1987-09-24

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government I am pleased to table in both official languages the Survivors' Benefits under the Canada Pension Plan Consultation Paper.
With the consent of the House I would ask that this consultation paper be referred to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare for further study.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the request of the Hon. Minister. Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 106, Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour today to present petitions which bear the signatures of a great many residents of my Ottawa-Vanier riding and who humbly sheweth that:
Whereas, since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 24 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal has studied the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food; and whereas food
constitutes a vital element of day-to-day life and imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers, such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low income taxpayers, youth;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.
[ English]


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Ottawa and area. The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to ensure that the Government withdraws Bill C-55 and substitutes legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board that is independent of the Immigration Commission. The petitioners feel that universal access to such hearings should be assured for every applicant in Canada, and also the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada that has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. The petitioners request that Parliament reverse the new restrictive immigration regulations and allow all legitimate refugees to find asylum in our democratic country, and be granted an oral hearing before an independent judicial body that will determine the legitimacy of each claim.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to do these things, and in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to present a petition from Canadians who note that Bill C-55 threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees. It sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country, as opposed to ensuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection.
Therefore, the petitioners call for withdrawal of Bill C-55 and request that other measures be implemented to assure quick oral hearings in order that refugee claimants can appeal to a refugee board which is independent of the Immigration Commission, and that there is universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada with the right of appeal.


Petitions


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two petitions to present, the first of which is the first in a large number of petitions. In this case it is signed by 258 people from my constituency who are protesting the Fermi II nuclear reactor which is just 10 miles from their border and has an abysmal safety record.
They demand that the Government interact with the U.S. Government in order to establish a fair and safe review process which will include Canadians and operate independently before Fermi II is allowed to operate at full capacity.


Mr. Steven W'. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in reference to Bill C-55 and is signed by residents of Vancouver.
It objects to many of the principles within the existing Bill and calls upon the Government to withdraw Bill C-55 and to substitute therefor legislation which would see to it that fair and quick oral hearings of claims are available for all potential refugees.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker. I have the honour and duty to present a petition from residents of Sointula, British Columbia who indicate a serious concern about the bias and inaccurate reporting produced by the Lcblond Commission into the automation of West Coast lighthouse stations.
They request a moratorium on any action by the Coast Guard to proceed with automation. They also request the appointment of a truly independent commission of inquiry with terms of reference drawn by user groups in consultation with the Government of Canada.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I want to present on behalf of several hundred people on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland in the area of St. Anthony.
Because of the repeated failure of the inshore fishery over the past five years, they call upon the Government and Parliament to support an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby their best 10 weeks of benefits can be counted, rather than their last 10 weeks, for the purposes of unemployment insurance.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, ironically enough, I have a further petition from hundreds of people from all over the riding of
Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, calling upon the Government to cancel immediately the present agreement with France which will see the disposition of fish off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
They also call upon the Government to find immediately other means to come to an agreement with the French other than the giveaway of fish which are so important to these people.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition from residents of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, calling upon the Parliament and Government of Canada to reject the corporate plan proposed by Canada Post Corporation, and to instruct that corporation to proceed with mail delivery to all Canadian taxpayers without discrimination and to concentrate its efforts on improving service.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and, indeed, it is an honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 106 to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of British Columbia who are asking the Government to allow all legitimate refugees to find asylum in our democratic country of Canada.
After a number of "whereases" in the petition, which I will not take up the time of the House by reading-Your Honour can look at them later-they ask Canada to allow all legitimate refugees from Chile and other hostile countries to gain asylum here.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the pleasure and duty to present petitions concerning two very important issues. The first one concerns the refugee system and Bill C-55.
I have petitions signed from residents of Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, and the City of Mississauga, concerning the prescreening stage, the implementation of a safe third country concept, and a weak appeal mechanism to the Federal Court with leave on only points of law.
The petitioners ask the Government to amend or eliminate the conditions of its refugee legislation and to eliminate the three elements of prescreenng, safe third country, and the Federal Court appeal. They ask for a refugee determination system which is fair, accessible, and expedient.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions is from residents of St. John's, Newfoundland; the City of Sudbury in northern Ontario; the suburbs of Don Mills and the City of Scarborough in the Metropolitan Toronto region.


These residents are concerned about the lack of recognition of Canada's multicultural heritage and reality as a fundamental characteristic of the country in the opening clause of the Meech Lake Accord.
Given the fact that a third of Canadians are of neither French nor English origin, they ask the Government to urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to amend the constitutional accord by entrenching our nation's multicultural heritage as a fundamental characteristic in the opening clause of the Constitution.


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, the following question will be answered today: No. 184.


Mr. Nunziata: Has the Government been approached by the United States Government
with respect to participating in the United States Supercomputing Research
Centre, and, if so, what are the terms of this arrangement?


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned, the Canadian Government has not been approached by the United States Government regarding participation in a United States Supercomputing Research Centre. In fact, we have no knowledge of the existence of such a centre. However, the U.S. National Science Foundation supports a national network of supercomputers for advance scientific and engineering research, principally in the academic community. In addition, several U.S. government departments maintain supercomputer facilities for in-house research. Notable among these is the Department of Energy, which maintains a number of national laboratories equipped with supercomputers. More recently, the Department of Defense has proposed a domestic effort to establish a supercomputer "test-bed" for advance systems associated with the Strategic Defense Initiative. This proposal has not yet received funding.
Canadian government officials are aware of the importance of supercomputing in large scale scientific and engineering problems and are actively considering our national needs for such computers.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the fact that the Chair has received two applications under Standing Order 29 for a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter.
1 should advise the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) that his application was received first and that I will hear him. However, naturally I want to extend courtesy to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) whose application came in only a few minutes later. I will certainly hear him as well.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 29, I seek leave for an emergency debate on the suspension of the free trade talks.
The Government has made a free trade agreement the heart of its economic policies. Now the chief negotiator, Simon Reisman, says that in his view the talks are over. This has crucial significance for the country. In effect the Government has hit a brick wall.
I believe that we must debate what the Government plans to do next to stop any desperate last minute give-aways to the United States. We must also debate the new trade directions which we should take to make up for the wasted time this free trade thrust has cost Canada.
In short, we need an emergency debate to inform the country and to start the process of repairing the damage.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to express to Your Honour the importance of the subject. The Government itself has identified free trade negotiations as its number one economic priority and has heralded it as the one and only economic program which it has put forward in a significant way to try to deal with the questions of unemployment and other economic problems in the country. The fact that the talks were halted yesterday, and as far as the chief negotiator is concerned they are over, obviously throws everything into total confusion and chaos.


Points of Order
Your Honour will recognize that over the past several months we have attempted in this House to ask the Government constantly, publicly and in Parliament to share its knowledge and information, to tell us what the demands were, what the negotiated stances were and what those unacceptable essential ingredients were that were the stalling point in the talks. It is very important that information be shared with Canadians.
It is our understanding that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or his Ministers spoke to the provincial Premiers. It would seem, for the honour and dignity of this House, that we should be given the same opportunity to understand at least what it is and why it is that the Government has taken this drastic and Draconian step.
I simply bring to your attention, Sir, that there is no other opportunity other than the time afforded to us in Question Period, and while that is an event of great interest and undertaking, it is not always designed to get the fullest exposure of ideas or the proper dialogue. There is no Bill in the House that will allow us to debate the subject. No opposition days have been called and we have no opportunity at this immediate time to address this very crucial and very singular issue.
It is also fair to say that there is no topic dominating the Canadian consciousness more at the present time than this, and there is no question respecting our international standing with greater significance. Therefore I think the matter is very clearly an issue for Parliament to exercise its rightful obligations, and this is the forum where the proper expression and exposure can take place.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank both the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) for bringing the matter to the Chair's attention yesterday and for their comments this morning.
As Hon. Members know, the reform committee insisted that it was inappropriate for Speakers to give reasons for their decisions on these applications. I might say to Hon. Members that that does not mean that within the head of the Speaker there are no reasons. Naturally, these decisions are not made on a whimsical basis.
I have given this matter a great deal of consideration and I agree with both Hon. Members that the issue is of extreme importance. At the moment it is not my disposition to order an emergency debate for today, but that does not mean it might not be ordered at some other time. I think it is fair to say that I might be in a better position to consider the matter again after today's proceedings.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: I want to draw to the attention of Hon. Members that the Chair is now ready to rule on a point of order raised on August 12, 1987, by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) about the Government's response to the report of the Special Committee on Child Care and the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on September 9 last relating to the Government's response to the fifth and sixth reports of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Because both points of order deal with the interpretation of Standing Order 99(2) the Chair wishes to comment on both points in the same ruling, but because of certain differences of form and content, I will deal with them in the order in which they were raised.
On August 12, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East took the position that the document tabled by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in response to the Special Committee on Child Care and entered in Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, August 11, 1987, did not meet the requirements of Standing Order 99(2) which reads as follows:
Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special
committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a
comprehensive response thereto.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East claimed that the response of the Minister was interim in nature and did not fulfil the essential condition of the standing order that it be comprehensive. A number of other Hon. Members expressed the same concern.

The question before the Chair is whether the Minister's response adequately meets the requirements of the Standing Orders, namely whether or not it is a comprehensive response. This is not the first time the Chair has been asked to rule on the quality of a Government response. In earlier rulings on similar points of order the Chair expressed the view that the very fact of establishing what constitutes a comprehensive response would be tantamount to ruling on the acceptability of the response, something which the Chair simply cannot do.

There are, however, certain details of this matter which differentiate it from previous cases. The Chair has read the letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). It plainly states at the beginning that it is an "interim response" and goes on in the second to last paragraph to affirm that a "comprehensive announcement" on the National Strategy on Child Care will be made in the fall. In essence, this is an open admission that the response in question is not as comprehensive as required by the terms of Standing Order 99(2).
The Chair finds itself in some difficulty on this matter since there has obviously been a specific and clear breach of rules by


the Minister. Nonetheless, there are reasons in this particular case why the Chair feels inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Minister.
As the Minister pointed out to the House, divided constitutional jurisdiction and unresolved intergovernmental discussions and negotiations are involved in this issue. This would suggest that the Minister is not entirely at fault in these particular circumstances and that efforts are being made to address the committee's recommendations. Furthermore, the Minister did report back to the House within the specified period, albeit in a form not provided for in this standing order.
Having said that I would like, however, to remind all Hon. Members that government responses to committee reports are an important element of the reform process and one which the Chair feels should be respected.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), a distinguished member of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, in his intervention on this matter, made the point that having the Government make its position clear at a predetermined time with respect to the recommendations of particular committees is an essential ingredient of the reform process. He went on to argue that if technical responses became the habit in this place then the spirit of reform will have been lost. The Chair feels that there is considerable merit to this observation and reminds all Hon. Members of the need to make every effort to interpret our rules in as reasonable and as straightforward a way as possible.

The Chair wants to make another comment which was not made in the course of the debate. The Committee on Child Care was a special committee and, unlike a standing committee, it was dissolved after tabling its final report to the House, pursuant to the current practice. Committee Members, therefore, had no recourse other than raising the issue in the House. Although the rule does not provide for sanctions against Ministers who would choose to disregard these provisions, the Chair considers that breaching this rule with respect to a special committee report is more serious, for it might enable the Government to delay indefinitely its response to special committee reports.

The point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal on the surface seems to be a similar case. But a close scrutiny of the issues demonstrated fundamental differences. First, the matter pertains to a standing committee of the House and not a special committee. Second, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) in tabling a response to the fifth and sixth reports of the Communications Committee was not offering to give an interim response but attempting to comply with the provisions of Standing Order 99(2). Third, the complaints of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) and the
Points of Order
Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) revolve around the issue of the "lack of comprehensiveness" of the Minister's response.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton South, who is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, eloquently summarized the frustration of the committee members and urged the Chair to reconsider an earlier ruling of June 29, 1987, when the Chair ruled that:

the nature of the response must be left to the discretion of the Government. If Hon. Members are dissatisfied, there are other avenues available to
them through which they can pursue the matter.

The Hon. Member for Edmonton South would know that the Chair is always reluctant to reconsider earlier rulings. Still I can elaborate on what I said in June by attempting to be more specific and providing an explanation which might be more useful in this case.
What 1 said on June 29, 1987, and what Mr. Speaker Bosley said on April 26, 1986, still applies to this case. It is not for the Chair to pronounce on the quality of the government response. The word "comprehensive" in the standing order is not without meaning, however. A simple yes or a curt no to all of a committee's recommendations could be a comprehensive response indeed. Neither response might be satisfactory, depending on one's point of view.
Under the new rules, and particularly Standing Order 96(2), standing committees now have extensive new powers and the Committee on Communications and Culture can pursue the matter of the quality of the Minister's response with her. I understand that that process has already begun.
The statute law, the programs and policy objectives, the expenditure plans, management and organization and operation of government departments are permanently and fully accessible to the committee. That is the other avenue to which 1 alluded on June 29, 1987. No longer do standing committee members need to raise in the House such issues and no longer do they need a specific House order to proceed. The proper place to raise these matters is in the committee which ultimately can use its power to report to the House if it feels its privileges have been offended.
The reform of the standing committees is an important and fundamental aspect of the renewal of our parliamentary system of Government. The principle of accountability has been enhanced to a degree never achieved before. Having been given such enlarged mandates, committees should proceed judiciously and responsibly. Standing Committee members should avoid raising disputes in the House unless a standing committee has reported that its business is being systematically frustrated and its privileges are consequently affected.


Immigration Act, 1976

As to special committees, since their mandate expires with the tabling of their reports the Chair will always be prepared to entertain such grievances as that submitted by the Elon. Member for Hamilton East even though the Chair has no direct authority to order the Government to provide comprehensive responses,

These are very important matters that relate to our new rules and the Chair hopes its comments can and will be helpful.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, September 23, consideration of Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 67 (Mr. Marchi, p. 9261), and Motion No. 68 (Mr. Jourdenais, p. 9262).
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, when we left off yesterday we were discussing Motion No. 67 which stands in my name. Motion No. 67 was moved after the defeat of a number of other motions designed to upgrade the appeal mechanism. Motion No. 67 attempts to have the Government reconsider the appeal mechanism.
The Government currently favours an appeal mechanism whereby an appeal may be made to the Federal Court only by leave and only on points of law. We suggest that that needs to be upgraded. After all, we are dealing with appeals that affect the life and safety of claimants. Motion No. 67 would have the end result of having appeals go to the Federal Court automatically without the need for leave and, perhaps more important, it would have the end result of allowing the Federal Court to deal with appeals on points of circumstance and fact rather than on points of law only.
If the Federal Court were only allowed to deal with appeals on points of law, then the stories of refugee claimants and possible errors that may have been made by the refugee board in analysing those stories would not be taken into consideration. The appellant would not be allowed to tell the Federal Court his or her own story. His or her solicitor would not be able to present new evidence to the Federal Court.
As it stands now, the Federal Court will only be allowed to determine whether or not points of law have been followed by the refugee board in making its ultimate determination. However, points of law are not the real crux of the matter. The significant element of any appeal is a review based on a
claimant's story or on new evidence which has come to light since the hearing before the refugee appeal board. This new evidence may be much more convincing and may lead to the rendering of a different determination. That is why Motion No. 67 asks the Government to try to put itself in the place of a refugee claimant who has gone through the refugee board process and been refused by the refugee board but who knows deep inside that his story is in fact true. That individual would want a second attempt to present his version of the truth. If we allow for appeals on points of law only, we will not put into the system the safeguard which may prevent the horrible torture, persecution, imprisonment or death of an individual who will be sent packing.
This motion meets with the approval of virtually every witness who came before the legislative committee studying Bill C-55. Most organizations wanted a second appeal structure and favoured a separate appeal body within the refugee division rather than appeal to the Federal Court. Some even favoured a written review by a refugee board member who did not hear the claim but was part of the refugee division.
It was the agreement of the greatest number of witnesses who came before us that there was a need to place importance on the appeal system. Many judged the fairness and compassion of the system on how it treated appeals. They felt that a system was only as good and as foolproof as its appeal mechanism. Therefore, Motion No. 67 deals with the appeal mechanism.
Motion No. 67 is the last motion we on the Liberal side have placed on the Order Paper. It was the feeling of our Party that if this legislation was to stand and the Government would not follow the advice of the many groups that suggested that the Bill was too badly drafted, we must make significant and substantial changes to three particular areas of the Bill.
The three areas of the Bill that require modification are the prescreening mechanism, the safe third country concept and the appeal mechanism. It is our contention that by changing those three areas, this piece of legislation will be made much more acceptable.
It is also our contention that if there are not substantial changes to these three areas, the other amendments that are to be debated and the other amendments that have already been approved are secondary. They are important and valuable in their own right, and the drafters of various amendments did put in time and energy to draft them, but in comparison to the larger premises of the Bill, they are of secondary importance.
If we are to keep applicants away from the refugee board, if we are to send them into orbit through a safe third country and if we are not to offer them a proper appeal, what is the value of crossing the t's and dotting the i's on other parts of the Bill? Having said that, it is my hope that government Members see fit to accept Motion No. 67.


[DOT] (M40)


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion because, as the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) said, it has the support of the great majority of witnesses who came before the committee. One of the most important of those was the representative and legal advisor of the UNHCR. The UNHCR reminded us that the Convention we signed asks that when a claim is heard and the decision is to reject it, the person shall have a chance for a review. It used the word "review" in a very general sense because it is dealing with 100 or more signatory countries and it is not trying to fit in with the precise technical terms of any one of those countries.
However, the main element in any refugee case is not a point of law, it is a point of fact: did certain things happen to that person: are certain things in danger of happening if they return to their country, and so on. Those are questions of fact, not law. Therefore, when the Convention asks for a review it does not mean just a technical review on points of law, which is all that the present Bill provides.
I want to refer to what the UNHCR said on this point. First, it credits some of the points that the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have made. It said:
UNHCR notes with appreciation that unanimity is required for negative decisions on admissibility. The Office nevertheless again recalls Executive Committee Conclusion No. 30(XXX1V) in which the substantive element in screening processes was recognized; it was there recommended that unsuccessful applicants be enabled to obtain review, even if in a simplified procedure, before rejection at the frontier or removal from the territory.
That means review by a body authorized for that special purpose as explained elsewhere, such as a review of the decision by the refugee board. That is, if the refugee division's decision were reviewed. It also points out:
The Office recognizes that this is compensated for to a degree by the requirement of unanimity for negative decisions, and by the availability of judicial review, at least in respect of those claimants who, having reached the Refugee Division stage, may remain in Canada pending a final determination.
It continues:
The Office observes that decentralization of the refugee process and increased resources should expedite decision-making. Yet, in the absence of some central review, these advantageous developments may be dissipated through loss of consistency and uniformity, with an increased possibility of erroneous decisions.
For these practical reasons, UNHCR would urge that further attention be given to ways and means of institutionalizing central review, for example, by drawing on current practices in the Immigration Appeal Board and other tribunals.
In other words, a mere review on points of law is not enough when we are going to have decision makers spread all across this country, each one doing the best he or she can but with no mechanism for ensuring conformity and therefore equity in their decisions.
This question was raised not only by the UNHCR but by a great many witnesses before the committee. There was a
Immigration Act, 1976
rather disconcerting moment in committee when it was considering another amendment relating to this section which would have deleted certain words that restrict the scope of the hearing, words relating to a capricious decision. If there was an error in fact caused by a capricious decision, I asked that the court be allowed to review it. The Government refused to accept that amendment and in explaining the refusal the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary referred to the section which deals with a decision based on an erroneous finding of fact that the refugee board made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
This particular section is lifted right out of the Federal Court Act, and if you took away the phrase Mr. Heap wants us to delete then it would change the parameters.
Whatever that means.
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I do not know, the remark by the Parliamentary Secretary, no doubt on the advice of Mr. Gerrard and Ms. Beaupre, the department staff present, was misleading because the words he refers to in the Federal Court Act are words for judicial review. Yet the Government is calling this an appeal. Judicial review is limited, yes, by the Federal Court Act to points of law and to a point of fact that becomes a point of law. Yet when I asked for further explanation, Ms. Beaupre could not tell me all that was in the Act. She said that the words I wanted to take out are definitely in the section dealing with judicial review, and to quote:
I am not aware that the provision on appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal from trial division decisions has those words.
The Government makes a statement which turns out to be inaccurate, and when we ask the staff the Government brings to the hearing, the experts, Mr. Gerrard and Ms. Beaupre, to give us the details, they say they do not know. That is not a very fair way to argue.
I appeal to the Government to reconsider its position on this point. The UNHCR has asked that we have a review. The Government turned down all requests for a system of review on the grounds that it would lengthen the process. We heard a speech many times from the Hon. Member for Calgary West about how such a change would open the door to thousands of bogus refugees who would delay the whole process for weeks and months and years and cause it to break down again. By his own words that is not true. He has told us that about 80 per cent of the applicants would be found to be bogus at the screening stage, not at the end. Only a relatively small number of applicants will get to the refugee division. Of those, some will be found to be genuine and they will not appeal. Some may accept a negative decision. There will not be a huge number appealing.
1 am asking that they be given a fair appeal, not one chopped, changed and turned into a mere judicial review by the legalities introduced by the staff and defended by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I am asking that the Government


Immigration Act, 1976
accept this motion and allow appeal on questions of fact or mixed law and fact and that it do so without the restriction of having to appeal for leave to appeal. Let the Federal Court itself judge the case before it.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, again today I rise in the debate on certain amendments to Bill C-55, but I am still firmly convinced that even if the 77 amendments were to be accepted, which will certainly not be the case, Bill C-55 is not what Canada needs to ensure the well being of refugees. What we do need is fair, fast and equitable legislation, and Bill C-55 does not fit this description. The legislative committee heard a number of expert witnesses who told us why this measure is worthless. Mr. Speaker, allow me to recall some of the comments of these experts.
The Canadian Bar Association is, I believe, made up of a very responsible and respected group of Canadian citizens. They claim that Bill C-55 violates the three basic principles of a proper refugee system; universal access, oral hearings for all, and review on the merits. They also said that the screening process and the lack of discretion for the immigration adjudicator and member of the refugee division concerning access criteria prevent a complete evaluation of claims and do not comply with the Convention in allowing refoulement without inquiry on the merits. They recommend full universal access before two members of the refugee division. They think the board should have the capacity to recommend to the Minister that a person be permitted to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Furthermore, a no less respected organization, the Canadian Council for Refugees, also says that ultimately the only way to have a workable system is to have one that is fast and fair. C-55 will be challenged in every way possible. They predict that significant parts of the Bill will be struck down and the backlogs will be enormous.
Professor Flathaway, a well-versed expert on the matter said that after all the studies which have preceded it, it is disappointing to find that Bill C-55 has gone in this direction. The Eelam Tamil Society, a group which represents many refugees, says that Bill C-55 has the purpose to change Canada's approach to refugees to one consisting entirely of overseas selection. This is very unfortunate.
The Canadian Jewish Congress believes very strongly that C-55 will set up an unworkable process which will, in some cases, turn away genuine refugees. The system will create as many backlogs as the system it replaces.
1 could express the views of many more experts, Mr. Speaker, all of whom say the same thing-Bill C-55 should be scrapped and replaced by a more adequate and humane law.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, there has to be an alternative to this Bill. I gave all interested parties a document to replace this highhly controversial measure and I am convinced that a study of the proposed amendments would have enabled one and all to understand the reasons why Canada must now amend the Immigration Act of 1976 with respect to refugees, while at the same time honouring the Geneva Convention and remaining the world's most humanitarian country.
As far as amendment No. 68 goes, I urge my colleagues to follow the dictates of their conscience. Motion No. 68 is aimed at ensuring that the appeal be made in accordance with a rule and that it become a true appeal. To this end, the clause must read as follows. The motion reads, and I quote:
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 28 to 38 at
page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"any gound of appeal that involves a question of law, a question of fact, or a
question of mixed law and fact."
I hope Flon. Members will support it but I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker, as in the case of all the other amendments.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the initiative of the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and the Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) we are discussing a very important principle, that is, what appeal mechanism ought to be available in a society like ours for people who apply to remain in Canada as refugees. Therefore, the technicality of the proposal should be seen against the background of the desire of those who are speaking in favour of this motion to have a fair system of appeal.
We have grown accustomed to not seeing either Minister of Immigration in the House during this debate on report stage. Today we are treated to the unusual spectacle of the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary as well. This is an all-time low in the presentation of any Bill by any Minister in the history of this Government. No one representing either Minister of Immigration, not even the Parliamentary Secretary, is here to listen to the debate.
I want to reinforce what the Member for La Prairie just said, and what the Member for York West said today and last night, namely, that it is important to design an appeal mechanism which will take into consideration not only the law but also the facts, which sometimes the law does not take into consideration. This point was very well covered by the Canadian Bar Association when it said that an appeal on legal grounds alone does not permit a review of the merits.
That is the substance of the issue being advanced by the Member for York West. Under the Bill as now written the merits of a case will not have one iota of effect on the mind of the judge because they will not be taken into consideration. From a human point of view this law is a very weak instrument


for the consideration of the case of a human being in desperate circumstances applying for refugee status.
The Canadian Bar Association went on to say that the absence of review of the merits may permit different decisions in different regions of the country. This is why the conclusion of the Canadian Bar Association, which has unfortunately been ignored by the Government, is to have a more open appeal system. That is the obvious conclusion because we need an appeal system which considers the merits of a case. That is the purpose of this amendment.
On September 3 Amnesty International appeared before the committee and said that the appeal system in this Bill is woefully inadequate. They pointed first to the fact that after the refugee division decision is made the Federal Court will not be accessible because most refugee claims are made on facts and not on law. That is what this motion is all about. It highlights the importance of considering the merits and the facts.
Amnesty International points out as well that after the screening the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recommends that the decision should be reviewed on the merits. This is not in Bill C-55. This is a deficiency in the Bill which we are trying to point out through Motions Nos. 67 and 68. We bring it to your attention in the hope that the Government will come to its senses and see the merits of this proposal, as it will do if it is, as it claims, a humanitarian government and one that will take into consideration the particular situation of individuals who knock at our doors.
This deficiency in the Government's Bill must be corrected, and that is why the motion was supported, not only by opposition Members but by the Member for La Prairie who is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. In your experience as a politician, Mr. Speaker, when have you heard a government Member criticize a Bill from his own Government as the Hon. Member did a few moments ago?


