I sincerely request the Minister of State to reflect on this proposition. Perhaps, after he has heard the Member from the New Democratic Party and my colleague, the Member or Davenport, he will give the House a proper answer and send a signal to those Canadians who requested this clause that their concerns are being adhered to and their input counts for something.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, coincidentally, I have a motion on the same subject although its content is different. I was quite happy to let the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) proceed first because he has an urgent engagement.
I will support his motion even though I have a different motion in case this one should fail. I support the motion and recommend that our Party should support it, somewhat in the same sporting vein as was traditional with soldiers in World War I who were signed up for four years or the duration, whichever was shorter. I am willing to try six months or the duration of this Government. According to the newspapers, I think this may come to a test soon, and I am not sure which would be the quickest way to get rid of this Bill. In the meantime, I will support the motion of the Hon. Member for York West.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, it really makes very little sense to pass legislation such as this, which includes having to establish additional machinery of Government to make sure that the system works properly, and then dismantle it in six months. I fail to see the merit of this kind of motion.
While I cannot support the motion of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), I see a little more merit in his motion. However, to pass legislation and put government machinery into operation, then kill it after six months, makes very little sense to me, and so we cannot support the motion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 23 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). 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 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 stands deferred.
Am I to understand that Motion No. 21 has been withdrawn?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out line 27 at page 23
and substituting the following therefor:
"second anniversary of'.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the principle of a sunset clause has been described by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
I wish to make only two points in support of my motion which is, in effect, a two-year sunset clause. First, I believe the general principle of a two-year sunset clause is good. I give credit to the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) for having first introduced an amendment in committee that would have brought the sunset at five years and for amending her own amendment to bring it down to four years. She had a good idea and was moving in the right direction. I would simply like to move it a bit farther.
I agree with the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that six months would hardly give enough time for the public to realize what a very bad law this is. I believe two years would really convince the public that the Government, whether it was then in operation or not, had erred very badly. As an illustration of that, let me quote from a source that I hope the Hon. Member will not regard as biased in a hostile way. It is the Calgary Herald of August 26, which contains an editorial with the heading "Amending a Hasty Law".
It states that Bill C-84 is a bad law "because it will not in some respects deter abuse and because it is so sweepingly vague that it almost certainly violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, international treaties Canada has signed, and the rights of refugee support groups within Canada".
It goes on to state that the law "needs to spell out who is deemed to be involved in smuggling illegal immigrants".
One of the remarkable features of this Bill is that the Minister advertised for weeks ahead that it would stop smugglers. While the Minister talks about stopping smugglers in the first clause of the Bill, smugglers and smuggling are not mentioned in the Bill.
September 1, 1987

A smuggler is a person who brings somebody in, usually by stealth, but at any rate in violation of the laws. That is not spelled out in the Bill.
The editorial goes on to say that it should spell out who is deemed to be involved in smuggling illegal aliens for profit and make clear that it will in no way affect the activities of refugee jppporters who aid those who legitimately flee persecution for safe haven in Canada.
Of course, those are amendments that the Government has refused to make, as I am sure the Calgary Herald takes note.
The editorial goes on to state that Bill C-84 traps the people who aid legitimate refugees while failing to spell out the crimes and punishments aimed at unscrupulous so-called immigration consultants who advise people in foreign lands to use the refugee stream as a means of coming to Canada. They may be pleased with Section 95.4 which arose out of our discussions and which was moved and therefore supported by the Government. At least it remembered for a week.
The editorial went on to state: "The detention provisions which allow officials to hold claimants for 28 days and longer without hearings deny the basic concept of habeas corpus".
I commend the editorial to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. The Calgary Herald is not one of the pressure groups or one of those who perhaps has a stake in this. I do not know whether the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary considers the Calgary Herald guilty of romanticism and wanting to race down to the American border for the fun of bringing across a refugee. I am not familiar with the Calgary Herald, but I hope the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would give some consideration to their view.
I hope he would support my motion for a two-year sunset clause because I suggest it gives a fair chance to find out whether this law is really attacking the people whom the Government originally said it wanted to attack or whether it is attacking those whom the Government said it does not want to attack while missing the real smugglers.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I understand the reasoning and the motivation of the Hon. Member or Spadina (Mr. Heap) in trying to contain and manage the duration of this piece of legislation. Therefore, I understand his desire to put forward a motion for a sunset clause. The more 1 thought about it as I was listening to him, the more convinced 1 became that the sun will set on this Government at the next election and take care of the nefarious legislation and policies it has introduced during this Parliament, not just in terms of social policy but in terms of economic policies. There will be the day when the sun will set and take care of the ideology that is emanating from those benches opposite.
I am still waiting to hear from the Minister for Employment. The Government has two Ministers for that portfolio and the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) sits
Immigration Act, 1976
there reading his correspondence and perhaps signing Christmas cards, but has not entered into this debate in defence of his own piece of legislation. It is the second day of debate on this measure and we have not heard one peep out of the Minister of State for Immigration. He is hiding behind mother Friesen's skirts rather than standing up in his place and telling us why he is introducing some of these repugnant clauses in this piece of legislation. This legislation has prompted the Hon. Member for Spadina to rise in his place and ask for a sunset clause, and my colleague the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) is asking for a similar measure. The only difference is that one period of time is longer than the other.
This is the extent of the repugnance this Bill has awakened in the Opposition. As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) mentioned earlier, this repugnance is not only felt by the Opposition.
It is reported in the Ottawa Citizen and in the Globe and Mail that a group of outstanding citizens met in the capital yesterday. They are not members of dangerous political movements, nor are they crypto Communists or radicals on the left, who came out and spoke against this Bill. They are a group of citizens which included the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and the like. Anglican Archbishop Edward Scott, the President of the Canadian Council of Churches, is quoted as accusing the Government at the press conference of orchestrating an emergency. He suggested that there is clear evidence that the Government knew for some time that the boat was on its way. He is asking that this Bill be scrapped.
This is not the Opposition speaking. It is a group of citizens from across the nation speaking against this measure which is so outrageous in the context of some of the clauses we have been debating for two days. Not one but two Ministers of Immigration have been silent on this legislation, asking the Parliamentary Secretary to deliver the goods for them. The Government is hiding behind him. What kind of management is this? What a shame. What a lack of guts it takes to handle a piece of legislation in this manner.
In my 19 years in this House of Commons I have not seen a piece of legislation managed in this way. I cannot recall one instance when the Minister did not come into the House on a contested piece of legislation to defend it. I have never seen that before. In most instances we would only have one Minister, but here we have two Ministers and not one of the two has spoken at report stage despite the number of amendments which were brought forward.
What can we say? The Hon. Member for Spadina has done a very thorough job. The Hon. Member for York West has worked very hard with his amendments. There are about 23 amendments. We have now reached the end of report stage and I invite the Minister of State for Immigration to rise in his

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
place and say something about these amendments, if he has the guts to speak.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short comment. I would point out to the Hon. Member for Spadina that the Calgary Herald has probably read most of the critics of this legislation but has evidently not read the Bill. It would be good for its editorial board to spend some time reading the legislation before it makes that kind of comment.
Second, I want to say that I agree with the principle of the Hon. Member's motion. As he pointed out, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Collins) has already taken care of that principle in the legislation by introducing at committee stage a review clause which at first called for a five-year review and, as the Hon. Member pointed out, it was reduced in committee to four years. I think that is a reasonable length of time.
As I say, I can agree totally with the Hon. Member's principle, and that is a review of the legislation, because world circumstances change and domestic circumstances change. It is wholesome to review the provisions of the Bill in that context. However, I do think it is unrealistic to think of reviewing the legislation in two years. There are far too many undulations of circumstances. There is just not enough time to see the effects of the legislation through the administration of the Bill.
Therefore, I think it is impractical to think of a review process after two years of implementation. I would hold to the four year provision we passed in committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The 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 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:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11),
the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.



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 Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-Administration of Justice-Length of prison sentences-Granting of parole; the Hon. Member of York East (Mr. Redway)-Young Offenders Act-Maximum sentence for murder-Request that statute be amended; the Hon. Member for Montreal- Saint-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Tax reform-Future of Minister of Finance-Old age exemption-Minister's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the Bill now before the House.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung-.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the first question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Heap moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap), which was negatived on the following division.
	{Division No. 230)	
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	de Corneille	GuilbaultAlthouse	de Jong	(Saint-Jacques)Blaikic	Dingwall	HeapBoudria	Fulton	HendersonBroadbent	Gagliano	JewettCaccia	Garneau	JohnstonCassidy	Grondin	(Saint-Henri-Copps	Westmount)
September 1, 1987

Kaplan	Nystrom	SkellyKeeper	Orlikow	TobinKillens	Ouellet	Young-39Lapierre	Prud'homme	Malepart	Riis	McCurdy	Robichaud	Murphy	Rompkey	Nunziata	Rossi	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Ouellet:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think that if you were to ask the House you would find that there is unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken to all the other motions you have before you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we apply the vote just taken to all the other motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Heap moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-S4 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 29 to 31 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
Immigration Act, 1976
"officer or an adjudicator shall make an order to detain or release the person named in the"
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 231)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikie	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Mr. Heap moved: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was
negatived on the following division:
Immigration Act, 1976 {Division No. 232)

September 1, 1987
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikie	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	NowlanFretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. Mr. Heap moved: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was
negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 233)
	YEAS Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikie	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	NowlanFretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motions Nos. 15 and 17. The vote on Motion No. 15 will dispose of Motion No. 17 Mr. Marchi moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 25 to 32 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"95.1 Every person who knowingly, and for other than a humanitarian or commercial purpose, smuggles, organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to smuggle, organize, induce, aid or abet a person to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim is guilty of an offence and is liable.
Motion No. 17
September 1, 1987

Immigration Act, 1976
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 1 to 9 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"95.2 Every person who knowingly, and for other than a humanitarian or commercial purpose, smuggles, organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to smuggle, organize, induce, aid or abet a group of ten or more persons to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim is guilty of an"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost-That disposes of Motion No. 17.
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikie	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 19. Mr. Heap moved: Motion No. 19

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 26 at page 20


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikie	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAltewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 22. Mr. Heap moved: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 18 by-striking out line 27 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
The next question is on Motion No. 20. Mr. Marchi moved: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
"second anniversary of'.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was
negatived on the following division.
September 1, 1987

(Division No. 238)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikic	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TuppcrCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbic	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 23. Mr. Marchi moved: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 4 to 6 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"19. This Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation and shall cease to be in force six months after that day."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Marchi) which was
negatived on the following division:
Immigration Act, 1976 (Division No. 239)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikic	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TuppcrCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister		of Employment and
Immigration) moved that the Bill, as		amended, be concurred
in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to		
adopt the motion?		
Some Hon.	Members: Agreed.	
Some Hon.	Members: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
September 1, 1987
Canagrex
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the Elouse?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANAGREX DISSOLUTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add my voice to those concerned about this legislation which will remove Canagrex from the Canadian landscape.
There are a number of points I want to make. First and foremost, it comes at a rather opportune time. By any definition, a crisis in agriculture is pending or has arrived. The delegations which appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture over the last number of weeks made it perfectly clear that agriculture is at a very important point. There are some basic decisions that the Government and the Parliament of Canada must make. Are we going to take significant initiatives, unfortunately in some cases remedial action, to ensure that the family farm or family ranch remains a viable institution on the agricultural landscape of Canada? Or are we prepared to turn our back on rural Canada and turn it over to agri-business or corporate agriculture? Around the world some countries have made that decision. Some decided that the family farm as a production unit is worth preserving. As a result, they put in place a variety of programs to make that possible.
It is an incredibly competitive world and, in many respects, the competition is unfair. We are asking our farmers and ranchers to compete in a very unfair market-place. Heavy subsidies are given to the European farm community which make it virtually impossible for our producers to compete on international markets. Then we have the spectre of free trade talks and the possibility, because none of us really know what is going on, of initiatives which would result in the American agricultural community moving in to Canada and simply taking over. I refer specifically to the case made by poultry producers, egg producers, dairy producers, and a number of other sectors of the agricultural community who are very serious about the potential influence of a free trade agreement on their area.
I come from central British Columbia where agriculture
plays an important role. The rural fabric of that area is
dependent upon a healthy and viable agricultural community.
We have the soft fruit industry, the hard fruit industry, the vineyards of the Okanagan Valley, and then the more exotic crops such as ginseng which are aimed at far eastern markets. We have traditional cattle ranching and vegetable producers who are just beginning, under incredibly competitive conditions, to make successful inroads into new markets. This is often done with the assistance of the provincial Government, the federal Government, and in some cases even local Governments.
Today we are discussing the abandonment of Canagrex. It is important that we remind ourselves what Canagrex was all about. It was an initiative taken by the federal Government to market Canadian agricultural products in a more effective and efficient way in new areas. Our food producers are among the most efficient in the world. They can compete in the international market-place. However, they have often required some assistance. The farmer raising a certain type of oil-seed, or a farmer raising rabbits or raspberries, whatever the crop may be, does not have the time or the capacity to go to Japan to develop a market.
Some other Hon. Members of this place and I had the good fortune to visit Japan some time back. We looked at the potential for Canadian food producers in that market. We learned that they are very pleased with the quality of foodstuffs from Canada. Not surprisingly, we found a considerable potential. As a matter of fact, wherever we went, food fairs were being conducted by our embassy introducing the Japanese to Canadian foods and recipes. The response was fantastic. That is why we feel that wherever Canadians have made the effort to develop and expand markets overseas for our food producers, it has been successful. Yet it is costly and time-consuming.
That was the point of Canagrex. It had a very modest budget to go out and sell our products overseas. A lot of people have asked why our farmers cannot do that. Obviously they do not have time or necessarily the expertise. Often their organizations are limited by their funding. We said, "Let us put aside a Crown corporation to do that for our food producers. They deserve nothing less. Let us put in place a mechanism whereby Canagrex is evaluated on a regular basis. Get farmers on the board of directors. Hold it accountable for its actions." It was a very progressive piece of work. Then, just as it was beginning its work and opening up new markets, providing hundreds and potentially tens of thousands of jobs, both directly and in supporting industries, what did the Government do? It pulled the rug out and decided to abandon it. It did so because, when it was set up, the Progressive Conservatives were in opposition.
I recall them going on at some length about how this was not necessary, our farmers did not require that support. I do not think they said that farmers did not deserve the support, but they did say that they did not require it.
The success of Canagrex was something to behold. If anyone
sat down and objectively evaluated what that small Crown
corporation did in a very short period of time, it was nothing
September 1, 1987

short of remarkable. Dedicated people wanted to see our agricultural sector expand.
It is with some reluctance that I discuss this today. It is with some sadness and sorrow that I have to comment on the deathbed of Canagrex. We have one more spike to drive into its coffin, and I guess that is in a sense what we are doing. However, I want to remind my friends on the government side that now is the time we need to rally behind the family farm. Now is the time to rally behind the food producers of Canada. Therefore, I plead at this last moment for my friends in the Conservative caucus to reconsider the abandonment of this initiative to assist Canadian food producers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ADVISABILITY OF PROMOTING PEACE IN CENTRAL AMERICA
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of sponsoring a major initiative to enhance the opportunities for peace in Central America through steps including, but not necessarily limited to:
1.	appointing a personal envoy of the Prime Minister to reinforce diplomatic efforts regionally and internationally;
2.	establishing an embassy in Nicaragua;
3.	establishing a "Peace Fund", with contributions from like-minded Western nations, to cover costs associated with implementation of the Contadora treaty; and
4.	introducing at the UN a General Assembly Resolution calling on the Secretary-General to dispatch a civilian monitoring commission to the region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on a motion that I introduced on June 19 of this year which calls on the Canadian Government to take specific and concrete steps to assist in the peace process in Central America. These steps, combined with some other suggestions which I am about to make, would amount to a major Canadian diplomatic initiative.
I hope that the Government will take seriously the possibility of a diplomatic initiative. Such a move would reinforce the initiatives that thousands of Canadians have been taking for many years and continue to undertake today.
In many of the Central American countries there are Canadians working for a just and lasting peace in practical and concrete ways. There are many Canadians in Canada working for charitable and solidarity projects in support of the
Peace in Central America
people of Central America. I hope the Government will take seriously the initiative of so many concerned Canadians by responding with an initiative of its own.
1 do not want to suggest for an instant that the Government has done nothing to promote a genuine Canadian desire for peace or Canadian action for peace. I want to acknowledge, for example, that the Government has offered technical assistance to the countries of Central America for peacekeeping and verification. I want to commend the Government for voting against Mr. Reagan in the United Nations on the motion calling on the U.S. to obey the international law and honour the International Court injunction against the mining of the harbours of Nicaragua. I want to recognize that the Government has provided both bilateral aid and assistance to nongovernmental organizations to the Central American nations.
However, these actions do not amount to the kind of diplomatic initiative that Canada could and should take. I would like my suggestions to be taken as friendly suggestions and my criticism as constructive.
The weeks since I introduced this motion have been exciting ones. They were full of hope for the peoples of Central America and their sympathizers and supporters here in Canada. A peace plan has been adopted by the Central American Governments. Momentum for peace is growing. There are many obstacles to a just and lasting peace. Anything that Canada can do to help increase the momentum for peace must be done.
That increased momentum began, as you know, with the August 7 signing of an accord between the Presidents of the five Central American nations. This accord was reached despite the extensive last-minute efforts by Mr. Reagan to scuttle the talks. Some commentators have suggested, as a matter of fact, that his untimely intervention may have solidified the will of the Central American leaders to accomplish their own peace plan. This week we have seen some signs that Honduras may be showing cold feet, and Mr. Reagan has made it clear that he wishes to keep fighting in Nicaragua. It is clear that there are obstacles to peace for Central America.
The Foreign Ministers have made progress in their meetings in San Salvador. They are organizing working groups necessary to implement the various provisions of the agreement; the cease-fires, the amnesties, the end to guerrilla bases in one country for attack on another, the restoration of civil rights, a free press, and free elections throughout the region. This accomplishment may help overcome some of the obstacles to peace.
Eight other Latin American nations have been asked to sit on a regional peace commission to supervise the process. The United Nations and the Organization of American States will be part of this commission. In El Salvador the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front has agreed to meet with President Jose Napoleon Duarte on September 15 to discuss a cease fire. In Nicaragua the Sandanista Government has appointed the Cardinal of the Catholic church, Miguel

September 1, 1987
Peace in Central America
Obando y Bravo, to serve on a commission of national reconciliation. Cardinal Obando is and has been a fervent critic of the Sandinista Government.
Also on that commission will be Mauricio Diaz Davila, leader of the popular Social Christian Party. Mr. Diaz will represent the largest block of opposition Parties in the legislature. The third member will be Dr. Gustavo Parajon, a physician and Baptist missionary who heads the Protestant Committee for Aid and Development. The Government will be represented by the vice President of Nicaragua, Sergio Ramirez. This commission may be able to overcome some of the obstacles to peace.
Unhappily, it is clear that Mr. Reagan is still looking for ways to scuttle the peace accord. He has dispatched a swarm of diplomats to the region. He has spoken on the Contra radio station. He has threatened to continue military aid to the terrorists even after the cease fire comes into force. Perhaps most important, he is leaning on governments in the region, particularly those of Honduras and El Salvador, to back out of the accord. This is unforgivable interference on the part of the Reagan administration and makes a mockery of Mr. Reagan's supposed interest in promoting peace in Central America.
Fortunately, in the aftermath of the Contragate hearings, the Central American accord gives the Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives good grounds on which to limit or reject additional funding for the Contra terrorists when the current funding runs out in September.
For some time in the wake of Colonel North's testimony it looked as though American public opinion might be shifting towards supporting the Contras. However, I am pleased to report that according to the latest New York Times-CBS news poll only 33 per cent of Americans support such aid while half of Americans oppose it. There truly are obstacles to a fair and just peace in Central America, but there are also hopeful signs and a growing momentum for peace.
As a nation with an international reputation for peacekeeping and peacemaking Canada can help build on this momentum. We owe it to our Central American neighbours to do all we can to assist. They have suffered war and violence for too many years.
What can Canada do? We can help to mobilize international opinion. We can lend our moral suport to the people of Central America. We can lend practical support. We can make a difference. Canadians can help bring an end to those bloody wars. We can help to build a just and lasting peace.
In my motion submitted to the House on June 19 I first suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should send a personal envoy to Central America to reinforce our diplomatic efforts. In fact, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) sent not one but two envoys to offer Canada's technical expertise in peacekeeping and verification.
This is a very practical form of aid which Canada has provided. I applaud that move and hope that the Minister will take up more New Democrat suggestions.
My second suggestion was that Canada should take a leading role in establishing a peace fund with contributions from western nations to help with the costs of implementation. Such a move would have both practical and diplomatic significance. Practically, the peace process, and especially the verification process, will cost money. We cannot expect the Reagan administration to make the same financial contribution to peace as it has to war. Diplomatically, such a move would send a clear signal of support to all parties in the region. I ask the Minister to seize this unparalleled opportunity.
My third suggestion was that the Canadian Government should introduce a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly in support of the Central American peace process. Representatives of the United Nations and the Organization of American States will sit on the Regional Verification Commission. These representatives are important in both symbolic and practical terms.
A United Nations General Assembly resolution would present the opportunity to mobilize international opinion. It would send another signal to the participants in this bloody conflict. It would signal international approval of the peace process. It would also signal a Canadian commitment to international law and international organizations as being crucial to peace.
My final suggestion is that Canada establish an embassy in Nicaragua. The Government has argued that our interests are adequately served by our embassy in San Jose, Costa Rica. Without casting aspersions on our embassy staff in Costa Rica, I can assure you that this claim is not well founded.
I was in Nicaragua with a parliamentary delegation in April of this year. Our embassy in Costa Rica organized a dinner so that we could meet the Canadians who are resident in Nicaragua, most of whom are working with non-governmental organizations in Canada or Nicaragua to help the people of Nicaragua. It was a good event and I commend the embassy for organizing it, but I was surprised, as they were, to discover that our embassy had no idea of how many Canadians were in Nicaragua. That is one small example of the lack of knowledge that our Government has about the realities of life in the most controversial country in Central America.
The Government is not even in contact with Canadians who work in Nicaragua and know the country. In case of emergency, moreover, Canadians in Nicaragua are expected to go to the American embassy for assistance in spite of the protests that many of them made against such advice. Given the divergence of U.S. and Canadian policy on that country, this is a very regrettable situation. Our embassy in Costa Rice is expected to cover our interest in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El
September 1, 1987

Salvador and Panama. In a region as volatile as Central America, it is too much to expect of the staff.
An embassy in Nicaragua would give our Government much more direct and complete information than it can get now. An embassy would enable Canada to engage in continuing and ongoing discussions with the Nicaraguan Government and the Nicaraguan people on matters of mutual concern. The goodwill created by the involvement of hundreds of individual Canadians can provide the base for our officials to have a real influence in Nicaragua.
Finally, an embassy would help promote trade between Nicaragua and Canada, trade that would be to both countries' advantage.
I have suggested moves that would be the beginning of a major diplomatic and practical initiative by Canada to promote and support peace in Central America. It would help to increase momentum for the peace process in Central America. It would be a positive response to the desires of thousands of Canadians who have, through their activities in Canadian solidarity organizations and non-governmental organizations, worked hard, sometimes risking their lives, to help the people of Central America.
This is an opportunity that Canada cannot afford to miss. The people of Central America deserve a just and lasting peace. Canadians can be and deserve to be known as peacemakers.
In addition to the steps I have suggested to the Government in my motion, there are other practical steps the Government should take. For example, we can make use of our bilateral aid program in the name of peace, just as Mr. Reagan does in the name of war. We can make it a condition of our aid that recipient countries adhere to the terms of the peace accord, which calls upon Central American countries to refuse their territory as bases for attacks on other countries.
Members will know that I primarily refer there to El Salvador and Honduras, since both Costa Rica recently, and Nicaragua some years ago, ceased to allow rebel bases on their territories.
Honduras is our major bilateral aid recipient in the region. Honduras has received some $37 million in Canadian aid over the last five years. Honduras is also the country most likely to violate the accord. Members of the Honduran military Government and business classes make money from skimming American aid to the Contras. The American bilateral aid program is clearly dependent on Honduran aid to the Contras. Eleven U.S.-built airstrips and almost continuous U.S. military manoeuvres dominate the economic and political posture of Honduras. Therefore, Honduras must choose. It can choose to conform to a posture set by the Reagan administration, or it can choose to honour its commitment to the peace process. Canada can help to make that choice easier.
We can link our aid to the participation of Honduras in the peace process. Of course, we cannot hope unilaterally to match
Peace in Central America
the amount of aid that the U.S. provides, but we might be able to approach other countries in our hemisphere and in Europe, inviting them to put together an aid package-a sort of consortium for peace.
These are practical steps that would help overcome some of the obstacles to peace. But even if the countries of Central America are allowed to end the fighting without outside interference, efforts must still be made to ensure that peace is peace with justice. For without justice, there can be no lasting peace in Central America or anywhere else. The roots of war lie in injustice. We must learn from history.
Canadians are deeply committed to peace with justice in Central America. I have seen the commitment of Canadians when I visited the region, where I witnessed individual Canadians and Canadian organizations deeply committed to peace with justice. In Guatemala earlier this summer, I witnessed a woman of Guatemalan origin marching with the Organization of Mothers of the Disappeared, demanding an account of their relatives.
In Nicaragua this spring, I visited a young Canadian apiarist working with CARE Canada to help Nicaraguan farmers improve both their honey and crop yields. I visited farming co-ops, where Canadians were helping Nicaraguans improve their farming technique. A similar co-op, after being assisted by an Alberta group, Farmers for Peace, was attacked by Contras earlier this summer. Ten Nicaraguans were killed, four kidnapped, and many houses and buildings burned. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made a very strong protest against that action by the Contras and let the United States Government know of its protest.
Other Canadian projects have been attacked by Contras in Nicaragua as well. Last summer, for instance, a group of Ontario teachers travelled to the mountains to build a school in a remote village. Having made their contribution to the literacy program in Nicaragua, they returned home. Unfortunately, as they waited at the airport in Managua, word came that the Contras had burned the newly built school. Such are the acts of terror committed by the Contras, which the President of the United States continues to finance.
Canadians have put their lives on the line in support of the people of Central America. Earlier this summer, Professor George Sorger and Barbara Paleczny, associated with Amnesty International, visited El Salvador to investigate the numerous reports of human rights violations in that country. On their return, they were picked up and held by Honduran soldiers who threatened them with torture and stole the notes they had made in El Salvador. Fortunately, they were released unharmed.
In El Salvador on July 31, a group of Canadian teachers visiting the village of San Jose Las Flores were seized by government troops, held overnight, and denied medical attention for a sick colleague. I would like to quote from their report:

September 1, 1987
Peace in Central America
We were not prepared for the graphic details supplied by the soldiers, of the
process of torture within the treasury police.
Canadians in this country are doing their part to build a just and lasting peace. As the New Democratic critic for Central American issues, I receive a constant stream of phone calls and correspondence on Central America. Many Canadians are well informed and knowledgeable.
Canadians here in Ottawa have twinned a day care centre, the Glebe Day Care, with a child care centre in Managua. Part of the funds raised by the Glebe Day Care are used to help their counterparts in Managua.
In British Columbia, fishermen are donating their time to build a prototype fishing boat to help modernize the Nicaragua fishing industry.
From one end of this country to the other, thousands of volunteers with tools for peace collect material goods, including blankets for hospitals, notebooks for schools, and money for tin to put roofs on houses, that is shipped from Vancouver to supply material needs in Nicaragua.

In May of this year I attended a conference on peace in Central America here in Ottawa which was organized by Canadians. This conference brought government, academic and other representatives to Ottawa from Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and other Latin American countries, and from Europe, to discuss the peace process. This conference may well have contributed to preparing the way for the peace accord.
Many of these projects are small by themselves but they have a cumulative impact. They provide practical support for the peoples of Central America. They provide symbolic support for the people to people level. They help to educate Canadians and help to build momentum for peace.
There is a Canadian initiative for peace, an intiative of the Canadian people. I am asking that there also be a distinct Canadian Government initiative for peace in Central America.
I challenge this Government to show the kind of courage and imagination, the kind of dedication and vision that is shown by so many Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Clinch) followed by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
[ Translation]


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House today about the progress made in achieving peace in Central America. In fact, progress is the correct word, if we consider recent events.
As Hon. Members are aware, the Presidents of five Central
American countries recently agreed to a new peace plan for
the region, with the support of the main parties concerned
outside the region, namely the U.S., Cuba and the USSR. This is a very positive development.
However, I do not want to give the impression that the plan is a cure-all for the region's problems. In recent years, negotiations conducted by the countries of the Contadora group-Mexico, Panama, Colombia and Venezuela-have too often raised expectations and been followed by disillusionment and disappointment, which of course in no way diminishes the efforts of the Contadora group which, despite tremendous obstacles, has demonstrated its resolve and determination.
The most serious obstacle would seem to be the existence of serious socio-economic differences. Another obstacle to peace is the guerillas in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala. Finally, and this may be a decisive factor, we have the power struggle between the two superpowers, which tends to aggravate regional conflicts. Canada sincerely hopes that the goodwill shown by all parties in recent weeks will be reflected in a sincere effort to overcome these obstacles.
Canada has a clear-cut policy with respect to the situation in Central America. In a speech last year before the InterAmerican Press Association, the Prime Minister referred to the Contadora initiative as the best instrument for reconciliation in Central America. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) also said in public statements, in Canada and abroad, that Canada firmly supported the Contadora process. The Secretary of State for External Affairs repeated his position during visits to Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela in 1986.
In January 1987, in a message addressed to Foreign Affairs Ministers of the Contadora group and the Lima support group, and to the Secretaries General of the United Nations and the Organization for American States on the occasion of their visit to the Central American countries, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that the efforts of the Contadora group had sustained the hopes of the international community for a lasting solution to the crisis in Central America. In 1986, the Canadian delegation to the UN General Assembly made a statement in support of the Contadora group.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, Canada has provided constructive and practical support for the Contadora group and the general peace process. During his visit to Mexico in 1985, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was able to discuss the situation in Central America and the Contadora group's plan with President de la Madrid and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He restated Canada's firm support for the Contadora initiative and its desire to play a constructive role in the peace process, when appropriate. The Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that Canada was prepared to share its experience in peacekeeping operations with the parties concerned. Since then, the Canadian Government, at the request of the Contadora group countries, has drafted a series of comments on the provisions of the Draft Convention on Security and Verification.
September 1, 1987

Those comments are based on a number of considerations, including the need to speak in a neutral, objective and unbiased way. We were also aware of the need to ensure the viability of any verification and follow-up commission that may be established under the Contadora Act. Specifically, we thought that the funding for such an operation should be carefully examined by all parties in order that the selected mechanism be as viable as possible, given the circumstances.