Mr. Gormley:: Is there something wrong with that?


Mr. Caccia:: It only happens when such a Member is genuinely upset and believes the legislation is so deficient that he or she must rise to criticize it. That has happened very rarely in the history of this Parliament.


Mr. Robinson:: It never happened with the Liberals.


Charles L. Caccia: It has nothing to do with the Party. I applaud the Member for La Prairie for having the guts to say what he did. It could apply to the Tory Party, the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party. I am simply saying that if he finds the courage to get up and make the points he made, there must be something profoundly wrong with the Bill, particularly this clause. Yet we still do not see the two Ministers of Immigration here to defend this lousy Bill C-55. At least we see the
Immigration Act, 1976
weak Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister coming in at the last minute, without extending the courtesy of hearing what his colleagues say on this measure.
Motions Nos. 67 and 68 are very important because they represent a fundamental element of the design of the appeal system. They are more than just motions, they represent a desire and intent to design a fairer system of appeal. That is why we want the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the interventions made on this, and give us the reasons why the Government is not paying attention to these two motions.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I could not pass up the opportunity to comment during the debate on these motions. I want to personally offer my congratulations to the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) for the vigorous contribution he has made to the House with respect to this particular Bill. One rarely sees a situation in which a government Member of Parliament finds that he or she must divert from cabinet policy or government legislation. Members of Parliament sometimes find themselves opposed to a certain policy, but government Members in particular may feel compelled to support legislation no matter how the principle may affect them personally or their constituents.
Opposition critics have done a good job on this legislation. I am particularly proud of the vigorous work of the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) whose efforts have been acknowledged by people in my riding.
I believe Hon. Members should recognize the job done by the Member for La Prairie who has taken a principled and 1 believe honourable position on this legislation. He has made a very humanitarian contribution and provided thoughtful criticism of the legislation. I believe many Members can learn a lesson from the Member for La Prairie in the way he has acquitted himself in taking a stand against his Party on the basis of a firm humanitarian principle.
The Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said that a certain disciplined approach must be taken in order to carry out an action once it has been decided upon. I have had eight years experience in the House and would note that the Liberal Party members never suffered from those pangs of conscience when they were in government. There was no wavering or criticism once their leader decided on a course of action.


Mr. Allmand:: Not true.


Charles L. Caccia: You were not even here when that happened.


Raymond John Skelly: The Liberal Government never yielded and I think that Party has a lot of gall to take such a sanctimonious stand.


Charles L. Caccia: Don't give us that smoke and mirrors.


Raymond John Skelly: 1 think we have hit a nerve in the Hon. Member.


Immigration Act, 1976
The Liberal Party governed with an iron fist. The voices of criticism in their own ranks were few and far between no matter how deficient the legislation. It is somewhat surprising to see Members and cabinet Ministers of the former Government advocating that government Members break ranks when it never happened when the Liberal Government ruled with an iron fist. One can only hope that these recent conversions may be a permanent feature of that Party.
This legislation should not be passed by the House. I believe that the Members who have worked diligently in opposition to this Bill have done a great service to the country and 1 congratulate our critic and the Member for La Prairie who, finding himself at odds with his Party and the Government's position, acquitted himself very well in the House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the Motion No. 67 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
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 having risen:


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

The next question is on Motion No. 68 in the name of the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division stands deferred.
I have been asked to remind the House of the motions that are left on Bill C-55. We have Motions Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77 which will be debated separately and voted on separately.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, having examined Motions Nos. 73, 74, 76 and 77, I find they have the common characteristic that they essentially clean-up the Bill in a number of different areas the committee did not quite get to. I wonder if it might be the general feeling in the House that it would be wise to deal with these motions as a group because they have a similar purpose? We could vote on them separately but debate them together.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There has been a proposal to group Motions Nos. 73, 74, 76 and 77 together for debate but to vote on them separately.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my only concern is that the last five amendments are Government amendments. 1 would like to have a proper hearing for each of those motions. I think it would be good if the House knew exactly the intentions of each of those amendments. That is why, while they may be similar, if we group them I do not think we will have a proper individual positioning by the government Members. Therefore, I would favour an individual debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if that is the concern of the Hon. Member opposite, perhaps we can start with the Parliamentary Secretary, who could go through the four motions and tell us why they are necessary for clean-up. Then we might proceed from there. 1 wonder if that would be satisfactory to the Member from the Liberal Party?


Sergio Marchi: Perhaps we might find another compromise. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to deal with the four motions, perhaps we can extend the time for debate from 10 minutes to 15 minutes, or up to 20 minutes, so that all of these matters will be properly aired and save time in the end as well.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 think, Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, that would probably be acceptable. It would enable us to keep our heads on that matter and it would still leave Motion No. 75 for subsequent debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that Motion No. 73 to Motion No. 77 be grouped for debate-does the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) include Motion No. 75 in that group?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The unanimous consent required, therefore, would be to group Motions Nos. 73, 74, 76 and 77 for debate, but they would be voted on separately. The speaking time allowable for a Member would be 15 minutes


per Member. Is there unanimous consent to proceed in that way?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (for Minister of State (Immigration)) moved:: Motion No. 73
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 23
(a)	by striking out line 29 at page 48 and substituting the following therefor: "graph 115(1 )(p), (s), (bb), (cc),"
(b)	by striking out lines 24 to 26 at page 50 and substituting the following therefor:
"(9) In this section,
"court of appeal" means, in the province in which an order under this section is made, the court of appeal for that province as defined in the definition "court of appeal" in section 2 of the Criminal Code; "judge" means
(a)	in the Province of Quebec, a judge of the Superior Court for the district in which the vehicle in respect of which an application for an order under this section is made, was seized,
(b)	in the Provinces of Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, a judge of the county or district court of the county or district in which the vehicles was seized,
(c)	in the Provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, a judge of the Supreme Court thereof,
(d)	in the Provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, a judge of the court of Queen's Bench thereof, and
(e)	in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, a judge of the Supreme Court thereof."
Motion No. 74.
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 25
(a)	by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 51 and substituting the following therefor:
"person under this Act, an offence under section 96 or an offence under section 99 in relation to the coming into Canada of that person or an examination of that person under this Act, if that person came to Canada"
(b)	by striking out lines 30 and 31 at page 51 and substituting the following therefore:
"tion of that person under this Act, an offence under section 96 or an offence under section 99 in relation to the coming into Canada of that person or an examination of that person under this Act, that took place".
Motion No. 76 (Revised).
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 35
(a)	by striking out lines 4 to 8 at page 56 and substituting the following therefor:
"35.(1) If Bill C-84, entitled An Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, is assented to during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament and section"
(b)	by striking out lines 33 to 37 at page 56 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) If Bill C-84, entitled An Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, is assented to during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament and".
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-55 be amended in Clause 43
(a) by striking out line 5 at page 61 and substituting the following therefor:
Immigration Act, 1976
"decision and the reasons therefore as soon as possible after making the"
(b) by striking out line 15 at page 61 and substituting the following therefor:
"decision and the reasons therefor as soon as possible after making the".


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: I thank Hon. Members for their co-operation. I think they will find that the motions are by and large consequential and, as my friend the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) indicated, simply clean-up the terms. Therefore, it may not be necessary for me to use the total 15 minutes. I will however, deal with them clause by clause.
Motion No. 73 deals with Clause 23. This amendment is a clerical correction in that it deletes a reference to a provision of Bill C-84. All of the consequential amendments flowing from Bill C-84 are dealt with conditionally in Clause 35.
The reported Bill refers to a provision of Bill C-84 to provide definitions of "judge" and "court of appeal" for the purposes of Section 94.1. Because of the possible anomaly that would result if Bill C-84 were delayed beyond the date of proclamation of this Bill, it is preferable that these definitions be spelled out here.
These definitions are identical to those found in proposed Section 103.2 of Bill C-84, and this amendment has no substantive impact on the operations of the mechanism to protect third-party rights in the event of a seizure of a vehicle under Section 93.
Motion No. 74 deals with Clause 35(a) and (b). While Section 96.1 protects refugee claimants and Convention refugees from prosecution for many offences committed in order to flee to safety in Canada, it did not cover offences punishable under Section 99 of the Act. The offences covered under Section 99 include infractions such as the failure to have necessary passports and visas.
Since lack of documentation is a chronic problem among refugee claimants who flee their country of persecution on short notice, it would be inappropriate to commence prosecution until the claim has been determined.
Further, there will be no prosecution of those determined to be Convention refugees for passport and visa violations provided they have made their presence in Canada known to an immigration officer in a timely fashion provided for in Subsection 96.1 (3).
Motion No. 76 deals with Clause 35(a) and (b). These amendments correct grammatical errors in the clause as reported from the committee. The reported wording appeared to make the operation of this clause conditional on the proclamation of the relevant sections of Bill C-84 during this session. With this amendment, the operation of the clause is conditional on Bill C-84 receiving Royal Assent during the present session and will operate whenever both this Bill and the relevant clauses of Bill C-84 are proclaimed.
Motion No. 77 deals with Clause 43(a) and (b). The committee amended Clause 14, subsections 48.02(1) and (2)


Immigration Act, 1976
to confirm that the adjudicator and the refugee division member will provide reasons with respect to their decision not to refer a claimant to the refugee division. These amendments to Clause 43 provide a consistent requirement on the adjudicator and refugee division member to give reasons with respect to transitional cases.
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree that many of these motions deal with clerical and consequential amendments and, therefore, I would move their acceptance.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 agree that several of these amendments are clerical in nature and, therefore, 1 do not think it is necessary to comment on them. To begin, I think Motion No. 73 is probably technical and, as far as the substance goes, not controversial, or at any rate not harmful. However, I do wish to comment on Motion No. 74.
Motion No. 74 reflects a new policy that the Government has adopted in Bill C-84 and in Bill C-55 to create or intensify a condemnation or an offence that is a matter now of new policy. We are reminded that under Section 99, referred to in the amendment, infractions such as failure to have the necessary passport or visa are included.
It is well known that many people have come to Canada and obtained refugee status without a visa to enter Canada and sometimes without a passport from their own country, whichever country that may be. It is well known that some of those people had passports, but destroyed them. It is also well known that some of those people were not able to obtain a passport or a visa. Yet of those who were not able to obtain a passport or visa but claimed refugee status, some have been found to be refugees.
The majority of people who came from the Central American countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Chile, have been found to be bona fide refugees. However, a substantial minority were not. On humanitarian grounds some of those people have been allowed to stay. The amendment and the previous passages to which it refers are silent on whether the punishment will be inflicted against those who were not found to be refugees, but who may be allowed to remain on humanitarian grounds. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) made much of the humanitarian provisions in the existing law, and at least one humanitarian type provision in the Bill as revised after committee. We have not been told if those people will be prosecuted. We are urged to rely on the good judgment of the Minister.
This means, of course, we must rely on the good judgment of Santa Claus. In this country, children under five tend to believe that Santa Claus comes to their house on Christmas Eve, and every house in the country, between the time the children go to bed and the time they wake up in the morning. We are asked to believe that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) will do something much more
marvellous than that. He will be in every port of entry in Canada, not only on Christmas Eve, but every day of the year, and into the evening if there is an evening shift. Of course, it will not be the Minister but some overworked immigration official. I say "overworked" because we have received a complaint from the president of the local union in Toronto on the reduction of staff. Certainly, there has been no news of reduction in the work-load.
The humanitarian work is left in great doubt. We do not know what will happen to people who go through the process and who are found not to be refugees, but perhaps have a humanitarian claim, and if at some point their claim may be noticed. We do not know if they will be charged, as in Motion No. 74, and as is reflected in other parts of the Bill.
In discussions on Bill C-84 we have been assured that there will be no prosecutions of church people or other supposedly well-intentioned people who have assisted people to come to Canada to claim refugee status when they had no documents. That was a personal opinion given to us by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Once he ceases to be the Minister, that opinion is worth nothing. No matter how long the Minister wishes to stay in office, he certainly will not last forever. There will come a time when there is a new Minister. For that matter, there may well come a time when that Minister changes his mind. What he thinks is a good thing today, tomorrow he may feel is a bad thing.
There is no law to protect people who in good faith came to Canada claiming refugee status but do not have the required passports or visas. Therefore, there is a great danger that some people will be punished twice. They will be punished once by being denied refugee status, and will be punished a second time by being prosecuted for having come without visas. They may be jailed and then deported.
To leave it so wide open is monstrously unfair. There will be people who come from a country like El Salvador who think that they have a reasonable claim to refugee status who may be excluded. The Hon. Member for Calgary West stated that a great majority of the people presently coming and claiming refugee status are bogus claimants. The Hon. Member also indicated that a large majority of those who go to the determination process will be weeded out. They will not be sent to the refugee division, they will be excluded and considered to be ineligible or not credible at that first screening of the type that is considered unsatisfactory by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Then those people who have come without visas or passports may be prosecuted. According to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Calgary West, probably the great majority of those who apply will be subject to prosecution as reflected in this clause.
I believe that it is not merely a technical matter. I recognize that it puts up front the argument that we will not prosecute people immediately. The explanation of the representative of the Minister is that since lack of documentation is a chronic problem among refugee claimants who flee their country of


persecution on short notice, it would be inappropriate to commence prosecution until the claim has been determined.
If that is all the Minister means, we would all wish to vote for that. He also states that there will be no prosecution of those determined to be Convention refugees for passport and visa violations, provided they have made their presence in Canada known to an immigration officer in the timely fashion provided for in Subsection 96.1(3).
The emphasis in the first two paragraphs is that there will be prosecution of those who are found not to be refugees. While proposed Section 96.1 protects refugee claimants and Convention refugees from prosecution for many offences committed in order to flee to safety in Canada, it does not cover offences punishable under Section 99 of the Act which is the passport and visa clause.
As stated by the Hon. Member for Calgary West, the unfortunate implication of this clause is that only a small number of those who may come without documentation will be exempted by this clause. The others may have their prosecution delayed, but they will be prosecuted.
Therefore, 1 have strong doubts about supporting this motion. By strong implication, it seems to condemn a person who in good faith comes to Canada believing that because he had trouble in El Salvador he should be a refugee. Perhaps he comes through the United States and does not trust his luck to the 2 per cent chance that they give Salvadoran claimants. But he comes to Canada, makes his claim and is perhaps ruled out at the first screening or the inquiry, or perhaps at the refugee division hearing. Perhaps he is given humanitarian consideration, we do not know, but on a technicality he may be punished. He may come to the border and state that he is a refugee with no passport. For having the nerve, for example, to come across the bridge from Buffalo into Fort Erie and claim refugee status he may be punished. In my opinion that is unreasonable.
The previous speaker stated that this clause "cleans up" that section. It makes clear what the Government is doing, even though this section would undertake to give protection to those few, according to the Member for Calgary West, who will be found to be genuine refugees within the narrow definition of the United Nations Convention.
I am willing to hear further comments from the representative of the Minister, or from the Member for Calgary West, but at the present time I have great difficulty in supporting this motion.
Finally, passing over Motion No. 76-and I agree that in subclauses (a) and (b) we appear to be correcting grammatical errors-we come to Motion No. 77. Here again I believe that the request to have the reasons given in writing is reasonable. I really hope the Hon. Member for Calgary West will not again play the record about thousands of bogus refugees delaying the
Immigration Act, 1976
whole process for months and years and so on. We are at a late stage of the process, as described, and only a few people have got through this far. Yes, they can listen to the reasons but they should be given them in writing. It is the practice in most courts, if any sort of appeal is to be made, to expect a written statement of a decision and the reasons for the decision. It is not the practice in the courts to have the appellant or his lawyer say that he heard the refugee division say thus and so and thus and so. It is the practice to say, let's have it in writing.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West tried to make out that we were asking in a motion yesterday to have the whole transcript transcribed. That is quite untrue. That was never part of the motion yesterday, and it would not be what I would request today.
If it would be in order, I would move:
That Motion 77 be amended by adding the words "in writing" after the
word "reasons" in section (a) and in section (b).
If such an amendment would be in order, 1 would write it out and give it to the Clerk.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Heap that Motion No. 77 be amended by adding the words "in writing" after the word "reasons" in section (a) and in section (b). 1 will reserve decision on this for a few minutes.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We dealt with the same issue yesterday. In light of the fact that we have already had a division on this particular principle, 1 wonder whether the amendment is in order.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the vote yesterday concerned a different section of the Bill. Therefore I think that to introduce this amendment into this section is not prohibited by the decision on the other section.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will proceed with the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on debate now, and I will make a decision as soon as possible.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 73, unless I hear something otherwise from government Members who speak to it in the future, does not cause us too much concern. However, there is cause for concern when we come to Motion No. 74.
If we look at proposed section 96.1 at page 51 of the Bill, we find the word "Deferral" in the left-hand margin. I think that defines the entire intent of that particular motion. 1 think line 14 is the operative line. It reads:
No person who claims to be a Convention refugee and has notified an
immigration officer of the claim shall, pending disposition of the claim, be
charged with,-
I think the operative word is "Deferral", and I think the operative line is "pending disposition of the claim".


Immigration Act, 1976
Bill C-84 is currently being debated in the Senate and that debate is concentrating on a lot of problematic areas including the operative word in the documentation and the whole construction of the Bill.
1 should like to refer to an individual claimant who comes to this country, makes an application, and tells an adjudicator or member of the refugee board at the border that he is fleeing his country. He may say, "Here are my credentials. By the way, 1 didn't have time to line up and wait for two months for a visa. I didn't have the luxury of approaching the Canadian Embassy because I knew the Chilean police and others were on the watch. 1 didn't have the time when they burned my home and ransacked my business to pick up the proper documents".
If those reasons are clearly stated, then we would have through Motion No. 74 a Government saying, "While the claim is being dealt with, we will not prosecute". However, it is not prepared to say that the individual will not be prosecuted because he did not have a proper visa or proper documentation, which is contrary to the reality of the plight facing refugees.
When we debated Bill C-84 we did not suggest that individuals should fraudulently mislead authorities or that they should push fraudulent documentation on Canadian authorities, in that perhaps it may have been necessary to escape the country which was torturing them to pick up documents which might not have been legitimate. However, once they arrive in Canada and make a claim, obviously they should be forthright with Canadian officials and explain the documentation if they have any. We suggested that it would be counterproductive for a claimant to destroy the documents on an airplane enroute to Canada and illegal for anyone to counsel a claimant to rip up his documentation.
We have said to the Government that ripping up documents and the counselling of claimants to rip up documents should be illegal, and that it should be illegal to continue to press fraudulent documents, misleading birth certificates, passports, or social insurance numbers-the whole gambit. We admit that, but time after time we have asked the Government, if a refugee claimant explains that he or she does not have a document, and if the reasons are legitimate ones, why should there be the possibility and probability that despite those accounts the individual will face prosecution under the new offence created in Bill C-84?
If a priest or nun were to help an individual claimant who does not have documentation in place to come into the country, it stands to reason that if the claimant is prosecuted the probability is that the individual priest or nun will also face prosecution of some kind.


An Hon. Member:: Do you know the law?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from Saskatchewan is yelling from his desk but does not have the courage to stand up when he has 10 minutes-


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The record might show that, with his usually fervent histrionics, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) named a Member from Saskatchewan when, in fact, I was working at my desk. A couple of colleagues from other western provinces did heckle, but on this occasion, as he has been the case many other times in the House, the Member from York West is wrong. The heckling was done elsewhere.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member still does not have the courage to stand up and speak for 15 minutes. I encourage him to do so and I will give him my word that I will not heckle, as he does. The Government, and the Hon. Member from Saskatchewan again-Meadow Lakes, Bow River, whatever it is-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: -cannot understand the plight of legitimate refugees. We are not looking at individuals who have the luxury and the time to get documents. The plight of true refugees is one of disorder; it is of fleeing without having packed your bags properly. That is the life of legitimate refugees. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) knows that that is the order of the day for legitimate refugees, so why are we so obsessed with the idea that if a person does not have a document right off the bat he or she may face prosecution? In Bill C-84 we have created a new offence. We also slam the organizations, churches, priests, rate-payer groups and community associations which voluntarily, moved by gut feelings, help individuals enter Canada who may not have proper documentation.
I believe I explained yesterday a case of an El Salvadoran mother with three children whose husband was killed because he was part of the labour movement in El Salvador. She was told in no uncertain terms that she and her children had to flee or face the same fate as her husband. They did not have time to go to our embassy or consulate. They escaped as fast as they could and went to the United States. They were hidden in an Anglican church. Churches are not allowed to promote compassion for refugees publicly for some unknown reason. The Anglican Church in Canada was successful in bringing that family to the border. If those individuals-and I am not sure about the documentation, quite frankly-did not have proper documentation then that mother and three children who were escaping possible death would possibly be prosecuted, along with the Anglican Church officials. To make a long story short, Mr. Speaker, that would simply run counter to a Canadian sense of justice and fair play.
No one is advocating rewarding fraudulent schemers and people who produce social insurance numbers and false passports, which is an industry unto itself. Immigrants do enter countries perhaps with fraudulent documentation and business entrepreneurs may not always be telling the whole truth of the matter. I do not think we find in legislation governing those


individuals such a piece of legislation that is as regressive as this. This Bill hits the people who are less able to prepare and defend themselves, those without homes, without roots. Those individuals are the brunt of a Government which all of a sudden wants to show its macho image rather than dealing toughly with the United States on a number of other issues. In the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, on whom does the Government pick to show its macho image? It is the refugees, Mr. Speaker.
Concerning Motion No. 74 we cannot and will not accept it because we believe that the premise of it is incorrect.
With respect to Motion No. 76, I think what I said relating to Motion No. 73 is applicable. With respect to Motion No. 77, we had a debate yesterday about decisions being written. We do not think that is too much to ask. I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) moved the amendment that decisions be written and reasons be given. We agree with the government amendment in part suggesting that the reasons be given, but we do not want things to stop there. We cannot see why the Government cannot agree to our amendments which have suggested that reasons be written and presented to the claimant and the claimant's solicitor. That is done in virtually every other sphere of our system in the federal Government whether it be dealing with pension disputes, immigration appeal boards or workers' compensation cases. Even when we respond to our constituents, many times we give reasons for decisions. If the reasons are complicated, we document the case and go into detail. We try to provide in written form the complete parameter of the decision. We do these things in virtually every sphere of public policy. Why set a precedent? What happens when a life and death situation is facing someone who deserves human rights and respect? Is it so onerous to ask that those decisions be written? We have a Government that wants to turn boats back.
This is a matter of some semblance of balance. While the amendment is better because it forces the adjudicator and the immigration refugee board member to provide reasons, we are simply asking to have those reasons in written form so that the claimant, the solicitor and other interested parties may review the decisions and have some kind of intelligent response rather than carrying a video cassette or a tape recorder around saying, "Here is what was said''. The expense is borne by the claimant but at the end, perhaps in a court, those transcripts will not be deemed official. They may be incorrect and an interpretation of a claimant or solicitor. The Government could say that it is not official; it was not said that way. Then we will have a mess. Rather than simplifying things, we would, in Fotheringham's words, be mudifying the situation needlessly.
Therefore, we believe that when a decision is made the reasons should be given, written and defended. I cannot respect a system that says, "Here is our decision but we will not write it down and you can do what you want with it". That is neither legitimate nor logical. I hope that on Motions Nos. 74 and 77
Immigration Act, 1976
we will have some clarification by a member of the Government, perhaps the Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) in order.
On debate, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 will try to make a short intervention. I want to talk about Motion No. 74.
1 hope the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party vote against this amendment. That would be the clearest indication to the general public that perhaps they do not understand as much about the Bill as they should.
It might help the public to understand that the thrust of most of the amendments with which we have dealt proposed by the Opposition provide a bonus for bogus claimants. Every argument we have heard on Motion No. 74 is on behalf of bogus claimants. It is very consistent with a series of amendments that would attempt to provide a better world for people who are not refugees in need of the protection of Canada but who abuse our laws.
In particular, I would like to focus on the fact that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has made a very forceful presentation condemning his own political Party for decisions taken back in 1976. At that time, it foisted on this nation, through closure, an Immigration Act that is responsible for the current backlog and problems.
This clause deals with allowing the Crown to lay charges and perhaps to secure convictions when people break the provisions of the Immigration Act. The law as it exists today, passed by the Hon. Member's Government through closure, allows us to prosecute every refugee and every human being who breaks Canadian immigration law. This clause gives effect to something the Ministers have said again and again and something to which opposition Members have refused to listen.
The Ministers have said that it is not the Government's intention, never has been and never will be, to prosecute a legitimate refugee for breaking Canadian immigration law. In the context of Bill C-84, they have said that it is not the Government's intention to prosecute human beings who counsel and aid legitimate refugees. The power to do so exists under the law passed by the Liberal Government, but we will not exercise it.
Bill C-55 contains a clause which will put into statute law the provision that we cannot charge or convict a refugee claimant and if that claimant is determined to be a refugee, we can never charge or convict him for breaking Canadian immigration law. It is a special privilege we confer on the people who need our help and protection. The proposed amendment broadens that privilege and gives effect to the reality that exists.


Immigration Act, 1976
Members of the Opposition have been told time and time again that it is not the Government's intention to prosecute those who help real refugees. This Bill along with this amendment makes it illegal to try to charge them or convict them. I hope that opposition Members vote against this amendment. If they do, it will be a clear-cut signal that they care only about bogus claimants and do not care for legitimate refugees.
The other day, opposition Members tried to amend the Bill so it would give the same privileges to those who abuse Canadian immigration laws and are not refugees. 1 think the House should remain consistent. We do care about legitimate refugees. They deserve our protection. However, bogus claimants deserve to get it in the neck.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 73 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 73 (Mr. Weiner) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 74 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). 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 pleased say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. The motion is carried on division.
Motion No. 74 (Mr. Weiner) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 76 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 76 (Mr. Weiner) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 77 moved by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


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 having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded divisions on the proposed amendment and on Motion No. 77 stand deferred.
The last motion is Motion No. 75.


Fernand Jourdenais: Motion No. 75
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 42 to 49 at
page 53 and lines 1 and 2 at page 54 and substituting the following therefor:
"('*) prescribing, for the purposes of paragraph 48.1 (1 )(6), any country with which Canada has a written arrangement with respect to persons who are or who claim to be Convention refugees as a safe third country for all persons or for persons of a specified class of persons, having regard to the record of that country with respect to human rights and to expulsion of persons who are or who claim to be Convention refugees."


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) would like to withdraw his motion. It refers in part to the notion of a safe third country and other amendments have taken those words and concepts out of the Bill. The motion would not fit within the context of the Bill any longer. For that reason and because of previous decisions, I wonder if the Hon. Member might seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw his motion.
[ Translation]


Fernand Jourdenais: No, Mr. Speaker, you will note that I moved this amendment because I want to express my personal opinion, and I should like to have the opportunity to explain it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) has the floor.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, did you ever wonder why we have so many phoney refugees, those we call economic refugees? Well, I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker: the 1976 Immigration Act no longer serves the purposes for which it was adopted.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever tried to help people seeking to have brothers, sisters, friends or others gain entry into


Canada? In many cases we are turned down for all sorts of reasons which might easily be changed and accepted.
Mr. Speaker, one would think that the motto of officials who accept or reject immigration applicants in other countries outside Canada is no. Then they decide and analyze.
This reminds me of an anecdote. Before going into politics 1 was an insurance broker and when we used to call insurance companies to file claims, instead of answering: Hello, yes, good morning, or good afternoon they would say: No, we are not going to pay! This reminds me of the same thing. They have already made their decision even before we can do anything at all, or before the applicant has had a chance to explain why he would like to become a Canadian citizen.
If we made coming to Canada easier without allowing just about everybody seeking to make a home for himself in Canada, if we increased the quotas from 250,000 to 300,000 persons per year, we could change or increase the categories, the refugees in camps, the family reunions, the independent immigrants, the entrepreneurs, et cetera, and I am sure that for those who are trying to enter Canada illegally through the political asylum system, the Geneva Convention process would not exist, for they could ask to come legally to Canada as immigrants.
1 thank you for indicating the time, Mr. Speaker; I shall continue after the lunch break.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this week it was reported that low levels of the dangerous chemical dioxin have been found in a wide range of finished paper products, including disposal diapers, food containers, towels, tissues, and office paper.
The U.S. paper industry and Environmental Protection Agency have known of the problem for at least 18 months but have not made it public. David Paavila, a spokesman for the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, said dioxin contamination was identified in Canadian mills several years ago.
Dioxins are not washed out of the pulp using conventional chlorine bleaching. However, oxygen bleaching, now used
extensively in Europe, substantially reduces the problem and, according to some experts, also reduces production costs. The health of Canadians is being unnecessarily threatened. 1 urge the Government to move swiftly to force industry to abandon the chlorine bleaching process in favour of the safer and cheaper oxygen process.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want and deserve reliable postal service. A postal disruption is looming on the horizon, this time involving the 23,000 member Canadian Union of Postal Workers. CUPW is firmly opposed to the franchising of post offices while Canada Post management says franchising is absolutely necessary in order to reduce costs and get the corporation back in the black.
In changing times it is essential that companies have the authority to manage effectively and efficiently. At the same time, there is also a great responsibility to protect the rights of workers. I urge the corporation and the union to continue with their negotiations.
It is encouraging to note that both chief Canada Post negotiator Harold Dunstan and CUPW President Jean-Claude Parrot have said they are looking for a settlement. The Canadian public will not tolerate a breakdown of service.



CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, reliable sources have said that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has used agents and paid informers to infiltrate various organizations such as the CEQ, the Public Service Alliance, the Canadian Auto Workers Union and, most recently, the British Columbia Federation of Labour. Members of that respected Federation find this snooping to be unethical, illegitimate, completely inappropriate, and unacceptable. It casts an unwarranted pall over the Federation's membership.
We have seen this type of behaviour before. The McDonald Commission report warned about: "The chilling effect that the indiscriminate use of informers can have on the free flow of ideas within institutions such as labour unions." It went on to point out that there is "far too little government direction and review of the security service policies with regard to unions."


I urge the Minister to meet with federation representatives, release all relevant documentation, and launch a full parliamentary inquiry into the activities of CSIS. Considering the growing list of serious allegations and the increasing lack of public confidence in the service and the Minister, anything less would be unacceptable.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Mission-Port Moody, indeed all British Columbians, are concerned about recent statements made by NDP Members of this House and their fellow travellers regarding the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) bold trading initiative with the United States. Their attitude is indicative of the fact that these socialists are insensitive, inward looking, and incapable of governing.
The Prime Minister engaged in trade negotiations with the U.S. for the well-being of all Canadians, despite incredible odds. Our Prime Minister has a vision, that all regions and all the people of Canada will share the wealth and prosperity that a successful trading agreement would bring. He shares the foresight that Lord Macauley displayed over a century ago when he said: "Free trade, one of the greatest blessings which a Government can confer on a people, is in almost every country unpopular."
I urge all Members of this House, indeed all Canadians, to encourage our Prime Minister to continue to pursue this goal vigorously with the intensity, courage, and wisdom that he has displayed thus far as Prime Minister of this country.



ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canada is very concerned that the federal Government is again playing games with the region and is not at all concerned about its economic development.
Just recently the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce requested assurances from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that established regional development programs like the Atlantic Enterprise Program, and ERDA sub-agreements will be maintained and not starved of funding in favour of the new Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. What they suspect is that the $200 million per year budgeted for the Agency may be the only funding allocated for regional development. Although the Chamber applauds the creation of the Agency,
as do we, it wants assurances that the money allotted is truly new money and not just old money being shuffled around.
My Party and I share the concerns of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce. We fully realize that the Tories are doing a lot less for regional development, and find this completely unacceptable.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Marcel Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that the defence policy of the Progressive Conservative Party is a realistic policy economywise, considering the 9.4 per cent of estimates earmarked for military operations out of the whole 1987-88 budget. Those figures are below the percentages maintained by other NATO countries with comparable areas, taking into account the percentage of those credits of 9.4 per cent earmarked for supervision and defence of our territorial waters, purchase of equipment, staffing, operational training of our forces in this country or abroad in peacekeeping operations.
I wish to insist on the realism of our defence policy by pointing out that the costs incurred to keep our commitments to NATO are quite reasonable and more especially since we should remember that large expenditures are made in Canada by other member countries to train their forces.
Our Government's policy for the defence of our country is realistic and no other party has ever proposed such a fine one. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I have serious doubts as to the defence policy advocated by the New Democratic Party.
A policy advocating that Canada remain alone and isolated considering the political and military reality of today is senseless. 1 feel, Mr. Speaker, that NDP means: No, to defence!



AGRICULTURE


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the meat inspection policy of the country changed significantly when the Government took over. It changed from using department personnel to more reliance on in-plant personnel to apply the very crucial stamp which indicates the level of


quality of meat. These grading stamps are a very important part of the system.
You may remember an affair in Montreal a number of years ago when some meat which was only supposed to be fit for pet food ended up bearing an official stamp.
The stamps get lost or are stolen on occasion. Through the Freedom of Information Act the Kitchener-Waterloo Record and certain people have been attempting to find out how long some of these stamps have been lost and what happens in such circumstances.
The stamps of one of the largest plants in the country recently went astray. We want to know what happened to them, when they will be recovered, and what status the stamped meat from that plant has in the meantime. We think it is time that glasnost came into the meat-grading system of our country.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, trade is the life blood of Canada and the United States. The more trade, the more jobs, and the more buoyancy in the economy. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), and their negotiators have been working their hearts out to get 100,000 jobs for Canada the protectionists of the U.S.A. who, without a free trade agreement have the power to warp the industrial life of Canada, have been raising their ugly heads.
In Canada Shirley Carr and the NDP have acted like a fifth column for the protectionists by spouting untruths. "Mulroney is selling out Canada" Carr cries, and the Leader of the NDP parrots her in the House. "Sovereignty will be lost", "the Americans will take our jobs", "the Auto Pact is on the table", the NDP wrongly insinuate. And now the negotiations have been suspended.
Both Canada and the United States need and will profit from a fair trade agreement and neither will lose any sovereignty. Negotiations, if they are recommenced, can succeed, particularly if the NDP and Shirley Carr stop acting like a fifth column for the protectionists of the United States.



PROPOSED CAPE BRETON COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter which is of great concern to the people of Nova Scotia. The Province of Nova Scotia has planned to build a new pollution-free coal-fired power plant on
Cape Breton Island. The Government of Nova Scotia has requested that the federal Government assist in the funding of this project. This plant will be utilizing the circulating fluidized bed technology that treats coal to reduce the sulphur dioxide emissions which are responsible for acid rain. Yesterday the Premier of Nova Scotia stated that he has given up requesting that the federal Government commit itself to the project as it appears that it is not interested.
The Government should be ashamed of itself in light of the supposed commitment it has made to the environment. Here is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate its concern for the environment, create employment, and increase the markets for Cape Breton coal.
I urge the Government to reconsider its decision and notify the Premier of Nova Scotia today that it will be committing funds to this very worth-while project which will use the latest coal technology and pollution-free controls.



FREE TRADE-AUTO PACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the free trade issue has been on the mind of many people these last few days.
In an interview with reporter Pierre Nadeau yesterday evening on Le Point, Mr. Gordon Ritchie, Assistant Chief Negotiator for Free Trade, finally enlightened us about certain false allegations made by the two opposition Parties. He confirmed the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the effect that the Auto Pact had never been on the table.
Mr. Speaker, after such a clear statement by someone who is directly involved in the process, 1 believe that both the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) should immediately apologize for having questioned the comments of the Prime Minister.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's attitude toward funding for community colleges in northeastern Ontario is simply atrocious. A recent letter I


received from Glenn Crombie, President of Cambrian College, points this out. In the last three years, since the Government came to power, the amount of funding has been reduced by 40 per cent, from 100,000 training days to 61,000 training days for that college which not only serves Sudbury but the Manitoulin district as well.
That is happening to colleges throughout northern Ontario, which represents 90 per cent of the land mass of Ontario. We have a large native population who require extra assistance for training and upgrading. Yet the Tories have cut funding by 40 per cent. It is totally unacceptable to the people of northeastern Ontario and all of northern Ontario.
1 call on the Minister and the Government to reinstate the full funding which was in place three years ago when the Government came to power.

[Translation}



IMPORTANCE OF FREE TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the breaking off yesterday of the free trade negotiations with the United States could be a national tragedy. Canada now exports a quarter of its national production, and 80 per cent of this goes to the United States. This means that one out of four jobs would be threathened without a free trade agreement.
The Quebec Region needs a free trade agreement for its major industries. One of them, Lauzon Shipyards, needs for its long-term development to have the Jones Act repealed as this Act prohibits bids by foreigners on the building of ships used in the United States.
Free trade is essential if the Lauzon Shipyards are to bid on American Government contracts, which could be worth $740 billion. Quebec as a whole, on both the south and north shores, must now support our Government. Our parliamentarians and politicians must look beyond Party politics and everyone must act in a spirit of co-operation.
Our region and all its industries need free trade.



WINTER OLYMPICS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak on behalf of all Members in the House today
when I say that it has been brought to our attention that the Government of Canada will soon be running two television advertisements promoting the February Winter Olympics. However, there is no mention in those ads of the City of Calgary, the home of the Olympics. There is no film footage of the City of Calgary or the Province of Alberta.
Even the advertisements that private sponsors are running give a profile of the City of Calgary and the Province of Alberta. But the Government of Canada does not. This is highly insensitive.
Can you imagine the Los Angeles Olympic Games being advertised with no reference to Los Angeles? Can you imagine the Montreal Olympics being advertised with no reference to the city of Montreal?
Presently, all Members of Parliament from Alberta are Tories. It is hard to imagine that a Government with so many Members from Alberta can be so insensitive to the City of Calgary and to the Province of Alberta.
1 call upon the Government to correct the error, redo the ads and give Calgary the due it deserves and Alberta the just credit it deserves.



THREAT CAUSED BY AMERICAN PROTECTIONISTS

John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, as a citizen of Saskatchewan 1 am concerned about the suspension of the free trade talks. We began these talks two years ago because of a growing threat to our trade by American protectionists. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had the courage and foresight to seek a trade agreement in an attempt to prevent U.S. protectionism.
During the past two years Saskatchewan has seen first hand what happens when U.S. protectionism runs rampart. We have been seriously hurt in my province in grains, potash, and uranium. This kind of trade abuse by the Americans must be stopped now. It can be stopped by free trade.
To suggest, as many on the opposition side have, that the trade talks have somehow caused protectionism is so inaccurate it can only be described as silly. The Prime Minister said that Canada would walk away from any deal that was not in the best interests of our nation. We have walked away. On behalf of the Saskatchewan people, our farmers and resource producers, I speak fervently in hoping a trade agreement can still be found.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, inflation is alive and well at Canada Post. This morning the people of Lancaster in my riding received their new postal box rental rates. Until today they were paying $6.75 per year for a mailbox. It will now cost $25.44. In one case the rate went up from $13.88 to $50.88.
My constituents are upset and they just will not take that kind of nonsense from the Tories any longer. The Tory Government should put an end to this kind of gouging. This is highway robbery. If the Government of Canada were to spend less time using taxpayers' money to reward its friends, there would be a lot more money to go around to help the people of Canada and the good people of Lancaster in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Shame on the Tories.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing the Oral Question Period I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Czechoslovakia led by the Honourable Alois Indra, Chairman of the Federal Assembly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, an over-all free trade agreement with the United States would compromise Canada's political or cultural sovereignty. Yet during more than two years the Prime Minister forged ahead on the basis of the naive hypothesis that such a free trade agreement would shelter Canada from the protectionist approach of the American Congress.
Will the Prime Minister now admit that his initiative did threaten the Canadian economy? Will he tell us why he thinks he can secure a binding dispute settlement mechanism between the two countries? And how can he obtain and manage to have Canada exempted from American trade laws?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no! In this morning's La Presse one could read, and I quote: "The Americans have often pointed out to what extent Canada was better prepared than the United States to hold these negotiations and that Ottawa had appointed many high-calibre officials to lead them. It may be that discussions came to bear on a subject about which the American delegation was not sufficiently prepared to respond." That, Mr. Speaker, is a very interesting explanation concerning the important problem of the negotiations.
With respect to our intention to try to shelter Canada from protectionist attacks, of course, that is the basis of our initiative. This position has gained widespread support among many Canadians, including the provincial premiers and particularly Premier Bourassa of Quebec who, speaking on behalf of the Government of Quebec yesterday, emphasized again the extent to which a free trade agreement with the United States would indeed shelter Canada from unwarranted attacks on the part of protectionist elements. So in a way such is the rationale which has inspired us and which still inspires us as we try to reach a valid agreement between the two countries.


GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC POLICY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the naive assumption that somehow Canada could be exempted from the protectionist sentiment in the United States Congress would only be valid if we were to obtain a binding trade dispute settlement mechanism with the United States, and a meaningful exemption from American trade law.
A year and a half ago in the House I warned the Prime Minister that any trade agreement at all, let alone a comprehensive free trade agreement which we opposed, speaking for the Liberal Party and for most Canadians, I tell you-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -that any trade agreement at all without a binding dispute mechanism would not be worth the paper it was written on.
Two months ago in the House I again said to the Prime Minister that, on the basis of statements made by the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, and the leading Republican Senator, and leading Congressmen, a trading dispute mechanism was not on.
Despite that, the Prime Minister went ahead and continued his giveaways, and in a most vulnerable manner for Canada opened all its books to the United States. That is what happened.


Oral Questions


Mr. McDermid:: Talk about naive!


John Napier Turner: If the negotiations are over-and we believe that they should be over-when will the Government and the Prime Minister present to the country an intelligent national economic policy that, complemented with a useful trade policy, will bring the country back to what it should be?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of presenting a comprehensive economic policy to the people of Canada which has resulted in 907,000 new jobs since the Government was sworn in.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is the highest rate of growth of all the OECD countries, the 24 industrialized countries in the world.


John Horton McDermid: You should be up cheering.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now my right hon. friend tells the House that a year and a half ago he spoke about the need for a binding mechanism to settle disputes.
Two years ago Friday, in speaking to this issue on behalf of the Government, I said, "The answer to this problem lies in sound agreement legally binding between trading partners to secure and remove barriers to mutual trade".


John Napier Turner: That is not a dispute mechanism.


Martin Brian Mulroney: "That is our approach to world trade, and it is obvious that we must find special and direct means of securing and enhancing the annual $155 billion of two-way trade with the United States".
From the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, we recognized that this may not be easy, and indeed it may be very difficult to obtain a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States. We believe that a good deal can also be a fair deal, one that benefits Canada very much, and one that also benefits the United States. That is the type of liberalized trading instrument that we were seeking that could benefit both countries and serve as a model for the world.
It is with regret that we have noticed that the United States has not yet followed through in making that a reality.


CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS
John Napier Turner: During the course of negotiations over the past two and a half years, the Prime Minister has caved in again and again on specific issues.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Whenever we asked the Prime Minister what Canada would get out of this deal, the Prime Minister stated to us, to the House, and to the country, "Wait until you see the deal".
The Prime Minister caved in on lumber, shakes and shingles, potash, and on book publishing. I ask the Prime Minister what did we get out of this negotiation?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Disaster.


John Napier Turner: What did we win?


Some Hon. Members:: Nothing.


John Napier Turner: Now that the negotiations appear to have collapsed, does he intend to get anything back of what we lost over the last two and a half years during the course of these negotiations?
Won't the Prime Minister, instead of trying to wrap himself in the Canadian flag, admit candidly to the House and to the people of Canada that we are now worse off in our relationship with the United States than when we began these negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't have mentioned this but, inasmuch as my right hon. friend does, 1 have in front of me The Toronto Star of March 22, 1987, where the headline says "Liberal Donald Johnston urges fellow Liberals to back free trade", one of the very key members of the Liberal caucus who has been speaking out on this. The Liberals have been-


John Napier Turner: How about your quote in 1983, Brian?


Nelson Andrew Riis: What was your position in 1983, Brian?


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members would want to hear the answer of the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, another one of the most distinguished Liberals in Canada chaired the Royal Commission which set an objective, and 1 think it is important to mention it. The Macdonald Royal Commission said: "The negotiations with the United States are a prudent course which will help us to make Canada richer and, by making us richer, strengthen the fabric of our country and increase our selfconfidence".
The Liberal Party does not have to convince Canadians. They already know of its antipathy and its bitterness toward the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Everybody knows that. That is not the position of this Government. We believe that there can be co-


operation with the United States of America to generate jobs, wealth, and prosperity for all Canadians.
We are not going to hide in the 19th Century; we are going to lead Canada to a brilliant 21st Century.


FREE TRADE-ALTERNATIVE POLICY
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the Prime Minister and perhaps attempt to elevate the debate to a somewhat higher level. 1 think-


An Hon. Member:: Correct, carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: The intention of the Hon. Member is to be complimented, but it will take some silence here.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I think it can be said that the failure of the free trade negotiations will lead the Government willy-nilly to reconsider its economic policy.
For the past two years, we have heard free trade described as this Government's number one economic priority, as the cure-all that would create thousands of new jobs, as the miracle solution to unemployment problems. No later than yesterday, the Prime Minister implied that in his view-and this is beyond me-a free trade agreement would help solve the economic disparities affecting certain regions in this country.
1 would therefore ask the Prime Minister, since a free trade agreement seems increasingly hard to reach: What alternative economic policy does he have to propose to Canadians?
1 ask the question because to this day, the Government's economic policy has been to rule out intervention and let the marketplace take care of economic development in this country. Therefore, what will be the Government's economic policy, since free trade does not work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite off the mark! Because since we came to power 907,000 new jobs have been created, of which almost 250,000 were in Quebec. Interest rates are declining, but all the same we are looking to the future.
There are significant disparities-for instance, the unemployment rate in southern Ontario is 5.8 per cent, while in Newfoundland it hovers around 18 per cent to 19 per cent. Those are unacceptable regional disparities.
And as Mr. Bourassa, Quebec's Liberal Premier, indicated: Whithout a free trade agreement, there is the threat of irreversible economic decline in Quebec.
As a Quebecer and a Canadian, 1 am surprised to see the Liberal Member dead set against an instrument that would be of benefit to Quebec and Canada.
Oral Questions


TEMPTATION TO CONCLUDE CHEAP AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, you have certainly noticed just how careful the Prime Minister was when he referred to the 900,000 jobs which have been created. He did not dare brag that his Government had created them. And that, without any free trade agreement.
Politically speaking, Mr. Speaker, the Government has invested so much in these free trade negotiations over the past two years by putting all its eggs in the same basket . . . The Government has stated that a free trade agreement was the corner stone of its economic policy. It will be therefore greatly tempted to come to an agreement at all cost or to sign a cheap agreement, in order to be able to claim openly: Victory! We have an agreement!
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure us that the Government will resist the temptation to have a settlement for a settlement's sake, in other words, to sign a cheap agreement merely to save its face.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have never hesitated over major decisions in favor of Canada, even when the initiatives were risky. For instance, the free trade agreement or the Meech Lake Accord. It is not easy, but it is necessary for a government to make a stand on behalf of Quebec and the rest of Canada, but we just went ahead knowing fully well that each major undertaking is risky.
If I may, I should like to quote in part a statement made last night by Ambassador Reisman. He said:
The Prime Minister made it plain to me when he hired me. He said, "Look, Simon, what we need is good access to the American market. What we need are good rules. What we need is certainty of access to that market and if there is any difficulty about interpreting the rules, we want to have an objective, binational dispute settlement mechanism to deal with differences between us .. . You know and I know that we may not get an agreement. It has to be a good agreement or there will be no agreement at all".
That is what has motivated the Government of Canada and we have not hesitated to take risks on behalf of building a more powerful and prosperous Canada.