We believe that the concept of a regional solution to the current problem should be emphasized. In this regard we believe that the Central American parties themselves ought to be brought into the peacekeeping mechanisms as far as possible. As far as this contributes to the effective operation of a control and verification commission, the commission should enjoy specific and firm guarantees relating to its freedom of movement and access to the region. The commission's role should also permit free and open communication with the media as its members deem appropriate.
Finally, we believe there is a need to designate a sponsoring political authority for the commission and to establish a time limit for the mandate of the commission itself. The Government believes that the principles which were enunciated two years ago for control and verification can be usefully applied to the current peace plan.
On August 7, at the close of their historic summit meeting in Guatemala, the Central American Presidents announced that an agreement had been reached on a new peace plan for Central America. The plan called for a meeting of the foreign Ministers within 15 days to begin implementing an amnesty for insurgents, a cease-fire and dialogue with unarmed opposition groups. This was all to be achieved in 90 days, that is, by November 7. The Contradora countries were to be asked to design and implement a control and verification commission to supervise forest levels in the region.
We were delighted at this breakthrough agreement. Canada's support was made clear on the very day the agreement was signed, and a press release was issued by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). The Minister subsequently dispatched two officials to the region during the week of August 17 to demonstrate Canada's support and to offer technical advice on the design of the peacekeeping mechanisms. The visit and the Canadian offer were warmly welcomed by all countries in the region.
There have been further hopeful signs. The agreement, as 1 have said, called for a Foreign Ministers' meeting within 15 days. That meeting took place on August 19 and 20 in San Salvador. The Foreign Ministers then met with their Contadora counterparts, as well as with Foreign Ministers from the Fima support group, and UN and OAS representatives in Caracas on August 22 and 23. They agreed to establish a verification commission.
Peace in Central America
Canada, being outside the Fatin American area, is not a member of the commission. However, we have told all the Governments concerned that we stand ready to offer technical advice to the commission should its members wish us to do so.
I think we can safely conclude therefore that there has been real progress. That is clear from the fact that all five Central American presidents approved the Guatemala plan, demonstrating an unprecedented commitment and the political will to overcome the obstacles. We should be realistic, however, as to the limits of this progress. The guerilla wars continue, as does the superpower competition. The conditions of poverty persist and are exacerbated by massive flows of refugees who have been displaced by the conflicts. Respect for human rights, civil liberties and democratic institutions is still lacking in parts of the region.
This recent progress constitutes a positive but tentative step down a very long road. In this context, international support is vital to maintaining the momentum of the peace process. The Canadian Government will continue to provide encouragement, support and appropriate technical advice deemed useful by the Central American and Contadora countries.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the intent behind this resolution to promote peace in Central America is good but, as has been recognized by its mover and by the speaker for the Government, it is out of date to a certain extent. It is out of date because the five principal countries in Central America concluded a peace agreement in Guatemala City on August 7, 1987, in which they provided for a cease-fire of civil wars within the countries of the region. In particular, that means civil wars in Nicaragua, Salvador and Guatemala. They also provided for a return to democratic government in these countries, as well as an amnesty for opponents of the Government. This means amnesty for the Contras in Nicaragua, as well as amnesty for members of the FMFN in El Salvador and in Guatemala. They provided for a halt to aid to insurgents from outside the country, which would mean stopping American aid to the Contras toward Nicaragua, a halt to any aid from Cuba or the Soviet Union to Nicaragua and, perhaps, to the insurgents in Salvador. Also, the countries that are signatories to the agreement renounced the use of their territory as a basis for struggle against neighbouring countries.
This is a very hopeful agreement. The signatories to the agreement stated that it would go into effect in 90 days from the date of signature. Since it was signed on August 7 of this year, it will go into effect on November 7, 1987. At that time all the provisions should go into effect simultaneously. In other words, the signatories to the agreement should be prepared to restore democratic rights as a cease-fire takes effect and amnesty should be given to all the opponents at the same time.
I failed to mention at the outset that the Five signatories to this agreement are different from the countries involved in the Contadora process. While the resolution refers to the Contadora process, it is to a certain extent out of date because

September 1, 1987
Peace in Central America
there were more countries involved, and in that case different countries. Here we have involved the five principal countries: Nicaragua, Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica, with the plan having been put forward by the President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias.
Of course, Canada has given support to this peace agreement. As was mentioned by the representative of the Government, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has already offered assistance to the signatories to the agreement in implementing the process, in providing assistance for verification and for monitoring and so on. This is all to the good.
However, I do not think that the principal problem is now with the five signatories to the agreement, or with Canada's effort, but will be with the United States. The United States has been, and I think continues to be, the principal road-block to peace in that area. I should make it clear that I am talking about the Government of the United States and not the Congress or the people of the United States. Just after the signature of this agreement on August 7, these words appeared in The New York Times of August 16, "President Reagan said today that American support for the Nicaraguan rebels should continue until a cease-fire has occurred and a verifiable process of democratization is under way in that Central American country". So President Reagan says that there must be a certain type of democratization in Nicaragua, if there is going to be a cease-fire, a stoppage of the assistance to the Contras, but he does not mention Salvador. He does not mention Guatemala. He does not put any demands on them to live up to certain conditions of democracy or else the agreement should not be supported. However, he puts this on Nicaragua in particular.
The President of the United States has done that all along. All along he has said to Nicaragua, "Either you live up to the standards of democracy that we are dictating to you or we will continue to intervene in your affairs. We will continue to fund the Contras". The President of the United States has laid a standard of democracy on Nicaragua that he does not lay on other countries with which he deals.
He does not insist on those conditions of democracy for Chile, for example. He does not lay those conditions on South Africa. Nor does he lay them on China, a communist country with which he deals consistently and with which he has been quite friendly of late. However, with respect to little Nicaragua, which is about the size of New Brunswick and which has a population of fewer than three million people, he insists that it live up to very high standards of democracy. We would all like to have pure systems of democracy, and we all hope to move in that direction. The President of Nicaragua has stated that he, too, would like to move in that direction.
This is rather odd for the United States, a country which is celebrating I am not certain what anniversary of its Constitution in Philadelphia, which took until 1954-some 150 years after the birth of that nation-for blacks to have the vote.
Here is a country with only a two-Party system. It is almost impossible for a third Party to get elected in the United States. Yet that country is insisting that Nicaragua be a pluralist society, when in fact in the Nicaraguan Parliament there are five or six Parties represented because it has a system of proportional representation.
We can be a bit arrogant and a bit holier-than-thou when we start dictating to other countries that they should live up to standards of democracy that we ourselves have failed to live up to and that we do not insist upon for other countries. I refer here to the United States' dealings with South Africa, Chile, Nicaragua when Somoza was there, and the Philippines in previous times, and so on.
It seems to me that this peace agreement arrived at by the countries in the region with good faith will succeed if the United States, and in particular the President of the United States, will give it their support.
My plea in Parliament is not to the Government, because I think it is doing the correct thing in supporting the agreement, but my plea is to the United States Government to please give peace a chance in Central America, and in particular in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, and to help those countries to proceed with the agreement that they arrived at. Please stop the funding of the Contras until the Government of Nicaragua is given a fair chance to do what it states it will do in the agreement. Do not fund the Contras through the back door when it cannot be done through the front door, as was found out in recent months during the great television extravaganza in the United States Congress.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for introducing the resolution last June. At that time there was no peace agreement proposed by President Arias which is now agreed to. That was not in effect then, but the Hon. Member's proposals are still legitimate. Canada must do all it can to support peace in Central America. The proposals of the Hon. Member are worth-while. Please let us convince the American Government to support this worth-while peace agreement in that region.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Government believes that the fundamental causes of tension and political conflicts in Central America are the deeply rooted socioeconomic disparities that are rampant to various degrees in each and every country in this area.
In the Government's view, Canada can contribute the most to promoting peace and stability in those areas by first providing for development assistance aimed at helping individuals and communities break the vicious circle of poverty and promote economic growth, and, secondly, by supporting a peace settlement for that area.

September 1, 1987

Other speakers have already referred to the support Canada has been and is still providing for the efforts towards reaching such a settlement.
I would like to take a few moments to point out to this House the help Canada is providing to the people of Central America. Canadian development assistance in Central America was initiated in 1966 with a loan to El Salvador. After the 1970 foreign policy review, when it was recommended that Canada intensify its presence in the area, assistance activities were undertaken in all the countries of the area. Following the regional program review in 1975, El Salvador and Honduras became program countries for CIDA. In 1979, the planning of new bilateral projects in El Salvador was suspended because of increasing violence and instability in that country. In 1981, the planning of new, bilateral projects in Guatemala also was suspended by reason of internal turmoil in that country.
In 1982, after an in-depth review of the relations between Canada and Central America, the Government decided to extend substantially its development assistance program for countries in that region. For instance, the Government decided to provide up to $106 million in bilateral Government to Government assistance to the region during the five year period between 1982-83 and 1986-87, which is triple the amount of bilateral assistance provided to the region during the previous five-year period.
As for the countries which would benefit from this assistance, it was decided that Honduras, the poorest country in Central America, would rank first as in the past. Costa Rica and Nicaragua would also receive increased assistance, while Guatemala and El Salvador would continue not to receive any assistance until their domestic situation improved. However, all countries in the region could receive assistance through other channels. This would include the Mission Administered Funds Program, the Non-Governmental Organizations Program, the Institutional Cooperation Program, the Industrial Cooperation Program, the Humanitarian Assistance Program and the International Development Research Centre.
In December 1984, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, announced reinstatement of Government-to-Government assistance to El Salvador. This decision was made because of the needs of thousands of displaced people, of the economic under-development of El Salvador, of a noted improvement in the respect of human rights in that country and of its return to democratic institutions.
In the five-year period between 1982-83 and 1986-87, or since the Government decided to increase substantially its assistance to Central America, Canada has extended approximately $106 million in Government-to-Government assistance to the population of this region. In other words, the Canadian Government has kept its commitment of tripling bilateral assistance to the region.
Peace in Central America
However, the amount of assistance provided is only part of the picture. The quality and effectiveness of this assistance are at least as important.
We firmly believe that Canadians bilateral assistance to Central America effectively meets the development needs and problems of the various countries in the region. In Honduras, Canadian Government-to-Government assistance supports the development and protection of renewable resources, rural job creation and the improvement of health care and food supplies in rural regions. In Costa Rica, this assistance has been used to improve a very unhealthy balance of payments and to finance a major rural housing program. In Nicaragua, bilateral assistance provided by Canada has been directed mostly toward basic human needs, such as the production of food and energy. In El Salvador, this assistance is directed especially at displaced persons and the poorest members of the population.
Besides Government-to-Government assistance, Canada has provided over the past five years more than $45 million in aid to Central American countries through such other direct assistance channels as the Non-Governmental Organizations Program, the Institutional Cooperation Programme, the Business Cooperation Program, the Petro Canada International Assistance Corporation and the International Development Research Centre.
Also, for the past five years, Canada has provided more than $15 million to multilateral organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross for the programs they have developed to help refugees and displaced persons in Central America.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that Canada, through its public development assistance programs, meets generously and effectively the social and economic needs of the peoples in Central America. This is one of the regions of the world where Canada provides the highest per capita public development assistance. The Canadian Government and people will continue to meet generously the social and economic needs of the peoples in Central America.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity to debate the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
The motion addresses a very difficult and complex situation which exists in Central America. This is an important issue, because Central America is the scene of some of the most tragic warfare in the world today, and it also has become the scene of serious East-West conflict. It is important to Canada because it is taking place in the western hemisphere, in that part of the Third World closest to Canada, and in a region with which Canada has growing social, economic, and political interests.
The emergence of a new peace plan which has been described, and the initiative of the countries of Central

September 1, 1987
Peace in Central America
America themselves are the most encouraging development in the region for several years. As has already been pointed out, the Canadian Government has not stood idly by during those years. While recognizing that Canada has no direct role to play at this stage of the negotiations, we have gone to some lengths to give the maximum possible support and encouragement to the parties. The process of converting the commitments which have been made into a peace settlement will be a difficult one. Our support is more than rhetorical. The Government stands ready to provide technical advice, where it has the appropriate expertise to offer in the control and verification process which will follow a cease-fire in the region.
1 wish to remind the House, however, that this is not a new approach by the Government. On the contrary, it is entirely consistent with the policies which the Government has pursued with respect to Central America since it was elected. Indeed, our recent effort in support of the new peace plan is a logical extension of the role Canada has sought to play for some time.
Canadian policy toward Central America is a distinct one, shaped by Canadian criteria. It has been developed in recognition of the geo-political realities of Central America and of the social and economic factors which are at the root of the current problems.
The Canadian Government opposes third party intervention anywhere in Central America and regrets deeply the intrusion into that region of East-West tensions and the related militarization of the area. Canada does not approve of the supply of armaments by any country to opposing factions in the region. Canada has constantly emphasized its firm belief that the countries of Central America must be free to seek their own solutions to their own problems without interference from any other country or any outside source.
We strongly share the view that the growth and development of democracy is an important issue in Central America. Canada welcomes the progress which has been made in several countries in the region while recognizing that there is still room for improvement.
We in Canada do not wish to see Nicaragua locked into the Soviet bloc or involved in destabilizing its neighbours. We encourage Nicaragua to move toward the original goals of the revolution which were recently restated in its new Constitution: a commitment to political pluralism, a mixed economy and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries.
We believe that improvements must be made in the Nicaraguan civil and human rights record. The continued suspension of many basic civil rights under the state of emergency is profoundly disturbing to the people of Canada and Canada's Government. We encourage political pluralism in Nicaragua and we support the ability of legitimate domestic political opposition Parties to continue to function.
We have deplored the recent decision to close down La Prensa newspaper and the harassment of opposition groups and of churches. The recent arrest and sentencing of the head of the Nicaraguan Human Rights Commission and the head of the Nicaraguan Bar Association within days of the signing of the peace accord was a disturbing and potentially counterproductive development. It was not consistent with the spirit of the agreement and only served to emphasize the need for reforms within Nicaragua.
We hope that the implementation of the peace plan will result in the lifting of the state of emergency, the removal of current restrictions on the press and opposition groups, and an end to incidents such as that to which I have referred.
In conclusion, let me reiterate the Government's satisfaction that negotiations for a peaceful settlement in Central America are under way again. We are under no illusions about the obstacles which lie in the way of a just peace, but Canada stands ready to do what it can to support the process.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate today, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for bringing forward his resolution. I think we all know of his many years of interest in and concern for this issue and of his experience and involvement in Central America. I know it is a concern shared by many Canadians and indeed by the Government.
I appreciate the support of the Hon. Member for Spadina in the efforts of the Government in Central America over the past few years. Indeed, as other colleagues have said, we welcome the new peace agreement, but I would just like to say that that agreement was not easily won. It did not happen overnight and it was preceded by many years of hard work and by many disappointments. It was an important breakthrough, but there are many difficulties in the way of implementation and a great deal of hard work and good faith, both within and outside the region, will be essential to make it happen.
I would like to summarize briefly each of the four specific points made by the Hon. Member in his resolution. First, as he indicated and as other Hon. Members have already said, we have already sent two senior officials to the region to do precisely what the Hon. Member has suggested that a personal envoy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should do. Their trip has indeed reinforced Canada's diplomatic efforts in the region and their message has been warmly received by all Central American Governments, including the Nicaraguan Government.
Second, while the Government would certainly like to have an embassy in Nicaragua, as it would in many other places, it is unable to do so for financial reasons. We cannot have embassies in every part of the world, and we have existing arrangements which are working very well for us and will proceed for the time being.
The establishment of a peace fund was proposed by my
colleague. As Hon. Members are aware, Canada has already
September 1, 1987

contributed significantly to bilateral development assistance and to multilateral efforts. In per capita terms, the amount of Canadian aid to Central America is considerable. Canadian aid to the region is given for developmental and compassionate reasons. It also serves to complement the Contadora peace objectives.
Finally, the proposal for the civilian monitoring commission has obviously been overtaken by the new peace agreement. What form the monitoring of the cease-fire will take is obviously up to the Central American Governments, but the Canadian Government has already taken constructive action in support of the peace agreement and offered its technical assistance and advice.
I think it is appropriate, in concluding, to summarize what has been said about Canada's policies and role in Central America as this is the main thrust of the resolution before the House. I believe that the suggestion that Canada is not doing enough is wrong. That suggestion is perhaps implicit in the resolution and the comments we have heard.
Canadians have been very active in the region for many years. We have observed closely the developments in the region. We have spoken out on issues as an informed and sympathetic observer to do wherever it has been appropriate for us to do so. Canada's voice has been loud and clear on many issues, including the external involvement in the region and the inappropriateness of seeking military solutions. There has been encouragement for negotiations and for human rights.
Canada has built up a large aid program carefully designed to meet the most pressing needs of the poorest people of the region. We have encouraged trade with the region because we believe that economic development is one of the most effective means of combatting the fundamental social and economic problems. We have provided active support for negotiations in the region by giving technical advice when required to do so.
This distinctly Canadian approach to Central America has been shown clearly in our prompt, positive reaction to the recently agreed to peace program. Canada expressed its strong support for the plan immediately after it was announced and followed up with visits by officials to capitals in the region. We have also renewed our offer to provide technical advice on verification and control.
As Hon. Members may recall, in a period of less than two weeks, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) issued three statements. The first was a message of support on the very eve of the Central American summit. Then he issued a statement reporting on the congratulatory messages he had sent to the Central American Governments. He also reported on statements relating to his decision to send officials to the region. This is indicative not only of the Minister's personal interest but also of his determination that Canada should react positively and constructively to these events.
Adjournment Debate
As the hour draws near, I would hope that all Hon. Members on all sides of the House would join me in congratulating the Government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the strong, supportive stand taken toward countries in the troubled region of Central America and in urging the Government to continue to do all in its power to assist those countries in achieving a peaceful resolution to their disputes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, on August 24, 1987, I rose in this House to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) regarding problems with the justice system in Canada. 1 was concerned about the Government's efforts in this area now that the question of capital punishment has been settled.
The amount of public outcry generated by the issue of capital punishment was a clear indication that Canadians are not satisfied with safety in our society and our justice system. Both supporters and opponents of the reinstatement of capital punishment agreed that there is a real need for reform. I am concerned, as are my constituents of Don Valley East, that prison terms are too lenient and parole is being granted too early in too many instances.
I was pleased with the Minister's response to my question on these two issues that the Government is, indeed, concerned with this problem and that steps are being taken to improve the sentencing and parole systems. I would like, however, to emphasize how strong Canadians feel about violent criminals and the inadequacies of our justice system in protecting innocent citizens.
According to a poll released by Maclean's magazine on June 29, 1987, 87 per cent of those questioned believe convicted murderers are allowed back into society too soon. The poll also indicates that the large majority of Canadians are deeply troubled by a rising incidence of murder and other violent crimes. The Canadian public has lost a great deal of faith in our criminal justice system.

September 1, 1987
Adjournment Debate
The Canadian Sentencing Commission has reported a number of serious problems with sentencing in Canada. One of the basic problems it listed was a lack of public confidence in sentencing. The public's negative perceptions have led to some people taking the law into their own hands. Out of frustration and a belief that the justice system has failed them, many Canadian citizens are arming themselves and seeking their own methods of punishing criminals. A noted example of this is the recent case in Calgary of Mr. Steven Kesler, who shot a man who was attempting to rob him. If the public's confidence in our justice system is not improved quickly, I am afraid we will see more and more instances of vigilante type actions from the public.
The Canadian Sentencing Commission links some of the problems with the sentencing system to the "almost complete absence of policy from Parliament on the principles that should govern the determination of sentences". It also credits "parole and early release programs that fail to accomplish their goals" as well as "unrealistic maximum and minimum penalties that create injustices". I know that no justice system is infallible, Mr. Speaker, but it seems clear to me that our own system is in desperate need of improvements.
I am sure we are all familiar with the case of Ms. Celia Ruygrok whose tragic murder was an example of the justice system failing completely. Ms. Ruygrok was sexually assaulted and murdered by a man on parole after being convicted of a similar murder. He had violated his parole and threatened his former girlfriend just weeks before Celia's murder. However, due to confusion and a lack of communication, Celia's murderer was allowed his freedom and Celia Ruygrok was denied her right to live.
Just today, by coincidence, I received a letter from the President of Victims of Violence expressing concern that criminals with a history of violence are released back into the community after serving only a fraction of their sentences. The victims of these crimes feel that the justice system is cheating them. The residents of Don Valley East have made it clear to me that they want to see some government action. I would like to quote some of my constituents thoughts on this issue.
Earl and Winnifred Miller of Denrock Drive wrote: "We were in favour of the death penalty. If nothing else, the argument for retention has made Parliament aware that the majority of Canadians are fed up with our lax judicial system and want something done to improve it. Even abolitionists have had to admit that something is wrong and needs correcting."
Andrew and Audrey Mathews of Graydon Hall Drive wrote: "Parliament should be grappling with ways of answering the anger, anguish, suffering and material loss of those who are crime's victims".
Mr. Blair Kingsland of Cassandra Boulevard wrote: "I
believe that my rights to live and breathe as a law-abiding
Canadian citizen should be respected and protected before the rights of criminals."
Fred and Sue Olds of Wellesbourne Crescent wrote in reference to first degree murderers: "In our opinion, the problem would be better served with life sentences that mean life sentences with no parole."
Ms. Wendy Spencer of Yellow Birchway wrote: "I am convinced that our parole system is irrational and ridiculous and thus requires an immediate overhaul. It needs to be tightened up. It is ludicrous to allow dangerously violent people to roam the streets on passes."
And finally, Ms. Jean Dodds of Kestell Lane wrote: "There is, as you know, a glaring lack of rationale in both sentencing and parole and the intelligent voter is not only angry but alarmed at the disparities and injustices."
My constituents, indeed most Canadians, are demanding action. When Members of this House voted against reinstatement of capital punishment, we accepted the responsibility of developing alternative solutions to protect the Canadian public from violent criminals, and more specifically, repeat offenders.
I would like to emphasize the gravity of this issue and ask that the Government respond to the recommendations of the Canadian Sentencing Commission and the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General as soon as they are made available. The Canadian public expects us to make every effort to protect their rights and freedoms. I hope it will not take another tragic event like Celia Ruygrok's murder to realize that, up until now, our efforts have been too little, too late.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in his question the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) mentioned that many Canadians feel the sentences handed down are too lenient.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. Member is aware of the increasing number of sociological studies that have shown that Canadians who are sufficiently informed feel that the sentences handed down by the courts are severe enough and would even be inclined to be more lenient than the courts.
On March 25 this year, our esteemed Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Hnatyshyn) tabled in Parliament the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission. This report is said to be the first comprehensive study of sentencing ever carried out in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am informed that legal experts at the Department of Justice are proceeding with another series of consultations and extensive discussions on the recommendations of this report. When the process is complete, the Minister of Justice will be in a position to consider any changes that may be necessary to improve the effectiveness of the Canadian sentencing system.
September 1, 1987

Mr. Speaker, I believe you yourself are an expert in this field. In addition to examining the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission, this fall the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General will also consider the difficult question of parole.
And once again the recommendations contained in Judge Archambault's report will be considered, as will the merit of a parole system and the wisdom of the existing legislation under which it operates, including for example the regulations which set the jail term to be served by an inmate before he may become eligible for the various forms of parole.
The committee Members will scrutinize the wisdom of this legislation and the merit of the parole system. Still, Mr. Speaker, we must keep in mind the fact that sentencing and parole questions are closely related and that if any major change were to be made to the parole system it would have to be reflected in rules governing sentencing.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the whole matter is still under consideration and a report will be made public in due time.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT-MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR MURDER-REQUEST THAT STATUTE BE AMENDED
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that you may not be aware of a murder case that occurred in Port Credit, a small community near Metropolitan Toronto in the Mississauga area in May, 1985. That was a case of the murder of a mother, Paulina Zerger, and her 11-year old daughter Tanya. As a result of that case two charges of first degree murder were laid against a youth who was only 15 years old at the time. The youth was charged with murder under the Young Offenders Act.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision under the Young Offenders Act that the Crown Attorney may move to have a murder case moved up to adult court for trial. You may recall that a year or two ago that was a very controversial thing, at least in the Province of Ontario where, in a number of instances, a motion was not made to move the case up to adult court, the cases were tried in Young Offenders Court and, as a result, there was a great deal of criticism about the fact that the penalty provided for in the Young Offenders Act was too lenient in the case of a serious offence.
As a result of that, the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario gave instructions at that time to all of his Crown Attorneys, in every case of murder or a violent crime in which someone was charged under the Young Offenders Act, to make a motion to move those charges up to adult court. That has been the policy and procedure followed in recent months in the Province of Ontario.
In the Zerger murder case that motion was made by the Crown Attorney. The trial court judge granted the motion and allowed it to be moved up to adult court, but that decision was
Adjournment Debate
appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal because the penalty for murder in an adult court which the young person faced was 25 years imprisonment subject, of course, to the recent Chartrand decision which might make him eligible for parole after only 15 years. In the Young Offenders Act the maximum sentence for a murder conviction is only three years.
The decision was appealed and the Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario reversed the trial court's decision. In doing so the late Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Bert MacKinnon, said that when Parliament passed the Young Offenders Act in 1984, it must have intended that young people convicted of serious crimes would serve shorter sentences than adults.
That begs the question as to whether a young person between the ages of 12 and 18, in this particular case 15 years of age, when charged with first degree murder of two people, one of them being an 11-year old girl, should be facing a penalty of a maximum term of imprisonment of only three years or a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years as they would be if they had reached adulthood and not been subject to the Young Offenders Act in the first place.
The Deputy Director of the Crown Law Office for the Ontario Attorney General has indicated that he believes that a three-year sentence is not long enough to protect the public in the case of a young offender convicted of murder.
I do not know about your constituents, Mr. Speaker, but my constituents certainly agree with the Deputy Director of the Crown Law Office. That is certainly the indication they have given me, not only in this case but in many other cases of a similar nature.
It is interesting to note as well that one of the major Toronto newspapers, The Toronto Star, indicated editorially that the Young Offenders Act should be amended to provide for a maximum sentence for a young offender of five, six, or seven years in the case of murder in order to avoid the appearance of too lenient sentences.
Even more interesting, the lawyer for this particular young offender in the Zerger case said after the trial and the Court of Appeal had reversed the lower court and sent it back to the young offenders court, that he did not feel that a three-year term was long enough. He felt that a term of eight to nine years would be more appropriate in the case of a young offender convicted of first degree murder.
In 1986, the Young Offenders Act was amended by the present Government. At that time there were a number of amendments introduced and it was indicated that if further amendments were necessary the Government was certainly prepared to consider those. In my view, it is time that the Government began to consider these further changes. For one thing, it certainly should be considering changes in the maximum penalty for a young offender convicted of first

September 1, 1987
Adjournment Debate
degree murder. If the courts will not let these proceed in adult court, surely we must make changes in the Young Offenders Act.
A second area that must be addressed is one that has been commented on by the Ontario high school principals and teachers association. It is the case of not being able to identify a young offender, thereby leaving the schools caught in the middle. According to the law, a young offender must attend school but cannot be identified to teachers and principals. Of course, they are concerned for the safety of the students and staff.
Finally, there is the area of offenders under the age of 12, which has been a controversial issue for some time. In the Province of Ontario, the public does not understand why a person under the age of 12 is not subject to the Young Offenders Act, particularly when there were 1,855 children under 12 involved in serious crimes in Metropolitan Toronto alone in 1985.
All of these areas need changes. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate tonight on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who is now responsible for the Young Offenders Act, that there will be some changes soon in this legislation.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our very compassionate Minister of Justice (M. Hnatyshyn), 1 am happy to reply to the excellent question of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) about what is certainly a burning issue.
The Young Offenders Act has established a modern framework for the Canadian juvenile justice system. Several aspects of this legislation are innovative and have therefore given rise to much debate, both before and after its coming into force in 1982.
However, it is generally admitted that this Act constitutes a proper and balanced response to juvenile crime. For instance, the Young Offenders Act recognizes that the juvenile justice system created by the legislation is not always appropriate and that, in certain cases, serious criminal cases should be judged by the adult courts.
The Act provides a mechanism to transfer certain charges to the adult court, where the young offender is judged in accordance with the Criminal Code and is liable to the same penalties as an adult.
A transfer hearing is held when the Crown, or even the accused, in some cases, so requests, and the judge must consider several factors, such as the seriousness of the offence, the background of the accused and the existence of a previous criminal record.
During the consultations which led to the tabling of Bill
C-106, which was debated and passed by this House in 1986,
the then Solicitor General proposed some amendments to the transfer provisions of the legislation. More precisely, he proposed that the age at which trial could be moved up to adult court be lowered from 14 to 12 years old-which is very sad but, alas, realistic-and that for the most serious crimes there be, automatically, a hearing on the move up. These proposals where withdrawn following objections from authorities in the area of justice for the young, most notably provincial Solicitors General and Ministers of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, provincial authorities concluded that the move up clauses in the old Act and in the new one were more appropriate. The efficiency of the Act and of each of its clauses will continue to be carefully monitored and to be the subject of consultations by our Government in general and our Minister of Justice in particular, in order to keep our legislation in tune with the most recent needs and to take care of these unfortunate young people in the future.