POSSIBILITY OF POLITICAL SETTLEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He has just mentioned that some 900,000 jobs have been created since his Government took office. 1 would add to that that we have a current surplus with the United States in trade in excess of $8 billion. Perhaps the Prime Minister should note that this has all been done without a free trade agreement. He should just ponder about that for a moment.
There was a report before noon today that the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States suggested that the two countries, Canada and the United States, will set aside the


Oral Questions
bargaining teams on each side that have been involved in the complex negotiations, in favour of reaching a political settlement between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister before October 5. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether this is a serious option?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that 907,000 jobs have been created since the Government was sworn in. He is right. And that it was done without a free trade agreement. He is right again. Does he not think that Canada should try to do even better?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes. That is why you don't want a free trade agreement with the United States now.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I didn't want to induce a cardiac arrest here, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Be careful, it might affect your popularity.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Right Hon. Prime Minister could answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 will be happy to try, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to that, the Economic Council of Canada-the very impartial national economic think-tank and research instrument-indicated in its judgment that 350,000 new jobs could be created.
We have in this country an important problem of disparities where the unemployment rate, for example, in my hon. friend's hometown, is down below 5 per cent and it is as high as 20 per cent elsewhere. What we need is a free trade agreement to ensure greater fairness, greater equality of economic opportunity for all Canadians. We do not want a concentration of wealth only in one region, even though we are pleased with that growth. We want to share that wealth across the country from Vancouver to Newfoundland. A comprehensive free trade arrangement can make that happen. That is why we have been pursuing it with courage, vision, and vigour for two years.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I had a five-minute dissertation on the preamble and no reply to the question at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Which shows the great danger of long preambles.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please put his question?


John Edward Broadbent: You are right, Mr. Speaker, as we say in Oshawa!


POSSIBILITY OF MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the possibility has been raised in the United States that the complexities of the discussion in which Mr. Reisman for the Canadians and his counterpart for the Americans have been involved will be set aside in favour of a last-minute political settlement to be reached between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada before October 5-is this a serious option, Mr. Speaker? Is the Prime Minister considering having a special summit meeting with the President of the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 indicated yesterday, and Ambassador Reisman indicated again on behalf of the Canadian Government, that the ball is very much in the American court. We have fulfilled all of the responsibilities. We have indicated and spelled out very clearly the position in regard to all outstanding issues. It is our judgment, and Ambassador Reisman has spelled it out, that there is an urgent need for a response from the American side. That is why, in the absence of that, he suspended negotiations. It would be, I think, inappropriate at this time and perhaps unhelpful at this very moment for the President and myself or anyone else at that level to get involved.


RESULT OF IMPASSE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the date of October 5 is looming quickly, as the Prime Minister knows. It has been said by negotiators on both sides, as I understand it, that the Americans wanted to discuss the automotive industry, regional development and cultural policy, all of which would have immense complicating and, for us, almost inevitably negative consequences for Canada. Will the Prime Minister assure us that there will not be a last minute political deal negotiated between himself and the President of the United States on these important matters, because such a deal at this point could only be reached in desperation and such a deal could only be bad for the future of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is typical NDP policy. In the question just before that the NDP Member was urging me to meet the President and then in the last question he was saying: "Whatever you do, don't do it."


John Edward Broadbent: No, I wasn't. Start listening to the questions.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is typical consistency.
My friend refers to the automotive industry. Ambassador Reisman has made very clear the position in that regard, that it was never put on the table, notwithstanding the very mischievous comments by Mr. Bob White who is consistently identified as a Canadian labour leader. Perhaps the journalists


could also identify him by the other hat he wears, that of VicePresident of the national NDP.


POSITION OF CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. 1 think the Prime Minister would quite understand that there are a number of Canadians who are concerned about the events of the last 24 hours and would like some straight answers from the Government for a change.
Last night we had Simon Reisman, the chief negotiator, saying that as far as he is concerned the negotiations are finished. They are over. The game is over. The Prime Minister met with the Cabinet this morning and had briefings with Mr. Reisman.
Does the Prime Minister and the Cabinet now confirm Mr. Reisman's analysis that no deal is possible and the negotiations are over or is the Prime Minister continuing to contradict Mr. Reisman as he did yesterday by saying that there are still possibilities for a deal? Canadians would like to know, is the deal over or is the Prime Minister still planning some scheme in his mind to get a deal and shift his position as he has done so often in the past?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that yesterday and 1 think Ambassador Reisman put his position as well. Ambassador Reisman said this morning, by the way, the following:
-I want to tell you that in 40 years of work in the Public Service and in negotiations of at least a dozen or more major agreements I have never had a better team, I have never put into it more professional, analytical, scientific work. I have never had better direction and better leadership from any of the Governments I have served.


POSITION OF CABINET
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, what does the reading of Simon Reisman's requiem have to do with the question I asked? 1 think Canadians want to know the answer. The Government has said that this is the most important priority. The chief negotiator has said that it is all over. Cabinet met this morning. What did the Cabinet decide? Is it all over or is the Prime Minister going to try to weasel himself into another deal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that there are items that are very important and have to be resolved, from the beginning. We do not think they are outrageous. The dispute settlement mechanism to which we referred earlier, for example, is one of them.
I would give my hon. friend the following analogy, though not a perfect one. Tonight the Blue Jays and the Tigers begin a four-game series which is pretty crucial. How would the Detroit Tigers like it if the Blue Jays named the officials?
Oral Questions
They would not like it at all. We believe that there should be an impartial designation of officials. We want an impartial dispute settlement mechanism.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. According to news reports yesterday, CSIS has infiltrated not only the CNTU in Quebec but also the Quebec Teachers Federation, the Public Service Alliance, the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Canadian Auto Workers' Union. Given the Prime Minister's remarks on Bob White, we must ask ourselves if CSIS now sees Bob White as a threat to the security of Canada.
In view of the fact that this would in fact constitute a massive assault on the democratic labour movement in Canada, reminding Canadians of the worst abuses of the RCMP Security Service, will the Prime Minister order the Solicitor General to meet immediately with the leaders of the unions involved? Will he finally order a full parliamentary inquiry into these very, very serious allegations?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is basically a repetition of questions that have been asked of the Solicitor General over the course of many days now. The Solicitor General has answered these questions with distinction, with candour and with honesty.
The Solicitor General has indicated two things. One is that of course under the legislation the targeting of trade union organizations in Canada is outside the law. He has been advised and in fact has satisfied himself, on the basis of information received after inquiries, that these organizations are not being targeted. Nothing could be clearer. Either the Hon. Member is trying to create mischief or he comes here with malice-


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that it is improper to impute motives to other Hon. Members in this place.


ALLEGATION OF INTERFERENCE IN LEGAL PROSECUTION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this reminds us of answers given by Liberal Solicitor Generals in the 1970s. Labour unions may not be targeted but if there are sources within those unions that is an attack on the trade union movement in Canada.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we learned that the CSIS had tried unsuccessfully to prevent the Quebec Polic Force from laying criminal charges against Marc Boivin, a CSN informer paid by the CSIS. Since this clearly shows that the QPF has no


Oral Questions
confidence in the CS1S, will the Prime Minister finally admit that there is a crisis in the Canadian secret services and order a parliamentary investigation immediately?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to respond to those two untrue allegations as follows: one, the fact is that the Solicitor General has made inquiries with respect to this allegation made by a journalist on Le Point last evening. On the basis of information provided to the Solicitor General, he is satisfied that there is no interference in the police investigation or in the laying of charges against Mr. Boivin.
Second, 1 would point out that the other allegation that was made in a general way on the basis of unnamed sources is the kind of material the Hon. Member persists in bringing before the House without any backing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The co-operation between CS1S and the QPF is at a very high level. Officials from both organizations have worked in a very professional way. Any suggestion to the contrary, without using legitimate and specific instances and examples, is only mischievous. I would suggest to the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that he consider replacing his critic.


SECRETARY OF STATE
Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Last June, the Standing Committee on the Secretary of State published its first report on the Equal Opportunities for Women Program. In this report, the Committee recommended changes to extend the eligibility criteria of the program to provide access for organizations which provide a direct social service, such as counselling or child care. The Committee also recommended operational financing subsidies for organizations which meet a special need. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he intends to follow up on these recommendations?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and I can assure him that I shall give the matter full consideration. The Government response to this report is being prepared and will be presented in mid-November.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. It is obvious that the Security Service is out of control. There has been bungling, incompetence, negligence and false affidavits, and now there is a very serious allegation that the Security Intelligence Service interfered in criminal proceedings.
It has been indicated by the Minister of Justice that there has been an investigation into these allegations. I would ask the Prime Minister what the nature of the investigation was, if the Quebec Provincial Police were asked to comment on this particular matter, if an independent source investigated the allegations, or if the Solicitor General has simply asked the Security Intelligence Service whether it acted accordingly and appropriately.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the nature of the question, this is simply a restatement by the Solicitor General critic of the Liberal Party of the question asked by the NDP Solicitor General critic. The answer remains the same.
I would remind the Hon. Member that his reputation as a legitimate critic in the area of senior law enforcement-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was going to mention the word "reputation".


Ms. Copps:: Don't be so ignorant.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston, second question.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The Security Intelligence Service is fast losing the confidence of the people of Canada when it ought to have the confidence of the people of Canada. I submit that CSIS is out of control because the Government has not provided the necessary direction and control. It appears that CSIS is ignoring the law which created it. I know the Prime Minister's mind is preoccupied with other matters but this matter is just as important.


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


John V. Nunziata: Does the Prime Minister understand that we need an independent inquiry into the conduct of CSIS in order to restore confidence in that agency?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that CS1S was based upon Liberal legislation passed just before we came into office. Since that time successive Solicitors General of this Government have been working to improve the operation of that important agency. They have done an outstanding job in building upon the legislation we inherited. 1 can only tell the Hon. Member that as far as we are concerned CSIS is developing into an agency of which all Canadians are proud. It will not do him or his Party any good to make general and unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. At last summer's Humboldt Conference of the Western Premiers they established that a deficiency payment of between $1.6 billion and $3 billion is needed by Canadian grain farmers over and above existing stabilization programs. Since Premier Grant Devine was in Ottawa yesterday and since this issue is a high priority with him as well as the federal Government, does the Government have an announcement today concerning the size of the pay-out for this year?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. He should realize that my colleague, the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, held a third meeting with 50 farm leaders. Those leaders presented to us what we think is a sound and sensible proposal. I answered questions in this House on the same issue last week, I believe, and at the moment we are running the numbers to satisfy ourselves that it is fair and equitable. When that process is complete we will more than likely be meeting farm leaders again.


ROLE OF PREMIERS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us the role the Premiers are playing? Could he tell us whether in the meetings yesterday Mr. Devine played his trump card? Did he threaten another provincial election?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will realize I was not part of those discussions. I can tell him what the provinces could do. If you compare expenditures by this Government, particularly on grains and oilseeds, we are outspending the provinces many, many times. The provinces could play a greater role in assisting agriculture by joining with us in a new financial arrangement for crop insurance.
Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS


LEASING OF OFFICE SPACE FOR TRADE NEGOTIATORS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It pertains to the enriching experience we raised in the House yesterday concerning the receipt of some $50,000 by one Gervais Desrochers, a well-known Conservative. Yesterday in the House the Minister said all negotiations with officials of Public Works were directly with Met Life. Met Life has already acknowledged they hired Mr. Desrochers to help with the lease of their building, and the former Minister also publicly admitted meeting with Mr. Desrochers over this issue.
Could the Minister explain to the House why Mr. Desrochers received $50,000 if he did nothing, as the Minister claims he did? Otherwise, could he explain to the House if he was telling us the truth and nothing but the truth yesterday?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, allegations have been made which are being investigated by the proper authorities. I am instructed by my officials that at no time was any third party involved in the negotiations they had directly with officials of Met Life to conclude the lease.


Don Boudria: That is a little different from what we heard yesterday. The least that could be said is that this $50,000 gives Mr. Desrochers a new lease on life.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Smith of the Metropolitan Life has confirmed yesterday that he has hired Mr. Desrochers to arrange the leasing of the building.
The present Minister says the negotiations were held between his staff and the Department of Public Works. Is he now denying that the previous Minister of Public Works met with Mr. Desrochers concerning this transaction?
Can he confirm or deny this fact immediately in this House so that Canadians can be clear about it once and for all?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to answer on behalf of the Government, the Hon. Member is asking questions with respect to a matter he knows is under investigation by the police. 1 wonder if the Hon. Member would not agree with me that in those circumstances it would be inappropriate for us to comment with respect to the facts of the matter in order to allow the police to carry on their investigation. The Minister has responded with respect to information contained in his files dealing with the administration of his Department.


Oral Questions
I can only refer the Hon, Member to the words of his own Leader who said in the House on November 30, 1984, that the rule with respect to investigations should be that we should not comment or pass judgment in the House on these matters while they are under investigation because that is contrary to our principles of justice.


AIRPORTS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Vancouver Airport is the most dangerous airport in the country. Can the Minister indicate when the Government will spend a few dollars to protect the hundreds of thousands of people moving in and out of this airport each year?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to make that charge, perhaps he should back it up before he raises such an issue on the floor of the House of Commons.


LACK OF PARALLEL RUNWAY
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to ignore the fact that people have already been killed in Vancouver because of the lack of a parallel runway? Is he indicating also that the Government refuses to do anything constructive to build that parallel runway to protect the lives of Canadians moving in-and out of that airport?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, now 1 know what the Hon. Member is getting at. If that is the position of the NDP, I will certainly convey it to the Minister of Transport and take it as a representation.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question was meant for the Prime Minister but in his absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, over 4,000 people attended a solidarity rally to obtain a papermill in the town of Matane. That papermill would create 350 jobs et would preserve 1,000 more.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why his government does not announce immediately the grant necessary to carry out this project, knowing that unemployment is over 25 percent in this area?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as recently as last week, I have met with representatives of the area who have made representations to me. I emphasized at that time that we had received the latest information from the promotors of the project only 10 days earliers, that is some 15 or 18 days ago now, and that we would act very quickly, that all studies were completed, that documents to be submitted to Cabinet were being prepared, that they had to be translated and that these documents will be submitted to the Cabinet in the course of next week. 1 committed myself to give them an answer in one way or the other within three weeks.
That is as quick a process as we can have and that is the process that is being followed presently.


REQUESTTHAT MINISTER RESPECT HIS COMMITMENTS
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, will the President of the Treasury Board tell us whether his Government is prepared to honour its commitment to the people in the Matapedia-Matane area, yes or no? Will you honour your commitment to the people in that area?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to remind my hon. colleague that since about a month, I am no longer President of the Treasury Board but rather Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and it is in this position that 1 am acting in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, we will honour our commitments to all communities facing difficulties because of regional disparities. Our Government is giving a high priority to the Matane dossier. We are dealing with it as quickly as possible. 1 said- and I believe it was well understood by all-that an answer would be given within three months, that the answer would be announced as soon as Cabinet Ministers have read the documentation that 1 will be submitting to them as soon as next week or the week after.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. During a press conference last Monday the port of Montreal longshoremen's association denounced the slow negotiation process and the unacceptable


state of labour relations in this case, and they asked the federal Government to appoint a commission of inquiry on this situation and on the ambiguous role played by President Arnold Master of the employers' association.
Here is my question: Does the Minister intend to act on the longshoremen's request and appoint a commission of inquiry on labour relations in the port of Montreal and on the ambiguous role of President Arnold Master of the employers' association?


Hon. Pierre Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, like in any other negotiations I suggest that the parties involved would stand to gain much if they were to make their representations at the bargaining table where decisions are made.


DEMAND OF STEVEDORES' ASSOCIATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, the longshoremen's association has repeatedly asked the Minister of Labour to set up a commission of inquiry on labour relations in the port. 1 should like to have a specific answer from the Minister. Can he tell us whether or not he intends to appoint such a commission of inquiry.


Pierre H. Cadieux: As far as I
know, Mr. Speaker, the parties are to meet with the conciliator on September 25 and 29, and I think they will use these meetings to resolve their difficulties at the bargaining table.


SHIPBUILDING
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. The situation at the Halifax shipyard continues to worsen. A short time ago there was an average of 1,400 employees working there. Today there are 115 hourly workers.
Yesterday a delegation from Halifax was told that there would be no work coming from the federal Government for this shipyard before spring at the very earliest. Why is the Government refusing to help these workers?
[ Translation]


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the allegations my honourable friend has made are simply not true. Yesterday, I had indeed an opportunity to meet the members of a delegation from the City of Halifax. I assured them of our constant concern and desire to carefully examine the situation at the Halifax shipyard, in order to
Point of Order-Mr. Axworthy
demonstrate to them once more that this Government care about the Halifax shipyard workers.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance benefits of many of these workers have expired. It is going to be a very bleak winter for them and their families. What is the Government going to do about this? During the last election campaign they promised assistance. Where is this assistance? Is the Government saying that this shipyard does not matter?


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the hour the question should be short and perhaps the answer could be short too.


Michel Côté: The
reply will be very short, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we have any lesson to receive from our colleagues opposite. For 20 years, they had done absolutely nothing to improve the situation in the shipbuilding industry. It is this Government which has started to act and established a timetable for improving the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Bow River for the last question.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office or his assistant. Does the Minister consider the Post Office an essential service?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister has left the House. I will bring that question to his attention before the next Question Period.


POINT OF ORDER
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in response to the judgment which Your Honour made this morning when we made application for an emergency debate. It was suggested that the issue should await further consideration depending upon the


Business of the House
evolution of events and the information that would be provided.
We have had an opportunity today to try to ascertain from the Government the position it would be taking on the trade talks. There was no answer forthcoming. Therefore, 1 submit that it is now necessary to hold an emergency debate in order to attempt to inform Canadians fully of what is going on with the trade talks.


Mr. Speaker:: The representations of the Hon. Member are, of course, important. 1 said earlier that as of eleven o'clock this morning it was not the disposition of the Chair to order an emergency debate to take place today. 1 think I made it clear to representatives of both opposition Parties that that does not close the door to other applications at another time. If the Hon. Member or other Hon. Members wish to make other applications, the Chair will, of course, consider them.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I rise to ask the customary question of the Government, that is, what are the plans of the Government with regard to House business for the coming week?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that we will continue debate today on report stage of Bill C-55. We hope that that will be completed today. Tomorrow, or if there is time this afternoon, we will continue second reading debate on Bill C-74 with regard to the Environmental Protection Act. On Monday we hope to commence third reading of Bill C-55 and then move to second reading of Bills C-76 and C-77.
We have had discussions with the other House Leaders with regard to the commencement of debate on the Meech Lake Accord. We may be in a position to do that toward the end of next week or perhaps at the start of the following week.
I will be meeting with the opposition House Leaders on Tuesday to discuss further business. At that time I would also like to discuss the suggestions that we consider Senate reform.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on House business. When does the Government plan to bring Bill C-51 with regard to tobacco advertising forward for debate at second reading?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, the House was reconvened to deal with emergency legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The New Democratic Party may not consider it to be an emergency but I suggest they ask the people on the street about it.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Which emergency? It's been so long.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Once we have completed debate on the emergency legislation and the Meech Lake Accord we will be in a position to consider the rest of the business of the House and proceed as expeditiously as possible with all the legislation on the Order Paper.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State suggested that debate on the Meech Lake Accord could begin as early as the end of next week. Could the Minister be a bit more specific? Is it not possible to identify a day next week when the debate could begin, or will we have to wait until the night before to find out?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to accommodate the travel schedules of certain Members of the House. I was prepared to delay proceedings until such time as they were accommodated. We had discussions in good faith on Tuesday. There is more at issue than when; there is the orderliness of debate. We have been making an effort to accommodate everyone's schedule. That is why I cannot be specific.
In other words, I am trying to accommodate other Members of the House. We are in a position to go ahead toward the end of next week, but if it is not convenient for my colleagues on the other side we are prepared to accommodate them.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 75 (Mr. Jourdenais).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House took recess at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) had the floor.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, if I had the time today to explain how we might change the Immigration Act to make it more flexible and less rigid, I am convinced that everyone would agree with my suggestions. Mr. Speaker, if the Immigration Act had been more flexible and easier to understand and if the quotas had been increased in the last twenty or twenty-five years to allow between 150,000 to


175,000 people a year to enter this country, Canada would now have a population of 75 or 80 million people.
Mr. Speaker, if this had been the case, do you think that free trade would be such a burning issue today and that Canada could or would have acted differently? Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that all Members of this House should define their position on Bill C-55 according to their own conscience. I hope that they will do so when the Bill is put to a vote.
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, I do not hold much hope for many of these amendments, and if this Bill is accepted, I only have three other comments to make to the Members of this House, to all Canadians, to Quebecers and to residents of my own constituency of La Prairie.
First, the most important proposal which was neither debated nor voted on was the motion to withdraw or scrap Bill C-55. Second, this Bill is so lacking in compassion that my conscience will not allow me to vote for it.
The last comment I wish to make is also the most important, and 1 hope that those who are here or in their offices will listen carefully. Last June, we had a free vote on capital punishment. Many Members voted against a return of the death penalty giving as their reason for doing so that their conscience did not allow them to kill another human being. They were against the death penalty for murderers, even if they have committed a villainous crime and could not care less about the rest of society. I am anxious to see what my friends in the House will do when this Bill is put to a vote. I hope they will vote against the Bill because it can condemn to certain death innocent people who are being persecuted in their own country. I believe that this is really a matter of conscience and I am anxious to see what will happen.
Mr. Speaker, a clause that was in the Bill before it was considered and referred to a legislative committee, was similar to the one I am proposing and was changed. The committee made a change that was not quite necessary, in my opinion. Therefore, I move motion No. 75 which reads as follows:
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 42 to 49 at
page 53 and lines 1 and 2 at page 54 and substituting the following therefor:
"(r) prescribing, for the purposes of paragraph 48.1(1 )(6), any country with which Canada has a written arrangement with respect to persons who are or who claim to be Convention refugees as a safe third country for all persons of for persons of a specified class of persons, having regard to the record of that country with respect to human rights and to expulsion of persons who are or who claim to be Convention refugees."
The House should support this motion because Canada must make an agreement with countries we want to consider as safe third countries in order to save the lives of those who are sent back without having to explain the reasons they claim to be Convention refugees.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, this is the last motion at report stage of Bill C-55. Not only is it an appropriate motion, it is also appropriate that the Minister of
Immigration Act, 1976
State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) finally honours the House with his presence at report stage. This amendment addresses a number of-


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it would be in order to point out to the Member that he should show some courtesy to the Minister. If he only knew why the Minister was not here today 1 think he would be a little more courteous. It is, after all, a Jewish holiday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on debate.


Sergio Marchi: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Thacker:: Apologize.


Sergio Marchi: We have no reason to apologize with the stuff that has been coming from that side of the House. You should take a lesson on your own.
The Government has made commitments in the past that there would be assurances that safe countries would be safe for claimants who would be sent to those countries. The Minister talked about guarantees, then changed his tune and talked about arrangements. Now we have an amendment that would suggest there would be an agreement with those countries which would purportedly suggest that they are safe.
We moved motions suggesting the removal of the prescreening stage rooted in a safe country concept. Those motions were defeated and we now ask the Government to support its own Member, the Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), who is currently the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
If it will not abandon the safe country concept or allow the refugee division to draft a safe country list, and if it will not agree that a list to be drafted by the Cabinet would only serve in an advisory capacity, the very least we are asking of the Government through this motion is that any member country on the safe country list have a written invalidating agreement with Canada before that safe country list is drawn in order to ensure the Cabinet and all Canadians of that country's safety.
I think that would be a valuable asset and a welcomed modification to the Bill. When an individual is sent to a so-called safe country, at least we can be assured that it is safe on the grounds of that written agreement between the two countries. We do not want to leave the word "safe" too loosely defined or leave open the question of return as opposed to admission because, as we have said so often, in many cases it is a question of life versus death. It is a question of a human being trying to find a country where he or she may find some basic human rights.
I suggest that if any of us were put in the same precarious situation we would want the same for our families.
It is one thing to try to make a system better, but when we talk about a safe country, there is the knowledge that we are


Immigration Act, 1976
sending someone away from our shores. Knowing we are passing the responsibility to someone else, the very least we can do is offer some morality and leadership so that if we are sending someone away from our shores we know we are sending them to a country which is going to extend a hand of compassion, assistance and welcome, that there is that partnership and the Geneva Convention will still be intact. If we legislate a safe country concept without grounding it in agreements and ensuring safety, then we will be driving a wedge into the Geneva Convention, which will mean its worth is on paper, but when it comes to practice there is no Convention to speak of.
Let us move forward as a country and show our leadership internationally Let us reclaim the leadership Canada has demonstrated over the years. Let us offer other countries an incentive and, perhaps, an inspiration to follow its best instincts domestically, regardless of the challenges and pressures from within.
This motion would try to mobilize these countries, to open a dialogue. If we are going to go "safe country", let us ensure the reciprocating country has the same standards, that a refugee from El Salvador will be treated with the same respect they receive in Canada, Belgium or Great Britain. There is an opportunity for Canada-apart from calling for an international summit-through this small motion, to say to the world; let us do it in partnership, let us do it in tandem. Therefore, I urge Members of the House, particularly government Members, to agree with this very last motion, and perhaps then the report stage will begin on an upbeat.
Perhaps I should take this moment as well, Mr. Speaker, to correct my earlier reference to the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). If the reasons were because of the Jewish holiday, then I would be the last to fault him for that. If I have caused any embarrassment to himself or to his community, I am very sorry about that.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I rise to support motion No. 75 in the name of the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais). I wish to take this occasion, as others have, to congratulate the Hon. Member for his strong conviction and courage in taking the stand he has as a dissident with his caucus on this point. I also wish to congratulate the Progressive Conservative caucus for having accommodated the Hon. Member. I know this was done in consultation and that it was not an easy consultation. I know there has been much heart searching on the part of the Hon. Member and his caucus colleagues in the difficult situation created for all of them by the conscientious disagreement of the Hon. Member for La Prairie with his hon. colleagues. Therefore, I respect the fact that it has been possible to carry on in spite of the sharp disagreement between the Hon. Member and his colleagues, and that is to the credit of the Progressive Conservative caucus.
On this motion I wish to take the same position taken by the two previous speakers, but to emphasize a little further the great importance of having this clause protected in order to carry out what may well be the intention of the Government. This intention is not sufficiently protected in the wording, and so far as I can find out in this complicated Bill-which has been revised a good deal by the Government-is not adequately protected elsewhere.
Some effort was made in amendments earlier in committee to get this amended by way of a fuller statement of the Convention obligations. That was refused. Some effort was made to have the adjudicator and the refugee division member made responsible for deciding in the inquiry the specific country to which the person would be sent. That was turned down. Efforts were made to have the matter adequately reviewed after a decision in order to catch possible errors, including an error of sending a person to a country that was not genuinely safe, particularly if the person thought it was not genuinely safe. That was turned down.
We now have a proposal that seems entirely in accord with what the Minister and his colleagues have said. The Minister said passionately in the debate in June that a person would not be sent to any country without a clear understanding. He used words like "agreement, guarantee, arrangement". He said there would be clear understanding that he or she would be given the same protection they would have in Canada. But that is not in the Bill. It is not in this clause and I believe it is not anywhere else in the Bill.
We are simply asking now that the clause be revised, that is, the clause describing the duty of the Minister to write the regulations, so that he will prescribe:
-for the purposes of paragraph 48.1 (1 )(b), any country with which Canada has a written arrangement with respect to persons who are or who claim to be Convention refugees as a safe third country for all persons or for persons of a specified class of persons, having regard to the record of that country with respect to human rights and to expulsion of persons who are or who claim to be Convention refugees.
I believe the wording is the same as the Government's wording excepting the words concerning the written arrangement. I believe that will not cause a breakdown of the system. It will not cause endless legal disputes. It will not be a loophole for bogus refugees. It is within the control of the Government to make that clear, to make it clear in such a way that the refugee claimant who is being sent away to that country, and all who are concerned with him, and all who are concerned with the integrity of the system, will know how the system is operating and, if necessary, will be able to offer an opinion and disagreement. If country x is listed as a safe country because of a written agreement, the written agreement can be looked at in public and questioned, perhaps altered or perhaps defended and maintained. That would be a democratic procedure.
I hope the Government will give serious consideration to this amendment. I know that officials and some members of the Government are concerned about trying to arrange with some of the countries in western Europe, perhaps the United States,


and no doubt some other countries, a system in which one occasion for determining a person's refugee status would be enough for all who would belong to a certain agreement.
If a person was found to be a refugee in this country, that would stand for the others. If he was found not to be a refugee, that would stand for the others. I know that is being attempted and I think it is well worth attempting. I also know agreement has not yet been arrived at. Written agreements of this sort might be a step in that direction. At least they would provide some basis of agreement between Canada and one other country in bilateral agreements. They might eventually be put together into a multilateral agreement. I, therefore, urge the Government to consider this amendment in a very friendly way.
Finally, I want to refer to a voice of the Canadian people- not "the" voice because there is no single voice-but a very strong voice of the Canadian people which has supported many of the amendments in spirit and sometimes explicitly throughout this debate. I am referring to the letter of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops dated September 16. I wish to quote a resolution that was passed at their meeting. It concerns the refugee status determination process in Canada, and it states:
Whereas the Government of Canada is currently finalizing Bill C-55, an Act dealing with the refugee status determination process in Canada;
Whereas Bill C-84 has just passed third reading (September 14, 1987), in spite of the reservations and opposition of a multitude of humanitarian, refugee aid, and church groups.
The Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs recommends to the Plenary Assembly:
That during the course of the daily press conference, the President of the CCCB recall the position taken by Canadian Church leaders in their telex message of June 1, 1987, to Prime Minister Mulroney which called for the withdrawal of Bill C-55 and the replacing of it with legislation that will actualize a refugee status determination process which is just, workable, expeditious and respectful of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in conformity with Canada's international responsibilities as a signator of the Geneva Convention.
This is the proposal of the Most Reverend Gilles Ouellet, Chairman, Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs.
We have strong support for taking the more inclusive and humanitarian approach to the definition of our refugee legislation. I urge Hon. Members opposite to support this amendment.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, first I welcome the presence of the Minister and applaud the fact that he found it possible to be here with us today.
We speak in support of the motion of the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), because an important principle is at stake. With his amendment, the Hon. Member is defending the internationally accepted principle of prohibiting the expulsion or the return of an applicant for refugee status by any country.
Immigration Act, 1976
In 1969 we agreed to an international convention.
For the record, I wish to quote Article 33 which deals exactly with this matter. It is entitled Prohibition of Expulsion or Return ("Refoulement") and it states:
1.	No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Article 33 is well balanced. In paragraph 2 it states:
2.	The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.
Article 33 is very reasonable, and it was put forward during an international convention that we subscribed to.
During the hearings, the Canadian Bar Association expressed an opinion on the present Bill, and its dissatisfaction if the Bill were to go ahead without the protection of this principle, which would be taken care of by the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for La Prairie. The Canadian Bar Association stated that if this Bill is allowed to exclude the safe country notion, it would violate Article 33 of the UN Convention on Refugees because it rejects the claimant without considering whether the person is a refugee. This is an important central principle. The nub of the issue is that it requires the removal of that person without assurances that the country of destination will protect him from being returned to his original country where the danger may be.
We are dealing with a very important principle. We hope that the Minister and the Government will agree with a member of their own caucus, the Chairman of the standing committee, who has put forward this very important amendment which goes to the heart of any legislation that deals with refugees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 75 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Immigration Act, 1976


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been negotiations and I think you will find consent to the following. I will read it very slowly because I am sure no one wants to vote 33 to 35 times this afternoon. The idea is to try to save time.
The voting on report stage of Bill C-55 should be conducted as follows. A vote on Motion No. 3 will be held and the result applied to all of the motions and to the amendment to Motion No. 77 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). It would be applied as well to the motions standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). The reverse of that vote would then be applied to the motions of the Minister. The motions of the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) would be disposed of by applying to them the result of the vote on Motion No. 3, but the Hon. Member would be voting in the affirmative on his own motions.
Finally, the vote on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina will be reversed and applied to the concurrence motion. However, the Hon. Member for La Prairie would be voting at that point in the negative. As well, each vote will be recorded and printed in today's Votes and Proceedings separately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Is it agreed that we record the votes as indicated?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 3.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 9
(a)	by striking out lines 46 and 47 at page 7 and substituting the following
therefor:
"two weeks after the making of the order; or"
(b)	by striking out line 2 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"required to leave Canada, and in any case not less than two weeks after the notice is received."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 246)
++YEAS
	Members	
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthousc	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PcnncrBlackburn	West mount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacqucs)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisBlais	Hawkcs	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanBradley	Howie	ScottBrightwell	Jelinck	(Hamilton W'cntworth)Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenBrowes	Kempling	SiddonCaldwell	Landry	SparrowCarney	Lewis	StackhouseChampagne	MacDougall	Tardif(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlesbourg)Clifford	Mailly	TaylorCossitt	Mantha	ThackerCote	Martin	Towers(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperDarling	Mazankowski	TurnerDaubney	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carlcton)de Cotret	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDuplessis	Mclnnes	VincentEdwards	McKinnon	WeinerEpp	Moore	Wilson(Provcncher)	Nickerson	(EtobicokeFennell	Nowlan	Centre)Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardForrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Friesen	Paproski	Gormley	Peterson	Graham	Pietz


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
As agreed, the result of this division will be recorded as applying to Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 67, 68, 75, and the amendment to Motion No. 77.
As a result of the agreement, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) will be recorded as having voted in


the affirmative on Motions Nos. 4, 25, 34, 47, 68 and 75, and in the negative on the concurrence motion.
In reversing the result of this division and recording it as such, I declare Motions Nos. 57B, 70 and 77 standing in the name of the Elon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) as having been carried. Also the concurrence motion will be recorded as having been moved by Mr. Mazan-kowski for Mr. Weiner, seconded by Mr. Lewis and, as amended, agreed to on the reversed division.


Fernand Jourdenais: Motion No. 4
Scowen
Siddon
Sparrow
Stackhouse
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Immigration Act, 1976
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet Vincent Weiner
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-75


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


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 39 to 45 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 20 to 37 at page I 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion refugee, the person shall, as soon as is practicable, have the claim referred to the Board for a determination.
"45.(1) Subject to subsection (5), where a person who is the sub-".	The House divided on the motion (Mr.	Marchi) which wasThe House divided on the motion (Mr.	Jourdenais) which	negatived on the following division:	was negatived on the	following division:	(Division No. 248)	(Division No. 247)	YEAS	YEAS	Members	Members	Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAllmand	Althouse	Jewett	NystromJewett	Nystrom	Axworthy	Johnston	OrlikowAlthousc	Johnston	Orlikow	Benjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerAxworthy	(Saint-Henri-	Penner	Blackburn	Westmount)	PepinBenjamin	Westmount)	Pepin	(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBlackburn	Jourdenais	Prud'homme	Boudria	Langdon	Riis(Brant)	Keeper	Riis	Caccia	MacLellan	RobichaudBoudria	Langdon	Robichaud	Cassidy	Manly	RobinsonCaccia	MacLellan	Robinson	de Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyCassidy	Manly	Rompkey	Dewar	McCurdy	Skellydc Corneille	Marchi	Skelly	Foster	McDonald	WaddellDewar	McCurdy	Waddell	Gauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Foster	McDonald	Young-40	Guilbault	Greenwood)	Gauthier	(Broadview-	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Guilbault	Greenwood)	Heap	Mitchell	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Isabelle	Nunziala	Members	Belsher	Fontaine	MclnnesBinns	Forrestall	McKinnonBlais	Friesen	MooreBelsher	Epp	Martin	Blouin	Gormley	NickersonBinns	(Provencher)	Mayer	Bosley	Graham	NowlanBlais	Fennell	Mazankowski	Bradley	Guilbault	OberleBlouin	Fontaine	McDougall	Brightwcll	(Drummond)	OostromBosley	Forrestall	(St. Paul's)	Brisco	Hawkes	PaproskiBradley	Friesen	Mclnnes	Browes	Hnatyshyn	PetersonBrightwcll	Gormley	McKinnon	Caldwell	Horner	PietzBrisco	Graham	Moore	Carney	Howie	PlamondonBrowes	Guilbault	Nickerson	Champagne	Jelinek	RavisCaldwell	(Drummond)	Nowlan	(Champlain)	Jourdenais	RedwayCarney	Hawkes	Oberle	Clifford	Kempling	ReidChampagne	Hnatyshyn	Oostrom	Cossitt	Landry	Roman(Champlain)	Horner	Paproski	Cote	Lewis	ScottClifford	Howie	Peterson	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cossitt	Jelinek	Pietz	Darling	(Timiskaming)	ScowenCote	Kempling	Plamondon	Daubney	Mailly	Siddon(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Landry	Ravis	de Cotret	Mantha	SparrowDarling	Lewis	Redway	Duplessis	Martin	StackhouseDaubney	MacDougall	Reid	Edwards	Mayer	Tardifde Cotret	(Timiskaming)	Roman	Epp	Mazankowski	(Charlesbourg)Duplessis	Mailly	Scott	(Provencher)	McDougall	TaylorEdwards	Mantha	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Fennell	(St. Paul's)	Thacker
Immigration Act, 1976	
Towers Vincent Wincgard Tuppcr Weiner Witcr-76 Turner Wilson (Ottawa-Carlelon) (Etobicoke Vankoughnet Centre)	Turner Wilson (Ottawa-Carleton) (Etobicoke Vankoughnet Centre) Vincent Wincgard Weiner Witer-76


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


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Heap moved:
Motion No. 7	Motion No. 9
That Bill C-55, be amended in clause 14 by striking out lines 39 to 45 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:	That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 29 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion refugee, the inquiry shall be concluded and the adjudicator shall take the appropriate action pursuant to Sections 32 and 32.1	"claim by notifying an immigration officer who shall refer the claim to the Refugee Division."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:	The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
	(Division No. 249)			(Division No. 250)	
	YEAS			YEAS	
	Members			Members	
Allmand	Isabelle	Nunziata	Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthousc	Jewett	Nystrom	Althousc	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	Orlikow	Axworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	Penncr	Benjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin	Blackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'homme	(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	Riis	Boudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	Robichaud	Caccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinson	Cassidy	Manly	Robinsondc Corneille	Marchi	Rompkey	de Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	Skelly '	Dewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	Waddell	Foster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39	Gauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacqucs)	McLaughlin	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	Fleap	Mitchell	NAYS	NAYS	Members	Members	Bclsher	Forrestall	Moore	Belsher	Forrestall	MooreBinns	Friesen	Nickerson	Binns	Friesen	NickersonBlais	Gormley	Nowlan	Blais	Gormley	NowlanBlouin	Graham	Oberle	Blouin	Graham	OberleBosley	Guilbault	Oostrom	Bosley	Guilbault	OostromBradley	(Drummond)	Paproski	Bradley	(Drummond)	PaproskiBrightwell	Hawkes	Peterson	Brightwell	Hawkes	PetersonBrisco	Hnatyshyn	Pictz	Brisco	Hnatyshyn	PietzBrowes	Horner	Plamondon	Browes	Horner	PlamondonCaldwell	Howie	Ravis	Caldwell	Howie	RavisCarney	Jelinek	Rcdway	Carney	Jelinek	RedwayChampagne	Jourdenais	Reid	Champagne	Jourdenais	Reid '(Champlain)	Kcmpling	Roman	(Champlain)	Kcmpling	RomanClifford	Landry	Scott	Clifford	Landry	ScottCossitt	Lewis'	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Cossitt	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cote	MacDougall	Scowen	Cote	MacDougall	Scowen(Lac-Saint-Jean)	(Timiskaming)	Siddon	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	(Timiskaming)	SiddonDarling	Mailly	Sparrow	Darling	Mailly	SparrowDaubncy	Manlha	Stackhouse	Daubney	Mantha	Stackhousede Cotrct	Martin	Tardif	de Cotret	Martin	TardifDuplessis	Mayer	(Charlesbourg)	Duplessis	Mayer	(Charlesbourg)Edwards	Mazankowski	Taylor	Edwards	Mazankowski	TaylorEpp	McDougall	Thacker	Epp	McDougall	Thacker(Provencher)	(St. Paul's)	Towers	(Provencher)	(St. Paul's)	TowersFennell	Mclnnes	Tupper	Fennell	Mclnnes	TupperFontaine	McKinnon	Fontaine	McKinnon	
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet Vincent Weiner
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-76
Immigration Act, 1976
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet Vincent Weiner
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-76


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


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 46 to 49 at page 12 and lines 1 to 11 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"47. Every person who claims to be a Convention refugee shall be referred to the Board for a hearing on the claim."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Marchi) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 251)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommcBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Forrestall	MooreBinns	Friesen	NickersonBlais	Gormley	NowlanBlouin	Graham	OberleBosley	Guilbault	OostromBradley	(Drummond)	PaproskiBrightwell	Hawkes	PetersonBrisco	Hnatyshyn	PietzBrowes	Horner	PlamondonCaldwell	Howie	RavisCarney	Jelinek	RedwayChampagne	Jourdenais	Reid(Champlain)	Kempling	RomanClifford	Landry	ScottCossitt	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cote	MacDougall	Scowen(Lac-Saint-Jean)	(Timiskaming)	SiddonDarling	Mailly	SparrowDaubney	Mantha	Stackhousede Cotret	Martin	TardifDuplessis	Mayer	(Charlesbourg)Edwards	Mazankowski	TaylorEpp	McDougall	Thacker(Provencher)	(St. Paul's)	TowersFennell	Mclnnes	TupperFontaine	McKinnon


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by deleting proposed Sections 48, 48.01,48.02, 48.03, 48.04, 48.05, 48.06 and 48.07 at pages 13 to 23 inclusive.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 252)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisBlais	Hawkes	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanBradley	Howie	ScottBrightwell	Jelinek	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenBrowes	Kempling	SiddonCaldwell	Landry	SparrowCarney	Lewis	StackhouseChampagne	MacDougall	Tardif(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlesbourg)Clifford	Mailly	TaylorCossitt	Mantha	ThackerCote	Martin	Towers(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperDarling	Mazankowski	TurnerDaubney	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)de Cotret	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDuplessis	Mclnnes	VincentEdwards	McKinnon	WeinerEpp	Moore	Wilson(Provencher)	Nickerson	(EtobicokeFennell	Nowlan	Centre)Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardForrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Friesen	Paproski	Gormley	Peterson	Graham	Pietz	
Immigration Act, 1976


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


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 14
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet
Vincent
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Winegard Witer-76
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14
(a)	by striking out lines 15 to 19 at page 13
(b)	by striking out lines 21 to 23 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall determine whether the claimant should be permitted to come into Canada or to remain therein and whether the claimant is eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division; and".
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Marchi) which was negatived on the following division:


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


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 18
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 19 to 29 at page 14.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Marchi) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 253)
(Division No. 254)
++YEAS
Allmand
Althouse
Axworthy
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria Caccia Cassidy de Corneille Dewar Foster Gauthier Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Heap
Belsher
Binns
Blais
Blouin
Bosley
Bradley
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Caldwell
Carney
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clifford
Cossitt
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Darling Daubney de Cotret Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
++YEAS
Isabelle Jewett Johnston (Saint-Henri- Westmount) Keeper Langdon MacLellan Manly Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin Mitchell
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Penner
Pepin
Prud'hommc
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rompkey
Skelly
Waddell
Young-39
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap
McLaughlin
Mitchell
++NAYS
++NAYS
Belsher	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisMembers	Blais	Hawkes	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanFontaine	Mclnnes	Bradley	Howie	ScottForrestall	McKinnon	Brightwell	Jelinek	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Friesen	Moore	Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenGormley	Nickerson	Browes	Kempling	SiddonGraham	Nowlan	Caldwell	Landry	SparrowGuilbault	Oberle	Carney	Lewis	Stackhouse(Drummond)	Oostrom	Champagne	MacDougall	TardifHawkes	Paproski	(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlesbourg)Hnatyshyn	Peterson	Clifford	Mailly	TaylorHorner	Pietz	Cossitt	Mantha	ThackerHowie	Plamondon	Cote	Martin	TowersJelinek	Ravis	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperJourdenais	Redway	Darling	Mazankowski	TurnerKempling	Reid	Daubney	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)Landry	Roman	de Cotret	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetLewis	Scott	Duplessis	Mclnnes	VincentMacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Edwards	McKinnon	Weiner(Timiskaming)	Scowen	Epp	Moore	WilsonMailly	Siddon	(Provencher)	Nickerson	(EtobicokeMantha	Sparrow	Fennell	Nowlan	Centre)Martin	Stackhouse	Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardMayer	Tardif	Forrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Mazankowski	(Charlesbourg)	Friesen	Paproski	McDougall	Taylor	Gormley	Peterson	(St. Paul's)	Thacker	Graham	Pietz


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


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 21
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 20 to 29 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"a country that the Refugee Division considers to be a safe third country for the claimant and would be admitted to that country, if removed from Canada, or has a right to have the claim determined therein;".
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Marchi) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 255)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommcBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLcllan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsondc Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisBlais	Hawkes	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanBradley	Howie	ScottBrightwell	Jelinek	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenBrowes	Kempling	SiddonCaldwell	Landry	SparrowCarney	Lewis	StackhouseChampagne	MacDougall	Tardif(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlcsbourg)Clifford	Mailly	TaylorCossitt	Mantha	ThackerCote	Martin	Towers(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperDarling	Mazankowski	TurnerDaubncy	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)de Cotrct	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDuplcssis	Mclnnes	VincentEdwards	McKinnon	WeinerEpp	Moore	Wilson(Provenchcr)	Nickerson	(EtobicokeFennell	Nowlan	Centre)Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardForrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Friesen	Paproski	Gormley	Peterson	Graham	Pietz


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Immigration Act, 1976


Fernand Jourdenais: Motion No. 25
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 37 to 41 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) by an adjudicator and a member of the Refugee Division as not being eligible to have the claim determined by that Division, other than a claimant declared ineligible pursuant to paragraph (a) who has been returned to Canada by the country which has issued the valid and subsisting travel document by that country pursuant to Article 28 of the Convention or a claimant declared ineligible pursuant to paragraph (b) who has been returned to Canada by the prescribed country, or as not having a credible basis for the claim."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Jourdenais) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 256)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Jewett	NystromAlthouse	Johnston	OrlikowAxworthy	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBenjamin	Westmount)	PepinBlackburn	Jourdenais	Prud'hommc(Brant)	Keeper	RiisBoudria	Langdon	RobichaudCaccia	MacLcllan	RobinsonCassidy	Manly	Rompkeyde Corneille	Marchi	SkellyDewar	McCurdy	WaddellFoster	McDonald	Young-40Gauthier	(Broadview-	Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	Isabelle	Nunziata	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Fontaine	McKinnonBinns	Forrestall	MooreBlais	Friesen	NickersonBlouin	Gormley	NowlanBosley	Graham	OberleBradley	Guilbault	OostromBrightwell	(Drummond)	PaproskiBrisco	Hawkes	PetersonBrowes	Hnatyshyn	PietzCaldwell	Horner	PlamondonCarney	Howie	RavisChampagne	Jelinek	Redway(Champlain)	Kempling	ReidClifford	Landry	RomanCossitt	Lewis	ScottCote	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Lac-Saint-Jean)	(Timiskaming)	ScowcnDarling	Mailly	SiddonDaubncy	Mantha	Sparrowde Cotret	Martin	StackhouseDuplessis	Mayer	TardifEdwards	Mazankowski	(Charlcsbourg)Epp	McDougall	Taylor(Provencher)	(St. Paul's)	ThackerFennell	Mclnnes	Towers
Immigration Act, 1976
Tupper Turner	Weiner Wilson	Witer-75	Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet	(Etobicoke Centre)	Mr. Heap moved:Vincent	Winegard	Motion No. 29


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


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 12 to 17 at page 15.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 257)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belshcr	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisBlais	Hawkes	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanBradley	Howie	ScottBrightwcll	Jelinek	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenBrowes	Kempling	SiddonCaldwell	Landry	SparrowCarney	Lewis	StackhouseChampagne	MacDougall	Tardif(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlesbourg)Clifford	Mailly	TaylorCossitt	Mantha	ThackerCote	Martin	Towers(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperDarling	Mazankowski	TurnerDaubney	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)de Cotret	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDuplessis	Mclnnes	VincentEdwards	McKinnon	WeinerEpp	Moore	Wilson(Provencher)	Nickerson	(EtobicokeFennell	Nowlan	Centre)Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardForrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Friesen	Paproski	Gormley	Peterson	Graham	Pietz	
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 36 to 50 at page 15.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 258)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Bclsher	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisBlais	Hawkes	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanBradley	Howie	ScottBrightwell	Jelinek	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenBrowes	Kempling	SiddonCaldwell	Landry	SparrowCarney	Lewis	StackhouseChampagne	MacDougall	Tardif(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlesbourg)Clifford	Mailly	TaylorCossitt	Mantha	ThackerCote	Martin	Towers(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperDarling	Mazankowski	TurnerDaubney	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)de Cotret	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDuplessis	Mclnnes	VincentEdwards	McKinnon	WeinerEpp	Moore	Wilson(Provencher)	Nickerson	(EtobicokeFennell	Nowlan	Centre)Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardForrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Friesen	Paproski	Gormley	Peterson	Graham	Pietz