TAX REFORM-FUTURE OF MINISTER OF FINANCE-OLD AGE EXEMPTION-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, tonight 1 would like to have answers. I was not satisfied with the one that was given to me by the then Minister of Finance on the amendments to his last budget and also on tax reform. 1 think it is important for each and everyone of us, and the Parliamentary Secretary, to remember that, at that time, the Government announced it was amending the income tax exemptions and converting them into tax credits.
We welcome that initiative because such was the recommendation made by the Liberal Party and by all groups who worked with the committee on consultation on social program reform, and it will be remembered unfortunately that at that point the Prime Minister misled both our senior citizens and families when he said that he would reinstate full indexation of old age security pensions and that the changes to the family income support program would not be used to reduce the deficit but rather to increase benefits to those who are most in need. We will remember unfortunately the attempt to partially deindex old age security pensions and, thanks to the Official Opposition and senior citizens, the Government's change of heart.
Next, through deindexing of family allowances, the Government will have cut as much as one billion dollars by 1991, preferring to use this money to lower the deficit and bail out the depositors with over $60,000 invested in a couple of Western Canada banking establishments.
We had agreed to replace the tax exemption with a tax credit, but it is unfortunately a non-refundable tax credit. Which means that a person who has not enough income will not be entitled to this tax credit, and there are as many as 1.4 million senior citizens in Canada who, in his last budget, will not be able to benefit from this tax credit. Hon. Members will
September 1, 1987

remember that yesterday, the Forum of Senior Citizens, on the basis of a study it carried out on the tax policies which this Government has implemented in its budgets since September 4, 1984, clearly established that senior citizens and low and middle income families have been greatly affected. Also, the study of the Carleton University report clearly indicates that these people have been greatly affected compared with the more affluent.
I should like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary could further explain why this is not a refundable tax credit which replaced the old age exemption. Moreover, the Forum of Senior Citizens indicated that the $1,000 income deduction under a RRSP or a retirement-oriented investment would greatly affect senior citizens which now benefit from it, and that it was not replaced by a refundable tax credit. I dare hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to provide the right answer, not so much to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, but especially to the senior citizens who are listening to us and who would like to know whether the Government will grant them a refundable tax credit, and also whether it will join the Liberal Party in its campaign to oppose a tax on bread, milk and butter.


Claude Lanthier: Right away, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I am not going to join in such shadow boxing. For the leader of our party, who is also the leader of the Government, clearly indicated in the House this afternoon that this issue was thoroughly dealt with, and that we are not going to restrict the normal consultation of the Canadian people by limiting the debate and providing ready-made answers. When this Conservative Government seeks the advice of the people, Mr. Speaker, it offers them all necessary options and we believe that the Canadian people is adult enough to tell right from wrong.
However, Mr. Speaker, let me just give him and all senior citizens a few examples-in answer to the specific request made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie (Mr. Malepart)-of how to deal with fiscal reform. It is estimated for example that personal exemptions in 1988 will reach some $2,700. For taxpayers with incomes below $27,500, for example, who are quite numerous . . . That is to say, for that category of taxpayers who are uppermost in the mind of the Hon. Member, the rate of tax would be 17 percent. The value
Adjournment Debate
of the tax exemption for senior citizens would therefore come to some $454. In its place, the Government has opted for a tax credit of $550, which represents about $100 more. This means the tax break has improved by some 20 percent.
Mr. Speaker, another example can be given here. As indicated in the tables on pages 51 and 52 of the document on income tax reform, which deal with typical taxpayers, single persons and couples aged over 65 benefit substantially from tax reform. The tables show that income tax changes brought about by fiscal reform will mean savings of some $430 for single persons and of some $825 for couples, and this will represents savings of as much as 66 percent compared to the taxes which they paid previously.
Let me give you another example, Mr. Speaker. The minimum taxable income level for senior citizens will rise from $10,800 to $11,500 for single persons, and from $16,000 to $19,000 for married couples. About 250,000 Canadians 65 years old or more will no longer pay any federal income tax.
For instance, the conversion of the $1,000 pension income deduction to a credit of 17 per cent will have the same value for older peole whose income is less than $27,500, that is more than 80, per cent of senior citizens who file income tax returns.
I would like to give you a last example, Mr. Speaker. Low income senior citizens will benefit in 1988 from the higher sales tax refund which will be upped from $50 et $70 per adult.
Mr. Speaker, we have loads of other examples. The White Paper on Tax Reform proposes all kinds of increased tax exemptions, tax savings aimed particularly at senior citizens. They should be presented as they are, and some incidental parts should not be blown out of proportion and distorted from a purely political perspective. Scare tactics should stop. Our people, those of my beautiful riding of LaSalle are certainly better informed than that. Let me tell you that they are not taken in by false and vague theoretical promises. They put greater confidence in dollar savings such as those the future tax reform will bring them.


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 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, September 2, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), 1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-2964 and 332-2974.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 have some petitions signed by residents of British Columbia dealing with the refugee situation.
They point out that a standing committee of Parliament proposed a new procedure for refugees which, if adopted, would fairly and effectively solve problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims. Those alternatives have widespread support among all Parties in Parliament as well as the various churches, bar associations, and other groups knowledgeable about refugee issues.
They therefore call upon the House to withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation which embodies the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of British Columbians who have indicated an interest in the progress of Bill C-55 and have raised some concern.
They suggest that the House of Commons consider the recommendations of the standing committee of Parliament which has proposed a new procedure for the processing of
refugees which, if adopted, would fairly and effectively solve the problem of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims.
They have indicated that this particular motion has the support, not only of all Parties in Parliament which sat on that committee, but also the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and other groups that are familiar with the refugee issue.
They call upon the Government of Canada to consider the committee's recommendations.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition which has been approved in form by the Clerk of Petitions.
It is signed by a number of people from Halifax and Windsor who object to Bill C-55 on the grounds that it will result in many, perhaps most, real refugees who reach our borders being turned away without their claims being heard on the merits of their cases partly because there is no proper appeal on point of fact which is the question of credibility for most of these refugees.
Therefore, the petitioners request that the Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact. In duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 106 will be answered today.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	At present is (a) platinum (b) magnesium (c) chrome imported into Canada from South Africa and, if so (i) in what quantities (ii) by what companies?
2.	Are any sanctions imposed on these minerals at the present time or are they contemplated?

September 1, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Charles Joseph Clark: 1. In 1986, according to Statistics Canada, $5.9 million of chrome (of which $4.7 million was ferrochrome), and $5.4 million worth of platinum was imported into Canada from South Africa. No South African magnesium was imported into Canada. Under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and because of the proprietary nature of the information involved it is not possible to divulge the names of the companies concerned.
2. At the present time no sanctions exist or are proposed against imports of South African chrome, platinum or magnesium.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Minister has been answered.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 159 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, nongovernmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto
and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very short point of order on which I would like to seek some guidance from the Chair. It is with regard to the situation which arose late in the day yesterday. Members of
the House had been informed earlier in the day that there would be a vote called at six o'clock as per the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders provide for a 15-minute bell in that case.
I would like to make the point that Members of Parliament work not only in the House of Commons giving presentations and voting at the appropriate time, but also carry on their responsibilities and duties in standing, special and joint committees as well as carrying out their regular responsibilities as Members of Parliament. In order to do that effectively it is important that Members have the opportunity to schedule their day's events.
This is not an earth-shattering situation and I do not want to suggest that it is. However, we have Standing Orders so that we can understand what we are doing here. The reform committee which studied this matter for a considerable length of time made its recommendations in order to facilitate the business of the House of Commons so that Members of the House would have a clear understanding of what was transpiring at any time.
I draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because you were conducting business elsewhere at the pertinent time last night. I thought it would be appropriate for you to make a comment at the appropriate time. Members were assembled at the appropriate time for the vote and five minutes passed and then 10 minutes and then 15 minutes. It is understandable that Members of Parliament became concerned. After the vote a number of people asked me, as House Leader of the New Democrats, why we waited for so long.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this is not the most important event in Canada today, but if we are going to facilitate the business of the House and take it seriously, it is important that rules, regulations, conventions and traditions be followed unless there is good reason to depart from them after discussion and concurrence of the Parties involved. I draw that to your attention, Mr. Speaker, to reflect the view of my Party that there was concern that the business and planning of a number of Members in my caucus, and I suspect in all caucuses, was disrupted yesterday. At the appropriate time I would appreciate a comment from the Chair on this matter.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. There is more than a question of orderly business involved in this matter; it becomes, at a certain point, a matter of discipline. If there is a 15-minute bell it means that Parties should be able to produce their respective votes at the end of the 15 minutes. When a longer period of time is allotted, in this case to the Government because the Government Whip, as I understand it, was not present, it perhaps means that the Government is not ready for the vote at the end of the 15 minutes. As it was a 15-minute bell, the question should have been put without the Government being ready for it. Otherwise, what would be the point of insisting that the bell be limited to 15 minutes and that the vote take place thereafter?



September 1, 1987

Therefore, it is more than a matter of orderly business. If the Government is to be allowed additional time at the end of 15 minutes through the device of not having the Whip available, then similar consideration might be asked for in the future by the Official Opposition. If that is the way in which the situation devolves, what happens to the rule that calls for the vote to be put after 15 minutes?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Actually, I tried to raise this point of order yesterday afternoon, after the bells had rung for more than fifteen minutes. However, I was unable to do so because we were in a vacuum. The bells were ringing and no one could speak in the House.
The point I want to make is that in Standing Order 13(2) which is very clear, we read the following:
(2) When, under the provisions of any Standing Order or other Order of this House, the Speaker has interrupted any proceeding for the purpose of putting forthwith the question on any business then before the House, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes.
The first question that comes to mind is why the bells had not stopped, since they were supposed to stop. The Standing Orders are clear. 1 may remind Hon. Members that before the Standing Orders were amended, the bells could go on ringing for an indefinite period. There were times when opposition parties took advantage of this fact and prolonged the ringing of the bells to make a certain point, and this has occasionally created a chaotic political situation in this country.
When our Party negotiated with the Government to amend the Standing Orders of the House, we agreed to a time limit on the ringing of the bells, fully realizing that this would put certain constraints on an opposition party that would no longer have the means of using the bells to get its point across. Since we as the Opposition Party agreed to discipline ourselves and to change the Standing Orders, thus losing a mechanism, in fact a weapon, it could otherwise have used in the House, I think it is only fair that the Government should observe the Standing Orders, since they apply to both the Government and the Opposition.
I realize that according to our parliamentary tradition, the bell stops ringing when the Whips enter side by side and walk onto the floor of the House.
However, the Standing Order I read earlier is quite clear: The bells shall ring for not more than fifteen minutes.
1 think that, eventually, the Chair should make a statement in the House-at least that is what I would suggest-to clarify the interpretation of this Standing Order so that all Members know what the situation is. That is what I would urge you to do, Mr. Speaker.
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague raising this point because I think it is fair to say that this is one of the rules of the House which works both ways at various times. I am aware, without being able to state exactly on what dates it happened, that there have been accommodations given by the Government to the opposition Parties with respect to Members who were having difficulty arriving for a vote, when perhaps for the Government's purpose we would have appreciated a 15-minute bell in order to go to caucus. However, we allowed for a half hour bell so that planes could arrive and so on.
I think it is fair to say that this is a rule that has not been abused by either the opposition Parties or the Government in the past. I also submit that it was not abused last evening.
There were many Members who showed up for the vote. It would be partisan of me to comment that there was a noticeable absence of opposition Members from Montreal, so I will not do that.


Jacques Guilbault: Order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Everyone knows the interest that Bill C-22 had in the Montreal area. I compliment my friend-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister, of course, has alluded to what he was not going to do. Having chosen the words he did immediately after having alluded to that, he did not have to allude to what he was not going to do. The Hon. Minister will, of course, keep that in mind.


Philip Derek Lewis: Thank you for dispelling any illusions that you are not following my allusions.
Having said that, I take the point that the opposition Members have made. However, it is not a rule that has been abused to the best of my knowledge. There will be occasions when this happens in the future and accommodations are asked for by all Parties of the House. That happened yesterday evening. I take the comments of my colleagues to heart and hope that in the future when this happens we can settle it among the Members of the House without lengthy discussions on the floor.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Minister said about waiting for two or three minutes. However, I totally disagree with his allusions that some Liberal Members from Montreal may have stayed away from the House.
At least I will have the decency to refrain from telling him the real reason-that the minutes-


An Hon. Member:: You know the reason?

September 1, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Carlo Rossi: -yes, I was waiting to walk onto the floor of the House as Whip. I know the real reason, but I shall not blame the Conservatives and I shall not challenge them to tell us how many Conservatives were missing, because percentagewise, there were a lot more missing on your side than on ours.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. The point is that the two or three minutes, as the Minister said . . . True, that could happen in all three parties.
I would like to submit something that may simplify the procedure and prevent the recurrence of last night's incident. It is true that, according to our procedure, the bells do not stop ringing until the Whips walk onto the floor of the House. In an emergency, it is of course possible . . . However, I think that if at a given time, the Speaker of the House says-and it is his responsibility . . . : It is now 6.18 p.m., and we were supposed to vote at 6.15 p.m.. The bells stop ringing at the Speaker's request, and Members may rise and be recognized by the Speaker, after the bells have stopped ringing. But as long as the bells keep ringing, everything is at a standstill, and no one can speak. So it might be better to say: The bells will ring for fifteen minutes, thirty minutes or thirty-two or thirty-three minutes, and then the Speaker can order the bells to stop ringing, the Whips can walk onto the floor of the House and everybody, I would imagine, would be happy. All we need is probably just a slight change in procedure.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to add a short comment in response to the Hon. Minister's intervention. It concerns the fact that this is one of the Standing Orders that has not been abused, as he has indicated. From time to time there is accommodation made. I think it is important that we recognize that for this particular vote to which we are referring in the deliberations this morning, Members and Party Whips had three days notice. It was not as though the motion and the vote came as a surprise. When that does happen, often we end up voting very quickly and accommodations are made back and forth, as I hope they will be from now on.
Considering the advance notice that all Parties had, and the advance recognition that there would be a vote at six o'clock and the bells would ring until 6.15, I simply thought it was appropriate that we follow the rules of the House of Commons under those conditions.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has mentioned, there was three days notice given for this vote. The Opposition has been fighting this legislation for months now, yet, there were only 33 out to vote. I hope it may occur to him that perhaps we were trying to accommodate the Opposition to help them vote on a Bill to which they were opposed so much.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary-


James Ross Fulton: One hundred of your guys were missing.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been in the House a long time and, as all Hon. Members know, has made a very significant contribution to the matters that come before this House. However, while I very much regret that this happened last night, what is before me is a case where the bells went on for a considerable length of time. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address himself to that particular issue and I know all Hon. Members would want to refrain from breaching the rule, which we have for a good reason, that we do not comment on the absence or otherwise of colleagues in the House. The Hon Parliamentary Secretary.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to violate the rules of the House. It was my understanding that it was improper to refer to the absence of any particular Member, about which I have been very careful. I was simply making a comment in general about the general absence of opposition Members when they had a chance to vote.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. 1 cannot stand the allusions being made by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister. If they want to know the truth, let them ask the Government Whip why he was not in the House. He knows why, and I know why, and I will say so. I know the reason.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fully understand what the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) is saying. I also know why he is saying it. But I think that we probably do not need a lot of comments about the absence of Members, whether they belong to the Government or the Official Opposition or to the New Democratic Party.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons of the House went to a great deal of trouble to eliminate that possibility. One of the ways in which we were to eliminate that possibility was by having a 15 minute bell when the bell would ring for 15 minutes and then there would be a vote, and if there was a 30 minute bell, the bells would ring for 30 minutes and then there would be a vote.
This point of order is not over nothing; it is about something which could be very dangerous. I say that to Members because they know it. I could see it on their faces last night. They knew what was happening. This should not happen again. It is as simple as that.


Mr. Speaker;: The matter that has been raised this morning was brought to my attention earlier today and I very deeply regret that it happened. I will consider carefully what Hon. Members from all three Parties have said. I do want to reiterate that there is a tradition in this place that sometimes the Chair is guided by the disposition of the Whips. That is a tradition which we may well not want to abolish completely.
However, the extension of the bells last night was lengthy. I think the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) probably, if he had been less inclined to be the gentleman he is, might have indicated at least part of the reason for that extension. I think Hon. Members perhaps know that part of the reason for that extension was a courtesy extended in the best traditions of this place to those from one Party to another.
The point that has been raised I take seriously and I will come back with some comments which I hope will be of some guidance to the House, without at the same time being so severe that Whips among themselves will be constrained from exercising upon occasion some appropriate common sense.
What happened last night was regrettable, and I am very sorry it happened. 1 will do everything I can to ensure that it does not happen again. I will come back with some measured comments which I hope will be accepted by all Members of the House. I thank all Members for intervening this morning. Their comments were helpful to the Chair.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business:
Second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-258, an
Act to amend the Criminal Code (War crimes and crimes against
Humanity)-Mr. Kaplan.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have before the House an amendment to the Criminal Code, Bill C-258, dealing with war crimes. I moved the Bill in the hope that whether or not it was passed, it would encourage the Government to bring in its own Bill. The Government has done so.
Immigration Act, 1976
The Bill has received three readings and has been sent to the Senate.
In light of that, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw my Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Government took independent action as a result of the Deschenes Commission and brought forward the report. The legislation which was brought forward by the Government flowed directly from the Deschenes Commission report. We passed it last weekend. We are satisfied that we have taken action finally, after a long, long time, and, therefore, we are prepared to give our consent that the Bill be withdrawn.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly prepared to concur with the request.
I would also like to use the occasion to recognize the contribution made by the Hon. Member, in co-operation with other Members of the House, namely, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), for many, many years, in terms of focusing attention on this issue, and the Government, as the Minister has indicated, has acted.
I think that shows that when Members of the House of Commons are persistent and steadfast in their commitment to seeing certain legislation introduced, in the end it works well. Again, Mr. Speaker, we certainly lend our consent to the request.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for his comments and I must say I agree with them.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, August 31, consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 25 to 40 at page
8 and lines 1 to 14 at page 9.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this clause of Bill C-84 has aroused more comment than perhaps all the other clauses of the Bill put together, among many people, not just those directly engaged in refugee work but editorialists and others.

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
What this clause does in the present law is make criminals out of thousands of people if they continue to do what they have been doing for years with no suggestion from anyone that they were doing wrong.
Clause 9, Section 95.1 states:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa, passport or travel document where one is required by this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence-
It goes on to indicate the punishment upon conviction of up to $10,000 fine, or on summary conviction a fine of up to $2,000, or imprisonment for as much as five years on indictment or six months, or both.
Section 95.2 describes the offence in the case of a person who brings in more than 10 people in the way they are described and the punishment in the form of fines and imprisonment are appropriately much larger. That is to say they are appropriately larger if they are appropriate at all.
What we have here is the creation of a new offence, the offence of bringing a person to a Canadian border point and saying that the person, in many cases, does not have a visa or travel document of any sort but is claiming to be a refugee, that he was brought there in order to tell the immigration authorities, as the Minister has told us should be done, and have them decide whether in fact he or she should receive any protection from Canada as a refugee. That does not mean that he will be admitted as an immigrant, only that he will receive protection as a refugee.
This has been done in the past. The law has been quite clear to Ministers, officials and thousands and thousands of Canadians. What is an offence is an attempt to evade immigration authorities. The existing law states in Section 95(a):
95. Every person who
(a) comes into Canada at any place other than a port of entry and fails to
report to an immigration officer for examination as required by subsection
12(1)-
is guilty of an offence and is liable-
In other words, if he evades the point of entry, if he evades the examining officer, then he is guilty of an offence. This was clearly done in certain recent cases that were much publicized, cases of people landing by ship and not coming to a regular port where they might have met an immigration officer.
The Bill also states that anyone who knowingly induces, aids or abets or attempts to induce, aid or abet any person to contravene any provision of this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence. That is clear. If a person enters in an evasive way, and if someone else helps that person to do so then that second person who gave the help is guilty of an offence. That is found in Section 95 of the Act, subsections (a) and (m). Section 95.1 states that any person who:
knowingly contravenes any existing term or condition subject to which he was granted admission or contravenes any term or condition added-
In other words, a person who knowingly feigns refugee status when he knows that to be not the case would be in contravention of the Act and any person who counselled him to do that would also be in contravention of the Act. It may be that some people are now about to be tried in court this month in Toronto for charges of that sort. But the existing offences under the present Act all depend upon whether there is an attempt to evade the regulations, to evade examination, to get in without being examined by an immigration officer who would have the responsibility of saying, "come in" or "stay out".
The new offence that is described here would be an offence without any attempt to evade, without any attempt to deceive, without any attempt to put forward a false refugee claim. Very simply, if a person brings an undocumented non-Canadian to a Canadian port of entry and to the immigration office there then that will now be a serious offence punishable by a fine of several thousands of dollars or several years in prison.
Many members of the public and many Members of Parliament at first thought that there was an error in the drafting of this Bill. When my Leader first spoke to the Bill he suggested there was an error in its drafting. There were attempts made by members of the public and by members of the Opposition in committee, with the assistance of many delegations which appeared before the committee, to correct such an error if in fact it was an error. The motion I moved in an attempt to provide for the creation of an offence that would not attack people who are innocent of any attempt to evade was as follows:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet a group of ten or more persons to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent claim-
Likewise:
-to enter in a manner that avoids normal entry procedures is guilty of an offence and is liable.
That amendment and all proposed amendments were turned down by the government members of the committee. In fact, at the end of the debate, or toward the end of the debate on that clause, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he believed it would be impossible to find any words better than the words that were there. In other words, we were mistaken in assuming that the Government had made an error in drafting. In fact, the Government intends to make criminals out of thousands of Canadians if they continue doing what they have been doing in good faith.
The people at Fort Erie who have welcomed refugees are aiding refugees. People who give refugees true information about the Canadian law are aiding refugees. They are aiding people to come into Canada. Many of them will come in without proper documents. That is to say, not sneaking in but coming to an immigration office. Therefore it is clear that the Government wishes to intimidate Canadians in order to persuade them to stop helping refugees to come to Canada, unless those refugees have a passport.
September 1, 1987

Last night the Parliamentary Secretary stated that it is not necessary to help them in that way because they can get a visa at the consulates in the United States. That is false for a great many of the people who are in genuine need as refugees because we have a quota. There are only so many hundreds of visas to be issued to such people in a year in the consulates in the United States, and also because they examine them not primarily as refugees but as immigrants. If they do not match up to our economic requirements for immigrants, then they are turned down for a visa, notwithstanding that they may be in great need as refugees.
I am forced to the conclusion that the Government has decided firmly and clearly to make a major change in Canada's refugee policy, but not to announce it as such. It had made a major change in which it will say, "No more inland claims will be accepted unless those people have come on a visitor's visa", which very few will be able to get. Usually only well-to-do people, diplomats or celebrities are able to get them, unless they happen to be transiting through Gander from some country in Eastern Europe, in which case of course their case will be handled quietly, not through any refugee determination procedure but simply on a so-called humanitarian basis at the time of arrival, meaning it will be completely closed to the public, totally subject to political pressure of the current government, whichever government might be in power.
I think it is unfortunate that the Government has chosen to make such a basic change in our refugee policy, a basic denial of our obligations to the United Nations, without any announcement. That is the only conclusion I can come to from the Government's considered refusal to accept any kind of clarification or amendment to Clause 9 of the Bill.
Therefore my motion is that we delete Clause 9 as being quite offensive, both to thousands of Canadians and to our international obligations.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Motion No. 16 put forward by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Yesterday I moved an amendment to change the wording of the proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 of the Bill. I did so because I think everyone recognizes that proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 could have and should have been amended. I do not believe there is a Member of Parliament or a Canadian who would concur with the powers granted to the Government under those sections.
The Hon. Member who spoke before me was correct when he said that despite the objections of the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretary this clearly creates a new offence. The offence would be operative around the word "documentation" and the word "visa" and somehow any Canadian, any priest, any individual assisting, aiding or abetting an individual refugee claimant who does not have a proper visa in his or her back pocket is liable to a fine and to imprisonment. If it is a group over 10, that fine can be up to $500,000, and up to 10 years in prison.
Immigration Act, 1976
It is 1987 and we live in what we would like to believe is a progressive country, which it is, because its progressive element is rooted in the people, and perhaps not in the Government. But imagine enacting a piece of legislation that would in law, place an individual who acts out of humanitari-anism for fellow human beings in attempting to assist the refugee claimant in the same category as the sleazy smugglers and consultants whom everyone wants to put out of business.
Before the committee studying Bill C-84 prior to report stage, the churches and other organizations clearly stated that they have never counselled fraudulent applications, that they have never counselled evading the law of Canada, and they have never suggested that any claimant rip up his or her documentation before arriving in Canada.
Those organizations went on the record in support of amending proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2. I tried to do this and was unsuccessful in committee, and in the House yesterday. Those organizations would be in favour of making it an offence to evade the law, and counsel fraudulent claimants, whether or not they have documents.
During the Portuguese scam people came in with their documents, and their claims were largely unfounded. Making those actions liable to a fine or to imprisonment would receive the approval and the blessing of the church organizations and the non-church organizations. There is no disagreement with the witnesses who came before the committee and suggested that action. Obviously, those organizations would object strenuously and passionately if those proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 were allowed to stand.
We have had a song and dance from the two Ministers of immigration-the Cheech and Chong show-when they suggested that the churches do not worry. They also suggested to individual Canadians that they should not worry; we will not put you in prison, or fine someone who assists refugees. Canadians are asking, if that is the intention, why at the same time is legislation being enacted that would allow the Government to do the very things that it is suggesting it will never do? Why create a law that will imprison or fine people that it does not want fined or imprisoned? It is hypocritical. It is attempting to straddle two sides, and that simply cannot be done. If the Government is serious in its intentions, it should be reflected in the legislation.
It is the ultimate responsibility of Members of Parliament to create laws, and ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are wisely spent. Those two elements are fundamental. We have to draft laws that protect Canadians, our country, and our civil liberties. Those laws must ensure that regardless of who is the Minister tomorrow or next week, or who is the Government tomorrow or next week, there is a law that cannot be undermined, abused, or misused.
This is a clear and flagrant abuse in drafting legislation. It is irresponsible for a legislative assembly, particularly the

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
national institution of Parliament, in 1987 to draft legislation that would allow and permit a fine against an individual, a priest, a nun, who is assisting a refugee claimant who has no documentation. It is not a signal or legislation that we should be proud of. I do not know of any progressive country in the western world that has in its legislation such a repugnant and regressive element. Surely, if we are to draft legislation to target those who are the culprits, those who circumvent our laws, let us not have legislation that is so wide and encompassing that it throws a blanket around everyone and treats them as potential criminals. That is not the manner in which legislation is drafted. It has an objective, a target, and we must provide the legal tools and wording to enable us to zero in on the real abusers and not make criminals out of those who wish to help their fellow man.
This is not only the position of the Opposition. George Cram, of the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees stated:
I do not want to be guilty of committing an offence for doing humanitarian work. I do not want to feel inside myself that what 1 am doing is illegal, and I do not want to be liable for prosecution. The offence is what you are creating, not the prosecution.
Another member of the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, Nancy Pocock, a woman who has dedicated most of her life to assisting refugees, and not assisting refugees to circumvent the law, stated:
If my government tells me it is a crime to help these people, I will have to say I am obeying a higher law and I am going to continue to help them when they need me.
In what was very moving testimony, at committee, Rabbi Gunther Plaut stated, referring to the committee and Parliament:
You can render the Canadian people and the refugee community of the world and causes of humanity in general a true service if you manage to eliminate from this Bill clauses that treat such people worse than the worst of criminals.
There was a second reading of this Bill during which these concerns were outlined. There was a legislative committee that heard from Canadians, and the Government had a chance to listen. Thus far in report stage the Government has declined to accept any amendments, wording changes, or inclusions of the words humanitarian, church, non-profit, charity, volunteer, which would state clearly that beyond intentions, which are not worth the paper on which they are written if we have this legislation, we are not after individual Canadians who complement the work of the Government's elected officials by doing a job that would ultimately cost the Canadian Government and taxpayers millions of dollars. This is volunteer work, work that is done by people who are moved from the gut and the heart. The Government is moved by neither its gut or heart to make those actions liable under the law to a fine or imprisonment.
I again call upon the Government, at report stage, now at the eleventh hour, to heed these concerns, listen to the concerns of Canadians who are saying to the Government to go after the culprits, the smugglers, and the consultants who are
charging $15,000 a head, but do not place them in the same sleazy category that is occupied by those smugglers.
That is the challenge and the purpose of this amendment. I look forward to having a more progressive and enlightened response from the Government, rather than pretending to ignore legitimate, substantial, and real pleas.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: The motion of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) deserves the full support of every Member in the House, as explained by those who preceded me in this debate.
Yesterday during a similar debate in the House on a motion by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen) said something that was revealing and important. As reported at page 8626 of Hansard, he said:
1 have never once felt threatened by the law because of my interest in
refugees.
That is because under the present legislation, no one is threatened by the law for his or her interest in refugees.
Under the auspices of the Government and steered by the Parliamentary Secretary for the second day, because both Ministers of Immigration are absent, the Bill before us includes a clause which the Hon. Member for Spadina wants to delete, and quite rightly so, as it is a clause that will threaten anyone who gets involved in refugee work. That is why we are very upset about this matter and have raised it at second reading stage, in committee and here today at report stage.
Yesterday in Ottawa there was a group of Canadians including the Committee of Canadians Representing Human Rights Activists, the Anglican Bishop Edward Scott, the President of the Canadian Council of Churches and representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Ethno-Cultural Council, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and a number of lawyers described as experts in immigration, refugee law or the Charter of Rights. They actually went much further than we are going in this debate today in that they urged the Government to scrap its callous new refugee legislation. One of the reasons they proposed this yesterday is this particular clause, the clause the Hon. Member for Spadina wants to have removed for the reasons just given by the Hon. Member for York West.
A number of Canadians have commented on this legislation, particularly on this clause. I would like to draw to the attention of the House the words of George Cram of the InterChurch Committee for Refugees. He said that he does not want to be guilty of committing an offence for doing humanitarian work. Clause 9 of the Bill amends Sections 95.1 and 95.2 to make individuals or members of organizations,
September 1, 1987

volunteer organizations or church organizations that help refugees, guilty of an offence for becoming involved in legitimate work with refugees. That is the clause to which we object.
Once this legislation is passed, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Immigration will not be able to claim that he can feel safe and secure under the new Canadian law when he becomes involved with refugee work. He cannot claim that, no matter how much he rejects that notion, because if he does he is not reading what is printed in the Bill we are passing today.
Clause 9 of the Bill reads:
95.2 Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of a group of 10 or more persons ... is guilty of an offence-
Even if only one person is involved, such a person becomes guilty of a criminal offence. Is that what the Government wants to do? If the answer is no, then this clause must go, as we urged on second reading and as the Hon. Member for York West and the Hon. Member for Spadina urged in committee.
There is no place for this kind of clause in sound legislation that would take into account the legitimate work of Canadians who are involved in human rights and legitimate refugee work. There is no way that this ought to be allowed.
As others have already said, this clause will become the object of contestation in the courts and of constitutional action. Before we know it this legislation, which was intended by the Government to be the solution to an urgent problem, will become entangled in the higher courts. What an incompetent way of dealing with the problem facing us.
What is so astonishing is that having been warned, the Government is not taking into account all the submissions which have come not just from the Opposition but from groups that are legitimately active in the field of helping refugees.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Spadina is one that commands attention-not only attention but support. We hope that when it comes to a recorded vote government Members will support the motion. I hope they will not be silent and allow to pass into law Clause 9, a clause which runs counter to all our traditions and commitments and the recognition of decent work done by Canadians in the field of refugees. There is no place under the sun for this clause in good Canadian statutes.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have to say at the outset that of all the motions before us, this is probably the most astounding one. All during the debate we heard opposition Members say that everyone is subject to the law. I should say all opposition Members with the exception of the Leader of the New Democratic Party who said in his speech that according to his reading of this provision, the church people are subject to the penalties under the law and that is totally unacceptable to the members of his Party. He said that as though church leaders do not have to obey the law. I find that
Immigration Act, 1976
unacceptable. The members of his Party later modified their Leader's position.
Opposition Members have said that we must stop the abusers and shysters, but at the same time have introduced a motion which withdraws from the Bill all of the provisions that are designed to stop the abusers and shysters. Frankly, I fail to see the logic of that kind of a mind-set.
On the one hand, we have heard a chorus of opposition Members and witnesses saying we must stop the abusers, and we provided a provision in the Bill that would stop the abusers. Then, on the other hand, the Hon. Member for Spadina has said that he thinks we should withdraw that clause. I do not know how we could carry on a refugee determination system with no provisions to protect genuine refugees.
All of us here are over 21 and we are all entitled to different points of view. However, we do have a responsibility to be accurate and to base our views on accurate information. I mentioned last night that church workers working on behalf of refugees have no reason to fear this legislation. They are not the target group.
I will repeat what I said last night in order to give myself the opportunity of correcting what the Hon. Member for Spadina said this morning. Church leaders who want to work with refugees have no reason to fear this legislation because their major concerns are with the flow of refugees from Central America. That flow comes principally through the United States of America. Last night I asked why any of them could not go to a Canadian consulate anywhere in the United States, whether New York, Detroit, or Seattle and apply for refugee status? There is no reason that they cannot do that. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) says they cannot do that because there is a quota system. That is absolutely false.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: True, there is. I have been told by the officers.


Benno Friesen: It is false. There is no quota on sponsoring refugees. The Member cannot hide behind that. It is unlimited. I cannot understand why the churches would not simply advise claimants to go to a consulate in the United States and say, "We want to sponsor this person to come to Canada." That would be better for the claimant. He can do all of his paper processing there. He can come directly to Canada and qualify for a work permit as soon as he arrives and begin the process of integrating, if that is what he intends to do, into Canadian society. The churches are not using the sponsorship program very well.
I will repeat the numbers that I read yesterday. Of Central American landings in 1986 from the United States, the Government sponsored 1,018 refugees from refugee camps in the U.S. The churches, the humanitarian groups, individuals in total sponsored only 76.


Charles L. Caccia: So what? What is the point?

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Benno Friesen: If they were really interested in sponsoring refugees, that is the way to do it.


Charles L. Caccia: Judge the quality not the numbers.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) says, "judge the quality".


Charles L. Caccia: Yes, of course.


Benno Friesen: First, I am mystified as to what he means by that. Second, the quality is in the integration in Canadian society. If they would get their work done in the United States in a Canadian consulate or a detention centre refugee camp-


Charles L. Caccia: If they are in Nicaragua, what would you do?


Benno Friesen: -on the U.S.-Mexican border, they would come already providing themselves with a fuller way of life in Canada.
Up to June, 1987, the church groups together with private individuals and other humanitarian organizations from the United States sponsored 19. Where is their great concern?


Sergio Marchi: What about the boat people?


Benno Friesen: Is there is something romantic about ferrying people to a border point in Canada? Does it add something to the glow of humanitarianism to see if this can be done clandestinely? Is it the air of excitement? If they are thinking of refugees, they would sponsor them the same way the Government sponsors them.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am certain that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would not wish deliberately to misrepresent the church leaders he is talking about. Rhetorically he asked, is it because they wished to ferry people to border points clandestinely. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary does not seriously wish to charge them either with doing that clandestinely or with having supported the idea of doing it clandestinely in their representations to our committee. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary would clarify the point and indicate that he is not suggesting that church leaders or humanitarian groups have either ferried people clandestinely or have advocated doing it clandestinely.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair takes that more as a matter of a question to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a matter of debate and not a point of order.


Benno Friesen: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Spadina I would want to make it clear that I am not charging the church leaders. I am simply asking them, is there an air of excitement about ferrying people to border points other than through the process of sponsorship? If the humanitarian groups really are looking for the best possible way of helping refugees, it seems to me they would want to do the work outside the country as much as they can
and bring them into Canada already fully prepared to take part in the Canadian way of life and be able to work.
As I said, I find it shocking that the Member who has constantly said that we need to get rid of the profiteers now would introduce a motion that would take away the provisions in the Bill that would help us to get rid of the profiteers.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a moment covering some of the ground somewhat hastily dirtied by the Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago. A little bit of history is in order here, particularly in relation to Clause 95.4, at which all Members of this House should take a close look.
This clause was originally suggested by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), which was then moved by the Government and placed into the Bill. He is suggesting as Members on this side of the House are suggesting, that proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 be removed, for good reason. Those two sections go after church groups and others.
We hear the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and some Members on that side saying, "Well, those church groups don't need to worry because we will not prosecute them", but Government Members, and the Minister in particular, are saying there will be selective prosecution. As someone who used to work in the courts on probation and parole, I know about selective prosecution. 1 know that Members like the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) would like selective prosecution whereby if you do not like a particular church group or a particular group of refugees then you go after that group and by using the full force of proposed Section 95.1 and 95.2 you go after them. But if it happens to be a group you might like in your constituency or that might be politically appealing to you, then it is the wink-wink, nudge-nudge-you know what I mean, Mr. Speaker. It is not the way Canadians like laws to be written, or the way we like to see them used within the courts.
The Parliamentary Secretary and others on that side of the House often ask whether we really want these refugees who come without papers anyway. It displays the kind of ignorance that is symptomatic of that Member in particular and other Members on that side. Some of the bona fide refugees that come from Central and South America, sister countries, are in fact closer to my constituency in my province of British Columbia-if you think particularly of Central America- than is Nova Scotia or other parts of our own country. There are growing relationships between many families, certainly many western provinces, in agriculture, fisheries and the many things in which we have expertise with those countries.
Many people understand why refugees who are persecuted, politically in their own land, do not just sort of drop by the local police station and ask for their papers before heading up to Canada or the United States. They do not just sort of drop by to pick up a driver's licence, a visa or a passport or anything
September 1, 1987

else because the death squads and others terrorizing civilian populations in much of Central and South America do not view very kindly those who are active politically and are attempting to get papers to get out of the country.
Let us take a look at what is being proposed. Let us look at proposed Section 95.4 and see what it says. I quote from the Bill:
Every person who knowingly counsels, induces, aids or abets, or who knowingly attempts to counsel, induce, aid or abet, any other person to make any false or misleading statement in connection with a claim by that other person to be a Convention refugee is guilty of an offence and is liable
(a)	on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both; or
(b)	on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.
That is the standard wording you find with respect to indictable or summary convictions in most of the Criminal Code of Canada.
I think most Members would note that The Ottawa Citizen today ran an article by lain Hunter pointing out what Anglican Archbishop Edward Scott, President of the Canadian Council of Churches, has to say about the orchestration of the emergency involving the 174 people who landed in Nova Scotia. There was the orchestration of another boat supposedly coming along. The Government knew all along that the first boat was coming but orchestrated it to get emergency recall of Parliament, not just to deal with Bill C-84 and Bill C-55, but to deal with Bill C-22, the drug Bill, and the rail back-to-work legislation. Now we find today all kinds of other legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary this morning, quite contrary to the rules of the House, as is often his way, commented on the presence or absence of Members of the House. That is the kind of scurrilous activity we see the Hon. Member involved in all the time. He says, "How was I to know about the rules?"
We are talking about a law which potentially affects refugees whose lives are in danger. It is one thing for the Hon. Member to say they can just drop in on an embassy in Detroit or somewhere else in the U.S., and that there are no quotas. My colleague from Spadina has spoken to officers who work in various consulates in the U.S. and has confirmed that there are quotas in operation. We know what is happening in the U.S. where sections similar to 95.1 and 95.2 have been introduced. We know what has gone on. There have been direct belligerent prosecutions of church groups who have been attempting to assist those whose lives are very much in danger as they try to escape from the terrorist activities of certain groups in Central and South America in particular, but in other areas of the world as well.
Let us look at what proposed Section 95.1 states, keeping in mind what I put on the record with respect to proposed Section 95.4. It states:
Immigration Act, 1976
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa, passport or travel document where one is required by this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and is liable-
Such a person is liable in the same way as proposed Section 95.4(a) and (b). Who is this directed at? Let us think about the evidence given by the Government concerning the number of refugees who came to Canada last year without proper documents, some 6,000. None were found to have any serious criminal record or to have difficulties in Canada. None were found to be terrorists or potential terrorists. This clause is directed specifically at those groups who have been assisting refugees from Central and South America.
The Parliamentary Secretary and others over there laugh and say the church groups do not need to worry. They do need to worry; but it is the law. Government Members say they will only selectively prosecute. We will only prosecute if they decide they do not like you or they get a call from the CIA or the FBI, or for some other reason. It is illogical and bad law. The intellectually dishonest presentation involved has also become the trademark of Members like the Parliamentary Secretary. That is why British Columbians do not like Members like that who involve themselves in this kind of scurrilous intellectual dishonesty day after day in this House, painting false pictures. The Hon. Member knows they are false.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member not to get personal, please. Debate.


Benno Friesen: That is hard to do.


James Ross Fulton: It is hard when one has to deal with the kind of absolutely false information put on the record day after day by that particular Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for the Hon. Member's speech has terminated.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 16. 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.

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976 And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion is No. 19.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 26 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"specified in the certificate, or release the person. Such addition-
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion provides for detention of people who arrive without clear identification or who are suspected by the Minister of being inadmissible for other reasons. The opening part of this new clause reads as follows: Where, with respect to a person seeking to come into Canada,
(a)	the person is unable to satisfy an immigration officer with respect to that person's identity, or
(b)	in the opinion of the Deputy Minister or a person designated by the Deputy Minister, there is reason to suspect that the person may be a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(l)(e), (f) or (g),
an immigration officer shall detain the person-
Then it goes on in 104.1(2):
Where, with respect to a person detained under subsection (1), the Minister certifies in writing
(a)	that
(i)	the person's identity has not been established, or
(ii)	the Minister has reason to suspect that the person may be a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19( 1 )(e), (f) or (g), and
(b)	that an additional period of detention is required to investigate the matter referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
the person shall be brought before an adjudicator who shall continue the person's detention for the additional period specified in the certificate, which additional period may not exceed twenty-one days from the day on which the person was brought before the adjudicator.
In my motion I am asking that we remove line 26 and substitute the words "or release the person". In other words, it would read:
the person shall be brought before an adjudicator who shall continue the person's detention for the additional period specified in the certificate, or release the person.
My point is that an adjudicator is appointed by the Government to be a judge with respect to immigration admissibility. The person is also to be a judge of the necessity of detention after any two-day period which can first be ordered by a senior immigration officer. The adjudicator is selected and trained to exercise his judgment as to whether it is necessary to detain a person for a further period. This clause removes that ability and makes him a rubber stamp. He becomes a clerk who simply says you have to stay here for another 21 days. It means there is no possibility of finding out why the person is being detained except that the Minister says that he suspects that the person may be a member of an inadmissible class as
described in Clause 19(l)(e), (0 or (g). He suspects that he may be.
It is a principle in our country that a person should not be detained without due process. The principle is that if he is to be detained he is to be told the reason and is to have the right of counsel to defend him. Partly on the basis of that principle the law in our country is that if the Minister thinks he should be detained longer, the person being detained should have the right to have that detention reviewed by an adjudicator. Taking away the adjudicator's responsibility to say "keep him in longer" or "turn him loose" on the word of the Minister or someone designated by the Minister takes away that person's right to due process.
The Parliamentary Secretary will get up and read a list of possible criminals, terrorists or others like that in order to suggest that because these people are criminals, terrorists and what not, it is obvious that they should not be turned loose. He talks with mock horror of having them walking our streets. It is a typical Conservative trick to assume that a person is guilty unless he gets a chance to prove himself innocent. Because the Minister has said that he suspects he may be a member of one of those groups, he becomes a member of one of those groups and is guilty of either doing something dreadful or planning to do something dreadful and, therefore, we must lock him up.
That is convenient from an administrative point of view. It means that governments do not have to answer for what they do in cases like that. It is, however, contrary to the intent of our laws and the intent of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even though this person is not a Canadian our Charter, according to the Supreme Court, applies to everyone who is within Canada. It does not extend all rights to everyone who is in Canada. It does not give them the right to vote or to work, but it does give them the right to due process according to the Supreme Court.
I believe that the amendment which I have moved would save the time and cost of a series of Charter challenges on the basis of this line in this clause. It would perhaps save having the whole proposed Section found invalid by the Supreme Court and the necessity of then having to go back to the drawing table and introduce new legislation.
It is not a question of whether the Government should have the power to detain a person to learn his or her identity. It is simply a question of whether the Government should be able to do that for an unusually and extraordinarily long time without making known any of the reasoning for it. If the Government does not trust the adjudicators it should hire better adjudicators or train them better. The Parliamentary Secretary has not given us examples of adjudicators wrongly releasing persons as he has suggested they have done.
The RCMP representatives who appeared before the committee last week told us that of the 6,000 undocumented people who came in last year none of them, to their knowledge,
September 1, 1987

was engaged in any of these activities. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary will probably get up and say that if we had been able to keep them in jail for a month or a year we could have found something against them. That is the kind of argument that is used to deny due process and to deny the principle of innocence until proven guilty.
It has about as much logic as the man in Etobicoke who set a strange circle of white stones around his house. When people asked what the stones were for he said they were to keep elephants away. When they said that there were no elephants in Etobicoke he said that that was because of his stones. The Minister's representative is going to prove that because the person is suspected it is, therefore, necessary to lock him up. This is contrary to the kind of law which Canadians want in this country.
Therefore, I am asking Members of the House to support my motion to change one line of this clause in order to allow the adjudicator to keep the responsibility given to him under our present legislation, namely, to decide, after listening to what the Government tells him and to anyone else who has the right to speak on that point, whether to continue detention or to release the person.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Motion No. 19 moved by the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). It will be very interesting to see the reaction of the Government because Motion No. 20, moved by myself, which will be debated next, proposes deletion of the entire clause if the Government does not wish to amend it.
The law as presently written is sensible. It has been supported by previous Parliamentarians. The Members of Parliament in Government, when in Opposition, supported it. The Government now has the power to detain and deport people. The Government has the power to do that which this legislation allows it to do.
It is false to suggest that the Government needs new, greater and unchecked powers to deal with what it considers to be an emergency. To borrow a phrase from a Member of Parliament who spoke earlier, that borders on intellectual dishonesty because it implies that there are currently no statutes or powers to defend our country against those who wish to abuse it.
How naive and misleading can the Government be? That is to suggest that everyone else is either naive or ignorant. It suggests that Canada has not had the mechanisms and powers to protect its shores from those who are undesirable, unwanted, unwelcomed and wish to pose a threat to the nation. There is not one Canadian, not one Member of Parliament, not one priest, nun or layman helping refugees who wants us to accept individuals who will pose a threat to this country.
I think the Government should stop its marketing scheme of implying that it is only the Government that is trying to protect our country from so-called undesirables. That is a false message based on a false premise.
Immigration Act, 1976
The current legislation allows for automatic detainment for 48 hours. Any individual who comes to our shores without documents and who the Government believes may be a problem can automatically be detained for up to 48 hours with no questions asked. That is acceptable to my Party. I assume it is acceptable to many Members of this House. If the Government cannot substantiate the identity of such person, why he or she is here, then with any evidence it may have received from any authority within 48 hours, it has the opportunity to go before an adjudicator and request a further seven-day detainment period. The adjudicator will then decide, on the evidence from the Government, whether the request for further detainment is legitimate or groundless. I believe that is very reasonable.
If the Government still wants to detain a person after the seven-day period, it goes back to the adjudicator; the same thing happens in additional seven-day periods. Those are existing powers that would allow the Government, without great difficulty, to detain people who it believes beyond suspicion, and with actual documentation, should be kept in detention.
While I do not purport to be an expert or claim to have a monopoly on what Canadians believe, my reading of Canadians would suggest that they believe we have reasonable powers now to detain people if necessary and that an adjudicator is the key element in this process, because the adjudicator will decide on the merits of a further detainment based on the information presented by the Government.
The adjudicator can question government officials whether they believe the information is flimsy or whether they should offer more proof. The Government has the opportunity to do so and even has the opportunity to suggest that the information might be so secret that the adjudicator might not be able to be informed in the presence of the claimant or the claimant's counsel. The adjudicator can obviously decide in favour of the Government in the interest of the defence of our sovereignty and well-being. I suggest that this is a reasonable process that is in keeping with our sense of justice.
The Government wants to abolish the 48 hours and be able to automatically detain people for seven days. It may be argued that more time is required in getting the identification of an individual who comes from a country thousands of miles away, but the Government also proposes that after the seven-day period in which it does not have to secure permission it may also detain a person for an additional 21 days.
The key element in this proposal is that the adjudicator would simply rubber-stamp the request because the law says he shall permit the detainment for a further 21 days. The Bill does not state that he may permit a further 21 days in detention, which would offer the adjudicator the flexibility and discretion to weigh the evidence and protect the rights of the individual in our country. The use of the word "shall" means

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
that there is no discretion or flexibility left to the adjudicator. The adjudicator must simply rubber-stamp a government request to detain a person for another 21-day period. That is Draconian and excessive. I think it is essentially not Canadian when one considers that the Charter of Rights protects the rights of individuals not to be detained on unreasonable grounds or for suspicion.
It goes beyond that. We are not merely talking about refugees who deserve rights. After all, they are human beings as well and merit some human rights standards that are applicable to a person arriving on our shores. What would be the ramifications to our society when one Minister is granted the full discretion and flexibility to detain people for periods of up to 28 days without any questions asked? Of course, Canadians believe we need to protect ourselves as a sovereign state from undesirables. No adjudicator would ever lend himself or herself to allowing people who would do a disservice to our country or commit a crime in Canada. They will always protect our flag and protect Canada. We trust the adjudicator. What kind of society are we trying to create by vesting Draconian and excessive powers to a government that one day may abuse those rights? I suggest that if the rights of one individual are abused, the collective rights of our nation are abused and undermined.
These types of powers are not needed. Since the time of Diefenbaker, the Government has had the authority to protect our shores, protect our sovereignty and stand up for our flag, while at the same time offering civil liberties as expounded in the Charter of Rights which states that all men and women, whether rich or poor, black or white, catholic or atheist, enjoy human rights as all Canadians should. That is what is being undermined today if the clause is not changed.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not deprive the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary of his ten minutes, so I will limit my remarks and simply say that the motion presented by the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) is very sensible. The reasons have been eloquently explained by the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
It is an amendment that would at least introduce an element of balance in what otherwise would be a Draconian clause. This amendment, if accepted by the Government, would turn this clause into one that contains some checks and balances whereby the adjudicator would have the option to make a decision on his or her own, motivated of course by the basic principles and guidelines that the Member for York West has outlined.
Again, we find ourselves advancing an eminently sensible amendment which permits a certain latitude to the adjudicator. It is a good amendment.
Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether he will accept it in good grace, in keeping with the ideology of civil liberties that he expounds at home and abroad, particularly at the Interparliamentary Union. He has an opportunity to
apply what he preaches, and we call upon him to demonstrate the mettle he is made of when it comes to the facts and the reality of legislative measures.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for the confidence he has expressed in my view of civil liberties. I certainly hold to those.
Since we have heard from the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) I think we should move back to the Bill and see what it really says, instead of what we have heard.
As the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) rightly points out, the Bill deals with the inadmissible classes, including what we agreed to yesterday; that is, those who have been guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Picture the scene, Mr. Speaker. We have someone arriving on our shores, at our airports, or other port of entry, with no documentation-absolutely none. He has either destroyed it or has given it back to the person who trades in passports and visas so it can be recirculated.


Charles L. Caccia: Some refugees legitimately have no documents.


Benno Friesen: Yes, and some legitimately have no documents. But those persons come to the port of entry and the immigration officer meets them and is supposed to identify them. How does he go about it, especially if there are 30 or 40 coming in at the same time without documentation? The Bill requires that there be a seven-day detention period in order to establish identity. If a person is from Uganda, for instance, where there is a constant state of turmoil at the present time, how does any officer go about establishing identity in seven days? It is not necessarily possible.
The next subparagraph says that the Minister may apply for an extension of another 21 days. Here is where due process, about which the Hon. Member for Spadina was concerned, enters the picture. He cannot just willy-nilly say, "We are going to hold you another 21 days". What he does under Clause 12, proposed Section 104.1(2), is continue the person's detention for the additional period specified in the certificate, which additional period may not exceed 21 days from the day on which the person was brought before the adjudicator.
How does the Minister go about getting a certificate? He goes about it by dealing with the securities forces of Canada to get as much information as he can. If there is reason to believe that this person may be a threat to either Canadian security or to other people in Canada, he has to file evidence which would substantiate the need for a certificate.
The Hon. Member for Spadina knows that that is not the kind of information he can give to the adjudicator. He can give the certificate to the adjudicator but he cannot give the evidence. In the interests of privacy for the individual, to protect his privacy, he cannot give that evidence and allow it to
September 1, 1987

become public. That is why I am saying that this is the due process asked for by the Hon. Member for Spadina.
The Minister cannot just on a whim say, "I want to detain this person another 21 days". There has to be just cause, established to the satisfaction of the officers, that a certificate is warranted. If the certificate is granted, it can be extended for 21 days, for a total of 28 days.
I would suggest to Members that that is not an unreasonable requirement when we realize that the person coming to our port of entry is undocumented, is thought to be a security risk and there needs to be documentation presented. Twenty-eight days, considering communications with some of these countries in the world that are trouble spots and are in conditions of upheaval, where the normal systems of communication are not functioning properly, is not an unreasonable requirement.
What the Hon. Member for Spadina is asking for is that at the end of seven days, if the identity has not been established, we release the individual. I do not think Canadians would like that one bit. We have every reason to provide protection for people who need protection, but as responsible parliamentarians, and as a Government of Canada, we have every responsibility to protect Canada and to protect Canadians. That is what this clause is all about.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is Motion No. 19 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 please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Is it the pleasure of the House that I call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 12.56 p.m. the House took recess.
______________________________8653


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we have just learned today that, regardless of the wishes expressed by most Canadians, the Economic Council of Canada is urging the Conservative Government to tax bread, milk and butter.
Mr. Speaker, I want to dissociate myself from this kind of recommendation made by the Economic Council of Canada. It is all too easy for an economist sitting in his sixth-floor office in Ottawa to make such recommendations, he does not do anything but studies.
I would invite the Economic Council of Canada members to travel with me throughout Canada to meet with the real citizens who will be paying this tax on bread and butter. I am sure they will change their mind and make an altogether different recommendation to the Government.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the recent rail strike and the near-strike last night have started many Canadians thinking and talking once again about compulsory arbitration for essential services. The right to bargain collectively is a vital part of our economic, social and democratic way of life. Most labour disputes are settled. Few result in strikes. There are fewer strikes still in essential services.
Strikes in essential services affect not only the parties involved but the general public and national production as well. That is why we need a new procedure, not to prohibit strikes but, rather, to settle disputes in essential services, a procedure called binding arbitration. Neither management nor labour like binding arbitration. In my experience it usually results in higher than normal wages and benefits. But that is the price we pay to avoid the shut-down of an essential service.
Binding arbitration works for municipal fire-fighting services. It can work for all essential services. It is time for the Government to take a serious look at it.

September 1, 1987



AGRICULTURE


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) on his promotion to Minister of State for Agriculture. May he enjoy his new position, and may his answers always be succinct!
Now with three Ministers handling the agriculture portfolio we hope that the Government will give agriculture more attention than has been the case in the past. The Government keeps insisting that it is giving agriculture a very high priority. Yet even though we now have three Ministers in charge of agriculture not one in this so-called high priority sector sits on the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet where all the decisions are made.
Even the hated Liberals had their Minister, their single Agriculture Minister, Eugene Whelan, on this very important committee. It is time the Government took priority for agriculture seriously, actually made it a priority and put one of these Ministers in a position where he can do something.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to a distinguished Canadian, Bob Simmonds, who has provided outstanding service to the RCMP and to Canada.
Commissioner Simmonds, born and raised in Saskatchewan, joined the force in 1947. He began on highway patrol and rose through the ranks to become Commissioner in 1977. He retires today after 10 years of leading the force.
Bob Simmonds has been a trusted public official whose counsel and advice have been called on many times by different Governments. The current and previous Solicitors General have remarked on the professionalism, good judgment and overriding concern for the rights of Canadians which have characterized Bob Simmonds' work. The RCMP, under his leadership, has weathered difficult challenges and maintained its professionalism and formidable influence for good in Canadian society. We are very grateful to him for the leadership he has contributed to policing in Canada.
I am confident that the standards of excellence set by Commissioner Simmonds will be maintained by the new Commissioner, Norm Inkster.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the Government and this House that, as I speak, groups interested in regional economic development are utterly confused. As you would know, in recent months the Government has unveiled piecemeal initiatives in Western Canada, in the Atlantic Provinces, in Northern Ontario; the Department itself has been plagued with major financial and management problems. It has become imperative for the Government to come up with a comprehensive regional development policy. Tell us exactly which direction it wants to take, and what kind of treatment it has in store for the underprivileged regions of this country.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we now have two kinds of Canada: the wealthy and prosperous Canada, and the suffering Canada made up of the economically disadvantaged regions which, unfortunately, cannot benefit from the economic recovery and which practically disappear behind unemployment statistics. Realities differ from coast to coast and, sad to say, owing to the confusion and probably the incompetence of the ex-Minister, nobody has a clear idea about the role the federal Government wants to play, the mandate it seeks to undertake, and especially the kind of assistance it can give these regions.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the Government to announce its over-all strategy as soon as possible instead of being satisfied with its week-to-week policies. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, I am afraid the Tories keep their policies under wraps because of the free trade negotiations where they are quite prepared to abandon our country's disadvantaged regions just to please the Americans.



THE ECONOMY


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, the good news continues to roll in. Last week the OECD reported that Canada's economic performance in 1986 surpassed that of all major industrialized nations. Now, Statistics Canada reports this extraordinary growth rate has continued unabated. For the second quarter in a row, Canada's economy grew at an annual rate of 6 per cent.
All indicators have economists searching for superlatives. Consumer and business spending is up, labour income has risen, corporate profits have increased, and as a British
September 1, 1987

Columbian I am encouraged by the news that capital spending is up in the vital forestry, mineral, and energy sectors.
This is excellent news for all Canadians. It is proof that the economic policies of the Government are working. I applaud the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for cleaning up the fiscal mess that was left by the previous Government. His actions have restored confidence in our economy, and the results are clearly reaping benefits for Canadians from coast to coast.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the proposed Canadian Virology Laboratory should be located in Winnipeg. Winnipeg already has a solid reputation in the health sciences. The federal Government has appropriately targeted health industries as a priority sector for growth in Manitoba, and it has been working with the Manitoba Government in this regard.
The CVL would serve this goal by its very existence, by attracting private sector activity that values its proximity, and by local subcontracting. Locating the laboratory in Winnipeg would demonstrate a real commitment by the Conservatives to decentralization, and to the policy of fostering regional economic development through the location of national purpose technological investment in areas other than central Canada. If western diversification means anything, surely it means that the CVL should be located in Winnipeg. I call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to make sure that it does.
I remind all Members that the U.S. Centre for Disease Control is not located adjacent to the federal Health Department headquarters in the District of Columbia, but rather in Atlanta, Georgia, fulfilling a national role from a regional location.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of France has made it clear to us what would happen if Canadians were to elect a New Democratic Government.
Mr. Jacques Chirac told us quite frankly that the NDP's proposal to have Canada withdraw from NATO was utopian,
naive and unrealistic, and that it could bring Canada under Soviet domination.

In regard to the NDP policy to pull Canada out of NATO, the Prime Minister of France stated:
-there are always people who are idealists, who imagine that the world is good, the world is beautiful, that one can isolate oneself, that one risks nothing. We have known that in France.
The Prime Minister also stated:
You have to be careful with this kind of Utopia.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about what Mr. Chirac's warning meant: Vive la France librel Vive le Canada librel



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) received the report of the Inquiry on Federal Water Policy. Canadians are puzzled by the lack of action by the Government to formulate a national water policy, given the urgency and importance of this report.
The report emphasizes that public consultation is only the first step in the development of a national water policy. The next step requires action by the Government.
Among the many recommendations, the report calls on the Government to encourage the development of corporate water conservation plans, to establish minimum quality standards for drinking water throughout Canada and to develop a policy on the export and diversion of water. If he wants to do more than just talk, it is high time for the Minister of the Environment to get going and develop for public debate a national water policy for Canadians.



THE ECONOMY


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest data provided by Statistics Canada, the country's economy is registering a remarkable growth rate this year. For the second consecutive quarter, the growth rate has been robust to say the least.

September 1, 1987
During the second quarter, Canada's Gross Domestic Product expanded at a real or after inflation annual rate of 6 per cent. This performance, as an article in today's Toronto Star states, has left economists groping for superlatives to describe the health of the economy.
While the 6 per cent annual rate will not be sustained, Michael Manford, Chief Economist of Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., said that Canada will probably turn in the strongest economic performance of the world's seven big industrial countries.
One question being debated is: "Does the Government deserve some credit for this performance?" My answer is an unqualified yes. Beginning after September, 1984, the Government took several key steps to set the climate for strong economic recovery.
Fiscal restraint was established through three responsible Budgets. The deficit is being cut. The National Energy Program was dismantled. The Foreign Investment Review Agency's mandate was dramatically changed to welcome foreign investment. The Government favours divestment of Crown corporations which do not serve a public policy objective. That is why de Havilland was sold. Incidentally, de Havilland has never had a brighter economic outlook.
All these sound measures and others have generated a renewed confidence in Canada not just for foreigners but also for Canadians. Interest rates are down sharply and this is spurring economic activity, particularly new housing starts and small business investment. Last, one of the greatest benefits of all has been a significant lowering of the unemployment rate through the creation of over 850,000 jobs.



HUMAN RIGHTS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, St. Boniface Hospital is the second largest teaching hospital in Winnipeg. Some years ago, people interested in medical research established the St. Boniface Hospital Research Foundation. Its purpose was to raise money for medical researchers to do their work over and above what they got from the Medical Research Council.
To a large extent this project has been a great success because the foundation has been able to bring in for its functions world known people like Prince Phillip, Mrs. Sadat and Dr. Christiaan Barnard. This year it proposes to invite Mr. Sakharov, the famous Soviet physicist and Nobel Prize winner. Unfortunately, the Soviet Government has not yet permitted Mr. Sakharov to leave for Canada.
I would urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to make representations on behalf of all Canadians by telling the Soviet Government that we would look with a great deal of interest and support at its permitting Mr. Sakharov to come to Canada.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post today commemorates the 50th anniversary of Air Canada with the issuance of a stamp. The inaugural flight of Trans-Canada Airlines from Vancouver to Seattle was made on September 1, 1937, carrying mail as well as passengers. Airmail routes were established between Winnipeg and Vancouver, and Montreal was added in 1938.
TCA changed its name to Air Canada in 1964 and has grown to be the world's ninth largest commercial airline, flying to points in North America, Europe and beyond to Bombay and Singapore. Canada Post Corporation is its largest cargo customer.
The stamp was designed by Derrick Carter of Vancouver and Debbie Adams of Toronto. Some of Air Canada's many destinations are highlighted on a stylized version of the globe. In the foreground is an Air Canada Boeing 767 banking as if to land. The Canadian Bank Note company will print 15 million stamps in five colour lithography for all to enjoy.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, one of the serious impediments in the way of an agreement between the United States of America and the U.S.S.R. restricting nuclear proliferation has been the question of verification. Today's report attributed to General Nikolai Chervov that the Kremlin is seriously considering a United States proposal for monitoring nuclear tests, and may even allow the U.S. to explode its own device on the Soviet test range to calibrate its monitoring equipment in exchange for reciprocal privileges, is welcome news.
It is interesting to note the part played by Canada in these developments. Not only have our Energy, Mines and Resources seismic stations been active for many years in recording nuclear blasts, but we have co-operated with the Government of the United States in testing its remote monitoring equipment under Arctic conditions, similar to those which
September 1, 1987

might be found in Soviet test areas. Let us hope, sir, that these initiatives prove beneficial for the future of mankind.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister about what the Government likes to call tax reform.
I acknowledge that some people are doing very well in Canada, and the Government will undoubtedly produce some encouraging statistics. But despite the fact that there are people prospering in our country, there are regions that are suffering and there are Canadians who are hurting. I want to remind the Deputy Prime Minister of the intolerably long lineups at food banks across Canada and at soup kitchens.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify his colleague putting forward a series of tax proposals under the guise of reform that, in effect, really take money away from the poor in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first, 1 think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will recognize that tax reform has to be considered as a package. In that package some 850,000 Canadians will be taken off the tax rolls. Nine out of ten aged 65 and over will find their taxes reduced. I believe that between 1984 and sometime in 1985 some 263,000 Canadians have been taken off the welfare rolls.
For the first time since 1981 real after-tax income has increased for Canadians, so I think it is fair to say that there has been a tremendous improvement since our Government assumed office.
I would also remind the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that some 875,000 new jobs have been created. The commitment of the Government is to create jobs and stimulate economic activity-


John Edward Broadbent: And it is a nice day outside too!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and that is recognized by the tremendous growth rate that has been reported in the first half of this year.


FOOD TAX ISSUE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister talks about 850,000 coming off the tax rolls as a result of the so-called tax reform proposals. He neglects to remind the House that during the
Oral Questions
last three years under this Government one million Canadians were added to the tax rolls.


John Horton McDermid: They found jobs.


John Napier Turner: We have repeatedly pointed out in this Hotise that the tax policy of the Government has had, as a direct effect, the widening of the gap between rich and poor in Canada. There is a wealthy Canada but what about the other Canada? What about the poor, the homeless and the hungry? How in these circumstances can the Government even contemplate a tax on food? Where is the fairness in that? Where is the justification for it? Where is the understanding and compassionate position of the Government with respect to that issue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows there is nothing in the tax reform proposals which specifically outlines a tax on food. He should not try to mislead the House in suggesting that. He also takes issue with the fact there are some one million Canadians, I think was his figure, who are now paying taxes.


John Napier Turner: Added to the rolls.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In addition. I think they are a very welcome addition, because most of those people are now working rather than being on the unemployment roll. That is a positive fact.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WANTS TO INCREASE TAXES FOR LOWER-INCOME CANADIANS AND MARRIED WOMEN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest report of the Economic Council of Canada, in addition to putting a burden on the poor, the Government's tax reform proposal would also penalize married women.
Are we going to help Canadian families by increasing taxes for married women? Are we going to promote equal rights for women by reducing their income? Why is the Government taking this immoral stance of increasing the taxes of low-income Canadians and married women?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do not share that view. There are a number of elements in the tax reform proposals which help the poor and less fortunate. The establishment of more tax credits is, I think, a very positive element. We have moved to impose a minimum tax.

September 1, 1987
Oral Questions
1 might add that this issue was referred to a parliamentary committee for full study and public debate. I understand some 300 briefs have been submitted. Surely that is the appropriate forum and the appropriate way in which Canadians and the Parliament of Canada should be involved in realistic and legitimate tax reform. I invite the Hon. Member to participate in that process.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the point of view expressed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was confirmed by the Economic Council of Canada yesterday. We are not picking that out of the air.


CHILD BENEFITS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, a leading expert on the Canadian child benefit system, Mr. Shillington, confirmed what I and the Official Opposition have stated time and time again, that the Government does not care about the average Canadian family. Why is the Government slashing child benefits by 46 per cent, from $955 in 1984 to only $508 in 1991 for the average middle-income family?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's allegations need a little more examination because he is using statistics in a fairly selective manner. For example, there were the changes to the child tax credit instituted by this Government. There was an increase in child tax credits as against changes in family allowances. Those changes gave more money to lower-income families. I remind him that we also paid a large part of the child tax credit at an early date so that, among other things, parents could buy winter clothing for their children.
The Hon. Member should remember that social policy groups generally, whether they agree with the tax reform package or not, have generally advocated movement from tax deductions to tax credits. This would benefit families, especially low-income families and the poor. If he wants to look at tax reform, he should look at it as a package based on those principles.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Minister should read tax reform in the Bill adopted by this House. First, the child tax credit was not implemented by his Government but by Monique Begin when she was a member of the Liberal Government.


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


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, when I told the Minister that benefits for middle-income families had been cut by 46 per cent, I included, as did Mr. Shillington in his brief, the partial de-indexation of family allowances, reduction in tax deductions for dependent children,
lowering of the cut-off point for the child tax credit and for the new child tax credit included in the tax reform proposals.
I will repeat the question for the Minister, since he seems to have forgotten what his Government has done. On the basis of all these factors, we have to conclude that the average Canadian family-and this was confirmed by an expert yesterday-will see its child care benefits drop from $955 in 1984 to $508 in 1991, a reduction of 46 per cent.
What does the Minister intend to do about this and what is he going to suggest the Minister of Finance do to make the system more sensible?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Member essentially repeated his question and I, therefore, will essentially repeat the answer. He said that I indicated that it was this Government that instituted the child tax credit. 1 did not say that. I said that we had increased the child tax credit and that that was generally endorsed by social policy groups as more favourable than changes in the family allowance.
I also said that as a principle of social policy social policy groups have generally, for many years, endorsed a movement more toward credits relating directly to families as opposed to whether or not they are in tax-paying income brackets. I said that the tax reform package philosophically moves further in that direction than we are now as a society.
If the Hon. Member wishes to analyse those things he should analyse the entire package rather than selecting any one percentage.


FOOD TAX-OPINION OF ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA- GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. According to the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, the Government should tax food because the rich in Canada spend a lot of money on food. Someone should tell the Chairman that in Canada, the poor spend more on food as a percentage of their income than the rich.
My question is a simple one. Does the Government agree with the line of reasoning followed by the reactionary Chairman of the ECC?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question in response to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Edward Broadbent: No, no.
September 1, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I most certainly did. I invite the Hon. Member to read the answer when he gets a chance.
We are again talking about a presentation before a standing committee which is studying the tax reform proposals. I am not sure whether we will be asked to respond to each and every individual presentation. This view has been expressed by a certain individual representing an institution.
The Government's position is very clear. The tax reform proposals do not contain any provision for the inclusion of a tax on food. Over 300 briefs have already been received. The process has started. I expect that all Hon. Members would want the process to be completed.


FOOD TAX QUERY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 will address my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Ninety-three per cent of Canadians have indicated that they are opposed to a tax on food. Even the Quebec caucus of the federal Conservative Party has indicated that it is opposed to a tax on food. The poverty groups are opposed to a tax on food.
Would it not facilitate rational and fair-minded discussion by the committee if the Government would make its position clear on this issue once and for all and say that it will not accept a recommendation for a tax on food? Answer it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister responded to that question last week. I have responded to it today and other Ministers have responded to it. I can only assume that the NDP wishes that a tax would be imposed on food.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Notwithstanding the fact that they repeat their question, I am now coming to the conclusion that maybe it is the NDP that wants a tax on food so that it can create a political issue and have a little fun.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot understand elementary English. Will he now admit that by refusing to say that the Government will rule out a tax on food, he has now said, to put it positively, that the Government is considering a tax on food? If the Government wants to clear the air, why does it not be candid for once and say that under no circumstances will the Conservative Government accept a tax on food? Come clean.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants to come clean. They
Oral Questions
want to confuse the issue. There is no mention of a tax on food in the tax reform white paper.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are going to tax everything.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The only evidence of a tax on food has been that which has been proposed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and some members of the Liberal Party. That has been answered.


FISHERIES
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whoever that happens to be today. Yesterday, the Minister of Transport, with his usual bluster, told us that everything is okay in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland because large companies were making more money. However, if one checks with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it shows a constant decline in inshore fish landings over the past four years.
If there is no crisis in the inshore fishery, why has the Minister set up within the past month or so a special task force on the inshore fishery? Is there a crisis in the inshore fishery or not? What is he doing about it?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member recognizes the Minister of Fisheries today. I appreciate his question.
He used the term "crisis". In fact we are concerned about the decline of landings in the inshore fishery, as I made very clear upon my visit to Newfoundland in early July.
I have struck a committee of international eminent scientific people who will spend two or three weeks in Newfoundland in September to provide to us a report determining the adequacy of our scientific data base and our present management approach to the inshore fishery, with a view to bringing amendments into our next year's fishing plans by November 15, when I receive that report.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, what we need are not eminent people and data bases; what we need are fish.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-FRANCE NEGOTIATIONS-CANADIAN COD STOCK
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister sets up a special task force of eminent people, admitting that there is a crisis in the inshore fishery, and leaves cod on the negotiating table in the negotiations with the French. Why is he taking Canadian cod


B660 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
September 1, 1987
Oral Questions
at this time of crisis and giving it to the French? Why does he not stand up for Canada? That is what 1 want to know.
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that the Prime Minister and all members of the Government are indeed standing up for Canada, quite unlike those members of the Government of which he was a part, who sold out our interest to France in 1972.
Furthermore, it is the Hon. Member who characterizes the problem as a crisis. In fact, earnings and the value of landings have increased over the previous year.


Bill Rompkey: For the big companies.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Nonetheless, there is a regional variation in the return of cod to the inshore fishery and we are attempting to find a solution to that problem.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the overspending at DRIE. The former Minister said that as soon as he found out there was some difficulty he launched an inquiry. He noted that he began receiving monthly financial reports very soon after being sworn in as the Minister.
If the former Minister began reading these financial reports as soon as he said he did, and being a chartered accountant himself, why was he not suspicious when six of the eight monthly periods covered from August, 1986, to March, 1987, forecast an overexpenditure? Why did the Minister not notice this, and why did he not bring it to the attention of the Government?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, perhaps 1 can answer this question on behalf of the Minister. It is true that certain measures were implemented as soon as the warning signals were sounded. Of course the problem occurred as a result of the additional take-up of the programs we had modified. A lot of slippage had been experienced in the past. In other words, programs were committed but not taken up. The fact that 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the offers were never taken up caused the problem. It is now corrected.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is my understanding that action was not taken until June of this year.


GOVERNMENT'S AWARENESS OF SITUATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 remind the Minister that the review stated that it was in August, 1986, that the first indication of a potential deficit arose and furthermore, starting in the fall of 1986, very real concerns were being expressed about potential problems in 1987-88. Why was the Government not aware of this much earlier?
Considering the statements by the new Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion on Friday, what other Departments are undergoing this kind of study now?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge no other Departments are undergoing this kind of study. As soon as the Government was aware of the real possibility of an over-run, the measures were taken and the funds were restored. As a result, DRIE will be spending significantly more money on programs that have been positively modified and will have significant benefit to the regions for which they were designed.


CITIZENSHIP
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It concerns a recent discussion paper from his Department about downgrading the sovereignty or eliminating any reference to Her Majesty in a new oath of citizenship.
Since there appears to be no consensus in Canada, or no group asking for this removal of allegiance to the Queen, will he assure the House that he has no intention of following this proposed report by officials in his Department?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance. The position paper was put out for discussion purposes two months ago and dealt with a variety of issues affecting the Citizenship Act. One of those issues was the one mentioned by the Hon. Member. The volume of correspondence that I have received on it and a number of other matters has indicated clearly that Canadians are interested in continuing the reference to the Queen in the Oath of Allegiance. Therefore, I can assure the hon. gentleman, indeed all Members of the House, that it is not the Government's intention to withdraw Her Majesty from the Oath of Allegiance.
September 1, 1987


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about yesterday's walk-out by reporters at the CBC French network, which deprived Canadians of their usual news program and public affairs programs such as Le Point.
As you know, one of the most controversial items in negotiations between the CBC and its reporters is the unacceptable gap between the salaries of reporters working for the French network and the salaries of reporters who work for the CBC's English network. This in a country where we support the policy of equal pay for equal work.
I want to ask the Government why it tolerates this discriminatory treatment of reporters working for the French network. What does the Government intend to do to help reporters of the French network get fair and equal treatment?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can answer on behalf of the Minister of Communications who is in Quebec City at the summit on government business, of course. She will be there for a day or two and will then return to the House. I will bring the Hon. Member's question to her attention when she returns. At that time he may want to ask her the question directly.


EQUALITY BETWEEN WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental issue and it is about equal pay for equal work.
Since the Minister is prepared to send a message to the Minister of Communications, could I ask him to send another one?
As you know, another very controversial item is that the CBC refuses to treat one-third of its reporters, and I am referring to those who work on contract, on the same footing, especially with respect to termination of employment, as its regular staff. These reporters are full members of the CBC reporters' union, accredited by the Canada Labour Relations Board, which was confirmed by the Courts and in fact by the Supreme Court.
How can the Government let the CBC break this country's laws and ignore decisions made by the Supreme Court? Could the Minister pass this message on to the Minister of Communications?
Oral Questions


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, of course, it is an important question. Of course, it is a fundamental question. That is why 1 think the Hon. Member should get his answer from the Minister responsible, who will be returning to the House, rather than trying to make some politics out of it.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who, as a westerner, will be well aware that the prosperity experienced in parts of central Canada is not a prosperity that most Canadians have experienced. In recognition of the fact that 75 per cent of the budget of DR1E is expended in central Canada, would the Minister explain to the men and women of western Canada, as well as eastern and northern Canada, why his Government perpetuates this imbalance in terms of DRIE spending, focusing where it is needed the least as opposed to where it is needed the most?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the Hon. Member is aware of the $1.2 billion Western Diversification Program that was announced in western Canada. Perhaps I will send him over a copy of the announcement which I think is a clear indication of this Government's commitment to the diversification and the broadening of the western economic base. If the Hon. Member dropped into Alberta once in a while-


John Edward Broadbent: We are.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -he would find that drilling activity is increasing very much. The grants under the Canadian Exploration Development Incentives Program are flowing to the oil companies. There is a Special Grains Program of $1 billion which has been provided plus relief on transportation, relief on fuel taxes. The Minister responsible for agriculture and grains and oilseeds has been meeting with the farmers to work out another program-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can remind the Minister that my question was about DRIE funds, 75 per cent of DRIE funding going to central Canada.

September 1, 1987
Oral Questions


WESTYERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Nelson Andrew Riis: The Deputy Prime Minister mentions the Western Diversification Fund as presumably the Government's major initiative to assist and diversify the economy of western Canada. Perhaps he ought to go out to places like Kamloops, Red Deer, Medicine Hat and Flin Flon and explain to the people out there that this Government believes that spending $32 a year on every westerner is its commitment to western diversification. Is this the $32 solution for westerners in terms of diversifying that economy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, coming from a gentleman whose Party supported the National Energy Program which devastated western Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Wrong again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We certainly do not need to take any lessons from them.


John Edward Broadbent: You have a history problem.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Money is money, and whether it comes from Agriculture, Energy, DRIE, or Western Diversification, western Canada is getting a good chunk of this-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thirty-two dollars a person.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and it is using it well. It is stimulating activity.


James Ross Fulton: It is not even enough to buy two cases of beer, Don.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not even two cases of beer per capita out west.


An Hon. Member:: That is all the NDP can think about.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I simply say to the Hon. Member, because I take the Hon. Member's question seriously and I hope he takes my answer seriously, that the Western Diversification Office is not only providing additional funding, which is the top up, its role is to co-ordinate economic activities and act as a pathfinder, utilizing CIC, Energy, Agriculture, Communications and the various government programs, so westerners can go to Edmonton, Winnipeg or to Vancouver and those decisions can be made on the spot. It is a shift in the decisionmaking process. It is a co-ordinating role and it is topped up with dollars.


CL-215T CONTRACT BETWEEN CANADAIR AND FRANCE- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The decision of the federal Government to favour the Anglo-Italian consortium for the army helicopters has put the French Government in a bad mood and jeopardized a virtually assured contract between Canadair and the French Government for a dozen CL-215Ts, which would create 1,000 direct jobs in Quebec. What I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister for International Trade is this: During his walk in the woods with Prime Minister Chirac, did the Prime Minister apply any pressure to have the contract between Canadair and France signed as soon as possible?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the contract discussed is not expected to be ratified during the visit of Prime Minister Chirac to Canada. The negotiations are still taking place on the proposed sale and the final decision has not been taken.


INQUIRY WHETHER EVERYTHING POSSIBLE DONE TO FACILITATE SALE OFCL-2I5T
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister may reply that the contract was not supposed to be signed during the visit of Prime Minister Chirac, she should know that Mr. Chirac was supposed to visit the Canadair plant because the contract was about to be signed and this was a courtesy visit to finalize the CL-215T transaction, but that after the announcement that her Government favoured the Anglo-Italian consortium, the French have decided to drag their feet. I therefore ask the Minister whether or nor the Canadian Government has offered any excuses to the French and done everything possible to promote the sales of the CL-215Ts which could create 1,000 jobs in Quebec?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that no apology was given and no apology is necessary in this case. I have met with the French Ambassador to Canada and have explained to him that the procedure was dealt with on technical merits only and that the competing bid passed the technical tests in this matter. I can only repeat what I said. The Canadair sale, about which we are very excited, is continuing in negotiations. We hope to have a final decision soon. It is not related to the helicopter sale to which the Hon. Member refers.
September 1, 1987


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, if I could have his attention. The Minister should be aware that since user fees for legal aid services were introduced in Saskatchewan in early August, there has been a sharp increase in the number of people who have appeared in court without a lawyer because they cannot afford the fee. As well, people are pleading guilty to rather serious charges rather than paying the user fee.
Given this shameful situation, is the Minister prepared, in the negotiating process which is currently under way to renew the federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements on legal aid, to withhold the federal contributions until the Saskatchewan Legal Aid Commission withdraws its user fees?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind the House that legal aid is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that fact, I have personally on behalf of the Government taken steps, manifested in real dollars, to show our commitment to an effective legal aid system.
I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that in terms of Saskatchewan, taking into account contributions with respect to young offenders as well as to legal aid generally, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of contributions to the point where, in this past year, the amount of our contributions to legal aid in the Province of Saskatchewan comes to $2.4 million. I think this demonstrates our commitment, in an area which is under provincial jurisdiction, to have a full and effective legal aid system, and the federal Government stands very firmly on that policy.


REQUEST THAT FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION BE WITHDRAWN
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is surely aware that there is an agreement with the province and that in that agreement provision is made that the province should not impose fees if they pose a real hardship and prevent access to legal counsel. Again I ask the Minister if he is prepared to use the fact that the federal contribution is so important, to withdraw that contribution until the Province of Saskatchewan ensures that anyone in need of legal counsel will be provided that counsel and that user fees will not be used as a deterrent, so that poor people will not have to appear in court without the advice of counsel?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most cockamamie suggestions I have heard from the N DP in a long time. What members of that Party are suggesting we do now is withdraw all support for legal aid in the Province of Saskatchewan. If I even thought of that or, if I dreamt of that
Oral Questions
at night, there would be whimpering from the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, like you have never heard before.
I simply say to the Hon. Member that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. There are other provinces which use user-fee systems whereby there is a collection of moneys-


Simon Leendert de Jong: Is it not time you spoke out about it, Ray?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we make a very substantial contribution. If I walked into the province of the Hon. Member's friend, Roland Penner, and told him and the Province of Manitoba how to run their system, we would see convulsions opposite unequalled in the history of Parliament.


TAX REFORM
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A short while ago, the Deputy Prime Minister replied to questions about the intentions of the Government for a tax on food products, such as bread, milk and butter, that there was no evidence in the documents showing that the Government had such intentions.
I see here in black and white, on page 49 of the French version of the paper on the sales tax reform and on page 45 of the English versions of the leaflet sent to Canadians that the Government is considering imposing a tax on food.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why he replied as he did earlier? Is he not aware of these documents or did he simply misinform us?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I responded to that question. I stand by my answer.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You misled the House.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TAX FOOD
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the public will be able to read the reply of the Deputy Prime Minister which clearly shows that he either is not familiar with the documents or that he simply tried to hide the facts.
My supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister did not reply to this, is as follows: Why is the Conservative Government maintaining its option to tax food in spite of the objections of 71 per cent of the population, in spite

September 1, 1987
Oral Questions
of the petitions prepared by the Liberal Party and signed by 25,000 taxpayers and in spite of the representations of the Quebec Conservative Caucus? Why put a tax on bread, milk and butter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a repeat of a previous erroneous allegation. My answer still stands.


HUMAN RIGHTS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence, which 1 understand, I guess I have to direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. If he does not have an answer I hope that he might perhaps be able to inform the House about it tomorrow.
Since the Government has taken a very leading role in human rights in the Commonwealth can the Deputy Prime Minister please explain why the human rights question is not on the agenda of the Francophonie Summit?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well aware of the efforts that have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the question of human rights. He has raised it, as does the Prime Minister, in every country on every opportunity.
As the Hon. Member is well aware, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already explained that this item is not on the agenda because it would be very divisive at this particular summit.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: The issue of human rights and the discussions of human rights will underlie all agenda items.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the new President of the Treasury Board concerning the political rights of federal government employees.
During the 1984 election campaign the Conservative Party promised, and 1 quote: A general abolition concerning the political activities of federal employees, particularly those who are protected by a collective agreement.
Is it still the position of the Conservative Government? When will we see a government Bill to fulfil this promise and give Public Service employees their political rights?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in this matter. It is a matter that is of major interest and concern to the Government. I cannot give him a precise timeframe as to when we may be doing something. Suffice it to say that I will certainly review the situation and try to get back to the Hon. Member as quickly as possible.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that it is still the position of the Government to give to federal public employees the right of political participation that was promised by his Party in the 1984 election campaign? Now that he is President of the Treasury Board responsible for this dossier will he undertake to bring legislation in this fall so that federal public employees do not have to go through more provincial campaigns or even another federal campaign without the right to participate in the political process?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought I indicated that I was going to review the situation and get back to the Hon. Member as soon as I possibly can. I assure him that that will be the case.


IMMIGRATION
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Over the past two months an increasing number of Hondurans have been arriving in Vancouver through the Vancouver International Airport. In fact, last Thursday, a group of 22, the largest yet, arrived off a Japan Airlines flight through Mexico City.
As I understand it Honduras is not a country which we have considered traditionally to be a refugee-producing country. Obviously, this supports the need for quick passage of Bill C-84 and Bill C-55.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
September 1, 1987


Mary Collins: Given the increasing numbers and rates of arrivals in this manner would the Minister consider imposing a visa requirement on Honduras in order to deter those who might seek to come to Canada through the refugee process when in all fairness they should be applying through the regular immigration process?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that the number of people arriving in Vancouver from Honduras has doubled, particularly over the past two and a half months. Quite obviously we are facing the kind of situation we experienced last year in Toronto and Montreal, and we are seriously considering imposing a visa requirement in the near future. If the number of arrivals does not decline we will certainly consider the possibility of imposing visas on Hondurans.


TAX REFORM
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I realize that he is overworked now with all his many responsibilities. However, I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt because I understood him to have said today in the House that food tax was not being considered as part of the fiscal reform package. Again, I would like to repeat in English, in case he did not understand my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie in French-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Some Hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap!


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 would like to ask whether the Minister has read page 10-


Some Hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he has read page 10 of his own Government's little mini-document on sales tax in which it states:
These issues are important in deciding what goods should be included in the
sales tax base . . . These are illustrated below using food as a case in point.
Is this not part and parcel of the Government's strategy to introduce a tax on food? If it is not, why does he not repudiate a tax on food in the House today?
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Hon. Member's observation that I am overworked, I remind her that I am in the House every day doing my job, which is more than I can say about-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, normally, I would not respond, but given that the Deputy Prime Minister is making himself out to be a little bit holier than thou, I wish to ask him whether a member of his family is suffering from an illness?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's a cheap shot, and it deserves the response. I had reason to be away from the House because of family illness.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Wind-sor-Walkerville.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister once again to clarify-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.


SALE OF BENZOYL PEROXIDE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Some time ago I wrote to the Minister concerning the agent benzoyl peroxide. This potential carcinogen is sold over the counter, and it is widely used in the treatment of acne.
My question today is the same as it was in the letter. Why has the Minister not acted on the recommendation of the expert advisory committee that benzoyl peroxide be banned from over-the-counter sale?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will have to bring myself up to date both on the letter and that issue. At this stage I am not aware of the specific recommendation of the expert committee to which the

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Hon. Member refers. I will undertake to examine the dossier and get back to the Member.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: I must confess that I find it quite shocking that an expert advisory committee recommendation made back in April is unknown to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This is a potential carcinogen used by adolescents across the country. It is being advertised on television. The Minister is telling the House that he does not know about it, or about the letter.
Will the Minister urgently examine the recommendation of the advisory committee? Will the Minister go further and consider that, since it is a potential carcinogen, and in view of its ineffectiveness, it ought not to be available at all?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my first answer, I will look at the dossier. I will look at the evidence, and I will look at the expert advice. If there is expert advice in terms of a final recommendation, it comes through the regulatory process. I will look at that regulatory process and act according to the conditions and the manner in which a Minister has to react relative to that process.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be one last question in Question Period. I recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East whom I interrupted a few moments ago. 1 know that the Hon. Member has one single question.


TAX REFORM
Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Given the fact that he did not respond in either English or French-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -whether he can clarify for the House why on page 45-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member in posing her question does not seek to irritate the Minister, but we have to be careful in this Chamber if there is anything that may cause some concern by those whose first language is either English or French. I know that the Hon. Member would wish to put her question succinctly, and I will ask her to do so.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he has read page 45 which gives a more elaborate account, including graphs and documents of the Government's intention to possibly impose a tax on food. Has the Minister read that
paragraph? If so, why has he told the House that the Government is not considering that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which question the Hon. Member wishes me to answer. After various interruptions, there have been approximately three questions posed.
I invite the Hon. Member to read my answer in Hansard tomorrow. Perhaps she can inform herself of precisely what I did say.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I address Motion No. 20, I wish to draw to the attention of the Chair that there have been discussions with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen), and the NDP immigration critic, that suggest following Motion No. 20, Motion No. 23 will be debated by the House, and then we will proceed to the other two amendments.
Motion No. 20 is a carry-through from Motion No. 19. Motion No. 19 was defeated by the Government in committee and again earlier this morning. That motion recommended that we retain the jurisdiction of the adjudicator, and provide the adjudicator with the proper flexibility and discretion in order to make a proper determination on the request for detainment by the Government.
Motion No. 20 would have the effect of deleting the current clause in Bill C-84, and retaining what is presently contained in the legislation. What is presently in the legislation would suggest that we automatically have the powers of detainment for 48 hours. Subsequent to that, we can go to an adjudicator and request permission for a further seven days.
It would seem to me, and to most moderate Canadians- which excludes most Conservatives-that those detainment powers are sufficient to protect our shores from so-called undesirables and unwanted individuals, and at the same time maintain a credibility under the human rights legislation, and protect civil liberties.
September 1, 1987

The Parliamentary Secretary when addressing Motion No. 19, suggested that it would not be unreasonable for a country like Uganda, which requires time to produce the documentation and the evidence, to be given the time required to do that. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Government, does not understand the premise of the problem. 1 am glad that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) is in the House to listen to me. It is not a question of the length of time required to obtain documentation as much as it is who decides, and in what manner it is decided. This legislation provides the Minister and the Government with unilateral excessive powers, which may be, or perhaps will be abused or misused.
A representative from the Canadian Association of Civil Liberties suggested that it was important to maintain the flexibility of an adjudicator to decide if the evidence is correct, and if the evidence warrants further detainment. In the present role, the adjudicator is politically disinterested. He is an objective player. He considers the concerns of government and tempers them with the concerns of the claimant based on the evidence submitted. A Minister of the Crown would be politically interested, not in a personal sense, but in a realistic sense that a politician is faced with pressures on either side of an issue. Mr. Borovoy suggested there should be a politically disinterested individual who makes the decisions on whether further detainments are required. That is the real premise of the problem, and that is the area that I believe we have to safeguard.
It is not a question of the Liberal Party being opposed to individual powers to detain people to find out identification or verify information that has come to the attention of the Government which could endanger anyone in Canada or pose a threat to the country. However, there is the question of the decision-maker which is very crucial in this instance.
I believe that most Canadians would like to retain a check and a balance; a check against anyone who wishes to do harm in or bring a threat to this country as well as a balance that would ensure that no one's rights are infringed and that a Minister or a Government would not move toughly over the rights of individuals.
The testimony of Mr. Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association was very articulate and passionate. He said:
It is a violation of democratic principle to create a power of jailing peopleon the basis of a unilateral, essentially unreviewable decision of a politician . . .
consider the incongruity this creates with our criminal law.
He went on to say:
The powers created by this Bill are excessive, repressive and needless. No
less gratuitous is the rush to get it enacted yesterday.
Those are the words of the representative of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who also went on to say that an individual who either breaks into a bank or murders an
Immigration Act, 1976
individual is not treated as badly or detained as quickly without question as a refugee claimant. We are treating individual claimants much worse than individuals who would commit crimes on the streets in broad daylight.
I think all Hon. Members will agree that there should be a check and a balance on these powers. The Opposition is calling for the deletion of the current clause in Bill C-84 so that we may return to the existing legislation which provides all the detainment powers necessary to keep an individual legitimately detained for as long as the Government can prove the evidence merits it through an adjudicator. As proposed by Bill C-84, the adjudicator would have no discretion. He would become a mere rubber stamp.
In his earlier discussion, the Parliamentary Secretary implied that because some of the evidence that may be used against claimants is of a confidential nature, that evidence would not be given to an adjudicator. The Parliament Secretary is suggesting that somehow Canadians cannot trust their adjudicators. I do not believe that is the case. An adjudicator would have the same feelings as the rest of us about protecting our country from undesirables.
We are saying that we should allow the adjudicator to make the decision his position was created to make. In the process, we will ensure that there is a safeguard for Canada while at the same time respecting our Charter of Rights. Otherwise, as legal experts have predicted, this clause will be subjected to court challenges.
As the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) stated earlier and quite correctly, if we allow too many of these clauses to become legislation they will be challenged in the courts. The legislation will become paralyzed by the courts and Canadians will lose patience with a Government which again missed an opportunity to set the situation right. We would also undermine one of the two major responsibilities we have as parliamentarians, which are to create good laws and to ensure that Canadians' money is spent wisely.
It would be simply irresponsible to pass a piece of legislation which has received the wrath of the Canadian Bar Association, the Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Inter-Church Committee and a wide range of leading authorities. They all predict that if this legislation goes unamended, it will go to the courts and make more disorderly the system that is presently in place. It is in that spirit that we have proposed to delete this clause and retain the powers that exist now to avoid any court challenges, and hopefully we will receive the co-operation of government Members on this.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the clause dealt with by Motion No. 20 is the same one that was the subject of Motion No. 19 and the problem is the same. My friend who just spoke reviewed the grounds for opposing either part of the clause or the whole clause.
The motion I moved previously opposed one specific part of the clause, the part I thought was the most troublesome.

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
However, the Government rejected that motion. Therefore, if we are to do anything to flag this problem, the alternative is to vote to delete the clause as a whole. That, of course, is not really the best alternative theoretically or ideally. What would have been best would have been for the Government to have allowed time for the consideration of this legislation.
The Government probably thinks it was very generous in allowing us a week but, in fact, every witness who came before us referred to the difficulty involved in getting a copy of the Bill, studying the Bill and preparing a considered presentation on it. Nevertheless, most of them did speak against this clause.
It would have been better to give the Bill more study. If the Government had slowed down a bit, perhaps it would have been able to think more cooly and calmly about the entire Bill.
The Government did create quite a furor in July with onesided statements about the people who arrived in the ship Amelie. People who came through other means and manners were mixed up in that furor as well, but that furor has considerably cooled off.
If it were possible to continue consideration of the Bill, or if the Government had waited even a few days to allow further consideration of the Bill before taking up positions pro and con in the usual adversarial way of Parliament, I think a better job would have been done on the Bill. The Government chose for its own political purposes to rush the Bill through in the style of an emergency as though it were not 174 unarmed people who arrived on our shores but 174,000 armed troops invading us.
Experts have told us that this clause is a deprivation of the due process of law. It is a deprivation of the normal rights of a detained person to defend his interests, even while the Government pursues its suspicions or accusations.
It has been suggested that it does not do much harm to reduce or even take away the rights of these people because they are strangers. They are not Canadian citizens, nor are they Canadian residents. They are foreigners. They just came here and therefore we have very few obligations to them as far as human rights go.
That is not the position taken by the Supreme Court when dealing with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is not the position most Canadians have in fact taken toward strangers. In fact, the first Canadians who met the Amelie offered these people food and drink, throughout the world the traditional way to greet a stranger who may be in difficulty.
Treating strangers with an unusual amount of detention and a refusal of habeas corpus or the related rights of review may seem harmless because it is done to these people who have just arrived and whom the Government expects to get rid of. Of course, the Government is treating them as though guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.
I wish to point out that it is a matter of experience, not over years but over generations and centuries, that what we do to
other people very often comes back to haunt us. If we deny the human rights and if we deny the humanity of strangers, we have undermined or jeopardized our claim to humanity, that is to say, we have called in question our belief in humanity and in the rights of humanity.
That is why it is risky to pass this law which takes away some, not all, of what our court has considered the basic human right of humanity, not of Canadians only, but of humanity. The court did not extend the application of its decision beyond Canada's borders, quite rightly, but it said that a human within our borders does have certain basic rights simply because of being human and being within our borders.
This law encroaches on that principle. It does not wipe it out entirely but it undermines it. I think it would be a mistake for Parliament to proceed with this law. I think it was a mistake to proceed so hastily with Bill C-84. This is one of the parts that should be withdrawn and given further consideration.
The Justice Department, which may have said it is just fine also said that while the law was just fine, it denied an oral hearing to refugee claimants. The Supreme Court said that that was not just fine. Therefore, the Government is not wise to proceed on the advice of the Justice Department against the advice of many reputable private citizens.
This Government, especially, makes a point of favouring the initiative of private citizens over Government. I wish it would remember that principle it preaches and consider the well credentialed and well respected private citizens who have warned the Government against either the whole of Clause 12 or certain parts of it. Therefore, I support the motion to have this Clause deleted from the Bill.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this is another motion made necessary by a repugnant approach in another portion of this Bill. 1 welcome the presence of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) this afternoon in the House. He has finally found the courage to come here and defend his Bill. We have two Ministers of Immigration but neither has had the guts to defend the Bill during the two days that we have been debating it. They have been hiding behind the Parliamentary Secretary who is carrying the Bill in this House because the Ministers have not had the courage to speak up and explain some of the offensive, nasty, vile and mean clauses it contains. Clause 20 is one of them.
I looked forward to the intervention of the Minister of State for Immigration, hearing his voice in defence of this junk, Mr. Speaker. It is high time the Ministers came out from behind the curtains to defend their own bills instead of hiding behind the Parliamentary Secretary who is carrying the can for them.
We are here on Clause 20. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has suggested that it be deleted, as has the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). They are quite right. In the committee hearings we heard interventions by the civil
September 1, 1987

liberties people, the coalition and other organizations. They told us that clauses like this contain flagrant abuses of the Charter and that they will lead to action in the courts. Before you know it, the very intent of the Government in introducing legislation for the purpose that this Government has found absolutely necessary and urgent will be defeated, because there will be individuals and groups who will find measures such as the one contained in Clause 20 offensive from a constitutional and from the Charter point of view.
The Civil Liberties Association told us in committee that detention, search and seizure provisions probably also violate the Charter of Rights. What is the answer of the Minister to that observation on the part of the Civil Liberties Association?
We spent the morning talking about another measure in this Bill which does not make a distinction, so that people who help refugees for non-profit reasons are going to be brought before the law as criminals. We also argued that that clause ought to be deleted. Clause 20 is another offensive clause.
I think the Minister has an obligation, as a Minister of the Crown, to make sure he is not asking the House of Commons and the other place to pass a piece of legislation that is likely to be tied up in the courts, making this whole exercise futile perhaps for months and months or even for years. The Government has been warned, not just by the Opposition, but by credible well established individuals and organizations, that it is producing poor legislation, to put it mildly. It is seeding the elements for action in the higher courts.
Let us hear from the Minister of State for Immigration who has finally emerged out of nowhere after two days of debate. Let us hear from him as to how he will defend Clause 20 and the preceding clauses which we have brought to the attention of the Government in no uncertain terms.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for following a certain pattern of logic in his argument. I may not agree with the premise on which his arguments are based but, given his premise, at least he has argued his position coherently from the starting point of the position that he has taken.
The Member for Spadina asks that the person in question be released. That motion being defeated, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) asked that the entire section be taken out. If we consider it a security risk to relieve the person in question with which that section deals, how much greater is it a security risk to do away with the section altogether? There really is not much logic based upon this particular motion before us.
While I understand exactly from where the Hon. Member for Spadina is coming, it really does not help to accuse the Government by saying that it does not do much harm to take away the rights of strangers and foreigners. I would hope that the Member for Spadina would not make light accusations like that.
Immigration Act, 1976
This section is here mainly to protect the rights of strangers and foreigners. If I could point out to the Member that the present Immigration Act, to which the Hon. Member for York West likes to refer and to which he would like to return, allows an immigration officer, without issue of a warrant, to detain people. The present provisions require the Minister to have a certificate based upon hard evidence presented in order to do that.
It seems to me that what we are doing in this section is preserving the not only Canadian security and the rights of Canadian individuals, but is, in effect and in fact, protecting the civil rights of the person being detained. A person cannot be detained willy-nilly at the whim of an immigration officer. There has to be conclusive evidence to believe that he is a risk. 1 hope the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) will be a little bit more careful about heavy accusations made lightly.
Since this motion would effectively emasculate the Canadian immigration security system we cannot support it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary suggests that if this clause is removed we will have no system for monitoring those who wish to come to this country. He also says the current Act has these kinds of provisions. What he and the Minister do not want to face up to is the fact that it is not just opposition Members of Parliament who are critical of this Bill and this clause. It is just about everyone who has ever been interested in the question of immigration and refugees and who wants Canada to continue to take a humane and generous approach to both subjects.
This Bill was drafted and introduced by the Government in a hurry because it perceived that as a result of this last movement into Canada by ship of a fairly substantial number of Sikhs the public had turned against a humane and generous policy. In fact, that view was very temporarily held. Every single organization which can claim to represent large numbers of people and which can honestly and justifiably say it wants Canada to be generous has expressed its opposition to this Bill and this clause. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary the information contained in an article which appeared in today's Globe and Mail. The heading is "Coalition outlines alternative refugee bill". The article says in part:
A group of prominent Canadians have formed a national coalition that will try to force the Progressive Conservative Government to withdraw the refugee-determination legislation introduced in May.
They want Bill C-55 replaced by a "humane and just" alternative that the coalition has drawn up.
Who belongs to this coalition? Whom do they represent? The article says:
The coalition includes Archbishop Edward Scott of the Anglican Church, president of the Canadian Council of Churches; Bishop Bernard Hubert, president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; Shirley Carr, president of the Canadian Labour Congress; George Corn, president of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council; Dorothy Reitman, president of the Canadian

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Jewish Council: and Fleurette Osborne, an executive member of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
Could you get a more representative group speaking on behalf of millions of Canadians? The article continues:
Msgr. Hubert said at a news conference in Ottawa that he believes this is the first time that the president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has publicly opposed a Government immigration bill.
He said the Church's involvement in shaping Government refugee policy goes back to the Second World War when it helped resettle many thousands of refugees in Canada.
Then they talk about the alternative which they want to see introduced in and passed by this Parliament. It:
-is based on the work of Rabbi Gunther Plaut, whose 1985 report on refugees has been widely applauded around the world, and the 1986 report of the Commons committee on labour, employment and immigration.
As we all know, that committee was made up of members of whom a large majority were and are Conservative government Members. Their advice is being ignored just as much as the advice we got from Rabbi Plaut. The group then lists a number of proposals which they think we ought to include in legislation, and again I quote:
A hearing for all refugee claimants within 10 days of setting foot in Canada before an independent two-member refugee board;
A review and a decision within 30 days if the board rejects the claim;
Removing from Canada, pending a Federal Court appeal, those claimants whose application is determined at the hearing and at the review to be "manifestly unfounded" according to the United Nations definition.
When we oppose this Bill we speak for a large number of people. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is here because about 10 days ago when we were debating this Bill I put through a call to the Mennonite Central Committee for Canada which happens to have its head office in Winnipeg. They told me they are opposed to this Bill. Not only that, they referred me to a Mennonite farmer living in or near the Town of Morden.


Benno Friesen: Morden?


David Orlikow: Yes. There is no area in Manitoba which has been more faithful to the Conservative Party than that area. I spoke to that farmer. He told me he and several others around Morden had helped refugees from Central America to settle and establish themselves in Morden. He felt they had done the right thing and he told me they would continue to do what they had done in the past. If that meant breaking the law which we are now debating, he was prepared to do it. If after he broke the law he was charged and brought to trial and found guilty, he was prepared to pay the penalty, which might well include going to prison. I also spoke to members of the Inter-Church Committee on Refugees in Winnipeg. One of the members, a Catholic, and one an Anglican, told me the same thing. They intend to continue their work in the way they always have. They are prepared, if what they do is contrary to this law, to pay the penalty.
Members on the government side ought to re-evaluate the Opposition to refugees which developed right after that ship
brought those people to Canada and consider the views of the many Canadians who are well informed, who have worked in this field for many years. Those are the kind of people and organizations I referred to.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 20. 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:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
By agreement we will now proceed to Motion No. 23.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 4 to 6 at page
24 and substituting the following therefor:
"19. This Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation and shall cease to be in force six months after that day."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is my last motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Johnny Carson.


Sergio Marchi: Sits over there.
I was going to say that this is probably the most important motion, i am pleased that the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) is in the House. Like my colleague, the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), I welcome him and urge him, rather than his Parliamentary Secretary, to respond to some of these concerns at report stage.
Motion No. 23 contains a sunset clause which would give this legislation a lifespan of six months, after which time this Parliament would be able to review the workability of the policy, strike out clauses which are offensive and clearly unworkable, and retain those clauses which are reflective of
September 1, 1987

our international obligations-which are probably few and far between-and of our Charter of Rights.
The sunset clause motion is moved as a result of a number of groups, including the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Civil Liberties Association and Rabbi Plaut, advocating it to the committee. It is fitting that we examine the reasons for this clause. There are three reasons for which I suggest that the Government should support this sunset clause.
The first is that most of the amendments presented by the Opposition and witnesses at committee have gone unheard. Amendments were suggested to allow priests, nuns, and other innocent Canadians who aid legitimate refugees coming in to this country to be exempt from fines and imprisonment. Amendments were suggested to allow boats loaded with refugees to be escorted into port, to allow for due processing of the passengers, the return of any passengers who have protection in other countries, the impounding of the boat, and the charging of the captain, thereby deterring other smugglers who would follow the same course.
The Bill still contains unnecessary detainment and deportation clauses. The existing legislation protects our country from undesirables and contains checks and balances to ensure that the rights of individual human beings are not infringed upon. The witnesses who suggested those amendments said that if their amendments were not accepted for the long term, at the very least at the eleventh hour let Parliament give this Bill a lifespan of only six months.
The second aspect is to try to avoid the Charter challenges which every legal expert and witness who came before the committee predicted would be made at the first opportunity by lawyers across the land.
Parliament was called back under the guise of an emergency. The Government has whipped up public frenzy to try to justify its own actions. What will happen 12, 16 or 18 months hence? What will the Government and the Minister of State for Immigration tell Canadians when this piece of legislation is gobbled up by the courts? What will the Minister say when the policy is paralyzed?
Canadians trusted the Government to pass a proper and fitting piece of legislation which would deal with the abuses while protecting rights and civil liberties and keeping the legislation out of the courts. How is the Government going to promote a more progressive immigration policy when every Canadian has lost confidence because this policy has been paralyzed and rendered null and void by the courts?
Apart from not listening to the amendments, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and his officials have refused to make public their legal opinion on this Bill. Until we exerted pressure in the House of Commons during Question Period, Justice officials refused to come before the legislative committee studying Bill C-84.
Immigration Act, 1976
The implication of that is clear. It is obvious that the Department of Justice does not want to defend the indefensible. It knows that this Bill, drafted as poorly as it was, will not meet the test of our Charter and of our Constitution. I believe that the Government knows that, but it is willing to continue nonetheless. It will enjoy short-term gain in return for long-term political pain.
Charter challenges should be avoided. As a legislature we should take our responsibility of drafting proper legislation seriously. If we do not, the Government will pay a much higher price than it would pay now by accepting a number of sensible amendments.
The third and final reason for this sunset clause is in response to the Government's suggestion that it has introduced emergency legislation. My definition of an emergency is "short term", "temporary". An emergency does not last forever. Therefore, it is not necessary for emergency legislation to become permanent. Emergency legislation implies that the new revamped system which we hope to provide through Bill C-55 in an amended form will give us a system of refugee determination that will make Bill C-84 useless and redundant.
The best deterrent to any individual is a processing system of less than six months. No one will spend $15,000 and go to much trouble and pain to come to our shores if they know they will be able to stay for a maximum of only six months. The system presently takes years and, therefore, they take their chances. The ultimate deterrent is a proper, fair and expeditious determination system. If we put that into place, Bill C-84 will not be needed.
It is for those three reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we are suggesting at this eleventh hour at report stage that if the Government really wants to proceed without listening to the amendments suggested by Canadians it should put the legislation into force for only six months and allow Parliament and Canadians to determine the future course of the legislation.
I will conclude with a quote from Gunther Plaut. Some Members did not hear his testimony and I urge them to read it because he offered a very forceful and moving presentation. He said:
Treat the stranger fairly; you should extend your love and friendship to him. Remember that you too were strangers once.
1 think that Draconian and emergency legislation gives the wrong signal, not only to the world but it gives the wrong word to our own people in Canada. 1 ask you to look carefully at some of the amendments suggested. Do not follow the worst instincts of people, follow the best instincts.
1 think the Bill was drawn in undue haste. This is why 1 think we need just a little more leisure to write legislation that makes sense.
I believe that the sunset clause for six months is more than a valiant compromise because there are principles here that are tough to swallow. If the legislation is only on the books for six months, at least it allows our country and this Parliament to

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
escape with some degree of integrity. If it is permanent, longterm legislation, no dignity can possibly be salvaged from this legislation.
I sincerely request the Minister of State to reflect on this proposition. Perhaps, after he has heard the Member from the New Democratic Party and my colleague, the Member or Davenport, he will give the House a proper answer and send a signal to those Canadians who requested this clause that their concerns are being adhered to and their input counts for something.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, coincidentally, I have a motion on the same subject although its content is different. I was quite happy to let the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) proceed first because he has an urgent engagement.
I will support his motion even though I have a different motion in case this one should fail. I support the motion and recommend that our Party should support it, somewhat in the same sporting vein as was traditional with soldiers in World War I who were signed up for four years or the duration, whichever was shorter. I am willing to try six months or the duration of this Government. According to the newspapers, I think this may come to a test soon, and I am not sure which would be the quickest way to get rid of this Bill. In the meantime, I will support the motion of the Hon. Member for York West.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, it really makes very little sense to pass legislation such as this, which includes having to establish additional machinery of Government to make sure that the system works properly, and then dismantle it in six months. I fail to see the merit of this kind of motion.
While I cannot support the motion of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), I see a little more merit in his motion. However, to pass legislation and put government machinery into operation, then kill it after six months, makes very little sense to me, and so we cannot support the motion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 23 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). 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 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 stands deferred.
Am I to understand that Motion No. 21 has been withdrawn?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out line 27 at page 23
and substituting the following therefor:
"second anniversary of'.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the principle of a sunset clause has been described by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
I wish to make only two points in support of my motion which is, in effect, a two-year sunset clause. First, I believe the general principle of a two-year sunset clause is good. I give credit to the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) for having first introduced an amendment in committee that would have brought the sunset at five years and for amending her own amendment to bring it down to four years. She had a good idea and was moving in the right direction. I would simply like to move it a bit farther.
I agree with the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that six months would hardly give enough time for the public to realize what a very bad law this is. I believe two years would really convince the public that the Government, whether it was then in operation or not, had erred very badly. As an illustration of that, let me quote from a source that I hope the Hon. Member will not regard as biased in a hostile way. It is the Calgary Herald of August 26, which contains an editorial with the heading "Amending a Hasty Law".
It states that Bill C-84 is a bad law "because it will not in some respects deter abuse and because it is so sweepingly vague that it almost certainly violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, international treaties Canada has signed, and the rights of refugee support groups within Canada".
It goes on to state that the law "needs to spell out who is deemed to be involved in smuggling illegal immigrants".
One of the remarkable features of this Bill is that the Minister advertised for weeks ahead that it would stop smugglers. While the Minister talks about stopping smugglers in the first clause of the Bill, smugglers and smuggling are not mentioned in the Bill.
September 1, 1987

A smuggler is a person who brings somebody in, usually by stealth, but at any rate in violation of the laws. That is not spelled out in the Bill.
The editorial goes on to say that it should spell out who is deemed to be involved in smuggling illegal aliens for profit and make clear that it will in no way affect the activities of refugee jppporters who aid those who legitimately flee persecution for safe haven in Canada.
Of course, those are amendments that the Government has refused to make, as I am sure the Calgary Herald takes note.
The editorial goes on to state that Bill C-84 traps the people who aid legitimate refugees while failing to spell out the crimes and punishments aimed at unscrupulous so-called immigration consultants who advise people in foreign lands to use the refugee stream as a means of coming to Canada. They may be pleased with Section 95.4 which arose out of our discussions and which was moved and therefore supported by the Government. At least it remembered for a week.
The editorial went on to state: "The detention provisions which allow officials to hold claimants for 28 days and longer without hearings deny the basic concept of habeas corpus".
I commend the editorial to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. The Calgary Herald is not one of the pressure groups or one of those who perhaps has a stake in this. I do not know whether the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary considers the Calgary Herald guilty of romanticism and wanting to race down to the American border for the fun of bringing across a refugee. I am not familiar with the Calgary Herald, but I hope the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would give some consideration to their view.
I hope he would support my motion for a two-year sunset clause because I suggest it gives a fair chance to find out whether this law is really attacking the people whom the Government originally said it wanted to attack or whether it is attacking those whom the Government said it does not want to attack while missing the real smugglers.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I understand the reasoning and the motivation of the Hon. Member or Spadina (Mr. Heap) in trying to contain and manage the duration of this piece of legislation. Therefore, I understand his desire to put forward a motion for a sunset clause. The more 1 thought about it as I was listening to him, the more convinced 1 became that the sun will set on this Government at the next election and take care of the nefarious legislation and policies it has introduced during this Parliament, not just in terms of social policy but in terms of economic policies. There will be the day when the sun will set and take care of the ideology that is emanating from those benches opposite.
I am still waiting to hear from the Minister for Employment. The Government has two Ministers for that portfolio and the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) sits
Immigration Act, 1976
there reading his correspondence and perhaps signing Christmas cards, but has not entered into this debate in defence of his own piece of legislation. It is the second day of debate on this measure and we have not heard one peep out of the Minister of State for Immigration. He is hiding behind mother Friesen's skirts rather than standing up in his place and telling us why he is introducing some of these repugnant clauses in this piece of legislation. This legislation has prompted the Hon. Member for Spadina to rise in his place and ask for a sunset clause, and my colleague the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) is asking for a similar measure. The only difference is that one period of time is longer than the other.
This is the extent of the repugnance this Bill has awakened in the Opposition. As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) mentioned earlier, this repugnance is not only felt by the Opposition.
It is reported in the Ottawa Citizen and in the Globe and Mail that a group of outstanding citizens met in the capital yesterday. They are not members of dangerous political movements, nor are they crypto Communists or radicals on the left, who came out and spoke against this Bill. They are a group of citizens which included the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and the like. Anglican Archbishop Edward Scott, the President of the Canadian Council of Churches, is quoted as accusing the Government at the press conference of orchestrating an emergency. He suggested that there is clear evidence that the Government knew for some time that the boat was on its way. He is asking that this Bill be scrapped.
This is not the Opposition speaking. It is a group of citizens from across the nation speaking against this measure which is so outrageous in the context of some of the clauses we have been debating for two days. Not one but two Ministers of Immigration have been silent on this legislation, asking the Parliamentary Secretary to deliver the goods for them. The Government is hiding behind him. What kind of management is this? What a shame. What a lack of guts it takes to handle a piece of legislation in this manner.
In my 19 years in this House of Commons I have not seen a piece of legislation managed in this way. I cannot recall one instance when the Minister did not come into the House on a contested piece of legislation to defend it. I have never seen that before. In most instances we would only have one Minister, but here we have two Ministers and not one of the two has spoken at report stage despite the number of amendments which were brought forward.
What can we say? The Hon. Member for Spadina has done a very thorough job. The Hon. Member for York West has worked very hard with his amendments. There are about 23 amendments. We have now reached the end of report stage and I invite the Minister of State for Immigration to rise in his

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
place and say something about these amendments, if he has the guts to speak.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short comment. I would point out to the Hon. Member for Spadina that the Calgary Herald has probably read most of the critics of this legislation but has evidently not read the Bill. It would be good for its editorial board to spend some time reading the legislation before it makes that kind of comment.
Second, I want to say that I agree with the principle of the Hon. Member's motion. As he pointed out, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Collins) has already taken care of that principle in the legislation by introducing at committee stage a review clause which at first called for a five-year review and, as the Hon. Member pointed out, it was reduced in committee to four years. I think that is a reasonable length of time.
As I say, I can agree totally with the Hon. Member's principle, and that is a review of the legislation, because world circumstances change and domestic circumstances change. It is wholesome to review the provisions of the Bill in that context. However, I do think it is unrealistic to think of reviewing the legislation in two years. There are far too many undulations of circumstances. There is just not enough time to see the effects of the legislation through the administration of the Bill.
Therefore, I think it is impractical to think of a review process after two years of implementation. I would hold to the four year provision we passed in committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The 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 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:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.



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 Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-Administration of Justice-Length of prison sentences-Granting of parole; the Hon. Member of York East (Mr. Redway)-Young Offenders Act-Maximum sentence for murder-Request that statute be amended; the Hon. Member for Montreal- Saint-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Tax reform-Future of Minister of Finance-Old age exemption-Minister's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the Bill now before the House.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung-.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the first question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Heap moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap), which was negatived on the following division.
	{Division No. 230)	
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	de Corneille	GuilbaultAlthouse	de Jong	(Saint-Jacques)Blaikic	Dingwall	HeapBoudria	Fulton	HendersonBroadbent	Gagliano	JewettCaccia	Garneau	JohnstonCassidy	Grondin	(Saint-Henri-Copps	Westmount)
September 1, 1987

Kaplan	Nystrom	SkellyKeeper	Orlikow	TobinKillens	Ouellet	Young-39Lapierre	Prud'homme	Malepart	Riis	McCurdy	Robichaud	Murphy	Rompkey	Nunziata	Rossi	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


André Ouellet: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think that if you were to ask the House you would find that there is unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken to all the other motions you have before you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we apply the vote just taken to all the other motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Heap moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-S4 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 29 to 31 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
Immigration Act, 1976
"officer or an adjudicator shall make an order to detain or release the person named in the"
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 231)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikie	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Mr. Heap moved: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was
negatived on the following division:
Immigration Act, 1976
(Division No. 232)

September 1, 1987
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikie	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	NowlanFretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. Mr. Heap moved: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was
negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 233)
	YEAS Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikie	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	NowlanFretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motions Nos. 15 and 17. The vote on Motion No. 15 will dispose of Motion No. 17 Mr. Marchi moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 25 to 32 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"95.1 Every person who knowingly, and for other than a humanitarian or commercial purpose, smuggles, organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to smuggle, organize, induce, aid or abet a person to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim is guilty of an offence and is liable.
Motion No. 17
September 1, 1987

Immigration Act, 1976
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 1 to 9 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"95.2 Every person who knowingly, and for other than a humanitarian or commercial purpose, smuggles, organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to smuggle, organize, induce, aid or abet a group of ten or more persons to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim is guilty of an"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost-That disposes of Motion No. 17.
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikie	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 19. Mr. Heap moved: Motion No. 19

September 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 26 at page 20


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikie	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAltewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TupperCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 22. Mr. Heap moved: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 18 by-striking out line 27 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
The next question is on Motion No. 20. Mr. Marchi moved: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
"second anniversary of'.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was
negatived on the following division.
September 1, 1987

(Division No. 238)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikic	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TuppcrCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbic	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 23. Mr. Marchi moved: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 4 to 6 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"19. This Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation and shall cease to be in force six months after that day."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Marchi) which was
negatived on the following division:
Immigration Act, 1976 (Division No. 239)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Guilbault	NunziataAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlaikic	Heap	OrlikowBoudria	Henderson	OuelletBroadbent	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Johnston	RiisCassidy	(Saint-Henri-	RobichaudCopps	Westmount)	Rompkeyde Corneille	Kaplan	Rosside Jong	Keeper	SkellyDingwall	Killens	TobinFulton	Lapierre	Young-39Gagliano	Malepart	Garneau	McCurdy	Grondin	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Friesen	O'NeilAttewell	Gagnon	OostromBlais-Grenier	Gervais	PetersonBlenkarn	Girard	PriceBouchard	Guilbault	RedwayBradley	(Drummond)	ReidBrightwell	Halliday	ReimerCarney	Harvey	RicardChampagne	Hawkes	Schellenberg(Champlain)	Hicks	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Charest	Hnatyshyn	ScottClark	Horner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScowenClinch	Jardine	SiddonCoates	Jelinek	SpeyerCollins	Jepson	TaylorCook	Kempling	TuppcrCooper	Kindy	TurnerCossitt	Lanthier	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosbie	Lawrence	Van De Walle(St. John's West)	Layton	VankoughnetCrosby	Lesick	Warner(Halifax West)	Lewis	WeinerDantzer	Martin	WenmanDaubney	Mayer	WhiteDomm	Mazankowski	WilsonDorin	McCuish	(Swift CurrentDuguay	McDermid	-Maple Creek)-82Edwards	McKinnon	Fennell	Nickerson	Fraleigh	Nowlan	Fretz	Oberle


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister		of Employment and
Immigration) moved that the Bill, as		amended, be concurred
in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to		
adopt the motion?		
Some Hon.	Members: Agreed.	
Some Hon.	Members: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
September 1, 1987
Canagrex
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the Elouse?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANAGREX DISSOLUTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add my voice to those concerned about this legislation which will remove Canagrex from the Canadian landscape.
There are a number of points I want to make. First and foremost, it comes at a rather opportune time. By any definition, a crisis in agriculture is pending or has arrived. The delegations which appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture over the last number of weeks made it perfectly clear that agriculture is at a very important point. There are some basic decisions that the Government and the Parliament of Canada must make. Are we going to take significant initiatives, unfortunately in some cases remedial action, to ensure that the family farm or family ranch remains a viable institution on the agricultural landscape of Canada? Or are we prepared to turn our back on rural Canada and turn it over to agri-business or corporate agriculture? Around the world some countries have made that decision. Some decided that the family farm as a production unit is worth preserving. As a result, they put in place a variety of programs to make that possible.
It is an incredibly competitive world and, in many respects, the competition is unfair. We are asking our farmers and ranchers to compete in a very unfair market-place. Heavy subsidies are given to the European farm community which make it virtually impossible for our producers to compete on international markets. Then we have the spectre of free trade talks and the possibility, because none of us really know what is going on, of initiatives which would result in the American agricultural community moving in to Canada and simply taking over. I refer specifically to the case made by poultry producers, egg producers, dairy producers, and a number of other sectors of the agricultural community who are very serious about the potential influence of a free trade agreement on their area.
I come from central British Columbia where agriculture plays an important role. The rural fabric of that area is dependent upon a healthy and viable agricultural community.
We have the soft fruit industry, the hard fruit industry, the vineyards of the Okanagan Valley, and then the more exotic crops such as ginseng which are aimed at far eastern markets. We have traditional cattle ranching and vegetable producers who are just beginning, under incredibly competitive conditions, to make successful inroads into new markets. This is often done with the assistance of the provincial Government, the federal Government, and in some cases even local Governments.
Today we are discussing the abandonment of Canagrex. It is important that we remind ourselves what Canagrex was all about. It was an initiative taken by the federal Government to market Canadian agricultural products in a more effective and efficient way in new areas. Our food producers are among the most efficient in the world. They can compete in the international market-place. However, they have often required some assistance. The farmer raising a certain type of oil-seed, or a farmer raising rabbits or raspberries, whatever the crop may be, does not have the time or the capacity to go to Japan to develop a market.
Some other Hon. Members of this place and I had the good fortune to visit Japan some time back. We looked at the potential for Canadian food producers in that market. We learned that they are very pleased with the quality of foodstuffs from Canada. Not surprisingly, we found a considerable potential. As a matter of fact, wherever we went, food fairs were being conducted by our embassy introducing the Japanese to Canadian foods and recipes. The response was fantastic. That is why we feel that wherever Canadians have made the effort to develop and expand markets overseas for our food producers, it has been successful. Yet it is costly and time-consuming.
That was the point of Canagrex. It had a very modest budget to go out and sell our products overseas. A lot of people have asked why our farmers cannot do that. Obviously they do not have time or necessarily the expertise. Often their organizations are limited by their funding. We said, "Let us put aside a Crown corporation to do that for our food producers. They deserve nothing less. Let us put in place a mechanism whereby Canagrex is evaluated on a regular basis. Get farmers on the board of directors. Hold it accountable for its actions." It was a very progressive piece of work. Then, just as it was beginning its work and opening up new markets, providing hundreds and potentially tens of thousands of jobs, both directly and in supporting industries, what did the Government do? It pulled the rug out and decided to abandon it. It did so because, when it was set up, the Progressive Conservatives were in opposition.
I recall them going on at some length about how this was not necessary, our farmers did not require that support. I do not think they said that farmers did not deserve the support, but they did say that they did not require it.
The success of Canagrex was something to behold. If anyone sat down and objectively evaluated what that small Crown corporation did in a very short period of time, it was nothing
September 1, 1987

short of remarkable. Dedicated people wanted to see our agricultural sector expand.
It is with some reluctance that I discuss this today. It is with some sadness and sorrow that I have to comment on the deathbed of Canagrex. We have one more spike to drive into its coffin, and I guess that is in a sense what we are doing. However, I want to remind my friends on the government side that now is the time we need to rally behind the family farm. Now is the time to rally behind the food producers of Canada. Therefore, I plead at this last moment for my friends in the Conservative caucus to reconsider the abandonment of this initiative to assist Canadian food producers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ADVISABILITY OF PROMOTING PEACE IN CENTRAL AMERICA
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of sponsoring a major initiative to enhance the opportunities for peace in Central America through steps including, but not necessarily limited to:
1.	appointing a personal envoy of the Prime Minister to reinforce diplomatic efforts regionally and internationally;
2.	establishing an embassy in Nicaragua;
3.	establishing a "Peace Fund", with contributions from like-minded Western nations, to cover costs associated with implementation of the Contadora treaty; and
4.	introducing at the UN a General Assembly Resolution calling on the Secretary-General to dispatch a civilian monitoring commission to the region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on a motion that I introduced on June 19 of this year which calls on the Canadian Government to take specific and concrete steps to assist in the peace process in Central America. These steps, combined with some other suggestions which I am about to make, would amount to a major Canadian diplomatic initiative.
I hope that the Government will take seriously the possibility of a diplomatic initiative. Such a move would reinforce the initiatives that thousands of Canadians have been taking for many years and continue to undertake today.
In many of the Central American countries there are Canadians working for a just and lasting peace in practical and concrete ways. There are many Canadians in Canada working for charitable and solidarity projects in support of the
Peace in Central America
people of Central America. I hope the Government will take seriously the initiative of so many concerned Canadians by responding with an initiative of its own.
1 do not want to suggest for an instant that the Government has done nothing to promote a genuine Canadian desire for peace or Canadian action for peace. I want to acknowledge, for example, that the Government has offered technical assistance to the countries of Central America for peacekeeping and verification. I want to commend the Government for voting against Mr. Reagan in the United Nations on the motion calling on the U.S. to obey the international law and honour the International Court injunction against the mining of the harbours of Nicaragua. I want to recognize that the Government has provided both bilateral aid and assistance to nongovernmental organizations to the Central American nations.
However, these actions do not amount to the kind of diplomatic initiative that Canada could and should take. I would like my suggestions to be taken as friendly suggestions and my criticism as constructive.
The weeks since I introduced this motion have been exciting ones. They were full of hope for the peoples of Central America and their sympathizers and supporters here in Canada. A peace plan has been adopted by the Central American Governments. Momentum for peace is growing. There are many obstacles to a just and lasting peace. Anything that Canada can do to help increase the momentum for peace must be done.
That increased momentum began, as you know, with the August 7 signing of an accord between the Presidents of the five Central American nations. This accord was reached despite the extensive last-minute efforts by Mr. Reagan to scuttle the talks. Some commentators have suggested, as a matter of fact, that his untimely intervention may have solidified the will of the Central American leaders to accomplish their own peace plan. This week we have seen some signs that Honduras may be showing cold feet, and Mr. Reagan has made it clear that he wishes to keep fighting in Nicaragua. It is clear that there are obstacles to peace for Central America.
The Foreign Ministers have made progress in their meetings in San Salvador. They are organizing working groups necessary to implement the various provisions of the agreement; the cease-fires, the amnesties, the end to guerrilla bases in one country for attack on another, the restoration of civil rights, a free press, and free elections throughout the region. This accomplishment may help overcome some of the obstacles to peace.
Eight other Latin American nations have been asked to sit on a regional peace commission to supervise the process. The United Nations and the Organization of American States will be part of this commission. In El Salvador the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front has agreed to meet with President Jose Napoleon Duarte on September 15 to discuss a cease fire. In Nicaragua the Sandanista Government has appointed the Cardinal of the Catholic church, Miguel

September 1, 1987
Peace in Central America
Obando y Bravo, to serve on a commission of national reconciliation. Cardinal Obando is and has been a fervent critic of the Sandinista Government.
Also on that commission will be Mauricio Diaz Davila, leader of the popular Social Christian Party. Mr. Diaz will represent the largest block of opposition Parties in the legislature. The third member will be Dr. Gustavo Parajon, a physician and Baptist missionary who heads the Protestant Committee for Aid and Development. The Government will be represented by the vice President of Nicaragua, Sergio Ramirez. This commission may be able to overcome some of the obstacles to peace.
Unhappily, it is clear that Mr. Reagan is still looking for ways to scuttle the peace accord. He has dispatched a swarm of diplomats to the region. He has spoken on the Contra radio station. He has threatened to continue military aid to the terrorists even after the cease fire comes into force. Perhaps most important, he is leaning on governments in the region, particularly those of Honduras and El Salvador, to back out of the accord. This is unforgivable interference on the part of the Reagan administration and makes a mockery of Mr. Reagan's supposed interest in promoting peace in Central America.
Fortunately, in the aftermath of the Contragate hearings, the Central American accord gives the Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives good grounds on which to limit or reject additional funding for the Contra terrorists when the current funding runs out in September.
For some time in the wake of Colonel North's testimony it looked as though American public opinion might be shifting towards supporting the Contras. However, I am pleased to report that according to the latest New York Times-CBS news poll only 33 per cent of Americans support such aid while half of Americans oppose it. There truly are obstacles to a fair and just peace in Central America, but there are also hopeful signs and a growing momentum for peace.
As a nation with an international reputation for peacekeeping and peacemaking Canada can help build on this momentum. We owe it to our Central American neighbours to do all we can to assist. They have suffered war and violence for too many years.
What can Canada do? We can help to mobilize international opinion. We can lend our moral suport to the people of Central America. We can lend practical support. We can make a difference. Canadians can help bring an end to those bloody wars. We can help to build a just and lasting peace.
In my motion submitted to the House on June 19 I first suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should send a personal envoy to Central America to reinforce our diplomatic efforts. In fact, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) sent not one but two envoys to offer Canada's technical expertise in peacekeeping and verification.
This is a very practical form of aid which Canada has provided. I applaud that move and hope that the Minister will take up more New Democrat suggestions.
My second suggestion was that Canada should take a leading role in establishing a peace fund with contributions from western nations to help with the costs of implementation. Such a move would have both practical and diplomatic significance. Practically, the peace process, and especially the verification process, will cost money. We cannot expect the Reagan administration to make the same financial contribution to peace as it has to war. Diplomatically, such a move would send a clear signal of support to all parties in the region. I ask the Minister to seize this unparalleled opportunity.
My third suggestion was that the Canadian Government should introduce a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly in support of the Central American peace process. Representatives of the United Nations and the Organization of American States will sit on the Regional Verification Commission. These representatives are important in both symbolic and practical terms.
A United Nations General Assembly resolution would present the opportunity to mobilize international opinion. It would send another signal to the participants in this bloody conflict. It would signal international approval of the peace process. It would also signal a Canadian commitment to international law and international organizations as being crucial to peace.
My final suggestion is that Canada establish an embassy in Nicaragua. The Government has argued that our interests are adequately served by our embassy in San Jose, Costa Rica. Without casting aspersions on our embassy staff in Costa Rica, I can assure you that this claim is not well founded.
I was in Nicaragua with a parliamentary delegation in April of this year. Our embassy in Costa Rica organized a dinner so that we could meet the Canadians who are resident in Nicaragua, most of whom are working with non-governmental organizations in Canada or Nicaragua to help the people of Nicaragua. It was a good event and I commend the embassy for organizing it, but I was surprised, as they were, to discover that our embassy had no idea of how many Canadians were in Nicaragua. That is one small example of the lack of knowledge that our Government has about the realities of life in the most controversial country in Central America.
The Government is not even in contact with Canadians who work in Nicaragua and know the country. In case of emergency, moreover, Canadians in Nicaragua are expected to go to the American embassy for assistance in spite of the protests that many of them made against such advice. Given the divergence of U.S. and Canadian policy on that country, this is a very regrettable situation. Our embassy in Costa Rice is expected to cover our interest in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El
September 1, 1987

Salvador and Panama. In a region as volatile as Central America, it is too much to expect of the staff.
An embassy in Nicaragua would give our Government much more direct and complete information than it can get now. An embassy would enable Canada to engage in continuing and ongoing discussions with the Nicaraguan Government and the Nicaraguan people on matters of mutual concern. The goodwill created by the involvement of hundreds of individual Canadians can provide the base for our officials to have a real influence in Nicaragua.
Finally, an embassy would help promote trade between Nicaragua and Canada, trade that would be to both countries' advantage.
I have suggested moves that would be the beginning of a major diplomatic and practical initiative by Canada to promote and support peace in Central America. It would help to increase momentum for the peace process in Central America. It would be a positive response to the desires of thousands of Canadians who have, through their activities in Canadian solidarity organizations and non-governmental organizations, worked hard, sometimes risking their lives, to help the people of Central America.
This is an opportunity that Canada cannot afford to miss. The people of Central America deserve a just and lasting peace. Canadians can be and deserve to be known as peacemakers.
In addition to the steps I have suggested to the Government in my motion, there are other practical steps the Government should take. For example, we can make use of our bilateral aid program in the name of peace, just as Mr. Reagan does in the name of war. We can make it a condition of our aid that recipient countries adhere to the terms of the peace accord, which calls upon Central American countries to refuse their territory as bases for attacks on other countries.
Members will know that I primarily refer there to El Salvador and Honduras, since both Costa Rica recently, and Nicaragua some years ago, ceased to allow rebel bases on their territories.
Honduras is our major bilateral aid recipient in the region. Honduras has received some $37 million in Canadian aid over the last five years. Honduras is also the country most likely to violate the accord. Members of the Honduran military Government and business classes make money from skimming American aid to the Contras. The American bilateral aid program is clearly dependent on Honduran aid to the Contras. Eleven U.S.-built airstrips and almost continuous U.S. military manoeuvres dominate the economic and political posture of Honduras. Therefore, Honduras must choose. It can choose to conform to a posture set by the Reagan administration, or it can choose to honour its commitment to the peace process. Canada can help to make that choice easier.
We can link our aid to the participation of Honduras in the peace process. Of course, we cannot hope unilaterally to match
Peace in Central America
the amount of aid that the U.S. provides, but we might be able to approach other countries in our hemisphere and in Europe, inviting them to put together an aid package-a sort of consortium for peace.
These are practical steps that would help overcome some of the obstacles to peace. But even if the countries of Central America are allowed to end the fighting without outside interference, efforts must still be made to ensure that peace is peace with justice. For without justice, there can be no lasting peace in Central America or anywhere else. The roots of war lie in injustice. We must learn from history.
Canadians are deeply committed to peace with justice in Central America. I have seen the commitment of Canadians when I visited the region, where I witnessed individual Canadians and Canadian organizations deeply committed to peace with justice. In Guatemala earlier this summer, I witnessed a woman of Guatemalan origin marching with the Organization of Mothers of the Disappeared, demanding an account of their relatives.
In Nicaragua this spring, I visited a young Canadian apiarist working with CARE Canada to help Nicaraguan farmers improve both their honey and crop yields. I visited farming co-ops, where Canadians were helping Nicaraguans improve their farming technique. A similar co-op, after being assisted by an Alberta group, Farmers for Peace, was attacked by Contras earlier this summer. Ten Nicaraguans were killed, four kidnapped, and many houses and buildings burned. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made a very strong protest against that action by the Contras and let the United States Government know of its protest.
Other Canadian projects have been attacked by Contras in Nicaragua as well. Last summer, for instance, a group of Ontario teachers travelled to the mountains to build a school in a remote village. Having made their contribution to the literacy program in Nicaragua, they returned home. Unfortunately, as they waited at the airport in Managua, word came that the Contras had burned the newly built school. Such are the acts of terror committed by the Contras, which the President of the United States continues to finance.
Canadians have put their lives on the line in support of the people of Central America. Earlier this summer, Professor George Sorger and Barbara Paleczny, associated with Amnesty International, visited El Salvador to investigate the numerous reports of human rights violations in that country. On their return, they were picked up and held by Honduran soldiers who threatened them with torture and stole the notes they had made in El Salvador. Fortunately, they were released unharmed.
In El Salvador on July 31, a group of Canadian teachers visiting the village of San Jose Las Flores were seized by government troops, held overnight, and denied medical attention for a sick colleague. I would like to quote from their report:

September 1, 1987
Peace in Central America
We were not prepared for the graphic details supplied by the soldiers, of the
process of torture within the treasury police.
Canadians in this country are doing their part to build a just and lasting peace. As the New Democratic critic for Central American issues, I receive a constant stream of phone calls and correspondence on Central America. Many Canadians are well informed and knowledgeable.
Canadians here in Ottawa have twinned a day care centre, the Glebe Day Care, with a child care centre in Managua. Part of the funds raised by the Glebe Day Care are used to help their counterparts in Managua.
In British Columbia, fishermen are donating their time to build a prototype fishing boat to help modernize the Nicaragua fishing industry.
From one end of this country to the other, thousands of volunteers with tools for peace collect material goods, including blankets for hospitals, notebooks for schools, and money for tin to put roofs on houses, that is shipped from Vancouver to supply material needs in Nicaragua.

In May of this year I attended a conference on peace in Central America here in Ottawa which was organized by Canadians. This conference brought government, academic and other representatives to Ottawa from Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and other Latin American countries, and from Europe, to discuss the peace process. This conference may well have contributed to preparing the way for the peace accord.
Many of these projects are small by themselves but they have a cumulative impact. They provide practical support for the peoples of Central America. They provide symbolic support for the people to people level. They help to educate Canadians and help to build momentum for peace.
There is a Canadian initiative for peace, an intiative of the Canadian people. I am asking that there also be a distinct Canadian Government initiative for peace in Central America.
I challenge this Government to show the kind of courage and imagination, the kind of dedication and vision that is shown by so many Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Clinch) followed by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
[ Translation]


J. Roger Clinch: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House today about the progress made in achieving peace in Central America. In fact, progress is the correct word, if we consider recent events.
As Hon. Members are aware, the Presidents of five Central American countries recently agreed to a new peace plan for the region, with the support of the main parties concerned
outside the region, namely the U.S., Cuba and the USSR. This is a very positive development.
However, I do not want to give the impression that the plan is a cure-all for the region's problems. In recent years, negotiations conducted by the countries of the Contadora group-Mexico, Panama, Colombia and Venezuela-have too often raised expectations and been followed by disillusionment and disappointment, which of course in no way diminishes the efforts of the Contadora group which, despite tremendous obstacles, has demonstrated its resolve and determination.
The most serious obstacle would seem to be the existence of serious socio-economic differences. Another obstacle to peace is the guerillas in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala. Finally, and this may be a decisive factor, we have the power struggle between the two superpowers, which tends to aggravate regional conflicts. Canada sincerely hopes that the goodwill shown by all parties in recent weeks will be reflected in a sincere effort to overcome these obstacles.
Canada has a clear-cut policy with respect to the situation in Central America. In a speech last year before the InterAmerican Press Association, the Prime Minister referred to the Contadora initiative as the best instrument for reconciliation in Central America. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) also said in public statements, in Canada and abroad, that Canada firmly supported the Contadora process. The Secretary of State for External Affairs repeated his position during visits to Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela in 1986.
In January 1987, in a message addressed to Foreign Affairs Ministers of the Contadora group and the Lima support group, and to the Secretaries General of the United Nations and the Organization for American States on the occasion of their visit to the Central American countries, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that the efforts of the Contadora group had sustained the hopes of the international community for a lasting solution to the crisis in Central America. In 1986, the Canadian delegation to the UN General Assembly made a statement in support of the Contadora group.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, Canada has provided constructive and practical support for the Contadora group and the general peace process. During his visit to Mexico in 1985, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was able to discuss the situation in Central America and the Contadora group's plan with President de la Madrid and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He restated Canada's firm support for the Contadora initiative and its desire to play a constructive role in the peace process, when appropriate. The Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that Canada was prepared to share its experience in peacekeeping operations with the parties concerned. Since then, the Canadian Government, at the request of the Contadora group countries, has drafted a series of comments on the provisions of the Draft Convention on Security and Verification.
September 1, 1987

Those comments are based on a number of considerations, including the need to speak in a neutral, objective and unbiased way. We were also aware of the need to ensure the viability of any verification and follow-up commission that may be established under the Contadora Act. Specifically, we thought that the funding for such an operation should be carefully examined by all parties in order that the selected mechanism be as viable as possible, given the circumstances.

We believe that the concept of a regional solution to the current problem should be emphasized. In this regard we believe that the Central American parties themselves ought to be brought into the peacekeeping mechanisms as far as possible. As far as this contributes to the effective operation of a control and verification commission, the commission should enjoy specific and firm guarantees relating to its freedom of movement and access to the region. The commission's role should also permit free and open communication with the media as its members deem appropriate.
Finally, we believe there is a need to designate a sponsoring political authority for the commission and to establish a time limit for the mandate of the commission itself. The Government believes that the principles which were enunciated two years ago for control and verification can be usefully applied to the current peace plan.
On August 7, at the close of their historic summit meeting in Guatemala, the Central American Presidents announced that an agreement had been reached on a new peace plan for Central America. The plan called for a meeting of the foreign Ministers within 15 days to begin implementing an amnesty for insurgents, a cease-fire and dialogue with unarmed opposition groups. This was all to be achieved in 90 days, that is, by November 7. The Contradora countries were to be asked to design and implement a control and verification commission to supervise forest levels in the region.
We were delighted at this breakthrough agreement. Canada's support was made clear on the very day the agreement was signed, and a press release was issued by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). The Minister subsequently dispatched two officials to the region during the week of August 17 to demonstrate Canada's support and to offer technical advice on the design of the peacekeeping mechanisms. The visit and the Canadian offer were warmly welcomed by all countries in the region.
There have been further hopeful signs. The agreement, as 1 have said, called for a Foreign Ministers' meeting within 15 days. That meeting took place on August 19 and 20 in San Salvador. The Foreign Ministers then met with their Contadora counterparts, as well as with Foreign Ministers from the Fima support group, and UN and OAS representatives in Caracas on August 22 and 23. They agreed to establish a verification commission.
Peace in Central America
Canada, being outside the Fatin American area, is not a member of the commission. However, we have told all the Governments concerned that we stand ready to offer technical advice to the commission should its members wish us to do so.
I think we can safely conclude therefore that there has been real progress. That is clear from the fact that all five Central American presidents approved the Guatemala plan, demonstrating an unprecedented commitment and the political will to overcome the obstacles. We should be realistic, however, as to the limits of this progress. The guerilla wars continue, as does the superpower competition. The conditions of poverty persist and are exacerbated by massive flows of refugees who have been displaced by the conflicts. Respect for human rights, civil liberties and democratic institutions is still lacking in parts of the region.
This recent progress constitutes a positive but tentative step down a very long road. In this context, international support is vital to maintaining the momentum of the peace process. The Canadian Government will continue to provide encouragement, support and appropriate technical advice deemed useful by the Central American and Contadora countries.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the intent behind this resolution to promote peace in Central America is good but, as has been recognized by its mover and by the speaker for the Government, it is out of date to a certain extent. It is out of date because the five principal countries in Central America concluded a peace agreement in Guatemala City on August 7, 1987, in which they provided for a cease-fire of civil wars within the countries of the region. In particular, that means civil wars in Nicaragua, Salvador and Guatemala. They also provided for a return to democratic government in these countries, as well as an amnesty for opponents of the Government. This means amnesty for the Contras in Nicaragua, as well as amnesty for members of the FMFN in El Salvador and in Guatemala. They provided for a halt to aid to insurgents from outside the country, which would mean stopping American aid to the Contras toward Nicaragua, a halt to any aid from Cuba or the Soviet Union to Nicaragua and, perhaps, to the insurgents in Salvador. Also, the countries that are signatories to the agreement renounced the use of their territory as a basis for struggle against neighbouring countries.
This is a very hopeful agreement. The signatories to the agreement stated that it would go into effect in 90 days from the date of signature. Since it was signed on August 7 of this year, it will go into effect on November 7, 1987. At that time all the provisions should go into effect simultaneously. In other words, the signatories to the agreement should be prepared to restore democratic rights as a cease-fire takes effect and amnesty should be given to all the opponents at the same time.
I failed to mention at the outset that the Five signatories to this agreement are different from the countries involved in the Contadora process. While the resolution refers to the Contadora process, it is to a certain extent out of date because

September 1, 1987
Peace in Central America
there were more countries involved, and in that case different countries. Here we have involved the five principal countries: Nicaragua, Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica, with the plan having been put forward by the President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias.
Of course, Canada has given support to this peace agreement. As was mentioned by the representative of the Government, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has already offered assistance to the signatories to the agreement in implementing the process, in providing assistance for verification and for monitoring and so on. This is all to the good.
However, I do not think that the principal problem is now with the five signatories to the agreement, or with Canada's effort, but will be with the United States. The United States has been, and I think continues to be, the principal road-block to peace in that area. I should make it clear that I am talking about the Government of the United States and not the Congress or the people of the United States. Just after the signature of this agreement on August 7, these words appeared in The New York Times of August 16, "President Reagan said today that American support for the Nicaraguan rebels should continue until a cease-fire has occurred and a verifiable process of democratization is under way in that Central American country". So President Reagan says that there must be a certain type of democratization in Nicaragua, if there is going to be a cease-fire, a stoppage of the assistance to the Contras, but he does not mention Salvador. He does not mention Guatemala. He does not put any demands on them to live up to certain conditions of democracy or else the agreement should not be supported. However, he puts this on Nicaragua in particular.
The President of the United States has done that all along. All along he has said to Nicaragua, "Either you live up to the standards of democracy that we are dictating to you or we will continue to intervene in your affairs. We will continue to fund the Contras". The President of the United States has laid a standard of democracy on Nicaragua that he does not lay on other countries with which he deals.
He does not insist on those conditions of democracy for Chile, for example. He does not lay those conditions on South Africa. Nor does he lay them on China, a communist country with which he deals consistently and with which he has been quite friendly of late. However, with respect to little Nicaragua, which is about the size of New Brunswick and which has a population of fewer than three million people, he insists that it live up to very high standards of democracy. We would all like to have pure systems of democracy, and we all hope to move in that direction. The President of Nicaragua has stated that he, too, would like to move in that direction.
This is rather odd for the United States, a country which is celebrating I am not certain what anniversary of its Constitution in Philadelphia, which took until 1954-some 150 years after the birth of that nation-for blacks to have the vote.
Here is a country with only a two-Party system. It is almost impossible for a third Party to get elected in the United States. Yet that country is insisting that Nicaragua be a pluralist society, when in fact in the Nicaraguan Parliament there are five or six Parties represented because it has a system of proportional representation.
We can be a bit arrogant and a bit holier-than-thou when we start dictating to other countries that they should live up to standards of democracy that we ourselves have failed to live up to and that we do not insist upon for other countries. I refer here to the United States' dealings with South Africa, Chile, Nicaragua when Somoza was there, and the Philippines in previous times, and so on.
It seems to me that this peace agreement arrived at by the countries in the region with good faith will succeed if the United States, and in particular the President of the United States, will give it their support.
My plea in Parliament is not to the Government, because I think it is doing the correct thing in supporting the agreement, but my plea is to the United States Government to please give peace a chance in Central America, and in particular in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, and to help those countries to proceed with the agreement that they arrived at. Please stop the funding of the Contras until the Government of Nicaragua is given a fair chance to do what it states it will do in the agreement. Do not fund the Contras through the back door when it cannot be done through the front door, as was found out in recent months during the great television extravaganza in the United States Congress.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for introducing the resolution last June. At that time there was no peace agreement proposed by President Arias which is now agreed to. That was not in effect then, but the Hon. Member's proposals are still legitimate. Canada must do all it can to support peace in Central America. The proposals of the Hon. Member are worth-while. Please let us convince the American Government to support this worth-while peace agreement in that region.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, the Government believes that the fundamental causes of tension and political conflicts in Central America are the deeply rooted socioeconomic disparities that are rampant to various degrees in each and every country in this area.
In the Government's view, Canada can contribute the most to promoting peace and stability in those areas by first providing for development assistance aimed at helping individuals and communities break the vicious circle of poverty and promote economic growth, and, secondly, by supporting a peace settlement for that area.

September 1, 1987

Other speakers have already referred to the support Canada has been and is still providing for the efforts towards reaching such a settlement.
I would like to take a few moments to point out to this House the help Canada is providing to the people of Central America. Canadian development assistance in Central America was initiated in 1966 with a loan to El Salvador. After the 1970 foreign policy review, when it was recommended that Canada intensify its presence in the area, assistance activities were undertaken in all the countries of the area. Following the regional program review in 1975, El Salvador and Honduras became program countries for CIDA. In 1979, the planning of new bilateral projects in El Salvador was suspended because of increasing violence and instability in that country. In 1981, the planning of new, bilateral projects in Guatemala also was suspended by reason of internal turmoil in that country.
In 1982, after an in-depth review of the relations between Canada and Central America, the Government decided to extend substantially its development assistance program for countries in that region. For instance, the Government decided to provide up to $106 million in bilateral Government to Government assistance to the region during the five year period between 1982-83 and 1986-87, which is triple the amount of bilateral assistance provided to the region during the previous five-year period.
As for the countries which would benefit from this assistance, it was decided that Honduras, the poorest country in Central America, would rank first as in the past. Costa Rica and Nicaragua would also receive increased assistance, while Guatemala and El Salvador would continue not to receive any assistance until their domestic situation improved. However, all countries in the region could receive assistance through other channels. This would include the Mission Administered Funds Program, the Non-Governmental Organizations Program, the Institutional Cooperation Program, the Industrial Cooperation Program, the Humanitarian Assistance Program and the International Development Research Centre.
In December 1984, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, announced reinstatement of Government-to-Government assistance to El Salvador. This decision was made because of the needs of thousands of displaced people, of the economic under-development of El Salvador, of a noted improvement in the respect of human rights in that country and of its return to democratic institutions.
In the five-year period between 1982-83 and 1986-87, or since the Government decided to increase substantially its assistance to Central America, Canada has extended approximately $106 million in Government-to-Government assistance to the population of this region. In other words, the Canadian Government has kept its commitment of tripling bilateral assistance to the region.
Peace in Central America
However, the amount of assistance provided is only part of the picture. The quality and effectiveness of this assistance are at least as important.
We firmly believe that Canadians bilateral assistance to Central America effectively meets the development needs and problems of the various countries in the region. In Honduras, Canadian Government-to-Government assistance supports the development and protection of renewable resources, rural job creation and the improvement of health care and food supplies in rural regions. In Costa Rica, this assistance has been used to improve a very unhealthy balance of payments and to finance a major rural housing program. In Nicaragua, bilateral assistance provided by Canada has been directed mostly toward basic human needs, such as the production of food and energy. In El Salvador, this assistance is directed especially at displaced persons and the poorest members of the population.
Besides Government-to-Government assistance, Canada has provided over the past five years more than $45 million in aid to Central American countries through such other direct assistance channels as the Non-Governmental Organizations Program, the Institutional Cooperation Programme, the Business Cooperation Program, the Petro Canada International Assistance Corporation and the International Development Research Centre.
Also, for the past five years, Canada has provided more than $15 million to multilateral organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross for the programs they have developed to help refugees and displaced persons in Central America.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that Canada, through its public development assistance programs, meets generously and effectively the social and economic needs of the peoples in Central America. This is one of the regions of the world where Canada provides the highest per capita public development assistance. The Canadian Government and people will continue to meet generously the social and economic needs of the peoples in Central America.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity to debate the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
The motion addresses a very difficult and complex situation which exists in Central America. This is an important issue, because Central America is the scene of some of the most tragic warfare in the world today, and it also has become the scene of serious East-West conflict. It is important to Canada because it is taking place in the western hemisphere, in that part of the Third World closest to Canada, and in a region with which Canada has growing social, economic, and political interests.
The emergence of a new peace plan which has been described, and the initiative of the countries of Central

September 1, 1987
Peace in Central America
America themselves are the most encouraging development in the region for several years. As has already been pointed out, the Canadian Government has not stood idly by during those years. While recognizing that Canada has no direct role to play at this stage of the negotiations, we have gone to some lengths to give the maximum possible support and encouragement to the parties. The process of converting the commitments which have been made into a peace settlement will be a difficult one. Our support is more than rhetorical. The Government stands ready to provide technical advice, where it has the appropriate expertise to offer in the control and verification process which will follow a cease-fire in the region.
1 wish to remind the House, however, that this is not a new approach by the Government. On the contrary, it is entirely consistent with the policies which the Government has pursued with respect to Central America since it was elected. Indeed, our recent effort in support of the new peace plan is a logical extension of the role Canada has sought to play for some time.
Canadian policy toward Central America is a distinct one, shaped by Canadian criteria. It has been developed in recognition of the geo-political realities of Central America and of the social and economic factors which are at the root of the current problems.
The Canadian Government opposes third party intervention anywhere in Central America and regrets deeply the intrusion into that region of East-West tensions and the related militarization of the area. Canada does not approve of the supply of armaments by any country to opposing factions in the region. Canada has constantly emphasized its firm belief that the countries of Central America must be free to seek their own solutions to their own problems without interference from any other country or any outside source.
We strongly share the view that the growth and development of democracy is an important issue in Central America. Canada welcomes the progress which has been made in several countries in the region while recognizing that there is still room for improvement.
We in Canada do not wish to see Nicaragua locked into the Soviet bloc or involved in destabilizing its neighbours. We encourage Nicaragua to move toward the original goals of the revolution which were recently restated in its new Constitution: a commitment to political pluralism, a mixed economy and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries.
We believe that improvements must be made in the Nicaraguan civil and human rights record. The continued suspension of many basic civil rights under the state of emergency is profoundly disturbing to the people of Canada and Canada's Government. We encourage political pluralism in Nicaragua and we support the ability of legitimate domestic political opposition Parties to continue to function.
We have deplored the recent decision to close down La Prensa newspaper and the harassment of opposition groups and of churches. The recent arrest and sentencing of the head of the Nicaraguan Human Rights Commission and the head of the Nicaraguan Bar Association within days of the signing of the peace accord was a disturbing and potentially counterproductive development. It was not consistent with the spirit of the agreement and only served to emphasize the need for reforms within Nicaragua.
We hope that the implementation of the peace plan will result in the lifting of the state of emergency, the removal of current restrictions on the press and opposition groups, and an end to incidents such as that to which I have referred.
In conclusion, let me reiterate the Government's satisfaction that negotiations for a peaceful settlement in Central America are under way again. We are under no illusions about the obstacles which lie in the way of a just peace, but Canada stands ready to do what it can to support the process.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate today, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for bringing forward his resolution. I think we all know of his many years of interest in and concern for this issue and of his experience and involvement in Central America. I know it is a concern shared by many Canadians and indeed by the Government.
I appreciate the support of the Hon. Member for Spadina in the efforts of the Government in Central America over the past few years. Indeed, as other colleagues have said, we welcome the new peace agreement, but I would just like to say that that agreement was not easily won. It did not happen overnight and it was preceded by many years of hard work and by many disappointments. It was an important breakthrough, but there are many difficulties in the way of implementation and a great deal of hard work and good faith, both within and outside the region, will be essential to make it happen.
I would like to summarize briefly each of the four specific points made by the Hon. Member in his resolution. First, as he indicated and as other Hon. Members have already said, we have already sent two senior officials to the region to do precisely what the Hon. Member has suggested that a personal envoy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should do. Their trip has indeed reinforced Canada's diplomatic efforts in the region and their message has been warmly received by all Central American Governments, including the Nicaraguan Government.
Second, while the Government would certainly like to have an embassy in Nicaragua, as it would in many other places, it is unable to do so for financial reasons. We cannot have embassies in every part of the world, and we have existing arrangements which are working very well for us and will proceed for the time being.
The establishment of a peace fund was proposed by my colleague. As Hon. Members are aware, Canada has already
September 1, 1987

contributed significantly to bilateral development assistance and to multilateral efforts. In per capita terms, the amount of Canadian aid to Central America is considerable. Canadian aid to the region is given for developmental and compassionate reasons. It also serves to complement the Contadora peace objectives.
Finally, the proposal for the civilian monitoring commission has obviously been overtaken by the new peace agreement. What form the monitoring of the cease-fire will take is obviously up to the Central American Governments, but the Canadian Government has already taken constructive action in support of the peace agreement and offered its technical assistance and advice.
I think it is appropriate, in concluding, to summarize what has been said about Canada's policies and role in Central America as this is the main thrust of the resolution before the House. I believe that the suggestion that Canada is not doing enough is wrong. That suggestion is perhaps implicit in the resolution and the comments we have heard.
Canadians have been very active in the region for many years. We have observed closely the developments in the region. We have spoken out on issues as an informed and sympathetic observer to do wherever it has been appropriate for us to do so. Canada's voice has been loud and clear on many issues, including the external involvement in the region and the inappropriateness of seeking military solutions. There has been encouragement for negotiations and for human rights.
Canada has built up a large aid program carefully designed to meet the most pressing needs of the poorest people of the region. We have encouraged trade with the region because we believe that economic development is one of the most effective means of combatting the fundamental social and economic problems. We have provided active support for negotiations in the region by giving technical advice when required to do so.
This distinctly Canadian approach to Central America has been shown clearly in our prompt, positive reaction to the recently agreed to peace program. Canada expressed its strong support for the plan immediately after it was announced and followed up with visits by officials to capitals in the region. We have also renewed our offer to provide technical advice on verification and control.
As Hon. Members may recall, in a period of less than two weeks, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) issued three statements. The first was a message of support on the very eve of the Central American summit. Then he issued a statement reporting on the congratulatory messages he had sent to the Central American Governments. He also reported on statements relating to his decision to send officials to the region. This is indicative not only of the Minister's personal interest but also of his determination that Canada should react positively and constructively to these events.
Adjournment Debate
As the hour draws near, I would hope that all Hon. Members on all sides of the House would join me in congratulating the Government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the strong, supportive stand taken toward countries in the troubled region of Central America and in urging the Government to continue to do all in its power to assist those countries in achieving a peaceful resolution to their disputes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, on August 24, 1987, I rose in this House to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) regarding problems with the justice system in Canada. 1 was concerned about the Government's efforts in this area now that the question of capital punishment has been settled.
The amount of public outcry generated by the issue of capital punishment was a clear indication that Canadians are not satisfied with safety in our society and our justice system. Both supporters and opponents of the reinstatement of capital punishment agreed that there is a real need for reform. I am concerned, as are my constituents of Don Valley East, that prison terms are too lenient and parole is being granted too early in too many instances.
I was pleased with the Minister's response to my question on these two issues that the Government is, indeed, concerned with this problem and that steps are being taken to improve the sentencing and parole systems. I would like, however, to emphasize how strong Canadians feel about violent criminals and the inadequacies of our justice system in protecting innocent citizens.
According to a poll released by Maclean's magazine on June 29, 1987, 87 per cent of those questioned believe convicted murderers are allowed back into society too soon. The poll also indicates that the large majority of Canadians are deeply troubled by a rising incidence of murder and other violent crimes. The Canadian public has lost a great deal of faith in our criminal justice system.

September 1, 1987
Adjournment Debate
The Canadian Sentencing Commission has reported a number of serious problems with sentencing in Canada. One of the basic problems it listed was a lack of public confidence in sentencing. The public's negative perceptions have led to some people taking the law into their own hands. Out of frustration and a belief that the justice system has failed them, many Canadian citizens are arming themselves and seeking their own methods of punishing criminals. A noted example of this is the recent case in Calgary of Mr. Steven Kesler, who shot a man who was attempting to rob him. If the public's confidence in our justice system is not improved quickly, I am afraid we will see more and more instances of vigilante type actions from the public.
The Canadian Sentencing Commission links some of the problems with the sentencing system to the "almost complete absence of policy from Parliament on the principles that should govern the determination of sentences". It also credits "parole and early release programs that fail to accomplish their goals" as well as "unrealistic maximum and minimum penalties that create injustices". I know that no justice system is infallible, Mr. Speaker, but it seems clear to me that our own system is in desperate need of improvements.
I am sure we are all familiar with the case of Ms. Celia Ruygrok whose tragic murder was an example of the justice system failing completely. Ms. Ruygrok was sexually assaulted and murdered by a man on parole after being convicted of a similar murder. He had violated his parole and threatened his former girlfriend just weeks before Celia's murder. However, due to confusion and a lack of communication, Celia's murderer was allowed his freedom and Celia Ruygrok was denied her right to live.
Just today, by coincidence, I received a letter from the President of Victims of Violence expressing concern that criminals with a history of violence are released back into the community after serving only a fraction of their sentences. The victims of these crimes feel that the justice system is cheating them. The residents of Don Valley East have made it clear to me that they want to see some government action. I would like to quote some of my constituents thoughts on this issue.
Earl and Winnifred Miller of Denrock Drive wrote: "We were in favour of the death penalty. If nothing else, the argument for retention has made Parliament aware that the majority of Canadians are fed up with our lax judicial system and want something done to improve it. Even abolitionists have had to admit that something is wrong and needs correcting."
Andrew and Audrey Mathews of Graydon Hall Drive wrote: "Parliament should be grappling with ways of answering the anger, anguish, suffering and material loss of those who are crime's victims".
Mr. Blair Kingsland of Cassandra Boulevard wrote: "I believe that my rights to live and breathe as a law-abiding
Canadian citizen should be respected and protected before the rights of criminals."
Fred and Sue Olds of Wellesbourne Crescent wrote in reference to first degree murderers: "In our opinion, the problem would be better served with life sentences that mean life sentences with no parole."
Ms. Wendy Spencer of Yellow Birchway wrote: "I am convinced that our parole system is irrational and ridiculous and thus requires an immediate overhaul. It needs to be tightened up. It is ludicrous to allow dangerously violent people to roam the streets on passes."
And finally, Ms. Jean Dodds of Kestell Lane wrote: "There is, as you know, a glaring lack of rationale in both sentencing and parole and the intelligent voter is not only angry but alarmed at the disparities and injustices."
My constituents, indeed most Canadians, are demanding action. When Members of this House voted against reinstatement of capital punishment, we accepted the responsibility of developing alternative solutions to protect the Canadian public from violent criminals, and more specifically, repeat offenders.
I would like to emphasize the gravity of this issue and ask that the Government respond to the recommendations of the Canadian Sentencing Commission and the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General as soon as they are made available. The Canadian public expects us to make every effort to protect their rights and freedoms. I hope it will not take another tragic event like Celia Ruygrok's murder to realize that, up until now, our efforts have been too little, too late.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, in his question the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) mentioned that many Canadians feel the sentences handed down are too lenient.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. Member is aware of the increasing number of sociological studies that have shown that Canadians who are sufficiently informed feel that the sentences handed down by the courts are severe enough and would even be inclined to be more lenient than the courts.
On March 25 this year, our esteemed Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Hnatyshyn) tabled in Parliament the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission. This report is said to be the first comprehensive study of sentencing ever carried out in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am informed that legal experts at the Department of Justice are proceeding with another series of consultations and extensive discussions on the recommendations of this report. When the process is complete, the Minister of Justice will be in a position to consider any changes that may be necessary to improve the effectiveness of the Canadian sentencing system.
September 1, 1987

Mr. Speaker, I believe you yourself are an expert in this field. In addition to examining the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission, this fall the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General will also consider the difficult question of parole.
And once again the recommendations contained in Judge Archambault's report will be considered, as will the merit of a parole system and the wisdom of the existing legislation under which it operates, including for example the regulations which set the jail term to be served by an inmate before he may become eligible for the various forms of parole.
The committee Members will scrutinize the wisdom of this legislation and the merit of the parole system. Still, Mr. Speaker, we must keep in mind the fact that sentencing and parole questions are closely related and that if any major change were to be made to the parole system it would have to be reflected in rules governing sentencing.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the whole matter is still under consideration and a report will be made public in due time.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT-MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR MURDER-REQUEST THAT STATUTE BE AMENDED
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that you may not be aware of a murder case that occurred in Port Credit, a small community near Metropolitan Toronto in the Mississauga area in May, 1985. That was a case of the murder of a mother, Paulina Zerger, and her 11-year old daughter Tanya. As a result of that case two charges of first degree murder were laid against a youth who was only 15 years old at the time. The youth was charged with murder under the Young Offenders Act.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision under the Young Offenders Act that the Crown Attorney may move to have a murder case moved up to adult court for trial. You may recall that a year or two ago that was a very controversial thing, at least in the Province of Ontario where, in a number of instances, a motion was not made to move the case up to adult court, the cases were tried in Young Offenders Court and, as a result, there was a great deal of criticism about the fact that the penalty provided for in the Young Offenders Act was too lenient in the case of a serious offence.
As a result of that, the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario gave instructions at that time to all of his Crown Attorneys, in every case of murder or a violent crime in which someone was charged under the Young Offenders Act, to make a motion to move those charges up to adult court. That has been the policy and procedure followed in recent months in the Province of Ontario.
In the Zerger murder case that motion was made by the Crown Attorney. The trial court judge granted the motion and allowed it to be moved up to adult court, but that decision was
Adjournment Debate
appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal because the penalty for murder in an adult court which the young person faced was 25 years imprisonment subject, of course, to the recent Chartrand decision which might make him eligible for parole after only 15 years. In the Young Offenders Act the maximum sentence for a murder conviction is only three years.
The decision was appealed and the Court of Appeal for the Province of Ontario reversed the trial court's decision. In doing so the late Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Bert MacKinnon, said that when Parliament passed the Young Offenders Act in 1984, it must have intended that young people convicted of serious crimes would serve shorter sentences than adults.
That begs the question as to whether a young person between the ages of 12 and 18, in this particular case 15 years of age, when charged with first degree murder of two people, one of them being an 11-year old girl, should be facing a penalty of a maximum term of imprisonment of only three years or a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years as they would be if they had reached adulthood and not been subject to the Young Offenders Act in the first place.
The Deputy Director of the Crown Law Office for the Ontario Attorney General has indicated that he believes that a three-year sentence is not long enough to protect the public in the case of a young offender convicted of murder.
I do not know about your constituents, Mr. Speaker, but my constituents certainly agree with the Deputy Director of the Crown Law Office. That is certainly the indication they have given me, not only in this case but in many other cases of a similar nature.
It is interesting to note as well that one of the major Toronto newspapers, The Toronto Star, indicated editorially that the Young Offenders Act should be amended to provide for a maximum sentence for a young offender of five, six, or seven years in the case of murder in order to avoid the appearance of too lenient sentences.
Even more interesting, the lawyer for this particular young offender in the Zerger case said after the trial and the Court of Appeal had reversed the lower court and sent it back to the young offenders court, that he did not feel that a three-year term was long enough. He felt that a term of eight to nine years would be more appropriate in the case of a young offender convicted of first degree murder.
In 1986, the Young Offenders Act was amended by the present Government. At that time there were a number of amendments introduced and it was indicated that if further amendments were necessary the Government was certainly prepared to consider those. In my view, it is time that the Government began to consider these further changes. For one thing, it certainly should be considering changes in the maximum penalty for a young offender convicted of first

September 1, 1987
Adjournment Debate
degree murder. If the courts will not let these proceed in adult court, surely we must make changes in the Young Offenders Act.
A second area that must be addressed is one that has been commented on by the Ontario high school principals and teachers association. It is the case of not being able to identify a young offender, thereby leaving the schools caught in the middle. According to the law, a young offender must attend school but cannot be identified to teachers and principals. Of course, they are concerned for the safety of the students and staff.
Finally, there is the area of offenders under the age of 12, which has been a controversial issue for some time. In the Province of Ontario, the public does not understand why a person under the age of 12 is not subject to the Young Offenders Act, particularly when there were 1,855 children under 12 involved in serious crimes in Metropolitan Toronto alone in 1985.
All of these areas need changes. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate tonight on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who is now responsible for the Young Offenders Act, that there will be some changes soon in this legislation.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our very compassionate Minister of Justice (M. Hnatyshyn), 1 am happy to reply to the excellent question of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) about what is certainly a burning issue.
The Young Offenders Act has established a modern framework for the Canadian juvenile justice system. Several aspects of this legislation are innovative and have therefore given rise to much debate, both before and after its coming into force in 1982.
However, it is generally admitted that this Act constitutes a proper and balanced response to juvenile crime. For instance, the Young Offenders Act recognizes that the juvenile justice system created by the legislation is not always appropriate and that, in certain cases, serious criminal cases should be judged by the adult courts.
The Act provides a mechanism to transfer certain charges to the adult court, where the young offender is judged in accordance with the Criminal Code and is liable to the same penalties as an adult.
A transfer hearing is held when the Crown, or even the accused, in some cases, so requests, and the judge must consider several factors, such as the seriousness of the offence, the background of the accused and the existence of a previous criminal record.
During the consultations which led to the tabling of Bill C-106, which was debated and passed by this House in 1986,
the then Solicitor General proposed some amendments to the transfer provisions of the legislation. More precisely, he proposed that the age at which trial could be moved up to adult court be lowered from 14 to 12 years old-which is very sad but, alas, realistic-and that for the most serious crimes there be, automatically, a hearing on the move up. These proposals where withdrawn following objections from authorities in the area of justice for the young, most notably provincial Solicitors General and Ministers of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, provincial authorities concluded that the move up clauses in the old Act and in the new one were more appropriate. The efficiency of the Act and of each of its clauses will continue to be carefully monitored and to be the subject of consultations by our Government in general and our Minister of Justice in particular, in order to keep our legislation in tune with the most recent needs and to take care of these unfortunate young people in the future.


TAX REFORM-FUTURE OF MINISTER OF FINANCE-OLD AGE EXEMPTION-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, tonight 1 would like to have answers. I was not satisfied with the one that was given to me by the then Minister of Finance on the amendments to his last budget and also on tax reform. 1 think it is important for each and everyone of us, and the Parliamentary Secretary, to remember that, at that time, the Government announced it was amending the income tax exemptions and converting them into tax credits.
We welcome that initiative because such was the recommendation made by the Liberal Party and by all groups who worked with the committee on consultation on social program reform, and it will be remembered unfortunately that at that point the Prime Minister misled both our senior citizens and families when he said that he would reinstate full indexation of old age security pensions and that the changes to the family income support program would not be used to reduce the deficit but rather to increase benefits to those who are most in need. We will remember unfortunately the attempt to partially deindex old age security pensions and, thanks to the Official Opposition and senior citizens, the Government's change of heart.
Next, through deindexing of family allowances, the Government will have cut as much as one billion dollars by 1991, preferring to use this money to lower the deficit and bail out the depositors with over $60,000 invested in a couple of Western Canada banking establishments.
We had agreed to replace the tax exemption with a tax credit, but it is unfortunately a non-refundable tax credit. Which means that a person who has not enough income will not be entitled to this tax credit, and there are as many as 1.4 million senior citizens in Canada who, in his last budget, will not be able to benefit from this tax credit. Hon. Members will
September 1, 1987

remember that yesterday, the Forum of Senior Citizens, on the basis of a study it carried out on the tax policies which this Government has implemented in its budgets since September 4, 1984, clearly established that senior citizens and low and middle income families have been greatly affected. Also, the study of the Carleton University report clearly indicates that these people have been greatly affected compared with the more affluent.
I should like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary could further explain why this is not a refundable tax credit which replaced the old age exemption. Moreover, the Forum of Senior Citizens indicated that the $1,000 income deduction under a RRSP or a retirement-oriented investment would greatly affect senior citizens which now benefit from it, and that it was not replaced by a refundable tax credit. I dare hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to provide the right answer, not so much to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, but especially to the senior citizens who are listening to us and who would like to know whether the Government will grant them a refundable tax credit, and also whether it will join the Liberal Party in its campaign to oppose a tax on bread, milk and butter.


Claude Lanthier: Right away, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I am not going to join in such shadow boxing. For the leader of our party, who is also the leader of the Government, clearly indicated in the House this afternoon that this issue was thoroughly dealt with, and that we are not going to restrict the normal consultation of the Canadian people by limiting the debate and providing ready-made answers. When this Conservative Government seeks the advice of the people, Mr. Speaker, it offers them all necessary options and we believe that the Canadian people is adult enough to tell right from wrong.
However, Mr. Speaker, let me just give him and all senior citizens a few examples-in answer to the specific request made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie (Mr. Malepart)-of how to deal with fiscal reform. It is estimated for example that personal exemptions in 1988 will reach some $2,700. For taxpayers with incomes below $27,500, for example, who are quite numerous . . . That is to say, for that category of taxpayers who are uppermost in the mind of the Hon. Member, the rate of tax would be 17 percent. The value
Adjournment Debate
of the tax exemption for senior citizens would therefore come to some $454. In its place, the Government has opted for a tax credit of $550, which represents about $100 more. This means the tax break has improved by some 20 percent.
Mr. Speaker, another example can be given here. As indicated in the tables on pages 51 and 52 of the document on income tax reform, which deal with typical taxpayers, single persons and couples aged over 65 benefit substantially from tax reform. The tables show that income tax changes brought about by fiscal reform will mean savings of some $430 for single persons and of some $825 for couples, and this will represents savings of as much as 66 percent compared to the taxes which they paid previously.
Let me give you another example, Mr. Speaker. The minimum taxable income level for senior citizens will rise from $10,800 to $11,500 for single persons, and from $16,000 to $19,000 for married couples. About 250,000 Canadians 65 years old or more will no longer pay any federal income tax.
For instance, the conversion of the $1,000 pension income deduction to a credit of 17 per cent will have the same value for older peole whose income is less than $27,500, that is more than 80, per cent of senior citizens who file income tax returns.
I would like to give you a last example, Mr. Speaker. Low income senior citizens will benefit in 1988 from the higher sales tax refund which will be upped from $50 et $70 per adult.
Mr. Speaker, we have loads of other examples. The White Paper on Tax Reform proposes all kinds of increased tax exemptions, tax savings aimed particularly at senior citizens. They should be presented as they are, and some incidental parts should not be blown out of proportion and distorted from a purely political perspective. Scare tactics should stop. Our people, those of my beautiful riding of LaSalle are certainly better informed than that. Let me tell you that they are not taken in by false and vague theoretical promises. They put greater confidence in dollar savings such as those the future tax reform will bring them.


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 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 2, 1987