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


Motion No. 31
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 5 at page 16 the following:
"(6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (l)(c), (l)(e) and (3), a person is eligible to have a claim determined by the Refugee Division if the claim is based on facts that arose since the claimant's most recent departure from Canada, and in the opinion of the adjudicator and the member of the Refugee Division considering the claim, the claim is not manifestly unfounded."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 259)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommcBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisBlais	Hawkes	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanBradley	Howie	ScottBrightwell	Jelinek	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenBrowes	Kempling	SiddonCaldwell	Landry	SparrowCarney	Lewis	StackhouseChampagne	MacDougall	Tardif(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlesbourg)Clifford	Mailly	TaylorCossitt	Mantha	ThackerCote	Martin	Towers(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperDarling	Mazankowski	TurnerDaubney	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)de Cotret	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDuplessis	Mclnnes	VincentEdwards	McKinnon	WeinerEpp	Moore	Wilson(Provencher)	Nickerson	(EtobicokeFennell	Nowlan	Centre)Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardForrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Friesen	Paproski	Gormley	Peterson	Graham	Pietz


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Immigration Act, 1976


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 32
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 6 to 26 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) In determining whether a claim to be a Convention refugee is manifestly unfounded, the adjuicator and the member of the Refugee Division shall consider whether the claim is:
(a)	clearly fraudulent; or
(b)	not related to the criteria for granting refugee status in the Convention."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 260)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisBlais	Hawkes	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanBradley	Howie	ScottBrightwell	Jelinek	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenBrowes	Kempling	SiddonCaldwell	Landry	SparrowCarney	Lewis	StackhouseChampagne	MacDougall	Tardif(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlesbourg)Clifford	Mailly	TaylorCossitt	Mantha	ThackerCote	Martin	Towers(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperDarling	Mazankowski	TurnerDaubney	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)de Cotret	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDuplessis	Mclnnes	VincentEdwards	McKinnon	WeinerEpp	Moore	Wilson(Provencher)	N ickerson	(EtobicokeFennell	Nowlan	Centre)Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardForrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Friesen	Paproski	Gormley	Peterson	Graham	Pietz	
Immigration Act, 1976


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


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 33
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 6 to 26 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) In determining whether a claimant has a credible basis for the claim to be a Convention refugee, the adjudicator and the member of the Refugee Division shall consider any evidence adduced by the claimant at the inquiry or hearing and may consider any other evidence, including;
(a)	the factual basis of the claim, and
(b)	the record with respect to human rights of the country that the claimant left, or outside of which the claimant remains, by reason of fear of persecution."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet Vincent Weiner
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Wincgard Witer-76


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


Fernand Jourdenais: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 15 to 19 at page 16.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Jourdenais) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 262)
AHmand Allhouse Ax worthy Benjamin Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Cassidy
dc Corneille
Dewar
Foster
Gauthier
Guiibault
(Saint-Jacqucs)
Heap
(Division No. 261)
++YEAS
Members
Isabelle
Jewett
Johnston
(Saint-Henri-W'cslmount) Keeper Langdon MacLellan Manly Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview Greenwood) McLaughlin Mitchell
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Pcnner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rompkey
Skelly
Waddell
Young-39
Allmand
Althouse
Axworthy
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria Caccia Cassidy de Corneille Dewar Foster Gauthier Guiibault (Saint-Jacqucs) Heap Isabelle
++YEAS
Jewett
Johnston
(Saint-Henri-Westmount) Jourdenais Keeper Langdon MacLellan Manly Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin Mitchell Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rompkey
Skelly
Waddell
Young-40
++NAYS
++NAYS
Members
Belsher
Binns
Blais
Blouin
Bosley
Bradley
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Caldwell
Carney
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clifford
Cossitt
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jcan) Darling Daubney de Cotrct Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Fontaine
For restall	Moore			
Friesen	Nickerson	Belsher	Fontaine	McKinnonGormjey	Nowlan	Binns	Forrestall	MooreGraham	Obcrle	Blais	Friesen	NickersonGuiibault	Oostrom	Blouin	Gormley	Nowlan(Drummond)	Paproski	Bosley	Graham	OberleHawkes	Peterson	Bradley	Guiibault	OostromHnatyshyn	Pietz	Brightwell	(Drummond)	PaproskiHorner	Plamondon	Brisco	Hawkes	PetersonHowie	Ravis	Browes	Hnatyshyn	PietzJelinek	Redway	Caldwell	Horner	PlamondonJourdenais	Reid	Carney	Howie	RavisKempling	Roman	Champagne	Jelinek	RedwayLandry	Scott	(Champlain)	Kempling	ReidLewis [DOT]	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Clifford	Landry	RomanMacDougall	Scowen	Cossitt	Lewis	Scott(Timiskaming)	Siddon	Cote	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Mailly	Sparrow	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	(Timiskaming)	ScowenMantha	Stackhouse	Darling	Mailly	SiddonMartin	Tardif	Daubney	Mantha	SparrowMayer	(Charlesbourg)	de Cotret	Martin	StackhouseMazankowski	Taylor	Duplessis	Mayer	TardifMcDougall	Thacker	Edwards	Mazankowski	(Charles bo(St. Paul's)	Towers	Epp	McDougall	TaylorMclnncs	Tupper	(Provencher)	(St. Paul's)	ThackerMcKinnon	Fennell	Mclnnes	Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet Vincent
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Winegard
Witer-75


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


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 37
Immigration Act, 1976
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Sparrow Stackhouse Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet Vincent Weiner
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-76


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 16 the following:
"(8) Where a person claims to be a Convention Refugee and is denied access to the procedures outlined in Sections 45 to 48 and 70 and 71 pursuant to Section 48.1, the Minister shall notify the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of this fact; and
(9) a person to whom subsection 48.01. (1) applies shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to contact the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees".
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 263)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Epp	ManthaBinns	(Provencher)	MartinBlais	Fennell	MayerBlouin	Fontaine	MazankowskiBosley	Forrestall	McDougallBradley	Friesen	(St. Paul's)Brightwell	Gormley	MclnnesBrisco	Graham	McKinnonBrowes	Guilbault	MooreCaldwell	(Drummond)	NickersonCarney	Hawkes	NowlanChampagne	Hnatyshyn	Oberle(Champlain)	Horner	OostromClifford	Howie	PaproskiCossitt	Jelinek	PetersonCote	Jourdenais	Pietz(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Kempling	PlamondonDarling	Landry	RavisDaubney	Lewis	Redwayde Cotret	MacDougall	ReidDuplessis	(Timiskaming)	RomanEdwards	Mailiy


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 40
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14
(a) by striking out line 40 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"their decision and their reasons in writing as soon as possible after"
(b)	by striking out line 8 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor: "and the reasons therefor in writing as soon as possi-"
(c)	by striking out line 10 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor: "decision and the reasons therefor in writing as soon"
(d)	by striking out line 20 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor: "decision and the reasons therefor in writing as soon".
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 264)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Clifford	ForrestallBinns	Cossitt	FriesenBlais	Cote	GormleyBlouin	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	GrahamBosley	Darling	GuilbaultBradley	Daubney	(Drummond)Brightwell	de Cotret	HawkesBrisco	Duplessis	HnatyshynBrowes	Edwards	HornerCaldwell	Epp	HowieCarney	(Provencher)	JelinekChampagne	Fennell	Jourdenais(Champlain)	Fontaine	Kempling
Landry
Lewis
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
Mailly
Mantha
Martin
Mayer
Mazankowski McDougall (St. Paul's) Mclnnes McKinnon Moore Nickerson Nowlan
Immigration Act, 1976
Oberle
Oostrom
Paproski
Peterson
Pietz
Plamondon
Ravis
Rcdway
Reid
Roman
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Sparrow Stackhouse
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet Vincent Weiner Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Winegard Witer-76


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


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 43
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 2 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"allowed to return and remain in that country.".
Nowlan
Oberle
Oostrom
Paproski
Peterson
Pietz
Plamondon
Ravis
Rcdway
Reid
Roman
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Sparrow Stackhouse Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet Vincent Weiner Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Winegard Witer-76


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 45
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 20 and 21 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"that neither the applicant nor the applicant's spouse, dependent child nor dependent parent is a person".
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 266)
Allmand
Althouse
Axworthy
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Cassidy
dc Corneille
Dewar
Foster
Gauthier
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap
Belshcr
Binns
Blais
Blouin
Bosley
Bradley
Brightwcll
Brisco
Browes
Caldwell
Carney
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clifford
Cossitt
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Darling
(Division No. 265)

YEAS Members	Allmand Althouse	YEAS Members Isabelle Jewett	Nunziata NystromIsabelle	Nunziata	Axworthy Benjamin Blackburn	Johnston (Saint-Henri- Westmount)	Orlikow Penner PepinJewett	Nystrom	(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeJohnston	Orlikow	Boudria	Langdon	Riis(Saint-Henri-	Penner	Caccia	MacLellan	RobichaudWestmount)	Pepin	Cassidy	Manly	RobinsonKeeper	Prud'homme	de Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyLangdon	Riis	Dewar	McCurdy	SkellyMacLellan	Robichaud	Foster	McDonald	WaddellManly	Robinson	Gauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Marchi	Rompkey	Guilbault	Greenwood)	McCurdy	Skelly	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	McDonald	Waddell	Heap	Mitchell	
(Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin Mitchell

NAYS Members	Young-39	Belsher Binns	NAYS Members Epp (Provencher)	Mantha MartinDaubney	Jelinek	Blais Blouin Bosley	Fennell Fontaine Forrestall	Mayer Mazankowski McDougallde Cotret	Jourdenais	Bradley	Friesen	(St. Paul's)Duplessis	Kempling	Brightwell	Gormley	MclnnesEdwards	Landry	Brisco	Graham	McKinnonEpp	Lewis	Browes	Guilbault	Moore(Provencher)	MacDougall	Caldwell	(Drummond)	NickersonFennell	(Timiskaming)	Carney	Hawkes	NowlanFontaine	Mailly	Champagne	Hnatyshyn	OberleForrestall	Mantha	(Champlain)	Horner	OostromFriesen	Martin	Clifford	Howie	PaproskiGormley	Mayer	Cossitt	Jelinek	PetersonGraham	Mazankowski	Cote	Jourdenais	PietzGuilbault	McDougall	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Kempling	Plamondon(Drummond)	(St. Paul's)	Darling	Landry	RavisHawkes	Mclnnes	Daubney	Lewis	RedwayHnatyshyn	McKinnon	de Cotret	MacDougall	ReidHorner	Moore	Duplessis	(Timiskaming)	RomanHowie	Nickerson	Edwards	Mailly	
Immigration Act, 1976	
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Sparrow Stackhouse Tardif	Thacker Towers Tupper Turner (Ottawa-Carlcton) Vankoughnet Vincent	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-76	Tardif (Chariesbourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tupper	Turner (Ottawa-Carlcton) Vankoughnet Vincent Weiner	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-75(Chariesbourg)	Weiner	Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.


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


Fernand Jourdenais: Motion No. 47
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 22 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 48
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 22 and 23 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"described in paragraph 19(l)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (j). or 27(2)(c) or (a)".
"described in paragraph 19(1 )(c),".	The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Jourdenais) which negatived on the following division: was negatived on the following division:
Ailmand	{Division No. 267)
 YEAS Members		Ailmand	{Division No. 268)
 YEAS Members Isabelle	Nunziata
Jewett	Nystrom	Althouse	Jewett	NystromAlthousc	Johnston	Orlikow	Axworthy	Johnston	OrlikowAxworthy	(Saint-Henri-	Penner	Benjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBenjamin	Westmount)	Pepin	Blackburn	Westmount)	PepinBlackburn	Jourdenais	Prud'homme	(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'homme(Brant)	Keeper	Riis	Boudria	Langdon	RiisBoudria	Langdon	Robichaud	Caccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCaccia	MacLellan	Robinson	Cassidy	Manly	RobinsonCassidy	Manly	Rompkey	de Corneille	Marchi	Rompkeydc Corneille	Marchi	Skelly	Dewar	McCurdy	SkellyDewar	McCurdy	Waddell	Foster	McDonald	WaddellFoster Gauthier Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Heap Isabelle	McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin Mitchell Nunziata	Young-40	Gauthier Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Heap	(Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin Mitchell
NAYS	Young-39Members	Belsher	Fontaine	MclnnesBelsher	Fennell	McDougall	Binns	Forrestall	McKinnonBinns	Fontaine	(St. Paul's)	Blais	Friesen	MooreBlais	Forrestall	Mclnnes	Blouin	Gormley	NickersonBlouin	Friesen	McKinnon	Bosley	Graham	NowlanBosley	Gormley	Moore	Bradley	Guilbault	OberleBradley	Graham	Nickerson	Brightwell	(Drummond)	OostromBrightwell	Guilbault	Nowlan	Brisco	Hawkes	PaproskiBrisco	(Drummond)	Oberle	Browes	Hnatyshyn	PetersonBrowes	Hawkes	Oostrom	Caldwell	Horner	PietzCaldwell	Hnatyshyn	Paproski	Carney	Howie	PlamondonCarney	Horner	Peterson	Champagne	Jelinek	RavisChampagne	Howie	Pietz	(Champlain)	Jourdenais	Redway(Champlain)	Jelinek	Plamondon	Clifford	Kempling	ReidClifford	Kempling	Ravis	Cossitt	Landry	RomanCossitt Cote	Landry Lewis	Redway Reid	Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Lewis MacDougall	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)(Lac-Saint-Jean)	MacDougall	Roman	Darling	(Timiskaming)	ScowenDarling	(Timiskaming)	Scott	Daubney	Mailly	SiddonDaubney	Mailly	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	de Cotret	Mantha	Sparrowde Cotret	Mantha	Scowen	Duplessis	Martin	StackhouseDuplessis	Martin	Siddon	Edwards	Mayer	TardifEdwards	Mayer	Sparrow	Epp	Mazankowski	(Chariesbourg)Epp	Mazankowski	Stackhouse	(Provencher)	McDougall	Taylor(Provencher)	Fennell	(St. Paul's)	Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa - Carletbn) Vankoughnct
Immigration Act, 1976
Vincent	Winegard
Weiner	Witer-76
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Turner
(Ottawa-Carlcton) Vankoughnet Vincent Weiner
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-76


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 49
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 29 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) five years or more may be imposed, but the Minister may issue a permit of permits to enable the applicant, w'ith his family if accompanying, to enter and remain in Canada for such period of time as the Minister may determine."
The House divided on the motion (M		r. Heap) which was
negatived on the following division: (Division No. 269)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Wcstmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacqucs)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Forrestall	MooreBinns	Friesen	NickersonBlais	Gormley	NowlanBlouin	Graham	OberleBosley	Guilbault	OostromBradley	(Drummond)	Pa proskiBrightwell	Hawkes	PetersonBrisco	Hnatyshyn	PietzBrowes	Horner	PlamondonCaldwell	Howie	RavisCarney	Jelinek	RedwayChampagne	Jourdenais	Reid(Champlain)	Kempling	RomanClifford	Landry	ScottCossitt	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cote	MacDougall	Scowen(Lac-Saint-Jean)	(Timiskaming)	SiddonDarling	Mailly	SparrowDaubney	Mantha	Stackhousede Cotret	Martin	TardifDuplessis	Mayer	(Charlesbourg)Edwards	Mazankowski	TaylorEpp	McDougall	Thacker(Provenchcr)	(St. Paul's)	T owersFennell	Mclnnes	TupperFontaine	McKinnon


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


Mr. Weiner moved:: Motion No. 57(b)
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 18
(b) by adding immediately after line 16 at page 35 the following therefor:
"(12) If the Refugee Division determines that a claimant is not a Convention refugee and does not have a credible basis for the claim to be a Convention refugee, the Refugee Division shall so indicate in its decision on the claim."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Weiner) which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 270)
	YEAS	
	Members	
Belsher	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisBlais	Hawkes	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanBradley	Howie	ScottBrightwell	Jelinek	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenBrowes	Kempling	SiddonCaldwell	Landry	SparrowCarney	Lewis	StackhouseChampagne	MacDougall	Tardif(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlesbourg)Clifford	Mailly	TaylorCossitt	Mantha	ThackerCote	Martin	Towers(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperDarling	Mazankowski	TurnerDaubney	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carlelon)de Cotret	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDuplessis	Mclnnes	VincentEdwards	McKinnon	WeinerEpp	Moore	Wilson(Provenchcr)	Nickerson	(EtobicokeFennell	Nowlan	Centre)Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardForrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Friesen	Pa proski	Gormley	Peterson	Graham	Pietz	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Foster	LangdonAlthouse	Gauthier	MacLellanAxworthy	Guilbault	ManlyBenjamin	(Saint-Jacques)	MarchiBlackburn	Heap	McCUfdy(Brant)	Isabelle	McDonaldBoudria	Jewett	(Broadview-Caccia	Johnston	Greenwood)Cassidy	(Saint-Henri-	McLaughlinde Corneille	Westmount)	MitchellDewar	Keeper	Nunziata
m


Nystrom
Orlikow
Penncr
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rompkey Skelly Waddell Young-39


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


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 67
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 23 to 45 at page 43 and lines 1 to 25 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"83.3 An appeal lies to the Federal Court of Appeal from a decision of the Refugee Division under section 71.1 on a claim or under section 71.3 on an application, on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law, a question of fact, or a question of mixed law and fact."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Marchi) which was negatived on the following division:
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) VankougHnet
Immigration Act, 1976
Vincent	Wincgard
Weiner	Witer-76
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)


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


Fernand Jourdenais: Motion No. 68
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 28 to 38 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"any ground of appeal that involves a question of law, a question of fact, or a question of mixed law and fact."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Jourdenais) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 271)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	
(Division No. 272)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Jewett	NystromAlthouse	Johnston	OrlikowAxworthy	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBenjamin	Westmount)	PepinBlackburn	Jourdenais	Prud'homme(Brant)	Keeper	RiisBoudria	Langdon	RobichaudCaccia	MacLellan	RobinsonCassidy	Manly	Rompkeyde Corneille	Marchi	SkellyDewar-	McCurdy	WaddellFoster	McDonald	Young-40Gauthier	(Broadview-	Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	Isabelle	Nunziata	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Fontaine	MclnnesBinns	Forrestall	McKinnonBlais	Friesen	MooreBlouin	Gormley	NickersonBosley	Graham	NowlanBradley	Guilbault	OberleBrightwell	(Drummond)	OostromBrisco	Hawkes	PaproskiBrowes	Hnatyshyn	PetersonCaldwell	Horner	PietzCarney	Howie	PlamondonChampagne	Jelinek	Ravis(Champlain)	Jourdenais	RedwayClifford	Kempling	ReidCossitt	Landry	RomanCote	Lewis	Scott(Lac-Saint-Jean)	MacDougali	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	(Timiskaming)	ScowenDaubney	Mailly	Siddonde Cotret	Mantha	SparrowDuplessis	Martin	StackhouseEdwards	Mayer	TardifEpp	Mazankowski	(Charlesbourg)(Provencher)	McDougall	TaylorFennell	(St. Paul's)	ThackerNAYS	Members	Belsher	Fontaine	McKinnonBinns	Forrestall	MooreBlais	Friesen	NickersonBlouin	Gormley	NowlanBosley	Graham	OberleBradley	Guilbault	OostromBrightwell	(Drummond)	PaproskiBrisco	Hawkes	PetersonBrowes	Hnatyshyn	PietzCaldwell	Horner	PlamondonCarney	Howie	RavisChampagne	Jelinek	Redway(Champlain)	Kempling	Reid 'Clifford	Landry	RomanCossitt	Lewis	ScottCote	MacDougali	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Lac-Saint-Jean)	(Timiskaming)	ScowenDarling	Mailly	SiddonDaubney	Mantha	Sparrowde Cotret	Martin	StackhouseDuplessis	Mayer	TardifEdwards	Mazankowski	(Charlesbourg)Epp	McDougall	Taylor(Provencher)	(St. Paul's)	ThackerFennell	Mclnnes	Towers
Immigration Act, 1976
Tuppcr	Weiner	Witer-75	Mitchell	Prud'homme	WaddellTurner	Wilson	Nunziata	Riis	Young-39(Ottawa-Carleton)	(Etobicoke	Nystrom	Robichaud	Vankoughnet	Centre)	Orlikow	Robinson	Vincent	Winegard	Penner	Rompkey	Pepin	Skelly


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


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


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: ..	Mr. Jourdenais moved:
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line 38 at page 43 the following:
"(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), no appeal lies to the Federal Court of Appeal from a decision of the Refugee Division under section 71.1 on a claim, if the Refugee Division, pursuant to subsection 71.1(12), has indicated in the decision that the claimant has no credible basis for the claim."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Weiner) which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 273)
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 42 to 49 at page 53 and lines 1 and 2 at page 54 and substituting the following therefor:
"(r) prescribing, for the purposes of paragraph 48.1 (l)(b), any country with which Canada has a written arrangement with respect to persons who are or who claim to be Convention refugees as a safe third country for all persons or for persons of a specified class of persons, having regard to the record of that country with respect to human rights and to expulsion of persons who are or who claim to be Convention refugees."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Jourdenais) which was negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
(Division No. 274)
Members
++YEAS

Belsher	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisBlais	Hawkes	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanBradley	Howie	ScottBrightwell	Jelinek	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenBrowes	Kempling	SiddonCaldwell	Landry	SparrowCarney	Lewis	StackhouseChampagne	MacDougall	Tardif(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlesbourg)Clifford	Mailly	TaylorCossitt	Mantha	ThackerCote	Martin	Towers(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperDarling	Mazankowski	TurnerDaubney	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)de Cotret	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDuplessis	Mclnnes	VincentEdwards	McKinnon	WeinerEpp	Moore	Wilson(Provencher)	Nickerson	(EtobicokeFennell	Nowlan	Centre)Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardForrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Friesen	Paproski	Gormley	Peterson	Graham	Pietz	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Foster	KeeperAlthouse	Gauthier	LangdonAxworthy	Guilbault	MacLellanBenjamin	(Saint-Jacques)	ManlyBlackburn	Heap	Marchi(Brant)	Isabelle	McCurdyBoudria	Jewett	McDonaldCaccia	Johnston	(Broadview-Cassidy	(Saint-Henri-	Greenwood)de Corneille Dewar	Westmount)	McLaughlin
Members
Allmand	Jewett	NystromAlthouse	Johnston	OrlikowAxworthy	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBenjamin	Westmount)	PepinBlackburn	Jourdenais	Prud'homme(Brant)	Keeper	RiisBoudria	Langdon	RobichaudCaccia	MacLellan	RobinsonCassidy	Manly	Rompkeyde Corneille	Marchi	SkellyDewar	McCurdy	WaddellFoster	McDonald	Young-40Gauthier	(Broadview-	Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	Isabelle	Nunziata	
++NAYS
Members
Belsher	Edwards	MaillyBinns	Epp	ManthaBlais	(Provencher)	MartinBlouin	Fennell	MayerBosley	Fontaine	MazankowskiBradley	Forrestall	McDougallBrightwell	Friesen	(St. Paul's)Brisco	Gormley	MclnnesBrowes	Graham	McKinnonCaldwell	Guilbault	MooreCarney	(Drummond)	NickersonChampagne	Hawkes	Nowlan(Champlain)	Hnatyshyn	OberleClifford	Horner	OostromCossitt	Howie	PaproskiCote	Jelinek	Peterson(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Kempling	PietzDarling	Landry	PlamondonDaubney	Lewis	Ravisde Cotret	MacDougall	RedwayDuplessis	(Timiskaming)	Reid
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet
Immigration Act, 1976
Vincent
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Winegard Witcr-76
Roman	Taylor	WilsonScott	Thacker	(Etobicoke(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Towers	Centre)Scowen	Tupper	WinegardSiddon	Turner	Witer-75Sparrow	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Stackhouse	Vankoughnet	Tardif	Vincent	(Charlesbourg)	Weiner


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


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That Motion 77 be amended by adding the words "in writing" after the word "reasons" in section (a) and in section (b).
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Heap) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 275)


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


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Motion No. 77
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 43
(a)	by striking out line 5 at page 61 and substituting the following therefor: "decision and the reasons therefor as soon as possible after making the"
(b)	by striking out line 15 at page 61 and substituting the following therefor: "decision and the reasons therefor as soon as possible after making the".
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Weiner) which was agreed to on the following division:
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Isabelle	NunziataAlthouse	Jewett	NystromAxworthy	Johnston	OrlikowBenjamin	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBlackburn	Westmount)	Pepin(Brant)	Keeper	Prud'hommeBoudria	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCassidy	Manly	Robinsonde Corneille	Marchi	RompkeyDewar	McCurdy	SkellyFoster	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-39Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Heap	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Fontaine	MclnnesBinns	Forrestall	McKinnonBlais	Friesen	MooreBlouin	Gormley	NickersonBosley	Graham	NowlanBradley	Guilbault	OberleBrightwell	(Drummond)	OostromBrisco	Hawkes	PaproskiBrowes	Hnatyshyn	PetersonCaldwell	Horner	PietzCarney	Howie	PlamondonChampagne	Jelinek	Ravis(Champlain)	Jourdenais	RedwayClifford	Kempling	ReidCossitt	Landry	RomanCote	Lewis	Scott(Lac-Saint-Jean)	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	(Timiskaming)	ScowenDaubney	Mailly	Siddonde Cotret	Mantha	SparrowDuplessis	Martin	StackhouseEdwards	Mayer	TardifEpp	Mazankowski	(Charlesbourg)(Provencher)	McDougall	TaylorFennell	(St. Paul's)	Thacker
(Division No. 276)
++YEAS
Members
Belsher	Guilbault	PlamondonBinns	(Drummond)	RavisBlais	Hawkes	RedwayBlouin	Hnatyshyn	ReidBosley	Horner	RomanBradley	Howie	ScottBrightwell	Jelinek	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Jourdenais	ScowenBrowes	Kempling	SiddonCaldwell	Landry	SparrowCarney	Lewis	StackhouseChampagne	MacDougall	Tardif(Champlain)	(Timiskaming)	(Charlesbourg)Clifford	Mailly	TaylorCossitt	Mantha	ThackerCote	Martin	Towers(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	TupperDarling	Mazankowski	TurnerDaubney	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)de Cotret	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDuplessis	Mclnnes	VincentEdwards	McKinnon	WeinerEpp	Moore	Wilson(Provencher)	Nickerson	(EtobicokeFennell	Nowlan	Centre)Fontaine	Oberle	WinegardForrestall	Oostrom	Witer-76Friesen	Paproski	Gormley	Peterson	Graham	Pietz	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Foster	LangdonAlthouse	Gauthier	MacLellanAxworthy	Guilbault	ManlyBenjamin	(Saint-Jacques)	MarchiBlackburn	Heap	McCurdy(Brant)	Isabelle	McDonaldBoudria	Jewett	(Broadview-Caccia	Johnston	Greenwood)Cassidy	(Saint-Henri-	McLaughlinde Corneille	Westmount)	MitchellDewar	Keeper	Nunziata
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Nystrom	Prud'homme	RompkeyOrlikow	Riis	SkellyPenner	Robichaud	WaddellPepin	Robinson	Young-39


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: that Bill C-55, as	amended, be concurred in.		
The House divided on the motion (Mr.		Weiner) which was
agreed to on the following division: {Division No. 277)
 YEAS Members		
Belsher	Guilbault	RavisBinns	(Drummond)	RedwayBlais	Hawkcs	ReidBlouin	FInatyshyn	RomanBosley	Horner	ScottBradley	Howie	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brighlwell	Jelinck	ScowenBrisco	Kempling	SiddonBrowes	Landry	SparrowCaldwell	Lewis	StackhouseCarney	MacDougall	TardifChampagne	(Timiskaming)	(Charles bourg)(Champlain)	Mailly	TaylorClifford	Mantha	ThackerCossitt	Martin	TowersCote	Mayer	Tupper(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mazankowski	TurnerDarling	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)Daubney	(St. Paul's)	Vankoughnetde Cotret	Mclnnes	VincentDuplessis	McKinnon	WeinerEdwards	Moore	WilsonEpp	Nickerson	(Etobicoke(Provencher)	Nowlan	Centre)Fennell	Oberle	WinegardFontaine	Oostrom	Witer-75Forrestall	Paproski	Friesen	Peterson	Gormley	Pietz	Graham	Plamondon
NAYS Members	Allmand	Jewett	NystromAlthouse	Johnston	OrlikowAxworthy	(Saint-Henri-	PennerBenjamin	Westmount)	PepinBlackburn	Jourdenais	Prud'homme(Brant)	Keeper	RiisBoudria	Langdon	RobichaudCaccia	MacLellan	RobinsonCassidy	Manly	Rompkeyde Corneille	Marchi	SkellyDewar	McCurdy	WaddellFoster	McDonald	Young-40Gauthier	(Broadview-	Guilbault	Greenwood)	(Saint-Jacques)	McLaughlin	Fleap	Mitchell	Isabelle	Nunziata


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Redway:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as you have just indicated, there have been a considerable number of amendments to the Bill and I think at third reading it would be very helpful if we had the Bill reprinted with all of those amendments. I would like to ask for unanimous consent that Bill C-55 as further amended at report stage be reprinted for the use of the House at third reading.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to agree to my hon. colleague's suggestion on the basis that we do not find the printing is delayed for two or three weeks. 1 have no idea of the time frame we are talking about. If that is possible, fine.


Mr. Orlikow:: How about three years?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In three years you will still be in opposition and still whining.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If I may, I will amend the motion of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) somewhat and ask for unanimous consent that we order the Bill to be printed. It should be ready for Monday, but any delay in the printing should not preclude the Government from bringing the Bill forward. Is there unanimous consent for that proposition?


Alan Redway: That's agreeable.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. McMillan that Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak this afternoon on Bill C-74 which has been put forward as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There is serious concern in the country about the inadequacy of this legislation. It is unfortunate that the Government did not, in drafting this legislation, seriously attempt to provide environmental protection.
The title of this Bill is definitely a misnomer. If the Government insists on proceeding with this legislation in its present


form, the Opposition will fight to remove the name "Canadian Environmental Protection Act".
This Bill pays lip-service to the protection of the environment while overlooking the serious attacks which have been made on our environment. This is not leadership legislation. It is a desperate attempt to appease people, and it will certainly not work. Canadians are seriously concerned about the erosion of the environment. They are concerned that they do not have a safe and healthy place in which to raise their children. They are concerned that there is no effective forum in which to raise environmental concerns where they can get a fair hearing and an effective response. Such a forum does not exist now and will not exist should this legislation be passed.
When this Bill is finally sent to committee the members of the committee will have a monstrous task in attempting to provide legislation which will ensure that Canadians will have an opportunity to be directly involved in the protection of the environment.
There is no issue as important to Canadians as environmental protection. What does any other issue matter if diseases which develop and physical harm which is inflicted upon people through contamination of the environment are allowed to continue? Of what importance is any other issue? Over a period of time many Canadians have come to realize that this issue is far more important than many others which face us today.
We hope that the Government will pay heed to the concerns expressed by Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. We hope that the Government will listen carefully to the analyses of groups across Canada which have been fighting on environmental issues for years. We hope that this Bill will be redrafted to take cognizance of the points raised.
This is not legislation to protect the environment. Through this legislation the Government is attempting only to protect its backside on this critical issue. It is attempting to protect its backside for its failure to deal with environmental issues vitally important to Canadians. This is not an environmental protection Act. It must be reworked in committee to make it into a tool which Canadians can use to protect themselves, a tool which will guarantee that children will grow up safe and healthy protected from environmental contamination and the destruction of our environment.
This legislation is simply an amalgamation of existing laws in an attempt to sell them as something new and wonderful. Those who are concerned about the degradation of the environment which has gone on over the years will not be fooled by this legislation. They will recognize that it is not a tool to effect that protection.
It has been suggested that this legislation should contain an environmental bill of rights, a clear statement of what Canadians are entitled to in terms of environmental protection and standards. It should be a statement of our goals and
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
objectives. There is no clear statement in the legislation of what it is trying to achieve. It is critical to have such a clear statement to guide the decisions of administrators who set standards and impose emergency orders to protect the environment. Tjiere is no doubt that this Bill must state its objectives clearly. On that basis Canadians can make a judgment about the Government's political will to provide a safe, clean environment. This Bill rrjust state that Canadians have the right to a safe, clean environment.
There is very little provision in this legislation of opportunities for the public to participate in the enforcement of environmental laws. There are many people in this country who are seriously concerned about the degradation of the environment.
In the area which I represent people have formed groups protesting the use of herbicides and pesticides. They have come out to meetings to state that they do not want this stuff used near their homes, that they do not want it sprayed aerially or dropped in their water systems. They are frustrated in their attempts to express these concerns or to have a serious hearing on them. People have obstructed applicators in the process of using these chemicals in the environment, but they have no effective forum in which to prosecute abuses and infractions actively.
The public must have an opportunity to participate in the enforcement of environmental legislation. They must be able to become actively involved in prosecuting those who commit environmental infractions, whether it be misuse of herbicides and pesticides, misuse of dangerous chemicals, or oil and chemical spills. People do not have effective mechanisms by which they can initiate action. The public cannot go to the court in order to resolve successfully any challenges to imposed standards.
We must address the need to provide a forum for effective public participation in setting environmental standards for the communities in which they live. They should have the right to determine the quality of the environment in their areas and the Government should encourage involvement in that process by providing an effective forum.
1 believe that the application of chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides should only be done with the co-operation of local people who would determine the standards of use. This legislation should provide for such a mechanism.
For instance, there is the use of pesticides and herbicides in school playgrounds. 1 would be absolutely irate if my children were in areas with that material and I had no opportunity to oppose its use. I am sure all Hon. Members would agree with other Canadians on that issue.
This situation also exists with respect to the use of pesticides by those who advocate aerial spraying of forests. The area of Okeover Inlet is an example of this situation. The federal Government licenses the product, the provincial Government


Canadian Environmental Protection Act
claims no responsibility because it has been licensed by the federal Government, and there is no consideration for the individuals who live there.
The decision was made to use a helicopter to spray an area that was sensitive in terms of the watershed and the marine environment. It is one of the major shellfish-raising areas in British Columbia which had not been contaminated. Residents eventually threatened that they would shoot down any helicopter carrying pesticides that was flying over the area. Of course, this elicited the appropriate response from the RCMP, who defused the situation, but it illustrates the frustration experienced by people when the Government refuses to listen to their concerns about their children and the quality of the environment in which they live. The people of that community banded together and managed to convince the Government that they would remove the unwanted material themselves. They obtained a federal government grant and removed the alder by hand.
The basic problem in this situation was that they had no sense of effective participation in the decision on the use of those chemicals in that area.
We have seen similar cases up and down the coast of British Columbia, whether it is Fanny Bay, Merville, or the Sechelt Peninsula. Hundreds of people have attended public meetings to voice their outrage because a major corporation like B.C. Hydro, MacMillan Bloedel or Crown Forest Products have been able to use these materials with provincial government approval that is based on the federal government sanction. The people affected by these chemicals have no say in the standards for licensing those chemicals. They have no effective say in where those chemicals will be applied.
The Bill should provide Canadians with a fair opportunity to be involved in the setting of standards for these chemicals and where and how they will be applied. It would be a great service to Canada and the quality of our environment if that were one of the strong features of this legislation.
1 believe that dangerous chemicals as defined in this legislation will not include pesticides and herbicides, which has been a source of great aggravation to Canadians over the years.
The Department of Agriculture has had the responsibility for licensing these products in Canada. Apparently, it has used tests in the United States to determine the acceptability of these chemicals in Canada. While the provincial Government determines how the chemicals are used, federal government licensing entitles its use.
Many Canadians have suggested that some of these licensed chemicals are in fact toxic and affect human beings. Only recently, the Canadian Government admitted that chemicals such as 2,4-D are harmful to human health. Canadians have appealed to the Government to remove many other herbicide and pesticide products from agriculture. Such chemicals should be included in the Environmental Protection Act to
illustrate that the Government is concerned about their use and that it will encourage public participation in determining how and when these chemicals will be used if they are acceptable.
The Department of Agriculture should no longer be entitled to set the standards, because there is a major conflict of interest. Most Canadians would support this legislation if it were expanded to include herbicides and pesticides that are used widely in Canada, and I hope Members on the committee will broaden the legislation to include that class of chemicals.
Another area of major concern is the setting of national standards. I believe this Bill pays only lip-service to a major problem and does not provide any new initiatives in environmental protection.
Certain clauses of the Bill require the Government to consult with the provinces before setting national standards. The Social Credit Government of British Columbia has done much to erode environmental protection in Canada. While there is nothing wrong with consultation between federal and provincial Governments with respect to environmental standards, there should be a minimum national standard for the protection of the health of Canadians below which no provincial Government will be allowed to go. Where provinces are prepared to put higher standards in place, more effective procedures, that consultation should be an area of fair operation. There should even be federal assistance to ensure that those kinds of higher standards are encouraged and supported.
It would be our hope that this consultation section would be tightened so it was effective consultation and there would not be the ability to destroy federal standards or erode those standards and delay application. It is an absolute must that there be national standards, that the federal Government have the political will to enforce those standards, and that provinces which seek to impose higher standards in special areas receive encouragement and support from the federal Government. This issue is of enormous importance.
There is mention in Clause 38 that provincial consultation on matters of emergency orders are being put in place. It would appear that the federal Government has almost lost its political nerve at this point. With respect to an emergency order which involves, I would contemplate, an oil spill or spill of toxic chemicals in the marine environment-we have been treated to many serious oil spills in the Province of British Columbia-to suggest that the federal Government, before it acts on a toxic chemical spill in the provincial environment, should not have to consult with the Province of British Columbia.
I see that my time is drawing nigh. Hopefully, the important points that have been raised on the shortcomings of this legislation will be the subject of committee study, particularly


in the herbicides and pesticides area. Action must be taken on those issue before this Bill has been passed into law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? There being no questions, debate. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Raymond John Skelly: I have a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, I recognized the Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, while in general I am in favour of the provisions of Bill C-74, and I think that most of the Members of the House of Commons are,
1 want to bring to the attention of the Houses two specific areas outlined in this Bill that might need further study.
The first is really a constitutional matter. I am referring to the powers and authorities of the Government of Canada to regulate environmental matters in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, as opposed to what, in my opinion, ought to be the case. The people who live there, through their elected representatives on the Legislatures of the two Territories ought to be the ones, the same as the people in a province ought to make the overriding rules and regulations respecting environmental protection. Part IV of the Bill is the part that deals with federal Departments, agencies, Crown corporations, works, undertakings and lands. When it talks about federal lands, what it really means is all the land in the Northwest Territories and all the land in Yukon. We are at the bottom of the list after federal Departments and agencies and Crown corporations.
The operative clause in this part of the Bill is Clause 53. What it does is to empower the Governor in Council to make regulations with respect to virtually anything to do with the environment on those lands. We are going to run into some problems there, that 1 know. One of the problems will, of course, be battles between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, which already likes to think it is the agency or Department that regulates with respect to these matters, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which also has some responsibility in that area. I know there will be an interdepartmental battle between those Departments of Government.
There is in the Northwest Territories an Act of the Territorial Legislature called the NWT Environmental Protection Act, I believe. It has never really had much attention because of all these federal regulations that are in effect and that have been administered by various government Departments. I think it would be preferable if the NWT Environmental Protection Act were the one under which prosecution were made, the one which is primarily used to regulate and enforce environmental matters in the Territories. That would be in keeping with the policy of the Parliament of Canada, both the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada, which
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
wants to see provincial types of responsibilities devolve to the Territories.
It seems that this Bill is in some way drawing back from that policy. We have made some rapid strides of late with respect to electrical power, medical services and forestry, but we have recently been hit with the Meech Lake Agreement which has taken away something from us. It would appear to me that Bill C-74 would also tend to do the same thing.
I want to register my objections to this and my suggestion that things might proceed in a direction more in keeping with that given by the Parliament of Canada on previous occasions.
The second point I wish to raise arises from a meeting I had a few days ago with Mr. Walter Kudelik, the President of the Northwest Territories Association of Municipalities. I have a letter from his Executive Director, Mr. Jim Pitt of that association that I would like to read into the record. It is addressed to myself and states as follows:
Enclosed with this letter is correspondence pertaining to Bill C-74 (Environmental Protection Act) and its impact on municipal liability insurance. The NWTAM's insurance consultant, Mr. Hugh Falconar has expressed grave concerns about the implications Bill C-74 will have for our members; we want you to be aware of these concerns.
It goes on to say that they have contacted the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to request some additional information and assistance. I also have a letter from Mr. Hugh Falconar, insurance consultant to the NWT Association of Municipalities, dated July 28. Mr. Falconar gives his opinion that:
The Bill, a minefield for municipalities, appears to be a goldfield for federal prosecutors. The implications of Clause 116(1) are awesome.
It goes on to say further in the letter:
At the moment, the absolute pollution exclusions in the general liability and umbrella liability insurance policies eliminate all pollution protection for municipalities.
If Bill C-74 were enacted without the municipalities being able to have the benefit of insurance protection or some form of contingency funding, municipalities would be put into an almost impossible situation.
I do not know if the situation is quite as bad as Mr. Falconar believes because, of course, we have to read Clause 116 in conjunction with Clause 117, which gives some defence. But I think there is something to be concerned about in his remarks.
I also understand that the Canadian Water and Waste Water Association has been involved in the early stages of the drafting of the Bill, and I am pleased to see that this has taken place. I hope that when this goes to committee the Canadian Water and Waste Water Association will be invited to make further presentations and suggestions as to the manner in which the Bill may be improved.
In the Northwest Territories, there is case law under the Canada Labour Code that has held that municipalities are federal works or undertakings. It is pretty hard to believe that this is true, but it has happened. That is why municipalities in


Canadian Environmental Protection Act
the Northwest Territories, and presumably also in the Yukon, are likely to be affected more by this Bill than municipalities elsewhere in Canada. It is a great concern.
I wish to make the request of the legislative committee to which this Bill will be referred that the Northwest Territories Association of Municipalities be invited to present its case with the hope that certain amendments can be made, or that it can be given peace of mind in order that municipalities will not find themselves in the position that is described in Mr. Falconar's letter.
1 thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to make those few comments.


Alan Redway: I always enjoy the comments of the Eton. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) because he gives us a fresh insight into such an enormous and important part of Canada. Personally, 1 believe much more attention should be focused on that part of Canada. Generally, Canadians believe that therein is the great frontier of the country, and it is a part of Canada which is of enormous interest to Canadians.
1 was interested in the Hon. Member's particular comments with respect to the impact of the Bill on the Northwest Territories, and also on the Yukon. I noted his concern and desire that the municipalities in the Northwest Territories be invited to appear before the legislative committee that will be dealing with this. Certainly 1 anticipate that as a member of that committee I will be putting forward his suggestion. I hope that they do have an opportunity to come and put forward their views.
Personally, 1 come from a part of Canada which is not organized as a federal territory, but as a province. I recognize the fact that municipalities in provinces are considered to be creatures of the provinces. It comes as no great surprise to me that where there is no province but a federal Government that is the father and mother of the territories, the municipalities in the territories would be considered to be creatures of the federal Government. Also, coming from a province where there is so much environmental legislation that impacts on municipalities, I feel that there should be no concerns as far as the municipalities in the Northwest Territories are concerned, but I would be happy to hear their representations.
Another point raised by the Hon. Member was on the constitutionality of the Bill. He pointed out one of the great issues of environmentalists across the country, but perhaps in the reverse. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic indicated that there may be inter-departmental battles with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs as a result of the fact that the environmental protection power is in the Department of the Environment. Therefore, there will be another interested Department which will be struggling internally with the Department of the Environment.
In fact, environmentalists from other parts of Canada have criticized the fact that in this Bill the Department of the Environment has not amalgamated all of the environmental
powers of the federal Government, such as the power that the Hon. Member from British Columbia mentioned a few moments ago, the Department of Agriculture's control over pesticides. There is also the question of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources' control over nuclear matters. There is also the question of the Department of Transport's control over the transportation of hazardous goods.
These struggles will go on whether or not these matters are amalgamated into the over-all control of the Department of the Environment. They will either go on between Departments where one has the environmental controls such as transport, energy, and agriculture, but it is not in fact the Department of Agriculture, or they will go on in the reverse where the Department of the Environment has control of the legislation but the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs will be struggling to have its two cents worth. Obviously, in the matter of the way of life of government, that problem will go on.
I hope that the Hon. Member will see the light at the end of the tunnel in that the Northwest Territories will have a devolution of these powers in much the same manner that the devolution has taken place in the other powers he referred to, health services, electric power, and forestry. I hope that the Hon. Member will agree and indicate that he is working for a devolution to the Government of the Northwest Territories.


Dave Nickerson: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member has asked a question. 1 am delighted with the suggestion that, if he is fortunate enough to be on the committee, he will see that the necessary invitation is extended. I could go on at great length on the powers granted to the territorial legislature under the Northwest Territories Act to legislate with respect to municipalities, and that type of matter, but I do not think today is the correct forum.


Bill Rompkey: I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, to make some remarks on the legislation. I will be guided by you, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the time, I wonder if the Chair wishes to call it five o'clock and continue this debate tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Do 1 have unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We always face the difficulty, when we call it five o'clock, of knowing whether the Member whose Bill it is will be in the House, whether the Members will be ready to speak to that Bill, whether they are in the House, and whether is it appropriate for us to do so, or, rather, whether we should suspend the sitting until five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do have one speaker from the government side. Are there other speakers on this particular Bill?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Bill. I understand we have some speakers who thought they would be speaking when the clock indicated five o'clock. It will be a


minute or two before they are all in place. If the House can await that time, they will all be here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   PARITY PRICES FOR FARM PRODUCTS ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, August 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nystrom that Bill C-221, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to urge Members of the House to adopt this Bill in principle and send it on to the Agriculture Committee for full-scale study and hearings.
The Bill deals with very important concerns which we have as Members from across the country, whether we represent urban or rural constituencies or, as I do, constituencies with a combination of the two. The debt situation of farmers is one sign of the crisis which they have been facing. It is a steadily worsening debt situation. What is particularly striking is that the debt situation is especially falling on larger farms which are the backbone of production in most parts of the country and, perhaps most tragic, on young farmers.
According to the official statistics, only 26 per cent of younger operators of farms under the age of 35 years report no interest expenses, whereas 61 per cent of older operators, 55 years of age and over, report no interest expenses.
We are talking about something in the order of $2 billion per year which is going from farm families in the form of interest, resulting in a reduction in the number of farmers on farms. For instance, in Ontario the number of younger farmers under the age of 35 years has declined by 22 per cent. Between 1981 and 1986 the capital value of farms has gone down by 16 per cent. In my Province of Ontario the decline has been an even steeper 24 per cent.
What do we do in the face of those facts? It is important to recognize the principle of parity pricing which is embodied in the Bill. That principle says that the prices which farmers get for their products, in so far as we can have some influence on them in domestic markets in Canada, should go up in proportion to the costs of production that farmers must face.
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
I should like to refer to the catastrophic situation facing Ontario farmers which Calls for this kind of move to parity pricing. I know that the Bill itself does not deal with corn or soya beans. However, in his opening speech the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) indicated that he had met with producers of both commodities and could certainly see ways within the committee that these commodities could be brought into the Bill. For instance, let us take corn production and the price as of just yesterday in Chatham. Farmers in southwestern Ontario are receiving $2.27 per bushel. There are small variations to $2.37 or $2.47 in some parts of southwestern Ontario, but the $2.27 per bushel figure compares with a cost of production estimated by the provincial Government of $3.48 per bushel, including materials, pre-harvest expenses, harvest expenses, and land rent or the cost of land.
Dealing with the soya bean crop, in 1980 we started with a market price of $8.53. We have seen that figure decline to a market price per bushel of $6.20 in 1987. That compares with a cost production of $7.80.
Therefore we have a situation where farmers continue hoping for the future, but because of the difference between the prices they are receiving and costs of production, they are going more and more into debt and facing further and further difficulties for themselves and their families.
We must have a solution to this serious crisis, and I think the solution can come with the creation of marketing boards for commodities such as soya beans and corn on the domestic market. It can come with the recognition in those marketing boards that there must be a continued reflection in the prices offered by the boards of the costs of production and how they are increasing in my part of Ontario and in other parts of Ontario.
I urge the House to recognize what many of us recognized in the all-night debate which took place last spring. It indicated that there was a crisis in agriculture, but we have still not responded to that crisis sufficiently despite the drama of that all-night debate.
Let us take action. Let us move ahead. Let us do something concrete. Let us adopt Bill C-221. Let us take the step forward which this Bill represents.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this Bill in that my riding contains some of the finest black loam farmland in Canada.
The intent of the Bill is well recognized. There is consensus across Canada that farmers deserve and should receive a fair and equitable return on their investment and labour. However, there is no one Bill that can assure adequate returns to all farmers of Canada at all times. There is no single program that will achieve that goal, least of all Bill C-221 respecting parity prices for farm products. This concept, which was used in the United States over 45 years ago, was eventually discontinued due to major shortcomings. It could be an


Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
opportune time to review the U.S. system of parity prices and its consequences.
The parity formula in the U.S. was established in 1940 by the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The purpose of the Act was to establish farm prices at a level that would maintain the purchasing power of farmers, with respect to articles they buy, equivalent to that of the base period. However, in order for purchasing power to be maintained over time, relative prices and incomes in the base period must be appropriate. In the United States it became apparent that there were substantial income differences among farmers, no matter what base period was used.
The intent of the parity pricing Act in the United States was similar to that of Bill C-221 in respect of adjusting prices of farm commodities to reflect changes in the prices of the articles which farmers buy. However, Mr. Speaker, being a scholar of the subject you will know that in order to stabilize supplies and prices, parity prices were incorporated into the loan rate formula. Farmers sold what they could, and the rest was purchased and stored by the Government. As technology advanced, production increased faster than demand. This increased the need for price support and over-production problems became unmanageable. Eventually, the Investment Parity Price Support Program became so expensive that it was disbanded.
It is interesting to note that although costs associated with the parity formula grew significantly, farmers were often not at the receiving end. Much of the money went to transportation, storage agencies and construction companies. The U.S. experience illustrated that parity prices were not effective in providing price support to farmers. It cost billions of dollars, only a portion of which went to farmers.
Bill C-221 is primarily aimed at helping Canadian grain and oil-seed producers who are experiencing a very difficult time. They are in a cost-price squeeze where market prices are falling and input costs are rising. As an example, wheat prices have fallen about 30 per cent in the last year due largely to an international trade war, while input prices have remained the same or even increased. Grain farmers on the Prairies are expected to experience a net decline in farm income this year, although this decline is being offset to a large degree through payments under government programs.
The solution to the farm income problem would not be solved by Bill C-221. The U.S. experience indicates that eventually it would be detrimental to the agriculture industry. The idea of parity pricing does not take into account new technology, efficiency of production, market signals and the need for international product marketability. It ignores the dynamic and often unpredictable nature of the agriculture industry due to such diverse forces and conflicting interests, regionally, nationally, and internationally. Over the past years, the farm sector in Canada has been effectively served by
programs that increased the efficiency and competitiveness of farmers in the market-place, both nationally and internationally. A legislated solution will not be responsive to constantly changing circumstances and will therefore result in high costs with declining effectiveness.
One can argue that national supply management agencies in place for dairy and poultry products serve that industry well and that the same arrangement could apply to grains and oilseeds. But these agencies have been established at the direct request of producers themselves who continue to recognize the fluctuating nature of the markets. They have built-in flexibility to protect both producers and consumers. Bill C-221 would not allow the same conditions for the grain and oil-seed producers. To be efficient and competitive, the market forces of supply and demand must prevail. That has always been a fundamental philosophy behind agricultural policy in Canada, a philosophy shared by all provinces as signatories to the recently developed national agriculture strategy.
The Government has been working with provincial administrations and the farm industry to build a network of programs to strengthen the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of agriculture industry while providing farm income protection. Special initiatives have been introduced to help producers who are experiencing difficulties. In the long run, this approach will provide the best protection against the cost-price squeeze experienced by the Canadian agriculture sector.
Some of the support programs provided for Canadian grain and oil-seed farmers are the Special Canadian Grains Program, providing $1 billion this year to assist the grain and oilseed farmers who have been facing lower prices resulting from the agricultural trade war between the United States and the European Economic Community. Payments are being made under the Agricultural Stabilization Act to farmers affected by lower prices, including close to $55.8 million for corn, soybean and barley producers for their 1985-86 crop. Special assistance was provided to prairie grain and livestock producers who suffered from the effects of several consecutive years of drought. The Western Grain Stabilization Act has been amended to allow interim payments to farmers in the spring when they need the cash most. An interim payment of $705 million has been made in 1986-87 for the last crop year. A tripartite stabilization program for the red meat sector has been established, with six provinces participating and others being expected to join. Participating provinces now represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of all beef cattle, sheep and hog production in the nation. This program is helping to stabilize returns for red meat producers, without shielding them from market signals. The Farm Fuel Tax Rebate Program exempts farmers from federal sales and excise taxes on farm fuels. An $80 million, five-year interest rate relief program has been designed and implemented to lower the interest costs for more than 5,000 Farm Credit Corporation borrowers. The two new FCC lending programs recently introduced are allowing farmers much greater financial flexibility.


These initiatives represent an innovative approach to protecting farmers from the current cost-price squeeze. They have been developed and implemented to respond to specific conditions in the market, and they reflect the flexibility and responsiveness required to deal with specific problems. This process is most effective in serving the interests of the agriculture sector as problems arise. The parity price system would not serve the industry as well and could result in continuing high costs to the taxpayer. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not able to support the spirit and the essence of Bill C-221.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to a Bill which I think in a significant way addresses not just the concerns of farmers but concerns that I think ought to be the concerns of all Canadians.
1 regret that the previous speaker representing the Progressive Conservative Party, as one would expect of a Party that calls itself Progressive Conservative, would choose to have compared apples and oranges in trying to see in the experience of the United States what is predictable about what will occur in Canada if the kind of legislation suggested in this Bill were adopted by this House, subsequently approved by the other place, and became law.
What is at issue here, and clearly at issue, is fairness. Anyone who looks at the situation faced by the farmers in Canada could by no means conclude that the farmer is treated with fairness. This is not deliberate, but if you compared the situation of the farmer as he and she experiences it now and contemplated just for a moment the prospects for the future, then one would have to reach the conclusion that we must search our collective minds to find the means by which the farmer will be able to obtain an adequate income.
No one suggests that this piece of legislation proposed here now is the entire answer to the problems that farmers face. It does go a little way, and it is a little way, that collectively all of us must walk.
I have said on a previous occasion when addressing the concerns of the agricultural community that I admit to being an urban representative. It occurs to me that there is a very significant industry in my riding called Hiram Walker. It consumes a great deal of barley and wheat. We will not say anything further about the manner in which the product is consumed and by whom and in what quantity here and elsewhere, but what we should address is that not a single worker in Hiram Walker faces as serious a deficit in income as does the farmer who provides the basis for that worker's livelihood. Nobody really expects a worker or a business person to continue carrying out his or her business or work under circumstances where he or she cannot make a profit. I repeat, this is about fairness.
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
I think we can all agree that it is not fair that the price of wheat for export will decrease by 20 per cent. It is not fair that it will cost a farmer $69,000 to produce wheat on 1,000 acres but he can only expect to make $40,000 from it. It is not fair that farmers are losing their farms, that the family farm is disappearing because of inadequate income and huge debt and that in many instances young farmers have no hope of owning a farm. It is not fair that in the area in which I live, the producers of soybeans and corn, the most common commodities produced in that area, find that it costs them more to produce their commodities than they can sell them for. They earn $2 per bushel for corn while it costs $3 per bushel to produce it, and they earn $6 per bushel for soybeans while it costs $7 per bushel to produce it. That is not fair, and what we are talking about here is fairness.
What is so strange, unusual and unreasonable about the proposition advanced in this Bill that wheat, oats and barley sold to the Canadian consumer should be priced so that the cost of production is covered? The production costs that should be covered include good wages for city workers and good profits for those producing implements and vehicles used on farms. That is all this Bill seeks to provide through what is called parity pricing. The farmer who sells his wheat, oats and barley should receive a return adequate to cover the cost of production and should earn a profit sufficient to allow the farmer to live, to eat and to clothe himself and his family. Why should the farmer provide to all the rest of us what we so desperately and continuously need at his own expense?
Is the proposition contained in the Bill not a self-evident one? Is this not something that all of us would naturally assume is a simple matter of justice and fairness? As the Hon. Member from the other side who spoke indicated, there are some small elements of the legislation that need to be adjusted to make it good legislation. I for one, coming from Essex County, would like to see it extended so that it would apply to soybean and corn producers. Just as wheat, barley and oats concern those in the West and in parts of Ontario, we in southwestern Ontario have a problem as well.
As well, I think note should be taken that there is a proposal here for marketing boards for beef and pork. Although that is not being demanded, it may be that we would want to prepare the way so that those producers too could share in the benefits of the simple principle advanced by this legislation, which is that one should not have to produce food for city people at one's own expense.
I urge the House to approve the submission of this Bill to the Agriculture Committee so that it can be refined and made practical and useful and so that it can benefit the farmer. I am as confident as I am confident that I am standing here today that, given an understanding of the situation faced by farmers, those in the cities would not expect the farmer to earn less than the automobile worker, the brewer or the politician in proportion to their contribution to this country.


Parity Prices for Farm Products Act [Translation]


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-221, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, the electors of the riding of Windsor-Walkerville had an opportunity to listen to their Member or will find time to read his comments in Hansard. They will see for themselves that the Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) was not very serious when he spoke to this legislative measure.
Mr. Speaker, setting the prices of farm products at the so-called parity level is one way to establish a link between these prices and the cost index of the agricultural community's input.
The concept of parity prices was used in a U.S. farm legislation some forty years ago. Its purpose was to establish farm prices at a level that would maintain the purchasing power of farmers, with respect to articles they buy, equivalent to that of the base period.
To determine the parity price of a farm commodity during a period prior to this base period, they would multiply its price during the base period by the input cost index reached during the period when the computation was made.
However, this procedure did not take into account a basic factor, namely, that as technology advances, productivity increases steadily over the years.
Well, the input cost index reflects the trend of input prices and not the input mix during production. With the passing of time, technology advance makes it possible to combine inputs in a more efficient way and, in the end, smaller amounts of inputs are necessary to produce the same quantity of farm commodities. The unit cost goes down. Parity prices, therefore, may reach levels which are much higher than the costs to efficient farmers.
That is the reason why the parity price system was dropped in the United States.
Bill C-221, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products, tries to overcome this problem by proposing to establish the prices on an annually established production cost formula.
By fixing prices on a yearly production cost basis, production cost pricing, although simple in principle, is not simple in its implementation. First, production costs have to be defined, which Bill C-221 does not do.
For instance, a distinction must be drawn between disbursement costs and non-disbursement costs. The difference is significant both conceptually and as to how costs are assessed.
The remuneration of the producer's work and investment entails no disbursement, but must be included in any pricing process.
One problem then is that, by determining farm prices on the basis of production costs, there is a danger that they be set at a level where demand will not completely absorb supply.
High prices stimulate production, Mr. Speaker, but on the other hand they discourage consumption. A pricing system based on a production cost formula cannot be put in place without a plan to limit supply to the level the available markets can absorb. Otherwise, the impact on external trade would be serious.
Mr. Speaker, providing a commodity with a high support price becomes costly when a country produces more of that commodity than it consumes. The surplus must be exported, and when world prices are still lower than domestic prices, this surplus is exported at a loss.
Such is the situation in the European Economic Community, and the common farm policy, which is the cause of that, is extremely costly to European taxpayers.
Canadian farm prices must be at a level that allows competition with foreign products. Otherwise, our products would not sell abroad because they would not compete on international markets. And then, if Canada used a double price system, selling abroad at prices that would be lower than domestic prices, it would be accused of dumping.
We cannot both develop the exportation of a product and introduce a parity prices system for that same product. Programs that are in place now, including the Western grain stabilization program and the tripartite stabilization programs that benefit beef, pork and lamb producers, better serve the needs of the export oriented production sectors then the parity prices system. They give a protection against downturns that periodically occur in the markets while ensuring that production be responsive to market trends.
So, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and many others, it is absolutely unthinkable to implement a policy such as proposed by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) in his Bill C-221 and that is why we will have to vote against such a proposal since it is a socialist measure that would give no benefit to producers other than to burden them with enormous inconveniences, which is certainly not what we have been seeking since we came to power. Rather, we are working to help our producers become more and more efficient, more and more competitive so that they can carve out a significant place for themselves in the market so that ultimately we will succeed in stabilizing some sectors of productions by having profitable operations.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the last time 1 had an opportunity to speak about the problems which farmers and their families are having in this downturn in the economy, a Member on the government side shouted across the floor and asked what a guy from downtown Toronto was doing talking


about farm problems. At that time I pointed out that, because I happen to represent an urban community, that does not mean that I do not have an understanding of the problems of farmers.
Excellent representatives from the prairie provinces and other farming regions have spoken out loudly and clearly on behalf of farmers. In addition, residents in my constituency consume the products of farmers and are concerned about how the present Government and previous Governments have treated farmers. They have not been treated very well.
In fact, many farmers to whom I have had an opportunity to speak in my travels across the country, particularly in the Province of Saskatchewan, have pointed out to me in the strongest possible terms on numerous occasions that the problems within that sector of the economy have occurred because there is no adequate agricultural policy in Canada. There is a piecemeal policy under which Governments react to problems rather than attempting to establish a long-range policy in agriculture.
In 1984, we had an extensive debate in this House on the Crow rate. Members in my Party argued over a long period of time that if the Government tampered with the Crow rate in the way it intended to, it would seriously affect the farmers of the country. That which we are seeing today is at least a partial result of that policy.
Many residents of my constituency work for Massey-Ferguson. Those people are employed in producing farm implements for the farmers of the country. If farmers do not have the income with which to buy those products the industrial workers in my constituency will be unemployed. They will not find gainful employment unless farmers have the financial resources to buy the equipment they produce. This is, therefore, not only a farm problem. It is also very much an urban problem in Brantford, Toronto, and other major manufacturing sectors across the country.
That is why I wanted the opportunity to speak on Bill C-221 as put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). The purpose of this Bill is quite clearly set out in the explanatory note which reads:
The purpose of this Bill is to provide parity prices to farmers based on a
cost-of-production formula for wheat, oats and barley for human consumption
within Canada and to establish voluntary marketing Commissions for pork and
beef. That is to lay the groundwork for parity prices for producers.
1 heard the previous speaker in this debate refer to the measures being proposed by the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville as some kind of socialist plot. The farmers I have spoken to explained the problem to me. They say that farmers today do not have the opportunity to recover the cost of their production, that is, the cost of seeding, fertilization, equipment to take the product off the field, et cetera, et cetera. They are not totally compensated for their investment.
I cannot imagine a Conservative Member at any other time arguing that a producer is not entitled to a reasonable profit for labour. That argument would be totally foreign under
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
different circumstances. I can assure you that if that government Member were sitting in opposition he would be making the same argument in support of farmers as I am making today. However, because they are in government they feel they have to defend the indefensible, which in itself is indefensible. When I hear a member of the Conservative Party make such an argument I, quite frankly, do not understand it. I would like to hear him make that argument to the President of Massey-Ferguson. I would like to hear him make that argument to the Royal Bank or any other banking institution. I can tell you that tomorrow, all the political contributions from those corporations would be cut off and the Conservatives would not receive another red cent from those corporate interests.
However, they will not make that argument with those financial interests. Instead, they dump on the poor farmers once again.
I want to give some figures which clearly illustrate the problem in this country. It is not a problem facing only farmers, but one that faces consumers and the communities in which these farmers live. The problem affects all Canadians, so we should dispel the idea that we are only talking about farmers.
Even a cursory examination of the books of the Farm Credit Corporation over the last year or so show that some 18,000 farm loans are in arrears. That does not even begin to deal with loans and obligations toward other financial institutions than the Farm Credit Corporation.
In a recent survey among farmers about what they saw for the future, 59 per cent could only see the situation getting worse. I suggest that that is a national disgrace. The farming community in this country has been held in high esteem for many years because of its recognized importance to the economy of Canada.
The reason this Bill is before us and why we are having an opportunity to debate it is that the Government has not brought forward any measures to allow us to get into such a debate. That is why the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville felt he had to bring the Bill forward, in order to give us the opportunity to tell Canadian farmers that even if previous Liberal Governments did not care about them enough to bring in an agriculture policy, that even if the present Conservative Government does not care enough about them to bring forward a policy, we want to say that New Democrats do care and that is why we are trying to bring forward a measure that would go a long way toward helping farmers in this country.
I have an article from a Saskatchewan newspaper, The Leader-Post, in which Mr. Allen Boras clearly sets out the problem from a Saskatchewan point of view. I want to read this because it is interesting. Mr. Boras says:
Because of an anticipated 20 per cent drop in grain prices, most south
Saskatchewan farmers will have to produce almost double last year's record
harvest just to break even in the coming year.


Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
Even in areas like Carlyle and Bengough, which produced a bumper 34 bushels an acre last year, farmers must push production to an all-but-impossible 58 bushels per acre of top-grade wheat. This would be needed just to cover input costs and produce a $15,000 annual income on a 1,000 acre farm.
He went on to say:
These estimated production costs, provided by Saskatchewan Agriculture, don't include money needed to pay debts. They also don't include deficiency, stabilization or other government payments that have bolstered farmers' incomes in recent years.
There is the real monetary problem with which we are dealing.
1 also want to spend a few minutes dealing with the social problems that these farm families are facing as a result of this crisis in the farming community. Let me refer to a book written by a group of concerned farm women. It is entitled: The Farmer Takes a Wife. This book was written as a result of farm women trying to determine and document the actual social problems that are created among the farm communities as a result of this farm crisis. It was written by a group of farm women from Bruce Grey County in Ontario.
Several years ago I had an opportunity to meet with many of these farm women personally, at which time they presented me with this work. I want to read a personal perspective from a farm woman on a particular day in her life. I am sure you will appreciate the compassion with which she writes.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.47 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the time provided for the debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the motion of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). 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.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There were discussions among the Parties that we would defer this vote until six o'clock on Monday. I have been advised by the Table Officers that according to Standing Order 13(2), it is not possible to delay this vote until Monday at six o'clock on the basis that the House knew when the motion would come to a vote.
However, I have been in the House for some eight years. There were a number of occasions when all the Parties agreed to a speech by one Member from each Party for up to one-half hour each, which provided for an hour and a half of debate. In my opinion, that was a fixed time and the bell should not have rung more than 15 minutes.
I believe the opposition Whip would confirm that in most cases the bell would ring for 30 minutes. Technically, if what 1 have been told today is correct, whenever there is agreement among all Parties for one speaker from each Party to speak, there should be a 15-minute bell and the vote may not be deferred until Monday at six o'clock.
When one reads the Standing Order carefully, one finds that it refers to a predetermined time. I maintain that providing for a speech by one Member from each Party results in a predetermined time. 1 believe this situation should be thoroughly reviewed.
In every case I have agreed to the request for a 30-minute bell. I believe there is an inaccuracy here which should be corrected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair intends to review the matter, thoroughly as the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) indicates. However, as far as this vote is concerned, if 1 have a request for a deferred vote, unless there is unanimous consent I will reject the request.


Thomas Scott Fennell: If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, can we establish in the future that whenever there is a predetermined time for one speech by one member from each Party, the vote will be taken in 15 minutes? I must have that commitment from the Chair because if each Party has one speaker, that is a predetermined amount of time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would just like to say that the Government Whip and I had discussions earlier today and I told him that I saw no difficulty in giving my consent to postponing the vote until next Monday. I do not want to enter into the debate here because I understand Standing Order 13(4) clearly. I know how it is affected by Standing Order 13(2). I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Standing Orders do not allow the vote that you have to take after a 15-minute bell to be deferred. The rules are there. I do not want to change the rules tonight. I understand the predicament we are in, but I would give my consent to postponing the vote as an exception to the rules.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Because we like the Chief Government Whip and we are reasonable.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I too like the Chief Government Whip and respect him. I recognize that Standing Order 13(2) and Standing Order 13(4) are in the Standing Orders. I, for one, do not want to renegotiate the Standing Orders on the floor of the House of Commons. I think it is a dangerous precedent and I am not


prepared to enter into any understandings in terms of changing the Standing Orders under these conditions. There is a time and place at which to change the Standing Orders, but the floor of the House of Commons is not one of them.
I want to add another point because I suspect that the question for unanimous consent may be put shortly. I want simply to make the case that we have been waiting, quite frankly, for months for this vote to take place. Earlier in the day we informed our caucus that as per the Standing Orders, the vote would be taking place today. We informed our Members of that. At our caucus meeting on Wednesday that point was also made. We encouraged our Members to be here as per the Standing Orders. That was all we were following.
I was then informed earlier today that the Government had decided to defer the vote. It had decided to defer the vote. It was not a request. I said, quite frankly, that we had made a decision, so, Mr. Speaker, if in fact the request comes for unanimous consent to defer the vote, I am afraid, under the circumstances, I would be unable to give that consent.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a lack of credibility here. I expressed to the Chief Opposition Whip the same thing, that I would like to defer the vote. This is my normal statement, that I would like to defer the vote until six o'clock. The New Democratic Party Whip was not here. I went to the House Leader and said I would like to defer the vote to six o'clock, and he said, yes. That is how I have said it many times, as the Chief Opposition Whip can confirm.
The Hon. Member says he has waited for months. I remember a number of Bills we have had in this House on which we have waited months for a vote for months. I think that is a pretty weak argument. I do still maintain that in the future all Bills on which there is a pre-arranged agreement of one speaker from each Party, which is a fixed limit of time, there will be a 15 minute bell.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think I must make one short intervention and that is, when I give my word for an agreement, to whomever, my word is good.
I want to remind my hon. friend, and I respect him for his views, that there was no request. The decision was that the vote would be deferred, and he was doing me the favour of telling me, and I appreciated it. First of all, he does not need my consent. The Government Whip himself can make the decision to defer a vote. He was simply informing me that that is what he did. I said: "Well, I guess it is your decision and 1 have to accept it". However, upon close examination of the Standing Orders, such was not the case. The Standing Orders are clear that under these particular circumstances, a vote cannot be deferred. I think it is appropriate and absolutely necessary that we follow the Standing Orders unless in fact
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
there is unanimous agreement and, in this case, there will not be.
[Translation)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will benefit from the advice by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


George Albert Proud: I appeal to the common sense of Hon. Members. Mr. Speaker, I cannot wait for the day when we finally become civilized in this Parliament and start calling ourselves by our own name and not by the name of our constituencies. This is always difficult. I may seem not to know the Hon. Member and yet I have a lot of respect for him.

Some day I hope we will call ourselves by our names and not by our districts. I think it would be more human and intelligent. I must admit that if there is a socialist that I trust when he gives his word, it is the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis). However, if my Whip is willing to postpone the vote and the Government is willing to postpone, I do not understand why we do not postpone it the vote. But if there is no agreement, we might as well vote.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think the rule is very clear. There is not unanimous consent. The bells must start to ring and they must ring for 15 minutes. I think the Chair must get on with that right away. That is what the rules say.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 would just like to rise for a minute. I do not know if we have some confusion in the Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 always like to see that we have an opportunity to declare on the issues. However, there has been some suggestion that the vote be deferred until Monday. I think I heard the suggestion that the bells start ringing at six o'clock. I quite appreciate that the mover of the motion would like to get on with the vote, but when the Chair is asked at this time to rise and seek unanimous consent of the House, I am not sure whether it is seeking unanimous consent of the House to defer the vote until Monday-


Some Hon. Members:: That is not a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -or whether the Chair is seeking to defer the ringing of the bells until six o'clock this evening. That is where my confusion is. I would have difficulty responding to the Chair's request until that confusion is clarified.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There has been a request for unanimous consent made by the Chief Opposition Whip, which was made in conjunction with Chief Government Whip, to defer this vote until Monday at six o'clock. According to the way the Chair reads the applicable Standing Orders, that cannot be done unless there is unanimous consent of the whole House. We do not have unanimous consent of the whole House.


Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
Therefore, call in the Members.

And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we are now into Private Members' Business hour and we have established a practice since the new rules have been in effect, namely that the vote is taken row by row. I believe that if you were to consult the House-

You will find, Mr. Speaker, that there is unanimous consent that we proceed by row vote rather than by Party vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we proceed with the taking of the vote by row?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Nystrom), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 278)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	dc Corneille	HeapBenjamin	Foster	HopkinsBoudria	Gauthier	JewettJohnston	McLaughlin	Skclly(Saint-Henri-	Mitchell	WaddellWestmount)	Nystrom	Young-24Keeper	Orlikow	Langdon	Penner	Marchi	Prud'homme	McCurdy	Riis	Beisher	NAYS Members Graham	RcimerBinns	Hawkes	ScottBlouin	Jourdenais	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Bradley	Kcmpling	ScowcnBrowes	Lewis	SparrowCaldwell	Mailly	TardifChampagne	Martin	(Charlesbourg)(Champlain)	Mayer	TaylorClifford	McDermid	ThackerCossitt	McDougall	TowersCote	(St. Paul's)	Turner(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Moore	(Ottawa-Carlcton)Darling	Nickerson	Winegardde Cotret	Nowlan	Witcr-44Duplessis	Piet/.	Edwards	Plamondon	Fennell	Ravis	Fontaine	Redway


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the		motion lost.
It being 6.23	p.m., this House	stands adjourned until
tomorrow morning at ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.		
[Stage Direction]

Friday, September 25, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers