1987-09-10

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2) and Standing Order 99(2), I wish to table in both officials languages the government response to the recommendations of the Report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs entitled, Food Irradiation.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


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


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that I have had a question of privilege brought to my attention, with sufficient notice. I recognize the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice of a question of privilege because of an incident that occurred yesterday a few minutes before the House recessed.
Since then I have had conversations with the Hon. Minister of State for Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) who assured me that
in no way was he trying to misrepresent a conversation we had with regard to the time left in the debate on Bill C-84. I will take this explanation at face value.
In the spirit of goodwill, and especially in the spirit of maintaining cordial relations between House Leaders of Parties, I will say that it is a dead issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that those very courteous words do not lead to another intervention.
I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his comments. I wish to remark that while there are sometimes disagreements in this place, often they are solved by amicable discussions between Members. That is part of the tradition of this place. I wish to thank both the Minister of State and the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques for their goodwill.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying last night... I am sorry, truth is always the easiest thing. Well, I just came in to join the procedural debate which, I thought, would last longer.
Last night I was saying that one of the roles of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) ... And I am not directing my remarks to him personally because he is here this morning, but such is my idea of a Minister of Immigration. Like at the time I was arts critic I used to say that defending Cabinet decisions before the artistic community and people who are more directly involved in arts and who create hundreds of thousands of jobs was not the only role of the Minister responsible for arts in Canada. He also had to reflect and champion the concerns and wishes of that community before Cabinet, I am saying that as far as immigration is concerned, I think the situation is the reverse.
Indeed I began Monday morning during a TV program in Montreal-Mathias Rioux was the host-concerning immigration when I could have taken the easy way out... I know it

September 10, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
would have been easier to keep repeating during the whole hour that the situation is frightening, that there are abuses which must be eliminated, so we will come to grips with the problem and take firm action. I know the Minister feels that I am missing the point, but he knows how much I enjoy having rational and civilized discussions with him on these issues. I was trying to make Quebecers understand the importance of immigration, as well as the importance of the refugee program. I will not shirk my responsibility to say that if there is corruption we must take corrective measures. And corruption there is.
Toronto and Montreal consultants are now making a fortune telling prospective applicants that thanks to them they can rest assured that they will be given immigrant or refugee status if they follow their advice. Their fees are out of this world, and if there are abuses they must be eliminated. But what I would like to see is the Government and the Ministers responsible for immigration taking the initiative and telling the public at large all about the radical changes which Canada is experiencing with respect to immigrants and refugees. They have to tell the people that the problem we have in this country is a western problem.
Our once very high birth rate has fallen to new lows and our demographic situation is such that Canadians are growing ever older. What are the practical implications? This means that, until a few years ago, the life expectancy of Canadian women-and 1 can see my good friend, the former Minister of National Defence, who is in excellent shape. I have always said that one of the mistakes made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister was not to have appointed this man, and I mean Mr. McKinnon, Minister of National Defence because he has the knowledge, the level-headedness and the elegance required to have made an extraordinary minister. As I was saying, women who had a life expectancy of 62 a few years ago now have a life expectancy of 79.6. 1 look at our young pages who have just come in. A few years ago, they could have expected to live until the age of 62, but they can now expect to live until the age of 79. Men, who used to have a life expectancy of 60 a few years ago, can now hope to reach the age of 72. This means that we have an aging population. This means that our hospitalization, social security and pension costs will go on increasing.
On the other hand, we have to look at our birth rate. Quebec used to have the highest birth rate in Canada, North America and the Western world. Now, it has the lowest birth rate not only in Canada and North America, but also in the Western world. There is a widening gap between the two which can be narrowed only with a policy aimed at supporting a rising birth rate, but it would be very difficult to implement such a policy.
We shall therefore have to make up the difference with an appropriate immigration policy. If we want such an immigration policy, we have to look to those regions of the world which can produce immigrants. The Western world is facing the same problem as Canada and we shall therefore have to look for immigrants, not in Europe, but in the new world, in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. This is where we can find a pool of immigrants. The Minister of Immigration,
the Cabinet, myself and the other Members of Parliament shall therefore have to begin to educate the public and to prepare their hearts and minds to receive new Canadian citizens whose skin will not be the same colour as ours.
If we want to maintain on the one hand our social security system and on the other everything that is good in Canada, we shall need immigrants, and we therefore have to ask ourselves where they will come from. What I find regrettable about this Bill is that people are confusing everything. People say that there have been abuses. There have indeed been abuses, but people are confusing everything: immigrants, refugees, illegals and the illegal actions committed this summer and the previous one. After one boat, everyone went crazy. Yet, this incident seems rather innocent to me. If there is one thing I like about being a Canadian, and this might be true in the United States, but certainly not in the other Western countries, it is that when I look at my colleague who is now smiling at me, I know that he was not born in Canada. The greatest honour for a Canadian is to be elected to this House. I have always said so. It is not necessary to be appointed minister, but only to be elected to this House to represent fellow citizens. The fact that new Canadians can be elected to this House is rather indicative of the change in Canadian attitudes.
Of the 40 Members in this party, I would say there are six, seven, or eight who were not born in Canada and they are just as good MPs, just as good Canadians as those who claim to have been here since time immemorial.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, what I would like or what I would hope is that we put an end to those abuses. With the legislation now before us there are abuses to be remedied-as much as we would like to support it, we do not understand why it was put together with such speed, and railroaded, to frighten people. It is that scary aspect I find offensive in this Bill. It is assumed that people will like it because we will be doing something and that we will be still more popular. That policy is short-sighted because once Canadians, once Quebecers have thought things over, a few months from now, they will see we panicked for nothing.
There were abuses that had to be stopped and they can be stopped, but not with the kind of shotgun approach that is taken in this legislation.
When we enter that debate as we will soon be doing- I have always been fond of concrete proposals, having already attended hearings across Canada on a piece of legislation, said to be a Green Paper on immigration. The then Government also had to deal with a problem. Instead of having a legislation, instead of having a White Paper, a statement of intent, because that is what a white paper is all about, people still have to be informed, and the Green Paper includes all the alternatives available to a government-they are brought before the people, or before a committee, which is asked to select those it finds most suitable. At that point the Government is not commiting itself. So we travelled all across Canada, and that was a kind of experience I will never forget. I did the same thing on the constitutional issue, but on immigration matters I travelled across Canada. And it is my hope, in view of the Canadian public's frame of mind-
September 10, 1987

Knowing how Canadians feel at the moment about refugee matters, I am wondering whether the time has come again to have an all-Party committee travelling across Canada and coming up with a kind of Green Paper. This would provide the committee with an opportunity to learn the feelings of Canadians and not only to receive but to give and to explain to Canadians in major cities and some well chosen rural areas across Canada, as we did some years ago, what refugees and immigration really mean to Canada.
1 see a Minister of the Crown listening to what I am saying at the moment. I say to him that if we do not do that, we will have immense difficulty in Canada. More and more immigrants will not be the kinds of immigrants to which we are accustomed. We may require another kind of immigration in Canada if we are to continue to prosper and develop, as we have done so far, with an aging population and a low rate of mortality.
In conclusion, the time may have come for an educational process. 1 say openly-and I did not consult with my Party; I just rushed in here this morning-that I would be more than happy, if I were asked by my Party, to sit on that committee. It is not easy, but I would be willing to do that because I feel strongly about the matter and I feel convinced that we must do that.
The committee could travel across Canada. Its members could be well chosen for their openness, not people, as Rabbi Plaut said, who call on the bad sentiment which exists in every human being, including myself. We have people in all three Parties who are open-minded. The majority would accept appointments to such a committee to go across Canada, to listen to Canadians, and especially to answer them in a nonpartisan way. It would give Canadians a better opinion on what immigration, refugees, and citizenship are all about.


An Hon. Member:: Soon.


Marcel Prud'homme: 1 hear the word "soon". The Minister responsible for citizenship is in the House.
That would be the kind of process in which I would prefer to participate, rather than a debate in which everyone clashes with each other, which I would call useless and non-productive.
1 thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me a minute more, but let me repeat that it is the responsibility of certain Ministers to be educators, not only good administrators. Of course we expect a Minister to do a good job. However, in certain cases, especially in matters where human feelings are involved, it is the duty of a Minister to take the lead in the educational process to educate Canadians about their responsibilities.
Immigration Act, 1976
If there is a subject which is highly important, it is that of immigration. I hope that the two Ministers responsible would see, as one of their major tasks, the educational part of the process and not only reflect in a tough law what Canadians may be feeling at the moment when they see illegals or a boat or two coming into Canada. At the same time, they should take measures to correct and should explain to Canadians what will be the Canada of tomorrow.
In order for the Canada of tomorrow to be the kind of Canada we would like to see-prosperous, open, and generous-we will have to start going on the road and explaining the difficulties.
I hope the two Ministers responsible for Immigration Canada will agree in a non-partisan way that they are not only administrators but also educators.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to participate in third reading debate of Bill C-84.
This Bill was put forward in response to what was deemed to be a national emergency and resulted in the recalling of Parliament from its summer recess. It deals with, if we listen to the Government, queue-jumping and coping with a massive influx of people who are attempting to enter the country illegally.
I will get to some of the details which led up to this Bill in a moment, but I want to begin my comments by pointing out that we in Canada have always had difficulty in dealing with the concept of "refugee". It has always been tinged, to a certain amount, by politics, depending upon the politics of the day and the reading of the Government of the day on what would be acceptable to the population. The term "refugee" has been broadly interpreted and at other times it has been very tight.
I should like to point to some of the periods in our history of which I am proud. For example, we permitted entry of refugees who were former slaves in the United States. We did that willingly and with open arms. They did not require the necessary papers which we are now saying must be available, because those people did not have papers. They did not even have a piece of paper saying who they were. The only paper about them which existed might have been a title saying that they belonged to a certain land owner in one of the southern states. They had no visas. They had no passports. They had nothing to indicate who in fact they were. Yet we, being wise at the time, permitted them to come into Canada. We were also quite open about accepting something like 60,000 boat people from southeast Asia.
Those were a couple of the good periods in Canadian history, but there were also bad ones. In 1914 we turned away a shipload of Sikhs from India, many of whom went back to

September 10, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
their death simply because the Government of the day, for racial, religious, and other reasons, decided not to allow these people into Canada as either immigrants or refugees, even though by some definitions of the day they were refugees. The fact that many of them went back to their death shows that they were in genuine fear and had a right to fear for their lives in their home country of India.
In 1939 a shipload of Jewish people, some 900 souls, was turned away from our soil because Canada at that time refused to believe that Jews in Germany were in danger. Most of them went to the gas chambers, and Canada fulfilled its then perceived role of protection from immigrants and unwarranted refugees.
A year ago we had some people who were basically Tamil from Sri Lanka who came by way of Europe. I want to dwell on that for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The Government and some of the critics of our immigration policy and our policy concerning refugees makes much of the fact that the Tamils stopped in another country. There is an attempt by the Government to treat differently those refugees who have stopped at what is called a safe third country. I simply point out that it is almost impossible to move people from the subcontinent of India to Canada without putting in somewhere, in what would probably be deemed a safe third country, for refueling purposes.
To a certain extent this particular policy Canada has been attempting to adopt, of not permitting refugees to enter our country if they have stopped at a "safe third country" means in effect that most Asians and Africans cannot come here as refugees even though they are genuine refugees simply because they have had to stop to refuel en route. It is a very neat and tidy, I am afraid, repeat of the kind of racial decision-making that occurred in 1914 and 1939, this policy of keeping out some people of certain racial and religious origins on the basis of a so-called stop in a safe third country excuse.
I know that governmental and, indeed, national acceptability of certain races and nationalities does vary over time. I know from experience with my own family who came to this country as immigrants, as did a lot of western, northern, and central Europeans at the turn of the last century and the beginning of this one, that they were welcomed at that time because they were considered to be good immigrants. Looking back to 1914, it probably had something to do with the fact that their skins were the right colour as were their religions. During the war years of 1914 to 1918 and again from 1939 to 1945, because my grandparents and their Canadian children were of German origin, they were looked upon very sceptically by the official Government in Canada. In fact my grandparents spent the First World War years on the U.S. border because they had taken five of their children to visit the great grandparents and made the mistake of not watching international politics. The war broke out during their visit and they were not allowed back into Canada, even though they had been
Canadian citizens for something like 12 years; that did not make any difference.
I only point that out to show that there are times, unfortunately, when our definition of who is a Canadian citizen and who is a refugee is so flexible that the political feelings of the day predominate over the definitions and practices that are supposed to be in effect.
In part for that reason, we have attempted with the coming of the Charter of Rights and the Constitution to set out rules that go above the law and above the Government of the day so that people who are citizens can appeal to the courts. That was not possible for my grandparents because it was 80 years later before that possibility existed.
With this proposed law we are attempting to keep people who are claiming refugee status from going before the courts to have their cases heard. We have an attempt to generate hysteria in Canada over the arrival of some 174 East Indians, mostly of the Sikh religion near Charlesville, Nova Scotia. I want to show how this matter appears to have been manipulated in the eyes of those who have entered Canada in the last generation or two.
Let me review a letter from the Ethnocultural Council to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) over the matters that led up to the so-called crisis that brought this Parliament back this summer. The council points out that after initial reaction of common courtesy and greeting with food and shelter offered by the residents of Charlesville, Nova Scotia, the Government people moved in and reporters were warned not to take pictures. It was made impossible for the media to conduct interviews. The claimants were immediately bused to a military base instead of to the usual moderate cost hotel and were kept under heavy guard providing the instant image of criminality. They were disallowed contact with the media or any further contact with community people. They were not informed of their legal right to see a lawyer. Access to lawyers was allowed only after a Toronto lawyer, Mendel Green, began proceedings for a court injunction to ensure that these people could get legal advice. When processing of the claimants began, the first and most controversial case, that of Mr. Amrik Dhinsa, a person who had been deported earlier from Canada, was brought forward and made public. I think this smacked of the most flagrant attempt at creating a negative image on the part of the officials of the Department. When processing of claims began, members of the media were disallowed in a further attempt to control information. Again court proceedings became necessary to gain access to what was going on.
In the second case, that of Amarjit Singh, a person alleged to be ready to kill, the information was obtained through questionable means. That information, by the way, was released immediately. The interpretation later was found to have been faulty and the questions were taken out of context. The gentleman involved was permitted to enter Canada because there was nothing to stop him from coming in. That is
September 10, 1987

what happened, Mr. Speaker. But that did not gain very much footage on the television or in the newspapers.
A confidential report of the Task Force on Security and Enforcement of the Department suggesting problems in recruiting clearance of immigrants was leaked to several papers showing that there were difficulties handling the number of immigrants who were waiting at the door. At the same time, the Government began talking about the use of refugees as queue-jumpers, ignoring the fact that there are two queues, one for immigrants and a separate, quite different, procedure for those claiming refugee status.
During this period of time, information was released on another Sikh in a totally different case, a Mr. Kulbir Singh Yirk, dating back several months. This information was received in confidentiality but leaked by unidentified sources to The Globe and Mail which reported on it. Other false information on that 174 claimants was leaked to Maclean's magazine. This information was to the effect that 33 claimants had criminal records. It was subsequently proven to be false, but the record stands. People have read the article in Maclean's and retractions tend to be missed.
Throughout that time, the 174 individuals were not called refugee claimants at all but rather were referred to in the press and by some departmental officials as illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, migrants, Asians, Sikhs and East Indians. The term queue-jumpers was used when we all know it was inaccurate as there are two lines, one for immigrants and a separate one for refugees.
This approach was used by some people to stir up immigrant communities and to stir up resentment between ethnic groups. One of the saddest developments of the whole so-called emergency was the kind of racial clashes that were being precipitated by some people, for whatever reasons.
By the end of July, rumours persisted that there was yet another refugee ship carrying no one knew how many people to Canada. The Canadian Navy, the Air Force and the Coast Guard were dispatched to try to intercept this ship. The hysteria came to a climax. Elowever, it was found that the ship for which people were looking was actually docked somewhere in Great Britain. It was a private ship that had been converted to a yacht by a Canadian of Haitian origin. I think the whole process was capped by absurdity when it was found that, in spite of all this sudden searching for all these people who were suddenly going to invade our shores, they were looking for one Canadian of Haitian origin who was trying to move his personal boat from Europe to North America. He had been delayed and was in fact sitting in Great Britain.
About this time, Parliament was recalled, creating an atmosphere of a national emergency. To be fair, I think that a sense of national emergency did not seem to penetrate this Chamber very thoroughly. Less than half of the government Members were here for the first votes and less than half of the
Immigration Act, 1976
Opposition showed up. Members did not really consider it to be a national emergency and I think Canadians never perceived it as a national emergency either, in spite of it being so portrayed by some Members on the government side.
To their credit, some Hon. Members on the government side did see this farce for what it was, and to his credit, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration made his views known and attempted to further the cause of a more clear-cut procedure for handling refugee claimants and a better method of dealing with immigrant claimants. Unfortunately for the House and for Canada, his proposal seems to have been overrun by this so-called sense of urgency and by the Government's attempts to put this Bill and its companion Bill, Bill C-55, through the House post-haste.
The procedure the House normally follows has been complied with on this Bill. We did have a debate on second reading at which time Hon. Members posed their opposition, or support in some cases for the Bill. It did go to a legislative committee and amendments were offered and routinely rejected by the government side. There were one or two small exceptions to that. The one exception that I recall is the acceptance of the amendment to the sunset clause.
Some Canadians may be surprised to know that this Bill, which was so necessary to protect us from illegal aliens and refugees, actually contains a sunset clause. This means that it will no longer be in effect after a certain period of time. The original Bill had a five-year sunset clause and that was amended to four years. I think some progress was made by doing that, but amending the sunset clause to a matter of weeks would have been equally effective.
I am concerned that by the introduction of this Bill, the Government has attempted, knowingly or otherwise, to precipitate some racial feelings that need not have been heightened at this time. More important, I am concerned that it has raised questions about our role as a nation that complies with the rules agreed to under the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. The Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has made some conclusions which point out that this Bill runs counter to its recommendations. The first relevant paragraph of that conclusion is as follows:
It is recalled that there is a fundamental obligation under international law for ships' masters to rescue any persons in distress at sea, including asylum seekers, and to render them all necessary assistance.
Seafaring States should take all appropriate measures to ensure that masters of vessels observe this obligation strictly.
Yet this Bill proposes to give the Government the power to turn away such vessels. I think that is contrary to the recommendations of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
A second relevant paragraph is paragraph No. 3 of the Executive Committee's report which reads as follows:

September 10, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
In accordance with established international practice, supported by the relevant international instruments, persons rescued at sea should normally be disembarked at the next port of call. This practice should also be applied in the case of asylum seekers rescued at sea. In cases of large-scale influx, asylum seekers rescued at sea should always be admitted, at least on a temporary basis.
The Bill's proposal that they be turned away runs contrary to that.
I see your signal, Mr. Speaker, and I realize that my time is up. I regret that this Bill has been proposed by the Canadian Government. In my opinion, it is not a good portrayal of the country in which I believe. The Bill does not attempt to keep Canada's doors open to asylum seekers and genuine refugees who have well-founded fears of persecution or death in their home countries. I think we have taken a very negative, backward step with the introduction of this legislation and I deeply regret it.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of getting involved in this debate at this time but, because of some of the points raised by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), I find it necessary to tell the right side of the story about several things he mentioned. I want to deal briefly with those things.
The Hon. Member finished his remarks by talking about people being rescued at sea. There is nothing in this Bill that will stop us from being compassionate toward people rescued at sea. People sneaking into the country, having destroyed their documents, are not being rescued. They have sneaked into the country. Not one of those people, if they were genuine refugees, would have been stopped from applying properly.
The Hon. Member went on to say that the first newspaper stories about these people was that one had been deported before. A second one was a murderer. The press brought these things out. This Government does not control the press. Why is he complaining to the Government? Why does he not complain to CBC and the socialist press which publishes these things? I did not hear one Hon. Member from that Party say anything about the ridiculous way the press ignored 2,000 people demonstrating on this Hill simply because they happened to be supporting the Government. If he wants the press to be honest and fair to everyone, I am with him. I am opposed to it being slanted to the socialist side all the time. In any case, his point is not applicable to this Bill at all.
He also said there was no national emergency. I happened to be mainstreeting in my constituency starting the day after these Sikhs arrived in Nova Scotia. In the 52 or 53 towns and villages I visited, where I spent a half an hour to an hour on the streets, three-quarters of the people who came up to me said how much they resented these people sneaking into our country. They wanted to know what the Government was going to do about it-not next year but now. I was one of those who wrote to the Hon. Minister and told him how my constituents felt.
Then the Hon. Member talked about all kinds of things that were going to happen. Is he a mind-reader? Does he have a Ouija-board or something? This Government has no intention of turning down any genuine refugee no matter where they come from. The Hon. Member talked about different colours and nationalities. They are human beings and this Government recognizes that. They will be treated as human beings as long as they are honest and sincere. We do not want murderers from other countries coming to Canada. We do not want thieves. We do not want people who are determined to sneak into this country after having destroyed their documents, because if they are dishonest in one thing, they may be dishonest in other things.
How does the Hon. Member rationalize some of the things he said with what I have just said?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, we have a good juxtaposition of our two points of view regarding refugees. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) says what we have here is a bunch of people who were sneaking in-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I never at any time said these people were murderers or sneakers. You are the one that put in the murder part. I said we do not want that kind in the country and we have every right to keep that kind out.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: There has never been any argument about that. The process is quite clear. Under the existing law, which has been very effective in screening people with criminal records, those people have not been permitted into the country in most cases.
The point I would make in response is that this particular boatload of people, and I thought he said his constituents used the words "sneaked in", all passed the initial scrutiny under the old Act. I suspect most of them would pass under the new Act. I do not see anything in the new Act that would have been effective at keeping these people out.
The Hon. Member's comments demonstrate the point I made initially in my remarks, that the perception of Government and government officials changes over time. It has been extremely difficult for Canada to set out procedures and definitions regarding refugees at any point in time. We apparently decided that Tamils were in danger of losing their lives in Sri Lanka. We have still not decided, apparently, whether they will be granted full refugee status in Canada. They have been allowed to stay here for a year. The peace plan in that country is still being worked through and it is apparently unclear whether those Tamils, even though they have all gotten jobs in Canada and some have even provided employment for other people, will be permitted to become immigrants.
The Hon. Member indicated there was no intention of turning people away. I am not a lawyer but I have had lawyers interpret this Bill for me. The language in the legislation seems fairly clear. The power exists to turn ships away. If it is not the intention of the Government or any future Government to
September 10, 1987

implement that power, 1 wish it was not in the law. I think it is quite counter-productive to the democratic process to write laws which go far beyond what any Government intends to enforce. It confuses the public as to what actually is the law. Writing laws and penalties far beyond what anyone intends to impose is not particularly useful in providing a legal or moral outlook for the country's population.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about C-84 in the context of the recent handling of an application for immigration by a French national who had been here on a work permit teaching for six years and who requested assistance from the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mul-roney) wife in order to have his application for landed immigrant status expedited by the Department of Immigration. I raise that because 1 think there is a double standard being applied.
On the one hand this House was brought together in an emergency session in order to deal with Bill C-84, which is what we are debating right now. This Bill says, despite all the evidence, that refugees are some kind of risk to Canadian security. Effectively, it allows a person to be designated a security risk. It introduces penalties for helping a person to come into Canada without a visa, passport or travel document as required by the Immigration Act. Yet at the same time the Prime Minister's wife intervenes through her office in order to help someone jump the queue and be considered for landed immigrant status while here in Canada, and this despite the fact that Mr. Grossmann, the man in question, was actually in France for two and a half months over the course of the summer-


Mr. Malone:: Sleaze, sleaze.


Michael Morris Cassidy: This is a legitimate issue. The Hon. Member suggests that it is improper to raise this issue. Yet Canadians are asking why we turn away refugees who are in fear of their lives in Central America, Africa and Asia and bring in legislation which allows boats to be turned away without even knowing whether the passengers have any claim to Canada's commitments under the international treaties governing refugees, while on the other hand someone who happens to be personally acquainted with the family of the Prime Minister can get intervention before an application is even submitted.
I have been thinking about this at some length because of the statements made by the junior Minister of Immigration yesterday. He said there was no intervention by the Prime Minister's office. However, the documents which were reported on in The Globe and Mail today make it quite clear that there was a series of telexes sent and that the letter which Mr. Grossmann originally sent was forwarded from the Prime Minister's office. When the arrangements made by the Immigration Department were not convenient for Mr. Grossmann after he had failed to keep the appointment made
Immigration Act, 1976
for him in Paris for August 20, there was further intervention from high quarters.
What distinguishes one person from somebody else? This person is in no fear of his life, oppression or exploitation were he to return to his native country, but wants to stay here in Canada. That is an understandable desire, but we have a very tight clamp on regular immigration to this country right now. I believe it is too tight, but one of the criteria is whether or not there is a substantial demand for people with the job expertise held by an applicant.
As a resident of Ottawa I can tell you that in the last five or six years there have been almost no job openings in this community for teachers. It is extremely difficult for teachers to get jobs. There are probably thousands of teachers who are unemployed or have had to go into other professions because they were unable to get jobs as teachers in the national capital region. Yet with the help of this intervention someone who was teaching here was able to jump the queue and have his application considered earlier this month.


Arnold John Malone: Tell the truth.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member is obviously feeling rather sensitive about this particular question, as he well should. Ordinary Canadians wonder why some Canadians have extraordinary influence when they are not elected to an office.


Mrs. Collins:: How many do you ask for?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) asks specifically how many people I have assisted. The answer is a number. I want to tell about the experience of ordinary Members of Parliament in terms of immigration applications. We receive calls from people asking for assistance, saying that they want to become landed immigrants in Canada and have been working here for four or five years.
In such a case my first step would be to explain the way the situation works and the difficulties, explaining that although I am not entirely in support of the difficulties, that is the situation as it is. I would ask them if they had put in an application. If they had not I would say that I can hardly seek to intervene when no application has been made and there is no evidence that they are being unfairly or unreasonably dealt with.
If it was a case of a person who is resident in Canada but did not have landed immigrant status, as was the case of Mr. Grossmann, I would suggest that they consider arranging with the Department to make the application in New York City, Atlanta or Buffalo, rather than having to spend the money to go over to France. If I learned that they were taking a holiday in France I would suggest that they make their application there and that it would not be unreasonable to determine whether it were possible to extend their work permit. There are various ways in which this could be handled which are

September 10, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
perfectly reasonable without seeking to bend or break the rules.
However, the cases which I get are not like that, for the most part. If I do get a case like that I tell them what to do if they encounter any problems, and then to come back to me if they still have problems. Nine times out of ten I do not hear from the constituent again.
I had one case of an elderly woman who was here visiting her family from Hong Kong and became sick. Because she was in Canada as a visitor she was not entitled to any medical treatment but she was certainly too ill to go back to Hong Kong where she would be able to get treatment. In that case I talked to the Minister personally and she was accepted on a Minister's permit. She certainly was not going to leave Canada and was probably going to die in a few months. Because she was accepted on a Minister's permit she was entitled to coverage under medicare in the Province of Ontario. We were assured by the provincial authorities, with whom we were in contact, that they would give that treatment. That is a humanitarian case in which I intervened.
I intervened in another case of a constituent who is a manager of a restaurant in downtown Ottawa. He is very hard working. He has been working for 14 or 16 hours a day, six days a week, in order to save enough money to fulfil his dream of bringing the rest of his family to Canada, as he is entitled to do. However, in this case there were all kinds of hassles from the Canadian High Commission in Pakistan. I cannot remember the details, but it had gone on for four and a half years. I intervened and eventually spoke to the Minister. The Minister's office became upset about it and sent cables to the office in Pakistan. I am happy to say that this family has finally been reunited here in Canada.
There is a great difference between the two cases I have just cited and the case of someone who had a perfectly normal opportunity to apply and who would have had absolutely no difficulty submitting an application and having it considered in the normal way.
Let us suppose that Mr. Grossmann's application for landed immigrant status was refused. Let us suppose it was refused because the law said that where there is an ample supply of people to fill the demand in a particular occupation we do not accept people from another country. What happens then? Hon. Members opposite say that because this individual was the grade seven teacher of one of the Mulroney kids the rules should be bent.
I would be quite open to a suggestion that perhaps we should change the rules and have more open immigration, that someone like Mr. Grossmann can make a contribution to our country even if there does not happen to be a great demand for teachers at this time. However, that would mean widening the doors to all applicants, not only one applicant who happens to be acquainted with the family of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, today's debate deals with Bill C-84. And, as everyone knows, this legislation is aimed at restricting the entry of refugees and refugee claimants that are entering Canada. It is a bill that is offensive, and it is opposed by the churches and all the groups that help refugees.
Mr. Speaker, this House was called back here in midAugust because of what this Government called the immigration crisis, the refugee crisis. But I believe it was a political crisis for a Government that had fallen down to third place in the polls. And it still holds third place today, and for good reasons.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the situation that prevails today, the double standard imposed by the Conservative Party. On the one hand, they turn down legitimate refugee claims, under the agreements entered by Canada with countries all around the world.
On the one hand it does this, but on the other it demonstrates very clearly that if you know an acquaintance of the Prime Minister or his family, you may be allowed, thanks to the direct intervention of the Prime Minister's Office, to do some queue jumping and have your application considered ahead of any other.
If someone who is here as a student or on a minister's work permit comes to see me because he or she wants to become an immigrant in this country, I feel compelled to advise him or her in the proper fashion by telling him or her to go back home. If your country of origin is very far away, go to England then, or Atlanta, New York or Buffalo, anywhere in the United States where there are immigration offices which are accustomed to accepting applications from people residing in Canada but who have to leave the country in order to apply for landed immigrant status following the normal process.
Now, if this is the normal procedure for everybody, I wonder why it is not the case for someone who is an acquaintance of Mrs. Mulroney or her son who is attending school?


Arnold John Malone: False.


Michael Morris Cassidy: If the Hon. Member does not agree with current immigration procedures, he should make sure that changes are made on a general basis, but his constituents would not appreciate at all that someone who lives here in Ottawa and knows the Prime Minister personally be entitled to have his application considered in this country ahead of those submitted by some constituents of the Hon. Member who do not enjoy the same privilege.


Arnold John Malone: You are a phoney!


Michael Morris Cassidy: I challenge the Hon. Member to have the application of someone living in his riding considered on the same basis as that of Mr. Grossmann, thanks to the intervention of Mrs. Mulroney and the Prime Minister's Office.
September 10, 1987

I challenge all Elon. Members, particularly from the government Party, to say how many Hon. Members have been able to get treatment for someone resident in their riding, comparable to what the Prime Minister's wife could get for her contact in her riding.
All of us become involved in these cases from time to time. I have a central city riding and deal with many immigration cases. However, these involve legitimate, humanitarian considerations when there has been a foul-up and red tape in the immigration process. The rules simply do not apply to this particular situation.
If Mr. Grossmann was a priest who was penniless in Canada and wanted consideration because he could not afford to go back to France to apply, it would be a different situation. However, he is a teacher with a salary on which he can afford to take a two-month vacation with his family in France during the summer. Surely, if he was that keen to become a Canadian, at the very least he would have been able to go to the embassy in Paris or the consular office in Marseilles to make the necessary application. Surely, one half day during a two-month trip is enough time for someone who wants to make a commitment to this country.


Mr. Jelinek:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening with great care to the Hon. Member's remarks. It strikes me that first, he is shifting significantly from the Bill that is on the floor of the House for debate. More important, he is making accusations that do not relate to the facts whatsoever.
If he is suggesting that any Canadian, including the wife of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) cannot make representations through her office on behalf of immigrants, then there is something wrong with the Hon. Member and those who espouse the views he is making on the floor of the House. I think it is a shame, because all of us make representations on a regular basis on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of our constituents, and certainly on behalf of legal immigrants. There is nothing wrong with that. I do it all the time, as a Minister of the Crown.
The Hon. Member makes similar representations all the time and I think it is time that he and others who are trying to blow this matter well out of proportion realize that he is taking away the rights of an individual, the wife of the Prime Minister of Canada in this case. They are saying she is not allowed to make representations through her office on behalf of immigrants.
Second, he is swaying from the discussion on the Bill that is before the House at this time. I wish he would get back to the issue in this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has the floor on debate.
Immigration Act, 1976


Michael Morris Cassidy: I would be much happier if the Prime Minister's Office had a line item in its budget saying that it is allocating staff and certain amounts of resources to Mrs. Mulroney, since circumstances have changed from the days when the Prime Minister's wife was not a public personage at all. Alternatively, the Conservative Party could pay the expenses for Mrs. Mulroney. She is in a special place by virtue of being the Prime Minister's wife. I acknowledge that it is a very difficult situation. She is not a Member of Parliament, yet she had half a dozen interventions by the Minister and the Prime Minister's Office on behalf of someone who had not even made an application when she made her first intervention on his behalf.
When I must deal with a case of a person who has not gone through the normal process I suggest that the person go through the normal process because that is where they must begin. There is a double standard. There are thousands of teachers who are unemployed across the country. Perhaps some of them should have had an opportunity to apply for the job at Lycee Claudel. The Government's current policy does not seem to apply in this particular case.
Yesterday, the Minister indicated that there had been no intervention from the Prime Minister's Office. I want to put on the record quite clearly that the facts are not in accordance with what was said by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). I regret that he apparently misled the House, perhaps unintentionally, because the facts appear to be otherwise.
Bill C-84 will be contested in the courts at great expense to everyone involved. The Bill raises many questions in terms of Canada's sincerity about welcoming legitimate refugees. Since the publication of the Plaut report two years ago, there has been a consensus on how to expedite the processing of people seeking to be refugees, and on how to assure that people who are making applications that are not justified will be returned quickly so that they will not try to use this as a device for avoiding the regular channels of immigration.
Our Party has made it clear that we favour that type of solution which has been supported by the churches and refugee groups. We acknowledge that problems exist, but the Government must not trample over human rights and create the kind of oppressive and offensive situation that will result from Bill C-84 and Bill C-55. These steps are not necessary in order to develop a better way to handle refugees.
If this was an urgent matter, the Government could have followed the recommendations of Rabbi Plaut almost two years ago. Yet, the legislation was not submitted at that time. When it finally introduced legislation, the Government suddenly said there was a major problem and the House of Commons must be resumed in order to deal with the crisis.
We believe the Government could have attempted to follow the procedure proposed by the churches for a couple of years. If that system did not work, it would have been justified in saying that another system was required. However, not to try

September 10, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
such a system is to abandon our responsibility to persons who are in genuine fear of death, imprisonment, or torture in many countries throughout the world which are producing refugees. That is why we profoundly believe that the real crisis we are addressing in Bill C-84 is a political crisis.

This is a political crisis orchestrated by the Progressive Conservative Party which is seeking ways to rally the support of the Canadian people.
Now, on the basis of the very last polls, it is clear that the debate which lasted for the greater part of August has not helped the Conservative Party. It stands exactly as it did in August before Bill C-84 was introduced. In other words if this bill was to be used as a means to regain first place, it has failed miserably. And by so doing, the international reputation of Canada as an open country doing its utmost to help the refugees, the exploited, the oppressed everywhere in the world has been jeopardized.
That is the reason why my party and I oppose Bill C-84, Mr. Speaker.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise as much in sorrow as in anger to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I have never heard such a speech marinated in cynicism as was delivered by the Hon. Member. Its objective clearly has to be one of attacking people personally and without evidence. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am disgusted with the tone of what I heard from the Hon. Member. He wanted to imply that somehow there was something wrong and abnormal with an attempt to assist a person to become a Canadian citizen when he knows that it is the duty of each and every one of us as Canadians to be helpful to one another and to help the country to build and to grow. He also knows that the very person about whom he spoke who asked for assistance to come to Canada is a person who has a son and who is married to a Canadian living in this country. In and of itself a great part of the reason that a person is admitted to Canada is for family reunification, something in which we all sincerely believe.
I rise at this point because I can no longer tolerate the cynicism and the holier than thou notion of the members of the NDP. They pretend that they are the great protectors of human rights. I will tell Hon. Members about human rights. Where it is failing is in the New Democratic Party where in its policy it talks about a population redistribution plan. Members of that Party would relocate immigrants across the country to give balance to population settlement. In the name of human rights I dare the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to begin to defend that NDP policy, to say that that is justifiable, that when people come here as landed immigrants or new people coming to our country, as stated in the policy-


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is completely false. Prove it.


Arnold John Malone: I will read it to the Hon. Member. It comes from my office and is part of the policy of the Hon. Member's Party. It is from the resolutions reference book of the NDP. I have read it and it states that that Party would take the authority and the power to allocate people to different regions of the country for population settlement.
I ask the Hon. Member to tell that to an immigrant community anywhere in Canada where people want to settle for their own personal reasons. Yet the NDP has the audacity to come here and claim that they are the only people interested in human rights. I dare the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to stand in his place and tell us that he can justify his Party's policy which, for population settlement reasons, would put new immigrants wherever a Government of Canada formed by that Party in its interventionist and state-control thinking could justify it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by the comments of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) who has not proven any of the allegations he has made. I point out to him that I have many cases in my office and elsewhere regarding people who are Canadian citizens or landed immigrants who wish to bring their parents to Canada and cannot do so. They cannot do so because their parents are under the age of 60 or 65 and are therefore considered to be still economically active. Thus they have to be considered essentially on their own merits. The fact that they may have a married son or daughter in Canada does not assist them in any appreciable degree in terms of landing in Canada.
The Hon. Member asks, should we not have some openness in that regard? Yes, we should. But it is the immigration policy perpetuated by the Government that makes it difficult for the likes of this French teacher from France to establish himself in Canada. But if he did not happen to have an acquaintance who is the Prime Minister's wife then in fact he probably would not even be able to enter Canada. That is the real issue. He would certainly not be able to do it from within Canada. He might have to wait for several years.
I met a constituent the other day who told me that his girlfriend wants to come to Canada. She is English and has a university degree. She has two or three years of work experience. It seemed to me from the description that she would make a good Canadian and a good contribution to Canada. She cannot gain entry into Canada. There is something wrong with an immigration policy such as that which bars people who would make good Canadian citizens. There is no justification in having one rule for someone connected to the Prime Minister and another rule for everyone else.
I wish to be thoughtful and reflective about this matter. Mrs. Mulroney is in a very unusual situation. Maybe she just simply put a letter into the hopper and everyone jumped as though she were saying, "Jump, jump, jump". Perhaps she is unaware of the degree to which departments and so on
September 10, 1987

respond. However, the succession of telexes, letters and phone calls from the Prime Minister's office and from the office of the junior Minister of Immigration is quite extraordinary in this particular case. It is far more than what would occur if I had made that same request. Certainly, it is infinitely more than what would occur if Susan Brown of Vancouver had made a similar request on behalf of the teacher of her child in grade seven in a French school in Vancouver.
With respect to the other question, I do not know from where the allegations of the Hon. Member are coming. I would point out that his Government has agreed, and I think most Parties agree, with the proposals in the Meech Lake Accord which would assure to Quebec a certain proportion of immigration coming into Canada relative to its population. If that is what the Hon. Member is referring to as population relocation, then he should repudiate the Meech Lake Accord, something for which I believe all Parties have indicated their support.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's remarks, particularly those which indicated that he felt he has a grasp and a certain expertise on the way that all inquiries and concerns from constituents, friends or acquaintances should be handled. When the Hon. Member receives an inquiry himself concerning an immigration matter, or with respect to any other problem for that matter, does he take the approach of writing back to the person, returning their letter and stating, "1 am sorry, I cannot help you because if I made some inquiries on your behalf to the Government or to a department or some official because I am a Member of Parliament they might very well feel that I am trying to influence them improperly in some way, shape or form? As a result of that, of course, I cannot help you. I am sorry, but I am just going to have to return your letter and your inquiry because there is nothing I can do about it".
Is that the approach the Hon. Member takes? Is that the approach that he feels all Members of Parliament should take when they are approached by their constituents who have problems or questions? Is that the approach he believes a human being should take if another human being approaches one with a problem? Does he in fact turn them away and say, "I cannot help you because this might leave the impression if I tried that I was trying to use my influence as a Member of Parliament in some way"?


Michael Morris Cassidy: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not. I have respect for the Hon. Member. I am sure that he also takes cases such as this and seeks to assist people when he feels that assistance is justified. In my case I begin by looking through the case in order to determine whether I am convinced that there is some merit in pursuing it. In certain cases I say, "Look, I really do not think I should help you because, for example, I cannot help you until your application is in. Please submit your application and then if you are having problems after that come back and I will see if I can help at that time".
There is one very substantial difference in the two cases to which the Hon. Member refers. I do not believe that on
Immigration Act, 1976
September 4, 1984, Mila Mulroney was elected to the House of Commons. I have not seen her take her seat on either side of the House. She is certainly not a member of my caucus, and I do not believe that she is a member of the caucus of the Hon. Member either.
I was elected as a Member of Parliament. Among other things, people expect me to perform the role of an ombudsman. For example, if a person came to my wife and she referred something to me, I would ask her to advise the constituent to contact me. She is not an ombudsman for the riding of Ottawa Centre. I am as the elected Member of Parliament.
If Mrs. Mulroney decides that in future she will handle cases from Baie Comeau, and the riding of Manicouagan, and refer them through her husband's office, I suppose that is legitimate. But let us have this clarified exactly. One of the problems is the very ambiguous nature of the influence which appears to be wielded by someone who holds no elected office, and yet has an office in prime real estate in downtown Ottawa, and has the office expenses and staff paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-84. I wish to preface my remarks by stating that I have had an opportunity to study the proceedings of the committee that considered Bill C-84 clause by clause and item by item. Experts in the field of immigration and refugee determination appeared before the committee, many on very short notice. They made excellent presentations. I have looked through all of the transcripts of the evidence of the witnesses. I have found no one who spoke in favour of the Bill.
Perhaps there is someone in Canada who has studied this Bill and who says it is a good Bill and it should be passed. If there are those people, I would ask them to make themselves known. I would ask the Members in the House, particularly those on the government benches who have not spoken against this Bill, to indicate what reasons they have for supporting the Bill, other than perhaps their own inclinations. 1 would ask if they know people who have studied the Bill, people who are knowledgeable in this area and who say that this is good legislation. I have been unable to determine who those people are.
I have looked at the presentations made by 13 different churches including the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the United Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Mennonite Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Baptist Church. I have also had an opportunity to look at the briefs presented by the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Nations High

September 10, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Commission on Refugees, and Rabbi Gunther Plaut. I could go on.
As a matter of fact, I wish to mention one group that made an excellent presentation. 1 would encourage all Members to look at the transcript of the evidence of the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. By definition, this council obviously has a profound interest in immigration and refugee determination. It represents hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Some of the groups that were represented include the Armenian National Federation, the Canadian Arab Federation, various Vietnamese associations, the Hispanic Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Polish Congress, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Council of Muslim Communities, Croatians, Cypriots, Czechoslovakians, Estonians, the Federation of Danish Associations, Koreans, Sikhs, Portuguese, Finns, Germans, Icelanders, Lithuanians, Latvians, Indians, Japanese Canadians, the National Black Coalition, Italian Canadians, Barbadian associations, Pakistani Canadians, Russian Canadians, Serbian National Shield Committee, Slovaks, Slovenians, Ukrainians, the United Council of Filipino Associations, to name only a few. In unanimity, all those organizations oppose this legislation.
As Members of Parliament who are asked to comment and to present views on a variety of very complex issues, I think it is fair to say that we take counsel from those who appear before the legislative committees. After all, we have the opportunity in the legislative process to hear those who are knowledgeable, and have expertise in these areas to advise Members of Parliament, the Government, and members of the opposition Parties.
Having studied all of the material put before the legislative committee, I find that every single witness or group who appeared as a witness opposed the legislation for a whole set of what they determined to be critical areas that they take great pains to specifically point out. There is no group, agency, or individual who is recognized to be knowledgeable with expertise in this area who supports the Bill. Therefore, it is reasonable, having looked at the evidence, to oppose this Bill in its present form. My caucus opposes this Bill in its present form.
When I studied Bill C-84, I had the opportunity, as did everyone else, to look at the purposes of this Bill as laid out in the beginning clause. Proposed Section 2.1 states:
(a)	to preserve for persons in genuine need of protection access to the procedures for determining refugee claims;
I support that objective. It further states that another purpose is:
(b)	to control widespread abuse of the procedures for determining refugee claims, particularly in light of organized incidents involving large-scale introduction of persons into Canada to take advantage of those procedures;
Obviously, I support that objective, as does my caucus. It further states that another purpose is:
(c)	to deter the smuggling of persons into Canada and thereby minimize the exploitation of and risks to persons seeking to come to Canada;
Of course we support that objective. It further states:
(d)	to respond to security concerns, including the fulfilment of Canada's obligations in respect of internationally protected persons.
My caucus and I support that objective. But those are the purposes of the legislation as presented in stage one. When one looks at the Bill, all those objectives are excluded. For example, one objective was to deal with smugglers. There is no mention in the entire Bill of smugglers who are dealing in human cargo. There is something funny going on. All serious-minded parliamentarians would support the objectives, the goals, and the purposes of this legislation, but when one looks through the clauses of the Bill itself they are simply not there.
People who are knowledgeable in this area have said that this Bill is unconstitutional, it goes against the Constitution of Canada, it breaches the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it breaks our agreements with the United Nations in a whole set of different areas dealing with refugees.
The Canadian Bar Association played an important role when it said that this legislation, once enacted, because of course the Government can use its huge majority to enact this legislation, will be struck down in the courts because it is unconstitutional. It contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada. This will be very costly. The most prestigious legal organization in Canada has said that this Bill is unconstitutional, it is unlawful, and it will be struck down in the superior courts of the country. Yet incredibly the Government goes merrily on its way ignoring that advice.
This Bill has sent out a Draconian message to people across the world that Canada is closing its doors to refugees. One of the nicest things about being a Canadian citizen is being able to look at our history and see the many times in the past that we have been a haven for those who are seeking refuge from oppression, or certain death and torture in their countries of origin, for example, the 106,000 boat people from Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia who found refuge in Canada. This initiative was supported by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) and his Government, and subsequently followed with support by Mr. Trudeau and his Government. In a sense, the Liberal and Conservative Governments in the past have shown some compassion when it came to the Vietnamese and Southeast Asian boat people.
I do not have to remind parliamentarians of the Czechoslovakian refugees, those refugees from the United States fleeing slavery, the Hungarian and Polish refugees, the Ugandan refugees, the Tamils fleeing oppression in Sri Lanka, and most recently the 174 refugee claimants who landed on the coast of Nova Scotia which brought this whole matter to our attention.
September 10, 1987

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went on to say, among a number of things, that this incident needed special consideration. He indicated that these people were obviously breaking the law, that there was a need to recall Parliament because an emergency had been created in the country, and that people were abusing the refugee laws of Canada.
I looked at the facts and found, for example, that in 1985 thousands and thousands of people applied for refugee status or made refugee claims. In 1986, 18,000 people made claims. In the first five months of this year, there were 10,000 such claims. In other words, year after year the number was about the same, the number of people claiming that they were refugees, that they would be persecuted in their countries of origin and asking Canada for a safe haven.
The situation has gone on for at least the three years in which the Government has been in power. Suddenly, for some reason in July, 1987, there is a crisis or an emergency deemed by the Prime Minister. What made it an emergency? Was it the fact that 174 more people were claiming refugee status in Canada? No, it was not that. I think it was a very dark day for the country when the Prime Minister saw a political opportunity to inflame some of the most negative passions, some racist passions in people, and found some groups to blame for problems in terms of employment. The Prime Minister then decided to recall Parliament to deal with the so-called crisis.
Presumably we have dealt with the crisis for weeks and weeks, and all those people who are knowledgeable in these areas have told us that this was not the Bill which should have been introduced. 1 believe it was two years ago when a whole set of recommendations bn how to improve the refugee claimant process in Canada was ignored by the Government. I do not think a single one of us here or a single Canadian would want to say that we are not in favour of supporting real refugees. Most Canadians, with maybe a handful of exceptions, are compassionate, decent people who feel that people fleeing death, persecution, torture, jail, and labour camps in their countries of origin are welcome in Canada. As I indicated earlier, our history proves that.
However, we are opposed to that handful of people who will abuse any system, including the refugee claimant system. All serious thinking Canadians are opposed to people using and abusing the system. I hate to mention this-as a matter of fact, I am reluctant to do so but I feel I must-but after the Prime Minister recalled Parliament to deal with what he called queue-jumpers, which of course was a misnomer, what did he do from his office? He queue-jumped; he made a request on his letterhead asking for special consideration to be given to the French teacher of his children. That is the ultimate in hypocrisy, and that is the kind of thing Canadians find so disagreeable. Once again we have been reminded in the last number of days that what the Prime Minister says on Monday does not necessarily determine what he does on Tuesday.
Immigration Act, 1976
We have also been reminded, in what I think are some of the most thoughtful speeches I have heard in the House for a long time, about some incidents in the past which we do not want to repeat, incidents which we as parliamentarians recognize as black marks on our history, dark days in our country's past. I refer, of course, to the Kamagata Maru incident in 1914 when 376 Sikhs sailed to Canada from Bombay. They arrived at the Port of Vancouver and were refused entry. They stayed in the harbour for weeks and weeks trying to negotiate with the immigration people and the Government of the day. The Government said, "No, we will not allow you to land", and these 376 Sikhs were forced by Canadian gunboats to return to Bombay and the Punjab. I am sad to say that many of those people met their death when they returned home.
The most obvious incident in recent history occurred in 1939 with the St. Louis when we saw over 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi terror in Europe. Immigration officials and the Canadian Government of the day said that they did not believe there was anything wrong with the Nazi regime or that they would be persecuted, tortured, or killed. In retrospect we know that what they were fleeing was in fact very authentic. Every one of the Jewish refugees who came to our shores and were forced back to Europe returned to certain death in the gas chambers of the Nazi terror. Again it was a dark day. In retrospect we regret that it happened, but there are people who are saying that we do not want that to happen again, that we do not want those events to be replayed.
However, a provision in Bill C-84 allows for something like that to happen. It says that a ship suspected of having illegal refugees on board can be stopped on the open sea by Canadian gunboats and forced to turn around and go back. The national president of employees working for the Department of Immigration has spoken out and said, "We don't want to do that". They think it is inappropriate to ask people working for the Department of Immigration to determine whether a boat is filled with illegal refugees without ever talking to them.
The Bill also makes the following an offence. If some unscrupulous person involved in smuggling people was to dump those people at sea in lifeboats or open boats, and if someone from Canada for compassionate reasons went out to rescue them, he or she would be subject to fine and/or imprisonment.
That is not the kind of country we have. That is not the kind of country we want in the future. This is why so many of us are speaking out. I say "so many of us" because certainly all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus feel very strongly about the abuse of human rights embodied in this piece of legislation. I have listened to the speeches of those in the Liberal Party and assume that they will also oppose it. As well, I heard speeches from members on the government backbenches. In fact, the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, a Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament, stood in his place on many occasions and said that this Bill is wrong, that what the Government is doing is wrong, and that the legislation is inappropriate. One of the most knowledgeable people on the

September 10, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
government benches who lives and breathes immigration policy day after day has said that we should not pass this Bill.
Who is it that wants to pass this Bill? Who supports this Bill? This so-called thoughtful person when it comes to these matters has yet to be identified.
I simply say that there are areas in the Bill which are inappropriate and have been severely criticized for what they do. I do not need to repeat what my colleagues have stated on a number of occasions, but I want to bring one problem area into focus. Those people-and almost inevitably they are church people-who are motivated by compassion and humanitarian concerns have most recently seen people in South America fleeing death squads, torture, death, and persecution and coming to Canada. Such people do not often leave with all their documents in order. They appear at our borders documentless because they are fleeing a horror story in their communities and villages in Central America. As a result of this Bill, the people who assist them, and Central Americans, by taking them to the nearest immigration office, will be supporting what is now described as a criminal act, an act which is illegal. They will be subject to years in jail or thousands of dollars in fines. Those men and women who want to help people come to Canada, people who are escaping death and torture, will now be liable to imprisonment or fines. Is that the kind of country Canada ought to be? No, it is not.
It is for these reasons and many others that we oppose this piece of legislation. Quite frankly, 1 am proud today to be part of a caucus which says that it is quite prepared to deal with the problems associated with refugee claimants. We know how to deal with them; we have had advice laid out by knowledgeable people. However, we are not prepared to co-operate on a Bill which can only be described by one term-extremely Draconian.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one comment about what was said by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) on the immigration policies of the New Democratic Party. In response to his allegations here in the House, I have checked and I have had staff check the policy of the New Democratic Party since the foundation of the Party in 1961. There is no reference at all to the question of population relocation-I made a note of the Member's words-or to any desire by the New Democratic Party to force immigrants who come into Canada to go to a particular part of the country. Nor can I conceivably imagine how that kind of reference could have been made.
I believe that reference made by the Member for Crowfoot is not only false but is also demeaning to this House and to his Party. I believe as well that it is open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding within ethnocultural communities. 1 would call on the Member for Crowfoot, if he cannot substantiate his
allegations, to withdraw them and to withdraw them immediately. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to intervene with the Member for Crowfoot in order to ensure that he does that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair feels that this is a matter of debate, and the Chair does not intend to intervene.
Questions and comments.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, how would the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) compare the legislation that we have before us, which he points out would make it possible for the Government to charge and prosecute and for the courts to fine people who are members of various churches who help refugees settle in Canada and would be guilty of breaking a provision of this Bill, with the situation in the United States? There is legislation in the U.S. under which members of various churches involved with what is called the sanctuary movement, which is a movement where refugees from Central America coming to the southern American States, such as New Mexico, Arizona and California, are helped by members of various religious denominations, the Mennonites, the Roman Catholics and certain Protestant churches, have already been charged, brought to trial and I think found guilty.
Does the Member think that what is included in this Bill is similar to the legislation in the United States which may well lead to the same kinds of results?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The point was raised by a number of witnesses during the legislative committee hearings that the very repugnant situation that exists in some parts of the United States would be permitted in Canada and would almost be encouraged and facilitated as a result of this legislation. It is that type of accusation by those with expertise in this area that caused a great deal of concern among members of the committee studying the legislation, particularly the chairperson of the Standing Committee for Immigration. During conversations I have had with him this was an area of some concern, something which this Bill would not rule heavily against. As some have indicated, it would encourage and virtually facilitate the situation.
That is one reason that I feel, as do Members of the NDP caucus, that this Bill ought not to be passed in its present form. Some of the amendments put forward by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) would have dealt with this issue, but amendment after amendment was rejected as Members tried to improve the legislation. I thought the purpose of the legislative committees' work was to improve drafted legislation.
As the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) indicated, this Bill was drafted in a hotel room over a weekend and its very drafters have said they drafted it in a hurry on the assumption that it would be improved through
September 10, 1987

debate and clause by clause analysis in the legislative committee. Such was not the case. The fact that these thoughtful amendments, which were put forward by all sides of the House, were not supported creates even greater motivation to oppose this legislation, badly drafted at the beginning and which, unfortunately, at the this third and final stage remains badly drafted.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member tell me whether he has had the same experience that I have had; that is, members of the Mennonite, the Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches who have been involved in helping refugees settle in Winnipeg and other parts of Manitoba have made it very clear to me, and I think to other Members of Parliament from all three Parties in Manitoba, that they consider that what they have been doing is something based on the best of motives, namely, for humanitarian reasons and they do not believe that their action breaks the provision of any reasonable law? They intend to continue to help refugees who come to Manitoba. If that means breaking the law, they are prepared to pay whatever the price is for breaking the law. Has the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap had similar experience in discussion with people in his area of Canada?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, one of the interventions that I received on Bill C-84, as well as its complementary legislation, Bill C-55, was by various church groups in my constituency and, perhaps more appropriately, by various religious groups. I had passages pointed out to me from the Koran, the Bible, the holy books of the Sikh religion and others that the basic tenets of virtually every religion is to help those experiencing persecution and in serious need. That is all we are asking. Witnesses before the committee asked that as a decent society we do our best to help and facilitate those who have experienced such terribly horrible times in their own countries. The compassion shown by the Government of Canada under two administrations, regarding the boat people, the willingness of Canadians to sponsor boat people with the Government of Canada and the welcoming initiatives that occurred in communities right across Canada, was something to behold and about which all of us felt very proud. That tradition is being challenged today. This Bill erodes the tradition of giving, caring, compassion and decency.
I urge Government Members who, for whatever reason, are supporting this legislation-and I say for whatever reason because I have not seen a shred of evidence that this is good legislation-to reconsider their position. As respectable, hard working, decent parliamentarians I hope that when the third reading vote comes sometime in the future the majority of Members of the House of Commons will vote against the Bill so we can proceed to develop a Bill that will meet the real needs of Canadian society and the refugees coming to our shores.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 12.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Montreal was the site of a meeting to form a coalition representing management, labour, community organizations, the Federation de l'Age d'Or du Quebec, as well as spokesmen for political circles. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this coalition is to urge the Senate to stop blocking Bill C-22 on drug patents.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with this coalition and urge the senators to say: Enough is enough! We have wasted too much time as it is, we must respect the decision of the elected Members of the House of Commons.
Although 1 do not fully support the Bill as drafted, Mr. Speaker, I think the joke is getting stale. The coalition of Quebecers wants the senators to show respect for the elected House and pass this Bill at the earliest opportunity.



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents are hoping that the green light will soon be given to a major project which could put an end to obvious economic stagnation in the region.
The Quebec Government and the Donohue Company, which is planning to locate a papermill in Matane, have already done a lot of work on this project. It is now up to us, politicians, to authorize this regional project at the Cabinet level. The promoters have until now demonstrated their will to help the region, and they would like some assistance from our Government.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues in the Cabinet to this issue, which they will be examining in the near future. I remind them that our Government promised to bring this project forward if the investors did their share.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents have been very patient and they now expect an answer.

September 10, 1987



HUMAN RIGHTS


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New Democrats and I hope other Hon. Members of the House, I join in solidarity with thousands of Canadian petitioners as well as members of Socialist International Women from around the world in asking the Canadian Government to intervene to save the life of Theresa Ran Ashamola, a political activist in South Africa.
Theresa, aged 25, is the first black South African woman to be condemned to death as a political prisoner. She along with five others has been sentenced to hang for a politician's killing although she claims she had left the rent protest march before the killing took place. Many witnesses contradicted the prosecution witness who accused her.
Theresa has been subjected to torture and abuse by police since her imprisonment. I ask fellow Members of Parliament to join with me in sending telegrams of protest to the South African Government requesting that Theresa Ran Ashamola's life be saved and her appeal for justice be heard.
which established a serious precedent and totally ignored the basic human rights we now enjoy in Canada.
This case involves a woman with a drug habit who was on the point of delivering her fifth child. She was arrested at a time when the authorities did not know that they were also arresting the child she was bearing. She went through surgery without her written consent. What was at issue was not whether she would be a good mother or would be able to care for her child. The ruling was made on the basis that the rights of child had to prevail against the mother's rights.
I ask the Department of Justice and the Canadian Bar to review this unacceptable ruling which threatens all future mothers in Canada because they could become the property of the state on the basis of a ruling by a judge if people around them object to their behaviour. They could also have to submit to surgery or pre-natal care imposed on them without their consent.
I therefore believe that it is important that the basic rights of women and future mothers no longer be threatened as happened in British Columbia, and I think that it is shameful for such rulings to be made in Canada.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the statement by External Affairs officials that they are considering military assistance to states in southern Africa is almost unbelievable. The quicker they reject this ill-advised scheme, the better.
Canada has no business poking into African powder magazines with a lighted match. Any aid we give to African countries should be humanitarian, not military.
Canadians do not want African blood on their hands. I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to reject categorically any military aid, lethal or otherwise, to Africa.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, about ten days ago, the British Columbia Family Court made a ruling



THE ECONOMY


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note how the Government dealt with recent concerns of western Canada. With the prairie economy battered by depressed world grain prices, western Canadians spoke of the need for diversification of our economy. The federal Government responded by establishing a Western Diversification Office and injecting $1.2 billion into the economy of western Canada.
When 48,000 railway workers went on strike, the Canadian rail network was completely paralyzed and threatened to strangle the western farm economy. The federal Government acted quickly and legislated the strikers back to work.
Those are just two recent examples of the federal Government's sensitivity to the needs of western Canada. This Government has a commitment to act quickly and responsibly in solving regional problems and concerns. It is clear-when western Canada speaks, the Mulroney Government listens.
September 10, 1987



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the case of an eastern Ontario farm family in financial trouble. The family applied to the Farm Debt Review Board rather than wait for the lender to foreclose. The panel studied the farm's resources and recommended the Farm Credit Corporation write down some of the interest arrears and set aside the mortgage until the family is more financially viable. FCC refused, saying that is like writing down principal, something the Government will not let it do.
Local officials have as much as said the couple makes trouble and they do not want them around. FCC stands to lose about $80,000 as a result of this decision. It calls it cutting its losses. It also refuses to lease the farm back to the family which would allow them to continue in their newly established bull testing business. Why does the Government not give FCC the flexibility it needs to accept the board's recommendations and allow this family to live in dignity and continue to serve their community?



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 quote from a recent Globe and Mail editorial:
Between the election of September, 1984 and July, 1987, 865,000 jobs were created in Canada, an average of 25,400 jobs per month. And the pace of job creation is increasing, with 246,000 new jobs in the first half of 1987, an average of 40,000 jobs per month-most of these jobs are fulltime.
The Conservatives would get all the blame if the economy were lagging, but are reaping little of the credit as Canada leads the industrialized world in economic growth. This is unfair, because federal policies on deregulation, deficit control, privatization, foreign investment, tax reform and free trade are very much part of the environment in which jobs are appearing and incomes are rising.
Canadians should not take present economic conditions and the policies that support them for granted. A federal government that returned to the high-spending, interventionist and discriminatory policies of the last Liberal regime would quickly depress economic prospects for Canada. The Mulroney government has its faults, but its record on the economy is impressive, and could be more impressive still.
Not something to be taken lightly; not something to be thrown away.
The press is waking up, Mr. Speaker.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Churchill, I am deeply concerned about the current lack of adequate health services available to many of my constituents, particularly those who live on remote northern reserves. The chronic shortage of nurses has become a constant threat to the health and well-being of my constituents. It is the inaction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) which threatens these residents' lives.
In northern Manitoba there are at least 13 to 15 vacant positions in remote communities, yet the Minister and his Government are not actively recruiting more nurses. There are no incentives to encourage nurses to move north. Neither is there increased training opportunities for northerners to become registered or degree nurses. In fact, fewer nurses graduate every year. I am aware, however, that the Swampee Cree Tribal Council proposed the creation of a bachelor of nursing program to be established in the North. I fully support that proposal and I urge the Minister to do the same.
Finally, I call upon the Minister to act immediately to alleviate the crisis facing many northern bands, including Oxford House Band and the Churchill Indian Band where there are no nurses or medical services whatsoever.



FRANCOPHONE SUMMIT


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Thank you Mr. Speaker for giving me an opportunity to rise today. I had the privilege last week to witness an historical event of international scale: The second Francophone Summit that was held in Quebec City. As a member of the Canadian delegation, I had the privilege to attend the debates of the heads of state for several hours.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has demonstrated once again the great importance it attaches to the Francophonie and has shown leadership in paving the way for the emerging of a francophone solidarity that is more dialogue and action oriented. Canada is the only country to be a member of the Commonwealth, of the Francophonie and of the group of the seven most industrialized countries, and the latest Summit has served to increase even more its influence at the international level. Also, the success of the Summit was made possible by the close co-operation between the Quebec, New Brunswick and Canadian Governments and this achievement is yet another concrete proof that the national reconciliation that has been promised has indeed become a reality.

September 10, 1987
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I express the hope that this organization will become even stronger and will serve as a powerful tool to help keeping alive the French language in the forty odd countries where it is spoken and that it will also become an instrument for fostering peace and development throughout the world. May the leadership shown by the Canadian Government be continuously strengthened all over the world.



CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec Est):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to denounce the false, partisan, irresponsible and antiAmerican message the CLC's President, Ms. Shirley Carr, delivered on Labour Day.
In 1984 we received a clear mandate from all the classes of society, including the union members Ms. Carr represents.
Canadians did not vote for the NDP and their socialist, big-brother, anti-American policies Ms. Carr personally supports.
Canadians chose to get out of those corporative, stateplanning and state-controlled shackles that generate bankruptcy, unemployment and hardship.
By voting Progressive Conservative, they opted for private entrepreneurship, personal freedom and progress under a responsible administration.
To support free trade is to believe in Canada and its ability to invent, to innovate, to produce and to compete with the best in the world.
To negotiate with the United States is to protect existing jobs, to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, to provide for tomorrow by preparing Canada's entry into the 21st century.



DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed the John Quigley affair, a petition signed by 7,000 employees of the Deputy Minister of Immigration who have no confidence in his leadership, a refugee backlog which is out of
control, individuals checking up on offices within the Department of Immigration, and the latest allegations concerning special treatment.
Now the Deputy Minister is appointing "champions among his senior bureaucrats in Employment and Immigration to inspire leadership, improve internal communications and reward employees". The Deputy Minister said:
I have asked Yvon Charlebois to be our Champion of Internal Communication"
He said that Brian Hill, executive director for Manitoba, is "our Champion of Rewards". He said that a "Champion of Leadership" had yet to be acclaimed.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the "Champion of Leadership" must come from the top. There is a vacuum in leadership, integrity and vision in this Department. Canadians have lost confidence and trust in the direction and vision of the Government. It is time for a commission to investigate the Department leaving no stone unturned in order to restore to this Department the confidence, trust and leadership which it enjoyed under previous administrations.



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, results of a survey conducted in January, 1986, dealing with work experience in the years preceding the election of this Government-1981 to 1984-and recently released by Statistics Canada, reveal some facts of which I believe all Canadians should be aware.
In the years 1981 to 1984 about 430,000 Canadians became unemployed. Of those who lost their jobs 36 per cent became unemployed due to plant closings or relocation. Manufacturing, construction and mining were the hardest hit. Workers under age 34 suffered the most serious dislocation and older workers had the greatest difficulty in finding new jobs.
Finding new jobs took an average of six months, with earnings in the new jobs being reduced by 7 per cent from the previous ones.
Only 30 per cent of those displaced were able to find employment in the same industry. This transfer in sectors resulted in wages being reduced on average by about 14 per cent.
This study points out that during 1981 to 1984 the cost of overspending and the resultant inflation inflicted very serious casualties among employables in Canada.
This Government can therefore be commended for creating 907,000 jobs since September 4, 1984. That is more than
September 10, 1987

25,000 jobs per month that are being created by this Government. I say it is to be congratulated.



FORESTRY


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the recently imposed export tax on softwood, the Province of British Columbia is receiving $540,000 every day of the year in windfall new tax. The unfortunate side of this, however, is that while the money was destined to be reinvested in developing the forest resource, it is simply going into general revenue.
1 think it is time that the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) apply whatever pressure he can to encourage the British Columbia Government to begin reinvesting that money in silviculture, thinning and spacing programs, disease control, pest control, fire control, silviculture research, and research into new markets and new product lines.
Communities such as Prince Rupert, Castlegar, Vanderhoof, Prince George, Dawson Creek, St. John, Kamloops, just to name a few, would benefit from such a program.
In an effort to reduce the unemployment levels in British Columbia by tens of thousands, I encourage the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines to take action with his British Columbia counterpart to ensure that these moneys are reinvested in the forest resource of British Columbia.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Prime Minister of Canada stated before the United Nations that the Canadian Government was prepared to impose full economic sanctions and break all diplomatic relations with South Africa, as the Prime Minister put it, "-if radical changes are not made in South Africa."
Yesterday the Secretary of state for External Affairs stated, and I use his own words: "We are not making nearly enough progress against apartheid. The situation is getting worse." Those are the words of the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what position he will take at the forthcoming Vancouver Commonwealth Conference with respect to South Africa? Will he sever relations with that country and impose Canada's full economic sanctions before
Oral Questions
the end of the year, unless the Government of that country takes concrete and visible measures to put an end to the apartheid regime?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Canada will continue to show firm leadership with respect to South Africa, as it has been the policy for a number of years, more particularly so, I would suggest, in the past three or four years.
In Nassau, Canada showed leadership, in London, and again very recently when the Secretary of State for External Affairs visited South Africa, during recent meetings with Mr. Tambo, and over the last weekend the Secretary and I had meetings with Mr. Howe.
We are trying to do two things: maintain ever more sustained pressure on South Africa and, second, make consequential radical changes in the apartheid system which is so deplorable and unacceptable to all the citizens of this country and of the whole world.
This is a complete program which is being applied in many sectors and which Canada will continue to implement to the benefit of South Africa's black population.


IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I know I need not recall to the Prime Minister his words before the session of the United Nations where he received great applause on that occasion. He said: "We are prepared to invoke total sanctions against that country and its repressive regime. If there is no progress in the dismantling of apartheid, our relations with South Africa may have to be severed absolutely".
Yesterday, his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, admitted that the situation has not improved but that it has deteriorated. What the Government is trying to do here is to play both sides of the street on a very fundamental, sensitive human rights issue. Yesterday, I regret to say, the Secretary of State for External Affairs took some cheap partisan shots at anyone who suggested that total sanctions, diplomatic and economic, were not in order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Quite seriously, I ask the Prime Minister is he still speaking for the Government on the issue of South Africa? Does he hold to his commitment made two years ago before the United Nations? Will that be the position he takes at the Commonwealth meeting in Vancouver?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat bizarre to see the Leader of the Opposition accuse the Government of playing both sides of the

September 10, 1987
Oral Questions
street on this "sensitive" issue, and then in the same breath accuse the Secretary of State for External Affairs of taking cheap political shots. Surely nothing could discredit the Right Hon. Leader's thesis more than the manner in which he has just set it out. It should be evident to him and to members of his Party that in a number of areas, including this very sensitive area, the leadership provided by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is well known here and around the world. I think the right hon. gentleman should be applauding that fact.
With regard to what we are trying to accomplish, it is what the Secretary of State set out yesterday. There has been no change from the position that I set out on behalf of the Government to the United Nations. There has been no wavering in our commitment to attempt to secure the lessening and the ultimate removal of the system of apartheid in South Africa.
We provided a leadership role, to some modest extent, in Nassau and in London. The Secretary of State has just returned from southern Africa. I think it is a comment on the effectiveness of Canada that, within the space of 24 hours, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was able to meet with leaders of the frontline states, leaders of the ANC, and the leadership of the Government in Pretoria, seeking a constructive solution. Everyone acknowledges that a negotiated solution would, of course, be the best.
In the absence of that, and if we are unable to persuade Pretoria of that, Canada shall not hesitate to implement fully the sanctions and the attitudes that I expressed at the United Nations. I think that is an honourable course for Canada to pursue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FORTHCOMING COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's commitment on behalf of the country before the leading forum of the world, the United Nations, two years ago was that if the situation continued to deteriorate he would lead the country into total economic sanctions against South Africa and a breach of diplomatic relations.
Now, two years later, there seems to be a backing off from that position by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister will have an admirable opportunity in Vancouver to exercise the leadership role that his rhetoric seemed to symbolize two years ago. Is that his position now? Is that the position that he will advance in Vancouver in order to give some credence to the words he uttered before the United Nations on behalf of our country two years ago?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my recollection of the statement to the United Nations was that, indeed, in the absence of progress, that relationship "I think may have to be severed". That is still very
strongly our position. We have taken just about-and I may be wrong-every conceivable sanction that a western Government can take or has taken. We are interested in applying further sanctions.
Our view is not that sanctions do not work; our view is that if all countries applied sanctions as effectively and vigorously as Canada there would be more movement in South Africa. We would like to take that attitude, together with any other instruments that would be designed to provoke beneficial change in South Africa.
That is the position that the leadership of Canada will attempt to bring about at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver; most recently at La Francophonie in Quebec City there was a little further progress. Constant efforts and movement by countries such as Canada toward the solution that we all seek, from all corners in this House, will be beneficial to the people of South Africa, particularly those people in South Africa who have been deprived of their most fundamental rights for so long.


IMMIGRATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the Gross-mann affair.
In the House yesterday in response to my question, the Minister of State for Immigration stated:
There was never any involvement by the Prime Minister's Office in that
particular dossier or in any dossier.
However, The Globe and Mail has obtained a letter dated January 16 from the Prime Minister's special assistant to the office of the Minister, and an additional June 3 memorandum from the Deputy Minister's office which states, "that the Prime Minister's Office requests facilitation in getting Mr. Grossmann's family landed status."
I wish to ask the Prime Minister very directly and simply, will he categorically confirm or deny his involvement in the Grossmann file? Does he not think it is high time that he break his silence on this issue, rather than passing notes to his junior Minister?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: For
those who were not here yesterday let me make it perfectly clear-


John Napier Turner: We did not miss much.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: There were some who were not here-there was no involvement. Here are the facts. The Member refers to
September 10, 1987

a letter that a special assistant in the Prime Minister's Office sent to my chief of staff which states, "Please find enclosed copy of correspondence-" for my attention. "The family wish to reside here. I thank you for your kind assistance".
If that is the type of representation that is bothering the Member, it is the right of every Member of Parliament to divert pieces of correspondence, as other Members have done, and some 7,000 have been received in my office in the last 13 months.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Sergio March! (York West): As a result of government orders, the Ottawa immigration counsellor wrote in her notes, "I thought we were employed by the Treasury Board and not a political Party"-and the Justice Minister laughs.
Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are a joke. You are a disgrace.


Sergio Marchi: Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister why were there special orders and a ministerial permit issued on behalf of Mr. Grossmann when the gentleman had not even submitted an application form to the Ottawa office, and furthermore had failed to make the appropriate request at a scheduled appointment at our Canadian Embassy in Paris? What possible reasons justify such a flagrant disregard of the process and of our Immigration Act?


An Hon. Member:: Resign!


Sergio Marchi: I will put my seat on the line.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: John, there goes another one.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why there has been such a fuss about this case.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rossi:: You should know, Gerry.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: There are provisions in the Act to apply for immigrant status.
The Leader of the Opposition perhaps remembers the time he called my office and wished some attention.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Shame on you, John!


An Hon. Member:: Resign!


An Hon. Member:: No, don't resign. Stay right there.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Minister will answer the question as briefly as possible.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: This case is no different from hundreds of others that are handled in a routine manner.
Oral Questions
The immigration guidelines are public, and they contain specific instructions for dealing with people like Mr. Grossmann who have good prospects for employment, have established a home, and have raised and educated children here. I wish to quote from the guidelines of instructions to our officers which state:
Officers may consider sympathetically the situation of long-term
employment authorization holders who request processing of their application
for permanent residence from within Canada.
I am prepared to table those guidelines, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam.


Ms. Jewett:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns what signal Canada is giving to the black majority in South Africa-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps Hon. Members on the government side and in the ranks of Her Majesty's Official Opposition might wait until the next round when they could carry on their discussions.


APARTHEID
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns what signal Canada is giving to the black majority in South Africa, first relating to violent struggle.
The Prime Minister has said that while we don't condone violence, we can understand why South African blacks sometimes resort to violence when violence sanctioned by the state is used to maintain the apartheid regime.
In late August the Minister told Oliver Tambo, I understand, that the ANC should abandon violent struggle in return for Canadian support.
What is the black majority in South Africa to believe?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have written today to The Globe and Mail with regard to the article which the Hon. Member is citing, pointing out the inaccuracy of the suggestion she has just made that was made in The Globe and Mail with regard to the conversations with Mr. Tambo.

September 10, 1987
Oral Questions
One thing that the black community in South Africa should not believe is the news reports occasionally filed by Mr. Windsor. I regret to say that.
The signal that we are trying to send to them, essentially, is that we expect and will do everything we can to achieve the result that the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver will continue to increase the pressure for change in the apartheid system upon the Government of South Africa.


ROOT OF VIOLENCE
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not agree with the black majority in South Africa that the real root of violence in South Africa is the apartheid regime itself?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question about that. The Hon. Member would probably be aware of a study recently done by the University of Pretoria which indicated that in a period, I believe beginning in 1985, while it was possible to attribute something between 100 and 200 deaths to the ANC, it was possible in that same period to attribute between 1,000 and 2,000 deaths to the activities of the South African Government.
Not only is violence at the heart and core of apartheid, but violence is also being practised in a deathly fashion by the Government of South Africa.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. To make this amply clear, since we do want one message to go to the black majority in South Africa, will the Minister also agree that since the root of the violence is apartheid itself sometimes a resort to violence is absolutely essential in the struggle?


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made clear and I have made clear that this Government does not and will not condone the use of violence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We do, however, understand those frustrations and those forces which can cause violence to be resorted to. We understand that violence is at the heart of the apartheid system, and that is why we are determined to do everything we can, while there is still a breath of influence left in Canada, to bring an end to the apartheid system.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery today of the Honourable Helmut Schafer, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs for the Federal Republic of Germany.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the Minister of State (Immigration) and ask him the following question. We know that under the Immigration Act, whoever wants to submit an application for landed immigrant status must do so outside Canada. We know also that Mr. Grossmann never submitted an official application while outside Canada. On the basis of some press reports, as well as comments made by the Minister himself, we know that irregularities were committed.
In view of what the Minister replied yesterday when asked about the compassionate or humanitarian grounds which brought about this decision, I should like him to share with the House today and identify what these compassionate and humanitarian grounds were.


Carlo Rossi: Well, he knows the Prime Minister!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Hon. Member, I have already tabled the guidelines under which this particular case was considered. Just as a refresher, because obviously the Member should be as completely clear about the facts as I am, from the time that letter was referred to my office in January it took us some four months to act. That is not exactly expeditious treatment, that is not exactly jumping to attention. If that is the kind of favouritism somebody in the Prime Minister's Office asked them to get, that is just normal processing.
I made a decision on May 4-


Sergio Marchi: Jump higher, Gerry.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I was not involved in any technical details beyond that decision, but that was a decision to allow inland processing in this case. That is completely normal. Fifteen thousand Minister's permits are issued. Something like 20 per cent or 25 per cent of all immigrants are landed by that
September 10, 1987

process through Order in Council, and it is completely within the immigration law.


DEMAND FOR EXPLANATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to find out from the Minister why they went over the heads of officials. Why did they use intimidating measures with the officials? Why were pressures brought to bear from high above to accelerate the processing of the Georges Grossmann file? And why does the Minister refuse to answer the following question: What were the humanitarian considerations which prevailed and weighed heavily in this case?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Why it is Mila and not Brian!


Carlo Rossi: It's the Prime Minister who told him to let the man in.


An Hon. Member:: Carlo, listen!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: What a shameful and deplorable attack! What an issue of petty politics I have ever seen in my life! Things must look pretty good out in the country during this summer-the jobs we have created, the lower interest rates-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Answer the question or sit down.


Carlo Rossi: Why don't you answer the question?


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are on record, Gerry.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: We are running the country so well, as even the editorialists have had to admit, that it must be shaking up the Hon. Members-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


REASONS FOR DECISION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Immigration and concerns the Grossmann immigration scandal.
When the local immigration office made a special provision for Mr. Grossmann to be interviewed in Paris, when he was holidaying in Paris during the summer, he did not even bother to show up for his interview.
Mr. Grossmann applied for some special consideration. The Minister says that he looked into the case and considered that there was indeed an opportunity for him to intervene. Was it
Oral Questions
because there is a lack of French teachers in the Ottawa area, or just what were the special circumstances which enabled the Minister to make his decision?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, clearly Mr. Grossmann had been here on employment authorization, the first one given by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry-so was the second one and so was the third one-in his capacity as Minister. We had three renewals. Now, it seemed to me that with that kind of longterm stay in the country, with children who had grown up here, a son who is apparently married to a Canadian and could have sponsored him-


Mr. Fulton:: Why only "apparently"?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: -his prospects were pretty good.
When the case was referred to me, it looked perfectly normal that we should allow an inland processing. I asked my officials to do so through a Minister's permit. There was no further follow-up on the part of myself or my office because I know, once it is asked there is nothing further that has to be asked, and I knew that everything was going well.


INVOLVEMENT OF OFFICIALS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister gives the impression that this case is a very straightforward case.


Some Hon. Members:: It is.


Mr. Shields:: You have finally got it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We have had the Prime Minister's office, the Minister of State's office, the Deputy Minister of Immigration's office, the Executive Director of Immigration's Office, the Deputy Minister's executive assistant's office, the Minister's office and countless other senior officials all intervening in this case. Will the Minister explain why it took all of these people's interventions to process what he says is a very straightforward immigration case?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, every Member in the House has received communication, perhaps he or she has had a letter dropped off, which has been advanced through to my office, as have many other Canadians, journalists, elected people at all levels, academics, businessmen-this is an everyday routine-all knowing that in the Immigration Act the Minister of Employment and Immigration has the authority to act on humanitarian and compassionate conditions.


Mr. Keeper:: Name the journalists.

September 10, 1987
Oral Questions


TAX REFORM
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Canadian Food Supply Association states that food costs will increase by 12 to 13 per cent if the Government goes along with its option to put an 8 per cent tax on food. Moreover, the Canadian Council of Social Welfare has stated that the present sales tax credit is inadequate, and has clearly shown that a family with a $10,000 income has to pay, as a result of increasing consumer taxes levied by this Tory Government, $353 while only getting a $150 tax credit.
Considering the failure and the inadequacy of the sales tax credit and in view of the position of the Canadian people, will the Minister not believe that it would be advisable to scrap this idea of taxing food?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Hon. Member was yesterday, but I answered part of the same question to his colleague from Trinity. The Hon. Member in the course of his preamble said that the tax credit, the existing refundable sales tax credit, today is insufficient. We agree with that. That is why we have said that there will be a major increase-so it will be in the hundreds of dollars-in the refundable sales tax credit. It will be paid regularly to recipients. It will be paid in advance to recipients.
Those are the key elements of the proposal. These are the things on which we want to consult with members of the general public through the activities of the Finance Committee and that way come up with an appropriate combination of factors which will result in a fairer, more effective sales tax system than we have today.
The Hon. Member, I am sure, is very well aware that the position of his Party, as is the position of the New Democratic Party, is to change the existing sales tax system because the existing system is not equitable.
[ Translation]


COMPLETE REIMBURSEMENT OF CONSUMER TAXES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Minister admits the failure of his sales tax credit and all the taxes he has levied, and that he also acknowledges that families with children are penalized. My question is simple. In view of this failure and the acknowledgement he just made before carrying out his proposal and adding an extra tax on food and imposing new taxes, would the Minister be ready to table a motion aimed at refunding completely the consumer taxes levied by his Government since Septembre 4, 1984, and not 50 per cent like
he is doing now, since the Minister has admitted that the tax credit is not high enough?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely stunned by the allegations which the Hon. Member has just made. There has been a sales tax in this country for 62 years. A refundable sales tax credit was brought in this past year, in 1986. The previous Government had been around many, many years. The Government which the Member supported for many years had opportunities to bring in a refundable sales tax credit. If the Hon. Member could close his mouth and just listen for a while he might learn something.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 know it is difficult for him to do that because I know he has to be out there making a lot of noise, but let me tell him-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena.


GAS EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-ELIMINATION OF SURPLUS TEST
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Up until May, 1986, there was a 25-year surplus test for gas exports, a policy kept in place while the Hon. Member for Yellowhead was the Prime Minister of Canada. It was dropped a year ago to a 15-year surplus test and, as of today, there is no longer a surplus test.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why no surplus test is required for this non-renewable resource, or is the removal of the 15-year surplus test part of the free trade deal whereby energy policy will be set in Washington?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's suggestion is absolutely false. The National Energy Board has come down with a ruling. The Government welcomes the new procedure which is fully compatible and co-existent with the market oriented policy that we have established for oil and gas. The procedure clearly has sufficient protective provisions in it for Canadian consumers. When there are any difficulties, the NEB can intervene whenever it finds an increase in exports would impair the ability to serve the Canadian market.


EFFECT OF POLICY
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. Would he explain that part of his market policy? At the present time the
September 10, 1987

Canadian gas industry has twice the export volume permits as it is able to sell and B.C. consumers are paying five cents a gigacoule more for B.C. gas than Americans pay to get the same B.C. gas. Would the Deputy Prime Minister explain to Canadians why on those two counts this deregulation policy, and this policy of no longer having a surplus test, is good for Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated that the National Energy Board has a feature whereby it can intervene if the market is such that it would impair the Canadian consumer.
I know the New Democratic Party policy is to phase out all exports of natural gas and oil. That is something certainly not consistent with the oil energy policy.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What a phoney.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a matter of fact, if the Hon. Member would familiarize himself with the reality in the producing provinces, he would know that this has gone over very well. The ruling is likely to kick off a gas boom. I am sure that is what the Hon. Member would want. Let me quote, "Benefits offset costs from new gas rules". It is good for the consumer. It is good for the producer, and it should be good for everybody in Canada, except the NDP, and we don't mind that at all.


SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On August 20 the Minerals Management Service of the United States Department of the Interior published a notice of sales of oil and gas leases for certain areas of the Beaufort Sea, part of which is Canadian territory.
On September 3 the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment were asked about this notice of sale and about the oil and gas leases. They didn't know anything about them at that time. Surely the United States Government notified the Canadian Government about this notice of sales of oil and gas leases. When did the United States Government notify the Canadian Government that this notice of sales would be published and that it would be considering bids? What is the Government's response? What response did it give the United States Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is an old issue which has been discussed in the House before but that does not make it any less important. The situation is, as I think the Hon. Member might know, that any bids that have to do with disputed territory will be put in escrow until the dispute is resolved.
Oral Questions
That position has been adopted by the Government of the United States as a result of the representations made by myself on behalf of the Government of Canada nearly nine or ten months ago.
With regard to the decision that was taken in August which extends the application of bids to areas in disputed waters and areas not in disputed waters, the same rules apply. Just to make doubly certain of that, I have been in touch again with the United States Government to indicate that we require and expect that bids in disputed waters in this case will go into escrow.


CANADIAN POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he would not be taking any direct action while environmental hearings were going on and would wait until there was a consideration of bids. I think that point has arrived.
I am concerned that the United States is strengthening its case in this disputed territory. What will Canada do to strengthen its case in this disputed territory, or will this be another blatant giveaway in an attempt to secure a free trade agreement with the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker, it will not be any kind of a giveaway. The Hon. Member may not have understood my earlier answer and I am sure that was my fault.
The situation is that there has been and is a policy in place providing that any bids relating to the disputed waters, precisely because they are disputed, will be put in escrow. That does not affect the question of the dispute.


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, a certain Hon. Member opposite has suggested that the new Ministry for Senior Citizens might have more to do with cutting ribbons than with helping seniors. I would like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs who is the Minister responsible for senior citizens.
Can the Minister assure the House that he will bring to the administration of seniors' affairs the same skill and resolve, consultation, compassion and sensitivity that he has demonstrated in his Veterans Affairs portfolio?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Senior Citizens)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon.

September 10, 1987
Oral Questions
Member's question has caused me to do something I have not done in this House in my 37 years here, and that is to blush with modesty. 1 thank him very much for this very constructive question.
The Hon. Member has always shown a great interest in seniors. Year by year, naturally people like me are more and more pleased to hear of that kind of interest.
I can assure him and all Hon. Members that 1 will be doing everything possible to encourage seniors and seniors' organizations, including the National Advisory Council on Aging, to let me know what thoughts, suggestions, and ideas they have for improvements in life for seniors, so that these can be given very serious consideration by the Government with a view to bringing in measures of this kind as soon as they can be afforded and are practical.
Our seniors have made this country what it is today, and are continuing to make a very important contribution to our country day by day. That is why they fully deserve our very best efforts on their behalf, and I can assure you that they are damned well going to get them!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 want to assure all Hon. Members on the opposition side that 1 will arrange to give them equal time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. He will be aware that an arbitrator has indicated to Canada Post that it has to pay the people it has been training as strikebreakers union rates rather than the minimum wage. 1 wonder if the Minister has considered asking the Post Office not only to abandon its policy of using strike-breakers but also to abandon its policy of poverty-level wages? Does he not recognize that a person who works for a public service in Canada has a reasonable expectation of receiving a livable wage?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that post office employees were underpaid. This is amazing. I believe the Marchment committee identified post office wages as being 14 to 22 per cent above national industrial averages.
Regarding the specific question about the ruling of the arbitrator, I am informed by the Post Office that it is looking into the decision to see in fact what it means. It is still not
clear on what it means and is considering things like whether or not to appeal.
As to the Hon. Member's suggestion that I intervene in the management of the Post Office, I would be in contempt of Parliament if I did that because in 1981, his Party, the Liberal Party, and this Party all agreed that Canada Post should become a Crown corporation and that we should try to avoid political interference of the kind he is now suggesting I engage in.


FRANCHISE POLICY-REQUEST FOR RE-EXAMINATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister is aware that his own plan calls for franchising which implies the use of people paid a minimum wage. Will he not then recognize that it is his own policy that is driving Canada Post to a poverty-level wage strategy? Will he take the opportunity to re-examine his policy in light of the ruling of the arbitrator and the ruling made by the Canadian Labour Relations Board last week?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the corporate plan which was approved by the Government does indeed call for the opening of 6,000 new postal outlets over the next 10 years in order to give customers better service. These outlets will be in shopping centres where people go for their normal commercial activities. There will be parking and they will be open from ten o'clock in the morning to ten o'clock at night. It will be more convenient for the public. Is it the position of the NDP that the public be damned, what we must look after is J. C. Parrot?


CHILDREN
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last night thousands of Canadians watched an extremely disturbing television documentary production entitled Runaways which told the story of teenagers who run away from home and live on the streets in cities right across Canada. The social problems that were portrayed in that documentary are obviously national in scope and demand immediate and urgent attention. What will the Minister do about it?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I saw part of that program yesterday. I believe it was a two-hour program and I saw approximately half of it. This is not done very often, but I think we should commend the people who produced that program.
What many of us recognize is that this is a multidisciplinary problem. I am not trying in any way to minimize the difficulties related to missing children. As a Government, we have tried to address some components of the issue. For example,

September 10, 1987

we have named a director for the Child Abuse Centre. There have been family violence initiatives and a missing children registry has been instituted. Special studies are now being done in four cities relating to missing children. I cannot give any more detail about that program because of time constraints. We are dealing with the matters of pornography and drug abuse.
I hope that once and for all, at least in this House, we could put aside the question of whether or not there is a drug problem. 1 do not care about the numbers, what 1 care about is that there are kids on the streets who have drug problems and we have to address that. We are trying to do so as best we can, not only as a Government but as a society.
While it is a multidisciplinary approach, we have to be as supportive as we can in our policy to families and parents. From time to time we make mistakes, but these are complex issues and I think support for non-governmental agencies, parents and different levels of government is essential if we can at least prevent some of the tragedies that were displayed yesterday, as well as rehabilitate some of those people.


CANADA POST
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, during the strike staged by letter carriers in May last, which was the first postal strike since the creation of the Canada Post Corporation in 1981, the Government has allowed Canada Post to hire scabs and to stir up violence in our post offices.
Given that we are facing a possible strike by postal workers, is the Minister prepared to give a commitment today in this House that he will forbid Canada Post to hire scabs in order to avoid the shameful incidents that we have witnessed during the last strike?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, just to refresh the memory of both the Hon. Member and the House, the conciliation commissioner dealing with the LCUC dispute, Mr. Swan, commented in his report that the Post Office has a social obligation to try to deliver the mail even in the face of a strike. It attempted to fulfil that obligation and by and large did so through the use of replacement workers, which is perfectly consistent with the law. Is the Hon. Member suggesting we go beyond that?
The instructions to the Post Office are very clear. They must obey the law. They have a social obligation to deliver the mail.
Oral Questions
If the Hon. Member is suggesting we should perhaps shut down the Post Office in the face of a strike, then let him say that on behalf of his Party.
Perhaps he is suggesting we give the union everything it wants. Let him say that.
Perhaps he is suggesting that we outlaw strikes. Let him take that position. The Hon. Member cannot have the luxury of being critical without looking at the alternatives.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from that answer that the Minister condones Canada Post hiring scabs. Is the Minister a scab? If not, why does he not order Canada Post not to hire scabs?


Harvie Andre: I suggest the Hon. Member have a conversation with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau.


Mr. Ouellet:: No, no, I never authorized scabs.


Harvie Andre: He stated publicly in an interview that the Government ought not to get itself involved in the operations of the Post Office. We are not getting ourselves involved in the operations of the Post Office.


Alfonso Gagliano: Then resign. We do not need a Minister.


Harvie Andre: We require Canada Post, like every other Crown corporation, to obey the law. They have a social obligation to deliver the mail, as pointed out by Commissioner Swan, and they attempted to do that.
I question the wisdom which says if someone threatens violence, that is enough to require you to take actions contrary to what your social obligations dictate.


BANKRUPTCY ACT
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. The Bankruptcy Act was introduced in 1949 and has not been changed since. Many Canadians are being burned by this hopelessly outdated piece of legislation. Can the Minister tell the House when we might expect the legislation he is presently working on to be brought forward so we can bring progressive changes to this hopelessly outdated Act?


Harvie Andre: Hopefully very soon, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member is right. There have been six attempts to amend the Act and all have died on the Order Paper. We are trying to avoid that fate for the proposals we are bringing forward. I will

September 10, 1987
Business of the House
be making a presentation to my cabinet colleagues this month and hopefully there will soon be legislation before the House which will correct most, if not all, of the inadequacies of the current law.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Regina East.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. He has repeatedly assured this House and thousands of Principal Group investors that a federal investigation of possible misrepresentations by First Investors and Associated Investors would be completed by the end of August. We are well into the second week of September and investors are still waiting to be told if the investigation is completed. Can the Minister now report to the House that the investigation has been completed and, if so, will the Attorney General be laying any charges?


Harvie Andre: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to make that report although I wish I could. I am informed by the Competition Bureau, which has the mandate for this investigation, that they are proceeding with it as extensively and expeditiously as possible. Although they hesitate to put a date on it, they tell me they will soon be making recommendations to the Attorney General.


REQUEST THAT INVESTIGATION BE ACCELERATED
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is aware that his Department has been aware of allegations of misrepresentation as early as July 14. Again I urge the Minister to speed up the investigation, and can he explain why it is taking so long?


Harvie Andre: Unfortunately, I cannot explain. The Marketing Practices Branch of the Competition Bureau has a relationship with me much like the Solicitor General and the RCMP. It is contrary to law for me to intervene and tell them to proceed in this or that fashion. What I have said is based on information they have given me about their expectations. I have transmitted that to the House, and I will ask them to try to live up to that obligation. I cannot legally lean on them.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask the usual question that is put on Thursday. I would ask the spokesmen for the Government to give us a statement of the business the Government expects to present to the House during the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we are making good progress on third reading of Bill C-84. In the event that it passes today, we will proceed tomorrow to Bill C-68, also known as the Bretton Woods Agreements, and thereafter to Bill C-61, proceeds of crime; then to two other justice Bills, C-53, amendments to the Supreme Court Act, and C-58, mutual legal assistance. We will continue with those on Monday, and it is my intention to get together with the other House Leaders to try and arrange the orderly procedure of business for next week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the same point of order, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)?


James Ross Fulton: It is a separate point of order. During Question Period the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) incorrectly stated that the policy of the NDP is that we oppose any gas or oil exports from Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Debate.


James Ross Fulton: That is not factually correct.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand I am the last speaker to rise in this debate and I do so in solidarity with my colleagues in the NDP. We want to take this opportunity to make a final appeal to the Government to not pass Bill C-84 without amendments. I know at this stage it is impossible to move new amendments, but we want to say once again for the record that we believe a grievous error is being made here. There are many injustices in this Bill which we will all live to regret, including the Conservatives. By and
September 10, 1987

large it brings shame on Canada as a humanitarian nation, one committed to a refugee policy established under UN conventions.
We have all spoken on this Bill many times, as well as on Bill C-55, but I would like to review the main points for the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Thank you. The Elon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) has the floor.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First, Bill C-84 was tabled in an atmosphere of panic. It was apparently drafted in a few days time and presented when the Government had no other order of business. Or, perhaps the Government had other business but did not want to deal with it at that time. The Government focused on the landing of 174 refugees in Nova Scotia.
The Bill not only creates harsh restrictions for refugee claimants, it also eased the way for the Government to try and push through its companion Bill, C-55, which we feel very strongly, along with groups who have considerable expertise in the matter, to be even harsher. We know, of course, that the Government was not able to push this through in June and has been using this so-called emergency session this summer to deal with that Bill as well.
Bill C-84 will provide for a number of things which 1 would like to summarize quickly. First, a new security certificate system will be required for procuring deportation of certain recent arrivals.
Second, we are very concerned about denying those people the right to apply for refugee status. Many people will not have a chance to be processed to determine whether they are legitimate refugees.
Third, the Bill provides for the turning away of ships from our territorial waters if it is believed that they are bringing undocumented passengers. Although there was a small amendment to this particular clause of the Bill which refers to giving due regard to the UN conventions, by and large this was not changed.
Fourth, the Bill provides for the punishment of anyone helping people to come to Canada without the usual passport and visa. As we have said repeatedly, often the turmoil, fear, and situation of having to leave the country on very short notice means that people cannot obtain the full documentation which is expected. We wanted that clause amended but were refused.
Fifth, the Bill establishes punishment for disembarking passengers at sea. It provides for quite excessive new search and seizure powers and more wire-tapping powers.
Finally, the Bill provides for a sunset clause. The day has come when this Bill will be pushed through by the Government despite all our concerns and those of the public of Canada. Therefore, it is more important for this piece of legislation than perhaps any other that it be carefully monitored. All
Immigration Act. 1976
cases which are processed as a result of this Bill should be carefully documented and there should be an independent evaluation of its effectiveness and the challenge to human rights which we believe will result from this legislation. It is very important that it be evaluated and that a reformed piece of legislation be introduced to correct the errors of this Bill. I predict that a new Government would place that very early on its agenda.
I will not take the time to go into the details of these measures. My colleagues have done that in great detail, particularly the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) to whom I would like to pay tribute. He has given outstanding leadership and has been the conscience of Parliament in this matter. I commend him for his very hard work on behalf of refugees and Canada. Canadians want to believe that they are doing the right thing and are carrying out the provisions of our Charter which apply to people, whether or not they are Canadian citizens.
We oppose the new security certificates on the ground that the Federal Court lacks the expertise of the new security service in dealing with security matters. We believe it would be better to use a trained police force which is dealing with international security matters than to leave it to the court to decide.
We oppose the denial of access to refugee status because it offends the UN Convention by disregarding danger to life and liberty of a person whose alleged security offence is never thoroughly reviewed and may in fact be based on distorted accusations by his or her persecutors in the country from which the person has fled.
We have concerns about many other areas as well. We moved 12 amendments, not one of which was accepted by the Government. We were making a sincere attempt to make this Bill usable without discriminating against people coming to Canada and without disregarding UN Conventions.
We had some sympathy for the clause dealing with punishment for helping undocumented refugees to come to Canada. We offered amendments to clarify this provision and ensure that only those who tried to evade immigration examination, or organized people to make deliberately false refugee claims were found to be offenders. This was another attempt to be more fair. Of course the Government again refused our amendments.
We oppose the provision of new search and seizure powers because we feel it is a very bad precedent. With regard to the provision for more wire-tapping, we did support two clauses in relation to that, although we do not believe they are adequate to justify the Bill as a whole. That is a summary of Bill C-84 now that we are facing closure and a final vote this afternoon.
I would like to refer to the experience that most of us had in July of this year. Many people phoned our offices with angry reactions. Many angry calls were received in my constituency

September 10, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
office in Vancouver East. It was very interesting that many of the callers used the same phrases which the Minister was using. There is a definite relationship there. Callers talked about people jumping queues, used the phrase "illegal aliens" over and over again, and talked about "sending people back on the boat".
I sympathized very much with many of the callers, although certainly not with those who expressed racist views. However, many of the people with whom I spoke expressed the concern that they wanted an immigration policy which would be fair and which would seem to be fair to Canadians and to those waiting to come to Canada. 1 hope they also meant that it should be fair for people who are in fear for their lives or suffering economic deprivation and are seeking to come to Canada as refugees.
We on this side of the House still believe that it is very important to ensure that procedures are clearly understood by people before they come to Canada. That has not been the case. There is still a perception that people can exploit the system, as they certainly have. The point is that we do not know whether they are genuine refugees until they get here and have had due process of examination. Those who do qualify as refugees can then go through the proper procedures in order to remain here. New Democrats believe that after having had a fair hearing with the opportunity of having counsel and appeal, any person who is not a legitimate refugee should not be allowed to stay permanently in Canada. To be able to do so would certainly be unfair and an abuse of the policy. I repeat that we do not know this unless these people have an opportunity to be examined and have their case reviewed.
Canadians are very proud of our humanitarian tradition. We opened the doors for Hungarian refugees. I had personal experience in working in refugee camps in Vienna and elsewhere in Austria and saw the generosity of Canadians. While perhaps not generous enough to take people who were unhealthy or could not adjust as easily, we took as many as we could.
It is interesting that this summer we are talking about boat people because we opened our doors to boat people in the South Seas. We welcomed as many people from Southeast Asia as possible and sped up the refugee policy at that time. We tried to bring them here and do much of the processing in Canada. We should not forget that Canadians approved of this and welcomed those people.
I hope Canadians feel the same way in this case. Certainly, in my part of Canada along the western coastline many people are coming from Latin American countries. These are people who suffered a great deal of hardship, and I feel particular concern for a number of women with young children who have had a great struggle in coming through the United States.
Much of the outcry from Canadians about this incident is based on media reports and some of the angry statements by the two Ministers, which really made it difficult for people to look rationally at some other requirements that are needed in a fair immigration policy for refugees. We believe very strongly that this incident would not have occurred had the Government proceeded a year ago to reform the refugee processing policy and procedures and implemented the recommendations of Rabbi Plaut and the recommendations of the all-party parliamentary committee that was concerned with improving the refugee processing system.
People would have known that the Government was taking action, and I believe that people outside Canada, including agents who are exploiting people and telling them to distort the truth in some cases, would have been much more reluctant about encouraging people to come here if they knew the refugee determination process would take two or three months rather than two or three years.
Let us consider present public opinion as a result of the debate in the House and in view of the period in which people have been able to consider the details of these Bills. Canadians have been able to read reports in the media from many experts who appeared at the committee. They have also heard many speeches in the House which I hope have raised very legitimate points.
When I was in Vancouver East last week fulfilling appointments in my office I found quite a change in public opinion. 1 would be interested to know if this has happened with other Members of Parliament, because it seems to me that tempers have cooled down and people are looking at this issue more reasonably. In fact, many people said that we should make sure that we maintain the kind of justice and humanitarian policies that we believe are so important for Canada.
For example, last week churches, many support organizations and individuals in Vancouver held a major protest asking the Government to modify these Bills and provide protection for people coming to Canada. One young man came to my office saying that he and his mother would have been charged under this Bill since they have given accommodation to refugees from Latin America until they could apply officially.
A Portuguese constituent of mine, now a Canadian citizen, expressed concern that the Government was misleading people by making the general public think that refugees are the same as landed immigrants and are jumping ahead of landed immigrants on the list. He is quite right that there are two different waiting lists. I hope people are more aware of this now.
An organization in Vancouver, Casa Latinoamericana, has expressed a particular concern. I want to read some of the highlights from a very urgent notice they published during the summer. They are very concerned about the recent news that death squads are operating out of Los Angeles. They state:
According to articles publicized in The Globe and Mail, The Province and other sources, people actively involved in denouncing U.S. policy in Central
September 10, 1987

America as well as human rights abuses are under attack by death squads. Such acts of violence include torture, abductions and threats.
Those squads operate the same way as in El Salvador. Therefore, it is suspected that they are not operating on their own but enjoy the support and protection of those individuals who also finance this type of operations in Central America. It also seems evident that LA's death squads members do not fear any reaction on the part of the police department. Finally, these operations might as well be considered as a new psychological approach to crack-down on the flow of Central American refugees to the United States.
In spite of the given situation, refugees seeking safety in Canada might be sent back to an uncertain fate in the U.S.-
That is why we are so worried about Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 which would require some people at our borders to be sent back to the United States. Certainly they could be subject to the death squads.
Casa Latinoamericana urges people to oppose Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 which deprive people of the right to be refugees. They ask that all of us write to the U.S. embassy as well as to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and government officials.
I must repeat that it is with great concern and sadness that as Canadians we have to rush through a Bill that was not carefully considered. I am ashamed that the Government has chosen to ignore the appeals and the expertise of various church representatives, refugee support groups and experienced lawyers in this field who have pointed out the errors and dangers in this legislation.
I am also concerned that the Government has brought in closure without really explaining clearly and honestly some of the procedures and impacts these policies will have on people seeking refuge in Canada.
On behalf of my Party, we regret that the Government has made so little effort to change and improve this Bill.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment on the remarks of my colleague. Let me say how very disappointed I am to see that Bill C-84 will pass through the House. I fully expected that, being recalled for an emergency piece of legislation, we would see genuine debate and consideration by the Government to any objections that might be raised to what is very hastily arranged legislation to deal with an emergency. There has been much comment from learned groups, in newspapers and from leaders from across the country pointing out shortcomings in the legislation which has been put forward. I refer to the denial of counsel, the denial of the right to determination, and the creation of offences for humanitarian work. These are extreme actions on the part of the Government. The turning back of ships at sea in potentially dangerous circumstances is another shortcoming of this legislation. I expected that the Government would have listened to these groups and individuals who wholeheartedly and almost unanimously suggested that this measure is extreme. I thought that the Government would have made some changes to remove these extreme measures.
Immigration Act, 1976
[DOT]	(1530)
The Government has taken the position, and we heard the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) on national television the other day repeat it, that the people of Canada wanted action, and we have acted. This is a justification for this action, a justification that could be used for any action that a government might take. It can justify very extreme measures. The people of Canada had better be very wary in asking the Government to take action. We are afraid that it will not be considered action and that it will not listen to reasonable objections to the actions that it proposes.
Those are my comments. I am very disappointed in seeing the Government not listen to the objections to this Bill.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I must say to my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris), that he said very succinctly and much more skillfully than I what I raised in my remarks. 1 wish that he had time to make a full speech on this matter. I think that with his expertise in the legal field, as well as his humanitarian instincts in being a New Democrat, the House would have a lot to learn from him. I want to thank him for his comments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion by Mr. Bouchard, seconded by Mr. Lewis: That Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be now read a third time and passed.

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 to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
[DOT]	(1600)
And the division bells having rung:

September 10, 1987
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a) I have been requested by the Chief Opposition Whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 13(5) the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until six o'clock p.m. Monday, September 14, 1987 at which time the bells to call in the Members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris)-Supply and Services-Contract to videotape business excellence awards function-Request for introduction of new tendering process; the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-Agriculture- Special Canadian Grains Program-Request for inclusion of hay producers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to move second reading of Bill C-68. The House will know that the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act in three ways. First, it would provide legislative authority for Canada's participation in the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. Second, it would provide funds for the purchase of shares in the agency. Third, it would incorporate an amendment to the articles of agreement of the World Bank into the existing legislation.
The principal objective of this Bill is to establish legislative authority for Canada's participation in the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, also known as MIGA. The convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency was negotiated under the auspices of the World Bank and opened for signature on October 11, 1986. MIGA's goal will be to help Third World countries find much needed
additional resources to finance their development by tapping the private sector. The agency's mandate will be to promote private investment in developing countries and to help create in these countries a climate conducive to foreign investment.
The agency will provide foreign investors with insurance against non-commercial risks, such as currency transfer risk, expropriation and similar measures, breach of contract, and war and civil disturbance. The agency also has a responsibility to conduct research and disseminate information on investment opportunities in developing member countries as well as to undertake other activities to promote foreign investment.
Foreign private investment will enhance the developmental prospects of host countries through the provision of non-debt-creating transfers of resources as well as a transfer of technology and managerial skills. This Government has emphasized the importance of the private sector to Third World development and the role to be played by non-debt-creating foreign investment. The benefits of MIGA for the developing countries are substantial. Canadians will also benefit from Canada's participation in MIGA. Over time, MIGA is expected to help improve economic conditions in developing countries. Canadians would stand to benefit from improved export opportunities, and there is no question about that, Mr. Speaker. More immediately, Canadian companies investing abroad will be able to compete on an equal footing with companies from other countries that have joined MIGA.
The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency will complement national and regional programs rather than compete with them. Canada's Export Development Corporation, EDC, already provides insurance and guarantee cover for some non-commercial risks. MIGA is therefore expected to focus on guaranteeing investments from members without a national program, co-guaranteeing with national and regional agencies, providing re-insurance for national and regional agencies, and guaranteeing investment jointly financed by investors from different member countries. The convention establishes MIGA as an autonomous international organization. Although legally separate from the World Bank, the president of the World Bank would be ex officio chairman of the board of directors and would nominate MIGA's president. In addition, MIGA is expected to draw heavily on the services of the World Bank group. This relationship is intended to promote the agency as an international developmental institution and assist it to gain recognition.
Canada is entitled to purchase 2,965 shares in the agency at a total cost of $32,081,300 U.S. Within 90 days of the convention establishing MIGA coming into force, Canada will be required to pay 10 per cent of the above amount in cash, a further 10 per cent in non-negotiable, non-interest bearing demand notes. The remaining 80 per cent is subject to call. Accordingly, Bill C-68 also authorizes the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to pay up to $6,416,260 U.S. for the purchase of the shares allotted to Canada under the convention. These funds would come from Canada's official development assistance program.
September 10, 1987

The Bill also provides for a minor amendment to the articles of agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is the main component of the World Bank group. The amendment raises the share of the total voting power required to accept amendments to the institution's articles of agreement from 80 per cent to 85 per cent. This amendment was agreed to by Canada and the other industrialized countries as part of the recent negotiations for the funding of the International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank which provides concessional loans to the poorest countries.
This Bill will help developing countries marshal the resources they need to finance development. It will do this without creating new debt and obligations for these hard-pressed countries and, at the same time, it will provide useful investment opportunities for Canadians. It is a Bill which deserves our strong support.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by congratulating the Hon. Minister on the first speech he has delivered since he has been elevated to the Cabinet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, today, perhaps more than at any other time since World War II, Canadians are aware that their own well-being is inextricably linked to the economic and political security of other parts of the world. The Bill before us today is a reflection of that recognition and of Canada's involvement in international organizations.
The idea for an international insurance scheme has been around since 1948 but was first given serious study from 1960 onward. In 1973, with the rise of protectionism, discussions were suspended. As well, there were ideological differences between the rich and the poor countries, which interfered with negotiations.
In 1981, the then World Bank President raised the idea again and, at that time, it received general acceptance, particularly among countries suffering under crippling foreign debts. In March 1985, a draft convention on the establishment of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency was circulated to member Governments of the World Bank. Since then, more than 20 countries have signed the convention, and Canada signed it on April 10, 1986. Parliament is now being asked to ratify the convention.
At this time, at least 15 developing countries have ratified the convention. In order to be established, it is also required that five developed countries sign it. Of the developed countries, only Japan and West Germany have ratified it. In the United States, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have approved the convention, but the Senate added some conditions which have complicated matters. The conditions are designed to protect U.S. employment and
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
production against possible competition from investments covered by this new agency.
The new Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, which is known by it acronym, MIGA, has two main purposes: to guarantee non-commercial risks and to enhance mutual understanding between host Governments and foreign investors. It is designed to be self-sustaining after the original investment. It will be able to vary its premiums charged to investors in accordance with the actual risks assumed, and only investments which are economically sound are to be insured.
MIGA is not meant to compete with national insurance agencies. Rather, it is meant to supplement and to complement them. In Canada, the Crown-owned Export Development Corporation already insures some types of investments, mainly against commercial risks. Most capital exporting countries have investment insurance schemes of their own, but the coverage they provide is far from adequate. It is estimated that all the national programs combined cover less than 20 per cent of current direct investment flowing to developing countries. Moreover, private coverage is often very expensive and limited to the short term.
If MIGA were successfully established, it has been estimated that by 1990, about $2 billion-worth of MIGA guaranteed projects could be in place, many of which would not have been undertaken otherwise. It would appear at first blush that this agency will fill an obvious gap since developing countries are in great need of funds to finance their investments.
The volume of investments directed to developing countries has been substantially reduced in recent years from more than $17 billion in 1980 to some $10 billion in 1983. Commercial bank loans have plummeted since 1981 and are not expected to regain earlier levels in the foreseeable future. Official aid flows are also stagnating.
Developing countries have traditionally viewed foreign direct investments with mixed feelings, but the world debt crisis made many realize some of the advantages that equity investments have over commercial bank loans. Loans must be regularly serviced by the recipient country regardless of whether or not the money was well invested. Foreign direct investments on the other hand must first produce a net benefit before any payment abroad must be contemplated. However, many countries still continue to see foreign investment as a threat to sovereignty, and this probably explains why some countries have not shown any indication of wanting to join this new organization. Conscious of these problems, those who are organizing the new agency have written into its statutes that it will not conclude any contract or guarantee before the host Government or the recipient country approves the issuance of the guarantee.
In Canada, the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place released a report last May on the debt problem of developing countries. The position taken on MIGA was somewhat neutral. The committee did not see MIGA as being a major player in solving the Third World debt problem, but it

September 10, 1987
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
thought that it could be a positive factor in encouraging needed private investment capital into Third World enterprises. As I said, the Senate committee here did not have a specific recommendation on MIGA.
As was said earlier, the mandate of the new agency will be to promote private investment in developing countries and to help create in those countries a climate conducive to foreign investment. The agency will provide foreign investors with insurance against non-commercial risks in developing countries, risks such as currency transfer risks, expropriation, breach of contract and war or civil disturbance. The agency will also carry out other promotional activities. It is hoped that foreign private investment will enhance the developmental prospects of host countries through the provision of non-debt-creating transfers of resources as well as a transfer of technology and managerial skills.
MIGA will be the third affiliate of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, generally known as the World Bank. Canada has always supported the activities of the World Bank since its foundation in the 1940s. Canadian staff have rendered distinguished service to the World Bank and its affiliates.
The Bill before us provides for Canadian membership in MIGA, as the Hon. Minister said. It designates the Bank of Canada as the depository in Canada for the holding of Canadian currency and other assets of MIGA. It also provides the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) with authority to provide financial assistance to MIGA for the purpose of purchasing shares.
The immediate question that comes to mind is, why are we looking today at new expenditures which were not in the Estimates? Why are we having a surprise in September? The reason given by officials is that they had no authority to put it in the Estimates before the Bill was brought to Parliament and the convention ratified. That is logical, but it illustrates a continuing problem for parliamentarians in trying to determine the proposed expenditures of the Government and matching them with actual results.
Since the foundation of this new agency has been in the works for many years and the convention was signed by Canada almost a year ago, I think in future it is incumbent upon the Department of Finance to find a way to give Members of Parliament advance notice of proposed disbursements. This can be done by including them in the Estimates as a possible disbursement. The money involved here, as government expenditures go, is not very large, but there is a principle that if Members of Parliament are responsible for the public purse we need solid information and it needs to be timely.
Canada is entitled to purchase 2,965 shares in the agency at a total cost of some $32 million U.S. The customary arrangement is that only a small portion of this is paid immediately. Within 90 days of the convention coming into force, Canada
will be required to pay 10 per cent of that amount in cash and a further 10 per cent in non-negotiable, non-interest bearing demand notes. The remaining 80 per cent is subject to call. Therefore, the Bill also authorizes the Minister of Finance to pay up to $6,416,260 for the purchase of shares allotted to Canada under the convention.
As I said earlier, this convention requires ratification by five developed and 15 developing countries whose subscriptions total one-third of MIGA's authorized capital. In a report last July it was said that 15 of the developing countries had already ratified the convention and many others were interested. As I said earlier, the developed countries have been slower to respond.
The broad objectives of MIGA are such that most people in this House would support them. The encouragement of investment flows for productive purposes among developing countries is a mandate which goes past merely being an insurer against political risks. Most countries are interested in having an international agency which will work towards the improvement of investment conditions in member countries through a number of advisory and technical services which go hand in hand with the guarantee operations.
As I said earlier, Canada was one of the founding members of the World Bank and has supported it with both money and personnel over the years. It is therefore logical that we want to be involved in this extension of the bank's activities, particularly at a time when the world economy is not functioning particularly well. Over the past decade, even the richest countries have had to face unemployment, stagnant rates of economic growth, and spiralling inflation. However, the weaker countries have suffered far more. We have seen developing countries crushed under debt, partly because of the rapid increases in energy prices, and partly because of attempts to service a load of international debt. Recently we have seen some major banks write off some of that debt in an effort to assist the developing countries to get a little above water.
I hope this measure before us, by encouraging investment and the development of technological advice and assistance to less developed countries, will continue the aid to those countries. This is something in which we all have an interest, not only for humanitarian reasons but also for reasons of selfinterest. It is in the interests of all of us that other human beings in other countries have the same rights to education, to a level of prosperity, and to developing their own goals and aims that we do. The more prosperous the developing countries are, the more markets we have for our products and the more we are able to look forward to alliances with strong functioning partners.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to say something about Bill C-68. I want to join with my friend, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), in congratulating the new Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) on his first speech
September 10, 1987

in that capacity. I look forward to hearing many more speeches, particularly of this nature, when we are adding something positive to the Government's program. Let us hope that it is a harbinger of good things to come.
1 do not know if you remember back in 1948 when this whole discussion began. It was then that the idea of an international insurance scheme was first suggested. In the 1960s, serious study was given to the concept of encouraging international investment, particularly in the developing countries. The idea was then shelved in 1972 by and large because of lack of interest by the various member states. Perhaps the real reason was the profound ideological differences between the northern countries and the southern countries, the well-to-do and the lesser developed. Those ideological differences really set this whole concept of an international commercial insurance scheme on the back burner for a number of years. In 1981, the then World Bank President, Mr. Clausen, raised the idea again and found relative acceptance.
I think it has been a surprise to most of us to see the relative haste with which various countries got on board and said that now is the time. I have asked myself what on earth led to this enthusiastic response after so many years of receiving little support. I think it may have to do with the growing international debt which causes extreme economic hardship in the developing countries and has caused us some concern as well. It affects international financial institutions and, more specifically, Canadian banks which have become very seriously exposed as a result of many loans to the developing countries which were unsecured.
Although I am not sure it is all that altruistic, we have decided to come on board. In April of last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated that Canada was willing to participate in the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. The Minister of Finance agreed at that time that Canada would be a participant, which would require legislation passed by the House of Commons. We are aiming at an October 30 deadline and it looks as though we are pretty well on target.
The purpose of Bill C-68 is to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to provide the authority for Canada's membership in the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency with a target date of October 30, 1987. If the legislation is approved the Minister of Finance will be allowed to purchase shares under the convention for up to $6,416,260 U.S. It will also amend Section 6 of the Bretton Woods Act, the articles of agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. That is a very important amendment for obvious reasons which do not necessarily require elaboration at this point.
The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency will provide foreign investors with insurance against non-commercial risk in developing countries such as currency transfer risk,
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
expropriation, breach of contract, war and civil disturbances. It will also carry out other promotional activities to facilitate investment in many of these developing countries. The agency will also supplement Canada's Export Development Corporation which already provides insurance and guarantee cover for non-commercial risks. It will be able to give guarantees in countries the EDC will presently not cover.
Many people have been asking why Canada needs to participate in this international agency when we have the Export Development Corporation doing, in a sense, the same work. There are some areas of the world in which the EDC is very reluctant to operate and some areas in which it simply refuses to offer insurance because of the high risk nature of those areas. If Canadian investors are interested in participating in those countries they will now be able to have the appropriate insurance.
New Democrats support this initiative. Canada's participation in this proposal of the World Bank to guarantee activity in developing countries is not costly to the Canadian taxpayer and we believe could be of some assistance, albeit small, in encouraging investment activity by less developed countries.
In real cash terms, our investment will be only a little more than $3 million U.S., with a total commitment of $30 million U.S. To make a comparison, that is a small percentage of what it would cost to construct a new prison. As this would be a step in the right direction in terms of facilitating Canadian investors, developers and enterprises to participate in third world development, 1 think it would be $3 million well invested by the federal Government.
Canada's EDC already has extensive coverage for investment in developing countries. Therefore, we do not expect to see a very large change in Canadian investment patterns as a result of MIGA's activities.
I think all Members of Parliament have been involved in a variety of activities of Canadians overseas. Canadians in many developing countries have taken advantage of what the EDC has to offer. Therefore, I do not think we can expect a major shift in investment or a major increase in economic activities by Canadians overseas as a result of this initiative. However, we believe it is a step in the right direction and an appropriate initiative to be taken at this time to widen insurance coverage and to widen the promotional and development support which the EDC provides in some countries. We will now be able to have the same support in other countries.
The benefit of MIGA derives not so much from what it will do directly for Canadians and Canadian companies in their foreign investments; it is more important in that it is an international organization and Canada is able to confirm its long-standing commitment to participate and encourage participation in world organizations. We will, at relatively small cost, be encouraging further much needed collaboration on this front by countries working together to assist those countries which find themselves in dire economic straits.

September 10, 1987
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
MIGA will also encourage attention to the role of foreign investment in developing countries. We have argued that this ought to have been examined in detail for many years. It would be naive to assume that all foreign investment is automatically good. That is not the case. We have seen too many of our investment programs and, I am sad to say, some of our international assistance from government and in some cases non- governmental organizations not result in the best interest of some people in some countries.
We hope that this international agency will encourage the Government and the people of Canada to focus more attention than ever on the role of foreign investment in developing countries. Steps ought to be taken to ensure that investment which takes place is done, not only in our best interest, but in the best interest of the people in those countries.
To the extent that MIGA will allow investment by one less developed country in another, it will improve south-to-south trade and enhance trade flow within the lesser developed countries. We believe that this is an important initiative. When we look at economic development in the lesser developed countries we assume that there is only a one-way flow that is of any benefit to the developing countries. Such is not the case, and anything we can do to facilitate international trade between the lesser developed countries will be of benefit to them in improving their economic infrastructure. For that reason as well we support this initiative.
The agreement requires that at least five developed countries and 15 developing countries participate. To date, 15 developing countries have ratified the convention. Japan and Germany have now ratified the convention, and the Netherlands and, of course, Canada, are well on the way to doing the same. I notice with interest that when President Reagan tabled his budget it included moneys for MIGA. That is an important initiative for the American administration and Congress to take. I only hope it is not stalled in the Senate.
However, at the moment, while the Senate has attached some amendments to the Bill for ratification and the House did not, I think there is still hope that they will come up with something consistent with the MIGA Convention. It looks encouraging that by the October 30 deadline, five developed countries and 15 developing countries will have placed their signatures to the convention.
It is important that in passing this Bill we do not construe this initiative as a replacement for real economic aid to these developing countries. While MIGA may be of some assistance to the economy of the developing world by providing insurance for investors, we must be careful not to mistake this kind of activity for aid.
I sense a rather enthusiastic response by members of the Government in particular in that they believe this will be a major aid initiative. In fact, it is not an aid initiative but an economic, business initiative. To the extent that it will help the
developing country economically in terms of job-creation and tax and financial flows within that country, we support it. However, let us not ever consider that this ought to be termed any sort of real Canadian aid for the developing countries.
We agree that aid must not be tied to domestic export development. What developing countries need most is commitment from countries like Canada to long-term infrastructural development assistance of the kind that will allow a broad based and self-sustainable economic and social development in the recipient countries.
We have learned in the last while that many of our traditional aid projects have often provided a hindrance to economic and social development in developing countries. Now we can make our greatest contribution by assisting in the development of a sophisticated economic and social infrastructure.
I was pleased to see our community college in Kamloops, one of the communities I represent, accepting a number of international students to study there for the first time. They bring with them not only a renewed and increased cultural awareness for Canadians, but also they create the much needed links between ourselves and other countries, including developing countries. It is in this area that Canada can and has been using its expertise in technological development and instruction to make a real contribution both through official government aid and through the NGOs.
I believe we all have to share some disappointment about the fact that Canada's percentage of Gross National Product devoted to development has been slipping in recent years. While we find this disturbing at a time when it is essential that Canada display its commitment to long-term development, let us hope that this downward slide will be reversed and we will see a renewed commitment to Canada placing aside sums of money toward real development aid so that our aid as a percentage of our GNP will reach the target set by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) three years ago. I do not have to remind the House that the Prime Minister was quite specific as to what he believed that target ought to be in terms of government aid to assist less developed countries than ours. I only hope that by the end of his administration we will have reached that target.
In conclusion, I look forward to this Bill going to a legislative committee where we can study it in detail and ensure that it will be effective. As I indicated earlier, I noticed that the American Senate has looked at the convention and decided in its wisdom that improvements could be made in terms of the American commitment. I think it behooves us to follow that initiative, and to consider this carefully in the legislative committee to see if it cannot be made more effective in facilitating Canadian investment in developing countries.
I want to ensure that the legislative committee calls witnesses such as the Canadian Exporters Association, which has strong views on this legislation. We would also like to hear from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which obviously has a direct interest, in some cases even a vested interest, in the
September 10, 1987

final outcome of this legislation. Of course, we want to hear from the Canadian International Development Agency and other outside experts on developing countries.
It is a pleasure to participate in a debate of this kind, to see the Government put its signature to this Convention and follow up with this initiative in Bill C-68. We look forward to completing discussion and debate at the legislative committee stage as well as at third reading.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak to Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act. Last June 17, when the Minister of State tabled in the House of Commons a Bill to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements, he gave us to understand that this legislative measure would be called for debate in the fall, and 1 have to say he has kept his word. Here we are today debating this important Bill, and although I do not think it is a contentious issue it does require a minumum of debate, long enough to explain the purpose of the Bill, which is to secure the ratification of Canada and its participation in the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, MIGA for short.
MIGA's mandate will be to promote private investment in developing countries and help create in these countries a climate likely to attract foreign capital. MIGA will provide foreign investors with insurance against non-commercial risks in developing countries. Currency transfer, expropriation, breach of contract, war and civil disturbance are some examples of non-commercial risks. MIGA will also have other promotion activities. Foreign private investment will contribute to enhance the development prospects of host countries through the transfer of non-debt-generating resources, technology, and sound management.
The Canadian Export Development Corporation, the EDC, already provides major insurance coverage and guarantees against non-commercial risks. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) will be in a position to increase and complete that coverage for possible Canadian investors. For instance, MIGA could cover investments in countries that are not insured by the EDC.
MIGA will be the third affiliate of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The two other affiliates are the International Development Association and the International Finance Corporation. Since MIGA is an affiliate of the World Bank, this Bill implements the agreement establishing MIGA by amending the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act. That Act deals with Canada's participation in the institutions set up under the Bretton Woods Agreements, namely the International Monetary Fund and the three World Bank institutions, IBRD, IDA and IFC.
Bill C-68 provides for Canada's participation in MIGA, first by adding MIGA's name to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act's full title; second, by including MIGA in the Act's preamble, Section 2; third, by adding the Convention
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency in the Fifth Schedule, Articles 3 and 7; four, by instituting the Bank of Canada as the depository in Canada for the holdings of Canadian currency and other assets of MIGA, section 4; finally, by granting to the Minister of Finance authority to extend financial assistance to MIGA for the subscription of shares.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is authorized to purchase 2,965 shares of the Agency, for a total $32,081,300 U.S. Within 90 days from the date on which the Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, Canada shall pay in cash 10 per cent of said amount, and an additional 10 per cent in the form of non-negotiable, non-interest bearing notes. The remaining 80 per cent shall be subject to call by the Agency when required. Similarly, Bill C-68 grants the Minister of Finance authority to subscribe shares allotted to Canada under the Convention for a total cost of $6,416,260 U.S.
The Convention establishing MIGA was presented for signature in October, 1985. Canada signed it in April, 1986. It should come into force before October 1 1, 1987. Therefore Canada must have ratified the Convention by then in order to attend MIGA's first meetings, which will deal with the drafting of regulations.
Bill C-68 also includes a minor amendment to the IBRD's articles included in the Second Schedule to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act. That amendment raises from 80 to 85 per cent the percentage of votes needed to carry an amendment to the IBRD's articles. Canada and the other industrialized nations have agreed to that amendment during the negotiations on the eighth replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association, a World Bank agency that, as we know, extends loans under favourable terms.
The clauses of the Bill dealing with MIGA will come into force at the same time as the agency itself. The amendment to the schedule including IBRD's articles would come into force at a date set down by proclamation.
If I may give some background, Mr. Speaker, the idea for an international insurance scheme has been around since 1948, but was first given serious study from 1960 on. In 1973, discussions were suspended because of a lack of interest from member countries and ideological differences in the rich and developing countries. In 1981, then World Bank President A.W. Clausen raised the idea again, and at that time, it received general acceptance, particularly among countries suffering under crippling debts. In March 1985, member countries received a draft convention on the establishment of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. On October 11, 1985, after an animated debate, the Governors of the World Bank agreed to the existing convention and invited the participant countries to sign it. More than 20 countries have already signed the Convention, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

September 10, 1987
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act
Finance, the Hon. Michael Wilson, signed it himself on behalf of the Canadian Government on April 10, 1986. Parliament is now being asked to ratify the Convention, which will come into effect when it has been ratified by at least five developed countries and 15 developing countries on the understanding that these countries will provide at least one-third of the capital authorized by MIGA.
At this time, at least 15 developing countries have ratified the Convention. Of the developed countries, only Japan and West Germany have ratified it. In the United States, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have approved the Convention, which is now being considered by a joint committee of Congress. In contrast with the version adopted by the House of Representatives in the United States, the Senate Bill sets various conditions to ratification by the United States, which are designed mostly to protect U.S. employment and production against possible competition from investments covered by MIGA.
MIGA has two main purposes: To guarantee non-commercial risks and to enhance mutual understanding between host Governments and foreign investors. It is designed to be selfsustaining. It will have to operate in accordance with the principles of sound commercial practice and sensible financial management. It will be able to vary its premiums charged to investors in accordance with the actual risks assumed, and only investments which are economically sound are to be ensured. MIGA is not meant to compete with national insurance agencies. Rather it is meant to supplement and to complement them.
In Canada, the Crown-owned Export Development Corporation already insures some types of investments, mainly against commercial risks.
Most capital exporting countries have investment insurance schemes of their own-either public or private-but the coverage they provide is far from adequate. It is estimated that all the national programs combined cover less than 20 per cent of current direct investment flowing to developing countries. Moreover, private coverage is often very expensive and limited to the short term. If MIGA were successfully established, it has been estimated that by 1990, about $2 billion-worth of MIGA guaranteed projects could be in place, many of which would not have been undertaken otherwise.
It would appear that MIGA will fill an obvious gap since developing countries are in great need of funds to finance their investments. The volume of investments directed to developing countries has been substantially reduced in recent years from more than $17 billion in 1981 to some $10 billion in 1983 according to conservative estimates. Commercial bank loans have plummeted since 1981 and are not expected to regain earlier levels in the foreseeable future. Official aid flows are also stagnating.
Developing countries have traditionally viewed foreign direct investments with mixed feelings but the world debt crisis made many realize some of the advantages that equity investments have over commercial bank loans. Loans must be regularly serviced by the recipient country regardless of whether the money was well invested or not or whether mistakes were made or not. Foreign direct investments on the other hand must first produce a net benefit before any payment abroad must be comtemplated. However, many countries still continue to see foreign investment as a threat to sovereignty and this probably explains why some countries such as India and some Latin American countries have not shown any indication of wanting to join this new organization. Conscious of these problems, those who are organizing the new agency have written into its statutes that it will not conclude any contract or guarantee before the host Government or the recipient country approves the issuance of the garantee.
Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place released a report on May 13, 1987 on the debt problem of developing countries. The committee did not see MIGA as being a major player in solving the Third World debt problem but it thought that it could be a positive factor in encouraging needed private investment capital into Third World enterprises. The Senate committee here did not have a specific recommendation on MIGA.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to have this opportunity to comment briefly on Bill C-68. I hope that in the coming days the House will adopt this measure which I think is serious, a legislative measure which we feel is altogether acceptable and which will be of great help to all these developing countries. Canada will contribute to development loans which will be generously guaranteed so that these countries may get their fair share of international trade, develop their local economies, and create the jobs they so badly need.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
September 10, 1987


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ADVISABILITY OF SIGNING PROTOCOL TO CONTADORA TREATY
Pauline Jewett: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of signing the protocol to the draft Contadora Treaty and thus
become an active member of the Contadora Support Group.
She said: Mr. Speaker, no region of the world and no foreign policy issue is of more concern to Canadians than the continuing and tragic conflict in Central America.
As a member of the External Affairs and International Trade Committee of the House, and last year as a member of the special joint committee of the House and Senate studying Canada's international relations, I have been repeatedly impressed by the well articulated and deep concern of thousands of Canadians about Central America. It was Central America that was the issue for which we received the largest number of briefs and presentations at the meetings of the special joint committee.
There is no question about the concern of vast numbers of Canadians. When speaking in the House a week or so ago, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), outlined in great detail the expressions of concern of Canadians and how they were taking real form. He said, "Thousands have been involved for years in the struggle for a just and lasting peace in Central America. They have donated their time, energy, money, and sometimes risked their lives to help Central Americans. There is a Canadian people-to-people peace initiative".
At the present time there is a mission for peace in Nicaragua. This mission for peace is sponsored by Oxfam and the Canadian churches. I am sorry to say that although both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party sent Members of Parliament on this fact-finding mission for peace, for some reason that I do not understand, the Conservatives refused an invitation to have one of their Members go on this mission for peace this week. According to a newspaper story, apparently the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) refused the invitation to send any Tories with opposition MPs and church groups on the mission for peace to Nicaragua.
As we were recently reminded by the excellent documentary on the CBC television current affairs program The Journal, since 1978, 200,000 people have died as a result of the political violence in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua. Domestic injustice, poverty, oppression, and in some cases state terrorism and violence between states, continue to threaten to escalate further.
Contadora Treaty
In the past, there has been a complete absence of peaceful solutions to the critical problems of the region. The possibilities of escalating military conflict, the absence of peaceful conflict resolution, and the escalating foreign military intervention, primarily from the United States in the form of military support for the Contras, led to an initiative by Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and Panama.
This initiative sought the creation of a process for conflict resolution and the creation of a peace treaty among the five Central American republics. The initiative was named after the Panamanian island, Contadora, where the Ministers from Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and Panama initially met. The Contadora initiative provided much needed diplomatic impetus in the region. These efforts resulted in a draft peace treaty, which, I remind the House, met with full Nicaraguan support and the initial support of the other republics. However, the support of Honduras and El Salvador cooled under pressure from Washington.
The Contadora Peace Treaty calls for the reduction and eventual elimination of all foreign military advisers and bases in Central America; a freeze, and then reduction of the level of arms and armed forces in the region; the elimination of arms traffic; and the establishment of verification and control measures with international supervision.
All major Latin American countries quickly formally endorsed the treaty, as did Sweden and France, and formed themselves into the Contadora support group, or the Lima support group, as it is sometimes called.
I, and others in my Party, have repeatedly called on the Government of Canada to endorse the Contadora Treaty and lend Canada's diplomatic weight and concrete efforts to peace in Central America. My Party called for such efforts in great detail at its convention in Ottawa in 1985. In 1985, I also called on the Government to support the plea of the Contadora support group for the resumption of bilateral talks between the United States and Nicaragua.
We have repeatedly urged that Canada actively discourage the United States from its military and financial aid to the Contras. I am sorry to say that we have met with little success. Apparently the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) does raise the issue with the Secretary of State for the United States at their frequent meetings, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs is told that that is simply not an item on the agenda, and the Americans do not wish to listen to what he has to say on that subject.
At an important meeting held recently in southern California, I received copies of all the press coverage on the public part of the meetings. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said nothing publicly about what he has privately said he opposes vehemently, namely, U.S. administration military support for the Contras who are fighting to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Nicaragua.

September 10, 1987
Contadora Treaty
When this motion was originally presented in October, 1986, there was widespread Canadian and international concern about war and peace in Central America, and in particular on the survival of Contadora. Since that time we have seen the creation of the Arias Peace Plan drawn from Contadora, and the acceptance of the plan by the five Central American Presidents in Guatemala last month. The Contadora support group has since endorsed the plan, and moves have begun to implement parts of it. I remind the House of the agreement to talks that have now taken place between the Government and Opposition in El Salavador, and I remind the House of the Nicaraguans setting up a commission of national reconciliation in Nicaragua, and other activities that have taken place.
The Canadian Government has declared its support for the Arias Peace Plan, and has long been on record as supporting, in theory at least, the Contadora peace process. In one specific area, Canada has offered verification and other advice in this peace effort.
Now it is even more timely, urgent, and useful for the Government to record its support for the original Contadora Treaty, and to join with the Contadora support group in its endorsement of the Arias Peace Plan. A clear message from the Government that Canada will sign the Contadora Treaty protocol, and join in an active way with the Contadora support group would be consistent with government policy and activities to date, and would be consistent with the general position of all three Parties. It would be an important response to widespread interest and concern of Canadians in Central America, as I have already mentioned. It would send a clear, important, and positive signal to our sister nations in the hemisphere that Canada and Canadians are deeply committed to the urgent task of creating peace in Central America. It would support Canada's development assistance efforts and refugee concerns in the region.
This would be an important expression of the will and interest of Canada, and an important reaffirmation of the commitment of Canadians to peace and conflict resolution.
On August 17, I noted in the House that External Affairs officials were going to Central America. Indeed, I asked the Minister at that time whether this was not a fairly good indication of our need for a more permanent and stronger diplomatic presence in Central America, the fact that we had to send officials down there to see what the different countries were doing in connection with the Arias Peace Plan. Once again I urged the Minister to strengthen Canada's diplomatic presence in the region and called specifically for the long overdue opening of an embassy in Managua.


Marcel Prud'homme: I agree with you.


Pauline Jewett: I regret that once again the Minister rejected the suggestion. I am delighted that the Hon. Member for
Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) agrees, because he once objected to it, too.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. Doctor of Political Science is just teasing me. I am clearly on record in that regard; I have always supported the idea.
I know she is just teasing, but in a few years from now those who read her speech will think that I opposed it. I never opposed it, and she knows that I did not.


Pauline Jewett: Canada must do more for peace than just rhetoric, the kind of rhetoric we have just heard. Canada must be seen as willing to do more, and I agree with the Minister that Canada has the capacity to do more. I continue to call upon him and the Government to use that capacity.
I call upon them to sign the protocol to the Contadora Treaty; to offer technical, financial and diplomatic help to the Central American Republics in meeting the requirements of the Arias Peace Plan in respect of amnesties, refugees, civil rights and press freedom, the conduct of elections, negotiations, arms control, and reduction verification; to urge the United States and Nicaragua to resume their essential bilateral talks, including offering Canada as a site for such talks; and to offer to increase direct economic assistance to the region, especially to Nicaragua, because of the vast foreign interference in that country, the U.S. economic blockade, the destabilizing and bankrupting of the economy, recognizing that a collapsing Nicaraguan economy and heightened security concerns will impede any peace settlement.
In conclusion, Canadians expect-and Central America desperately needs it-some greater Canadian diplomatic and political initiative. One initiative mentioned by the Hon. Member for Spadina was that we should take a leading role in rallying international support through the United Nations and in organizing a multilateral support group and peace fund in support of the peace accord verification process. On September 1 in the House my colleague said that such steps would help to sustain the Central American peace accord against attacks from the Reagan administration.
We want to help build and secure peace in our hemisphere. As I mentioned, Canadians do a great deal as individuals. Just the other day in Vancouver I visited a group of fishermen, longshoremen, carpenters, and other workers who in their spare time-perhaps it is a couple of hours a day; in some cases it is only a couple of hours a week-are building a great fishing boat for a village in Nicaragua. The villagers are expecting it. They do not have any boats now except ones which have long since ceased to be useful or practical. They still need money for the engine, and we are hoping to be able to raise it. However, we have that strong feeling of Canadians wanting to give help.
The Government can respond more. Signing the protocol to the Contadora Treaty would be an illuminating expression of
September 10, 1987

the Government's concern for the building and securing of peace in our hemisphere.
Finally, Canada's resources and strong traditions enable and indeed require us to play such a role.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring the House up to date on progress accomplished in the peace process in Central America. I am all the more pleased that "progress" is the right word, if recent events are taken into account. As Hon. Members would know, the presidents of the five Central American countries recently agreed on a new peace plan for the region, supported by the other major interested countries, particularly the United States, Cuba and the Soviet Union. This is an extremely positive development.
Still I would not want to create the impression that this plan will solve all the problems of the region. In recent years the negotiations sponsored by the countries of the Contadora Group-Mexico, Panama, Columbia and Venezuela-raised expectations which too often turned into disillusions. Of course this does not take anything away from the efforts of the countries of the Contadora Group which, despite huge obstacles, displayed resolution and determination.
It seems to us that the worst of these obstacles is the existence of serious socio-economic disparities. Guerillas in Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala also stand in the way of a peaceful settlement. Finally, and this may be the key factor, the influence fight between the two superpowers tends to make regional conflicts even worse. Canada sincerely hopes that the good will shown by all parties in recent weeks will lead to an honest effort to overcome the obstacles.
Canada has a clear policy as concerns the situation in Central America. In his speech last year before the InterAmerican Press Association, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) described the Contadora initiative as the best tool for reconciliation in Central America. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has also expressed in public statements both in Canada and abroad the firm support of Canada for the Contadora process. Mr. Clark re-affirmed his position during his visits to Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela in 1986. In January 1987, in a message addressed to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Contadora Group and the Lima Support Group, as well as the Secretaries General of the United Nations and the Organization of American States on the occasion of their mission to the countries of Central America, Mr. Clark stated that the efforts of the Contadora Group have sustained the hope of the international community to see a lasting solution to the crisis in Central America. Moreover, in 1986, the Canadian delegation to the General Asembly of the United Nations made a statement in support of the Contadora Group.
Contadora Treaty
Canada has also provided constructive and practical support to the Contadora Group and the peace process in general. During his visit to Mexico in 1985, Mr. Clark had an opportunity to discuss the situation in Central America and the Contadora Group plan with President de la Madrid and his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Sepulveda. He emphasized the firm support of Canada to the Contadora initiative and its desire to play in due time a constructive role in the peace process. Mr. Clark stated that Canada is willing to share its peace-keeping operations experience with the parties involved. Since then, the Canadian Government has written at the request of the Contadora Group countries a series of comments on the provisions of the draft act on security and follow-up.
These comments are based on a number of considerations, such as the need to impart to our observations a neutral, objective and impartial character.
We also were aware of the need to ensure the viability of any verification and follow-up commission that could be established under the Contadora Act. More specifically, we thought that the funding for such an operation should be closely examined by all the parties involved for the selected mechanisms to be as efficient as possible in the circumstances.
We believe that the concept of a regional solution to that problem needs to be emphasized. In that respect, we feel that the Central American parties themselves should be involved as much as possible in the peacekeeping mechanisms, inasmuch as such involvement contributes to the efficient operation of a verification and follow-up commission. The commission should have specific and firm guarantees as to its freedom to travel within the area, and should also enjoy unimpaired communications with the media. Finally, we believe that a political authority should of necessity be appointed to sponsor the commission, whose mandate would be for a specific period.
The Government feels that the principles stated two years ago for the follow-up and verification are still relevant and should be applied to the present peace plan.
On August 7, at the end of the historic Guatemala Summit, the Central American nations' Presidents announced the conclusion of an agreement on a new peace plan for the area. The plan provides that the Ministers of Foreign Affairs will meet within fifteen days after the agreement is signed, to initiate the implementation of provisions dealing with an amnesty for the insurgents, a cease-fire, a dialogue with the unarmed opposition groups, which should come to an end after ninety days, that is November 7. The Contadora Group countries among others will be called upon to set up a verification and follow-up commission that will be responsible for monitoring the level of forces in place.
Mr. Speaker, the same day it was signed, we welcomed that Agreement which was supported by Mr. Clark. Later on, two envoys sent by Mr. Clark went to the area to express Canada's support and to offer technical advice on the development of the peace-keeping mechanisms. Countries in the area welcomed the envoys and Canada's offer.

September 10, 1987
Contadora Treaty
Other facts provide hope. As I said, under the Agreement, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs were to meet within fifteen days. That meeting took place on August 19 and 20, in San Salvador. Later, on August 22 and 23, in Caracas, the Ministers met their counterparts from the Contadora Group and the Lima Support Group, as well as representatives from the United Nations and the OAS, and agreed to set up a verification commission. Not being part of the area, Canada is not a member of the commission. However, we informed all the governments involved that we were willing if need be to provide the commission with technical advice.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we may safely conclude that real progress has been made. However, we should avoid deceiving ourselves. Guerilla warfare continues, as well as competition between the superpowers. The problem of poverty remains and is compounded by the massive influx of refugees fleeing the conflicts. Human rights, civil liberties and democratic institutions are still trampled in certain parts of the area. The latest events are a positive, albeit hesitating step in the right direction. The Canadian Government will continue to encourage and support Central America and Contadora Group countries and extend any technical advice they will deem useful.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with great interest to the comments of both of my colleagues. I must say that I and others in this House undoubtedly have been heartened and encouraged by the positive developments that one sees emerging from the Guatemala peace plan of August 7. However, I must say that I am not quite as sanguine as the spokesman for the Government with respect to the evolution of the plan as it is designed. I say that largely because of my concerns with the continuing policy of our good neighbour to the south, the United States. Only today Mr. Shultz has testified that the Government wishes to increase its funding to the Contras by $270 million over the forthcoming 18 month period, which is an escalation over the amount of $100 million, the timetable for which expires on September 30. In fact, as I read the press report as it came over the wire, it appeared that Mr. Shultz justifies this because of the timetable. The cease-fire does not take effect until November 7. Hence it is the argument of the U.S. administration that this would leave the Nicaraguan Sandinis-ta regime unconstrained by the threat of the rebel Contra forces during that period, playing into the hands of the Communists. I can only say that this is hardly the basis upon which we should be building a secure and lasting peace in Central America.
I will go back and talk a bit about the history of some of the issues in a moment, but I would like to emphasize to the Conservative Government, and I am sure my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), will agree with me, that one thing Canada can do
concretely is to exercise our supposed good offices in Washington to bring a stop to this increased funding to the extent possible. In that regard I am confident that the efforts of the Government will be supported by many if not an overwhelming majority of Americans as well as Congressmen.
I need not remind this House of the tremendous opposition which was expressed not only here but in the United States to the funding of the Contras in the first instance. Here, on the very eve of a major breakthrough, we are faced with a reaffirmation and an escalation of that policy which all of us in this House on both sides condemned in the first instance.
I commend the Government on any steps it may take to make Canadian expertise available for the purposes of verification. We know that Canada enjoys an international reputation in that regard, well earned in many corners of the Globe over many many, years, and I am happy that we have officials in Central America at the present time, but there is one major obstacle going far beyond the issue of verification, and that is, the current policy of the U.S. administration. It is with respect to that policy that Canada is in a unique position to exercise influence.
I can say to this House in a personal vein that I am gratified and have been gratified by the tremendous concern shown by my constituents and by Canadians across this land for the circumstances in Central America. I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) feels the same way. He has many constituents who continue to make representations to him saying Canada has a major role to play.
Apart from the human tragedy to which we must respond, the refugee issues, the suffering, the fact that a surrogate war is being conducted by untrained teenagers, the great human tragedy of the situation also must be placed in the context of a potential widespread armed confrontation in the western hemisphere; our own Vietnam. The situation in Central America hangs like sword of Damocles over the peace and security of the western hemisphere. It is a matter of the most urgent priority. Hence, the Contadora process which we have all supported seemed almost at one point in recent months to have ceased being a process altogether. There seemed to be so little movement in that regard. Now we have seen in the region itself five Presidents agreeing upon a plan, which is ambiguous in many respects and is perhaps somewhat obscure but basically contains very significant elements which could provide for a major breakthrough. These elements include a ceasefire within 90 days, the agreement from each nation not to supply any rebel group which would try to overthrow any existing Central American Government, no attacks to be launched from other Central American countries, reconciliation and amnesty for rebel forces and a process of democratization, internationally-supervised free elections at the end of each Government's present term of office.
September 10, 1987

How wonderful it would be if each of these constituent elements could be addressed by those countries in the region. The situation could become stable and there would be the long-term peace and security that the region so desperately requires. However, already we see that there has been a certain amount of equivocation on the part of Honduras. Again, people might suspect that that might be because of the U.S. policy in the region. Honduras might feel itself obligated and perhaps economically indebted to the United States and it has already raised some questions with respect to verification procedures, allegedly for fear of establishing that there are indeed bases located strategically within its frontiers.
That merely points to the great flaw in this plan which is that it requires more than the support of the region, it desperately requires that of the United States. The United States has said that it is supportive, but Mr. Shultz has said: "We are committed to working with its signatories," referring to the signatories to the Guatemalan peace plan, "to strengthen it, to deal with issues not covered by the agreement, to help gain broad support for its purposes and provisions, but," he said, "it is simply not in our national interest to leave the Sandinista regime unconstrained by credible resistance forces on the basis of a hope or a premise".
In conclusion, let me say that that glimmer of hope which we saw emerging in August must be fanned by goodwill. It must be supported by this Government and, as I have said, apart from the technical assistance and other specific steps we can take in that regard, I believe we must send a strong message to Washington.
Over the last several years, my criticism of the posture of the Government has been that while its policies and its rhetoric in the House against aid to Contras, urging the United States basically to withdraw that support and to help bring a peaceful resolution to the problems in Nicaragua have been supported by all of us and while we continue to provide foreign aid to the area, I do not think that our voice has been heard. I think there has been a reluctance to speak out and to deliver a message to our good friends in Washington as good neighbours and friends should. We should speak frankly and candidly to the Americans on this issue and we should support those Members of Congress and those areas of American public opinion with which we are very much in agreement.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to debate the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). Although the motion has been largely overtaken by events, it still addresses the very difficult and complex situation in Central America. This is an important issue because Central America is the scene of some of the most tragic internecine warfare in the world today and it also has become the scene of serious East-West conflict. It is also important to Canada because it is taking place in the western
Contadora Treaty
hemisphere, in that part of the third world closest to Canada and in a region with which Canada has growing social, economic and political interests.
My hon. friend, the Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon), has very ably explained the Government's response to the most recent developments in Central America. The emergence of a new peace plan, the initiative of the countries of Central America themselves, is the most encouraging development in the region for several years. As has already been pointed out, the Canadian Government has not stood idly by. While recognizing that Canada has no direct role to play at this stage of the negotiations, we have gone to some lengths to give the maximum possible support and encouragement to the parties. The process of converting the commitments which have been made into a peace settlement will be a difficult one. Our support is more than just rhetorical: the Government stands ready to provide technical advice, where we have the appropriate expertise to offer, in the control and verification process which follows a cease fire in the region.
I want to remind the House, however, that this is not a new approach by the Government. On the contrary, it is entirely consistent with the policies which this Government has pursued with respect to Central America since it was elected. Indeed, our recent effort in support of the new peace plan is a logical extension of the role Canada has sought to play for some time.
Canadian policy towards Central America is a distinct one, shaped by Canadian criteria. It has been developed in recognition of the geopolitical realities of Central America and of the social and economic factors which are at the root of the current problems.
The Canadian Government opposes third party intervention anywhere in Central America and regrets the intrusion into the region of East-West tensions and the related militarization of the area.
Canada does not approve of the supply of armaments by any country to opposing factions in the region. This position has been expressed on numerous occasions to the Governments of Central America, to the United States Government and to the other governments concerned. The United States' decision to provide additional aid to the Contras runs counter to our position. Canada has constantly emphasized its firm belief that the countries of Central America must be free to seek their own solution to their own problems without interference from any outside source.
We strongly share the view that the growth and development of democracy is an important issue in Central America. Canada welcomes the progress which has been made in several countries in the region, while recognizing that there is still room for improvement, particularly in Nicaragua.
Canada does not wish to see Nicaragua locked into the Soviet bloc or involved in destablizing its neighbours. We

September 10, 1987
Contadora Treaty
encourage Nicaragua to move toward the original goals of the Sandinistra revolution which were recently restated in its new constitution: a commitment to political pluralism, a mixed economy and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries.
We believe that improvements must be made in the Nicaraguan civil and human rights record. The continued suspension of many basic civil rights under the State of Emergency is profoundly disturbing. We encourage political pluralism in Nicaragua and we support the ability of legitimate domestic political opposition parties to continue to function. We have deplored the decision to close down the La Prensa newspaper, and the harrassment of opposition groups and of the churches. The recent arrest and sentencing of the head of the Nicaraguan Human Rights Commission and the head of the Nicaraguan Bar Association within days of the signing of the peace accord was a disturbing and potentially counterproductive development. It was not consistent with the spirit of the agreement and only served to emphasize the need for reforms within Nicaragua. We hope that the implementation of the peace plan will result in the lifting of the State of Emergency and the removal of the current restrictions on the press and opposition groups and an end to incidents such as that to which I have referred.
The achievement of social justice ranks with the promotion of peace and economic development as one of the highest priorities for Canadian policy in the region. We welcome the fact that the peace plan includes a commitment to representative and pluralist democratic systems of government in all countries in the region.
Human rights violations in Guatemala and El Salvador continue also to be of great concern to the Canadian Government. Canada has been monitoring the human rights situation in both countries, and we have also pursued investigations of a number of cases of particular interest to Canada. Canada has co-sponsored UN General Assembly resolutions expressing deep concern at the continuing violations of human rights in Guatemala, and has voted in favour of resolutions expressing similar concerns in El Salvador.
Canada maintains normal commercial relations with Nicaragua and provides the usual assistance to Canadian firms seeking to do business there. Canada does not support the U.S.A. embargo on trade with Nicaragua, nor has the Government introduced special programs to increase Canadian trade by exploiting the embargo. Nicaragua has established a trading company in Toronto and it is hoped that this initiative will enhance trade opportunities for both countries.
Some critics of the Government's policy on Central America, including the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), have also raised the question of whether Canada should have an embassy in Nicaragua. At present Canada maintains two embassies in Central America, one in San Jose, Costa Rica, accredited to Costa Rica,
Panama, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, and one in Guatemala City.
The fact that we do not maintain a resident mission in Nicaragua, or indeed in several other Central American countries, does not reflect a political decision on the part of the Canadian Government. The Canadian Government enjoys an excellent working relationship with the Government of Nicaragua, notwithstanding the absence of a resident Canadian Embassy in Managua itself. Ideally, we should like to have resident diplomatic missions in virtually every capital of the world. Economic constraints rule this out. Especially in the current atmosphere of austerity, as the Governement attempts to reduce the national deficit, it would be unrealistic to consider adding to the number of diplomatic posts. In fact, the Government has recently closed a number of missions abroad.
Nevertheless, as a reflection of Canada's growing concern for stability in Central America, the personnel resources of our Embassy in San Jose have been augmented and program responsibilities rearranged in order to be able to devote more attention to Nicaraguan affairs.
It is our view that, through frequent visits to Nicaragua by our Ambassador and his staff (every two weeks on average), we receive accurate and detailed reporting on Nicaragua's domestic political situation, its economic problems and international outreach. Our Embassy has built a wide network of close contacts including, of course, government leaders and senior officials. In addition, the Department of External Affairs maintains close relations with Nicaraguan diplomatic staff in Ottawa, and we discuss Central American issues with many other governments as well as with private organizations in Canada.
There are approximately 50 Canadians residing in Nicaragua who have registered with the embassy in Costa Rica. In addition, a large number of Canadians visit Nicaragua, most in organized groups. Routine consular services of an immediate nature (passport renewal, replacement of stolen documents, et cetera) are provided the British Embassy in Managua. In case of a major emergency, contingency plans are in place to help Canadians leave the country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate the Government's satisfaction that negotiations for a peaceful settlement in Central America are underway again. We are under no illusions about the serious obstacles which lie in the way of a just peace but Canada stands ready to do what it can to support the process, as the Government has done since it took office.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the introduction of the subject of peace in Central America by my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), and move to ask and answer, if I can, the question of why Central America is important to the peace of
September 10, 1987

Canadians. It seems strange in a way. For myself, I have to admit that five and a half years ago I did not know where Tegucigalpa, capital of Honduras, was. I did not know where Managua, capital of Nicaragua, was. However, over the last few years, with many other Canadians, I have been learning fast about the importance of those small countries in Central America.
I found the Central American people to be very lively. I am not referring just to their colours and their dancing and music. 1 mean the refugees I have met are hardy, they survive, and they are loving. They are human, intensely human. In each country a few million people are standing up against the United States and refusing to submit. The Central American peace plan reflects that. That agreement was made despite the pressure of Reagan's diplomats and military threats and dollar subsidies. The churches are also active in both those countries, helping the common people and moving back and forth between those countries and North America, making us aware of what is going on. This enables us to interact and aid each other.
It is a fact that Central Americans in their conduct inspire many Canadians, but the question still remains. I am forced to reflect that our world is emerging from colonialism. Since World War II, India and most of the colonies of the nations of western Europe and North America achieved formal political independence. Economic independence still lags behind. That, after all, was basic. The interest of the European explorers in the Caribbean islands, Central and South America, Africa, India, Southeast Asia and the islands of the Pacific was not mainly a search for political power. Columbus, Vasco Da Gama, Drake, Pizarro and their successors sought spices, gold, sugar, tea, timber, rubber, and a thousand other riches lying plentifully in those countries. They also sought cheap labour to harvest this wealth. They first enslaved the local people so far as it was possible, and then later resurrected the ancient custom of outright slavery and brought an entire black population from Africa to slave in the Western Hemisphere.
Since World War II, European and North American powers have found it inconvenient to continue ruling or controlling these countries directly. The people in these former colonies are no longer satisfied. Yet the controlling countries found it possible for a few years to continue with unequal economic arrangements, unequal sales arrangements, and when necessary enforcing these arrangements through arming or financing and politically supporting whatever local gang of thugs would sell out the goods and labour of their fellow countrymen cheap.
That whole network of post-world war, post-colonial indirect control of the economies of Central America and other colonies is now falling apart. Cuba signalled 28 years ago that it would no longer support us in the style to which we were accustomed. French Indo-China made itself independent from the Japanese by the end of World War II. It was reconquered by Great Britain and France, defeated French rule in 1954, was reinvaded by the U.S., and defeated them in 1975. Many
Contadora Treaty
other former colonial lands have won their economic, military and political freedom or are bent on winning it. Therefore, we have continuing upheavals; local wars, civil wars, revolutions and refugees.
Refugees coming to Canada used to be mainly from eastern Europe and were received respectfully. Now they come mainly from Central America, Africa, Southeast Asia and places like that. Our Government, following the Governments of the U.S. and other NATO countries, now tries to shut them out. These refugees are in fact messengers of the colonial liberation movements. No wonder they bring hope to many Canadians who feel dominated and exploited by the United States of America. No wonder, equally, they bring fear to those who want to continue the old order at home and abroad.
We are finding that a growing number of Canadians who support peace also generally support refugees. They realize that the refugees, regardless of their own intentions sometimes, but because of the reality of their circumstances and the terror which they had to flee in countries like El Salvador, are a symbol of the rejection of the life and rule of war, military control, and the exploitation of men, women and children by the men of war and big business.
The refugees are here. They will continue to come until Canada and Canadians, along with the United States and countries of western Europe recognize that those countries from which the refugees come must be free or we will have no peace.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Government believes that the basic cause of tension and political conflict in Central America is the deeply rooted socio-economic disparities present in varying degrees in each of the countries in the region. In the Government's view, the most appropriate contribution that Canada can make to the promotion of regional peace and stability is, on the one hand, the provision of development assistance aimed at helping individuals and communities break out of their cycle of poverty and at promoting economic growth in the region and, on the other hand, through support for a regional peace settlement.
Other speakers today have already spoken about the support that Canada has provided and is providing to efforts to achieve a regional peace settlement. I wish to speak for a few moments about Canadian aid to the people of Central America.
Canadian development assistance to Central America began in 1968 with a loan to El Salvador. Following the 1970 foreign policy review, which recommended a higher Canadian profile in the region, aid activities were initiated in all other countries in the region. After the regional program review in 1975, El Salvador and Honduras became CIDA program countries. In 1979, planning for new bilateral projects in El Salvador was suspended as a consequence of the increasingly violent and unstable situation in that country. In 1981, planning for new

September 10, 1987
Contadora Treaty
bilateral projects in Guatemala was also suspended because of internal disorder in that country.
In 1982, following a comprehensive review of Canada's relations with Central America, the Government decided to expand significantly its development assistance program to the countries of Central America. Specifically, the Government decided to allocate up to $106 million in government-to-government aid to the region over the five-year period from 1982-83 to 1986-87. This represented a tripling of the level of bilateral aid provided to the region over the previous five-year period.
With respect to the countries which would benefit from this assistance, it was decided that Honduras, the poorest country in Central America, would be the largest recipient of assistance, as it had been in the past. Costa Rica and Nicaragua would also receive increased allocations of aid. Bilateral aid would remain suspended in Guatemala and El Salvador pending improvements in the internal conditions in those countries.
Further, all countries in the region would be eligible for assistance through other aid channels-the Mission Administered Fund Program, the Non-Governmental Organizations Program, the Institutional Co-operation Program, the Industrial Co-operation Program, the Humanitarian Assistance Program, and the International Development Research Centre.
In December, 1984, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) announced that government-to-govern-ment aid to El Salvador would be resumed. This decision was taken in light of the humanitarian needs of the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons, the economic underdevelopment of El Salvador, the marked improvement in the human rights situation in that country, and the successful return in that country to democratic institutions.
In the five years from 1982-83 to 1986-87, since the Government decided to increase substantially aid to Central America Canada has provided about $106 million in govern-ment-to-government aid to the people of Central America. In other words, the Government has met its commitment to triple the level of government-to-government aid to the region. However, the volume of aid is only half the story. The quality and effectiveness of the aid provided is just as, if not more, important.
We believe that Canada's government-to-government aid to Central America is responding effectively to the particular developmental needs and problems of the individual countries in the region. In Honduras, Canadian government-to-govern-ment aid is supporting the development and conservation of renewable resources, the creation of rural employment, and the improvement of health care and food supplies in rural areas.
In Costa Rica, Canadian government-to-government aid has been used to provide much needed balance of payments support and to fund an important rural housing program. In
Nicaragua, Canada's government-to-government aid has concentrated on basic human needs, food production and energy. In El Salvador, the focus of the government-to-government aid program is assistance to displaced persons and the most disadvantaged.
In addition to the government-to-government aid, during the past five years Canada has provided substantial assistance to the countries of Central America, more than $45 million through other direct assistance channels. These include the Non-Governmental Organizations Program, the Institutional Co-operation Program, the Business Co-operation Program, the Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation, and the International Development Research Centre.
Further, during the past five years Canada has provided more than $15 million to multilateral organizations such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross for their programs to assist refugees and displaced people in Central America.
I believe that Canada, through its official development assistance programs, is responding generously and effectively to the social and economic needs of the people of Central America. On a regional basis Central America is now one of the highest per capita recipients of Canadian official development assistance. The Government and the people of Canada will continue to respond generously to the social and economic needs of the Central American people.
This debate is lacking in that speakers have not pointed out the United States' concern with Communist involvement in Central America. That cannot be ignored. Many Canadians are concerned about the Communist involvement there. It is not one-sided. There are genuine concerns in the United States and here about the Communist infiltration in Central America. The United States must protect itself in that area. That should be on the record. We must lay upon the table that there are genuine concerns and genuine reasons why the United States has involvement in Central America.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Thirty seconds left. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: I am very glad to have the remaining thirty seconds to say at the outset that I do not share the views of my colleague, especially with respect to his last remarks. I would suggest that what must be understood in all these problems of Latin America, of Central America, I would suggest that what must be understood in the defence of human rights in the whole world is that when a people is tortured, when a people is denied the most elementary things, when a people is deprived of freedom, when a people suffers from illiteracy and is being exploited, then the liberation movements spring up. So this is a matter-and I know the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) ought to take an interest in these things, it must be understood that the exploitation of man by man can only lead to the kind of events
September 10, 1987

we are witnessing throughout the world, more particularly in Central America. If my colleagues were living in that part of the world and were seeing their families exploited, thrown in jail, tortured, deprived of the most elementary things, I would suggest that if they still had any intestinal fortitude left they would do exactly what those people are doing!
And to us more particularly, Quebec francophones, Latin America is a very important part of the world. For us Canadians it was the Commonwealth, that is very good. But all of a sudden to maintain our balance, and I conclude, it was said:
The British Commonwealth is important for a part of Canada. Let us look at La Francophonie, Africaine and others. One of the most important areas to us in one part of Canada is Latin America and Central America. We should understand the true meaning of what is going on there and not only believe what the Member from Winnipeg just said.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to expand on a question 1 asked the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Cote) in the House yesterday concerning the contract in Halifax for the Canadian Awards for Business Excellence to be held in September.
The Minister responded in two ways. First, he said that he had examined the case when he heard about it last week and that all regular procedures were followed.
He rather patronizingly suggested in response to my supplementary question that this is, after all, a national event and a Toronto company was given the contract. That is not the point at all. Let me give a few details about this contract. The complaint came from two Nova Scotia companies and one Prince Edward Island company. On July 2, they were given an invitation to tender for this videotaping of an event to be held
Adjournment Debate
at the Halifax Sheraton Hotel. They had to provide information on their tendering price by July 6, which gave them three days to prepare their bid in order to submit it on the fourth day.
In the course of their determining prices for suppliers they discovered that approximately one month previous a company from Toronto had been in Halifax making inquiries and preparing their own bid for this same contract.
One of the companies involved also discovered from an official from the Department of Supply and Services that the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion who was organizing the event had asked that this particular contractor from Toronto, who eventually got the contract, be asked to tender. This person from DRIE who was making this suggestion was also on the committee to select the contractor.
What we have heard from the Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island companies is that this was obviously prearranged so that the Toronto company would get the contract and that between July 2 and July 6, the Department of Supply and Services went through the motions to have a tendering process.
This is the kind of action that is totally contrary to any notion of the Government trying to be fair in contracting to all contractors in the first instance, but certainly contrary to a government whose former Minister of Supply and Services said that his Department will be going out of its way to ensure that companies in the regions which are in need of assistance from the Government for regional disparity purposes are provided with opportunities to take advantage of federal government spending. If all regular procedures had been followed in this case, then obviously those procedures are inadequate. The question put to the Minister yesterday was quite simply this. What procedures are going to be put in place to ensure that there is fairness for Atlantic Canadian companies?
It is quite clear that if the Government wishes to give preference to local companies in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, or wherever these events take place, then it can do so. In this case all these companies were seeking was fairness, for the same opportunity to put in a competitive bid for a contract for work that was to take place in Halifax.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say to the House that, after all, this is a national event. The implication must be that if it is a national event then a Nova Scotia, a Prince Edward Island or a Newfoundland company cannot do it. That is utter nonsense. If that is the attitude of the Government, then we will not see any regional development take place, certainly not through government spending of this type.
I would like to have a more full explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary who I understand will be replying to my question. I would like to see a more full explanation as to

September 10, 1987
Adjournment Debate
what happened in this case, as well as a better explanation as to what procedures are in place and what procedures will be put in place to rectify this situation.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Awards for Business Excellence is an annual national celebration of excellence in Canadian business and is a program of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Each year a national awards ceremony is held and the winning companies are featured in an audio-visual presentation.
The Department of Supply and Services assists in the selection of the audio-visual production company through requesting and evaluating proposals from industry. This year proposals were requested from five companies-one in Ontario, one in Quebec, and three companies from Atlantic Canada. This is a good cross-section of the industry. Given that the event is national in scope and as three Atlantic production companies were included, this part of the country was more than fairly represented. Indeed, it has been the practice of the Department of Supply and Services through the Atlantic Opportunities Program to extend greater opportunities to companies in Atlantic Canada for participation in national business opportunities.
In the film and video production field alone the Department of Supply and Services increased its contract business volume to Atlantic Canada by 143 per cent during the 1986-87 fiscal year. I can assure the Hon. Member that the Atlantic Opportunities Program launched in April, 1986, is high on the Government's list of priorities.
As Hon. Members are aware, this program represents a new and innovative approach to support regional economic development. In the first year of the program the Department has been successful in bringing new economic opportunities to Atlantic Canada. The bottom-line results of our efforts is that we purchase $573 million worth of goods and services from Atlantic businesses. This represents a $167 million increase over our purchases in 1984-85, the program's base year.
The Department of Supply and Services took a threepronged approach to generating new procurement opportunities in Atlantic Canada. We organized trade shows, business conferences and seminars throughout Atlantic Canada to ensure that businesses were aware of all business opportunities associated with federal procurement needs. I think the Hon. Member will agree that the $167 million increase in all purchasing in Atlantic Canada is something about which we can be proud.
Our efforts to use new policies to bring more contracting opportunities to Atlantic Canadian firms resulted in the following contracts: Ven Rez Products Ltd., Shelbourne, Nova Scotia, $199,947 for modular furniture; Wajax Industries Ltd., Saint John, New Brunswick, $192,360 for a hydraulic crane; Domtar Packaging Inc., Moncton, New Brunswick, $38,428
for shipping boxes; GEC Diesel Inc., St. John's, Newfoundland, $37,500 for a diesel generator.
Our supplier development efforts have helped Novation Information Corp. of Halifax to develop a business information service, and BPL Manufacturing of Spring Hill, Nova Scotia, to develop a new ammunition capability for the Armed Forces.


AGRICULTURE-SPECIAL CANADIAN GRAINS PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INCLUSION
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on June 18 last I asked the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) a question on the Special Canadian Grains Program. The Minister replied that this program was being administered in accordance with the rules, guidelines, and criteria that had been established by the Government in close co-operation with 35 or 40 farm leaders.
Today I wish to deal with the administration of this program. First, I wish to stress the fact that this program helped to partially correct the intolerable situation that was created by the subsidy war between the EEC and the U.S. Farm Bill and that this program is helping hundreds of our farmers to stay on the land. At the same time, the program has hurt other farmers. I wish to deal with some of these items now in the hope that correction will be made in any future pay-out, and hopefully in the last one.
During the first pay-out some hay farmers were hurt, and it is questionable as to whether they will be able to stay on the land. Administrators of the program refused to make payments to hay producers. At the same time, the program did recognize farmers who cut their grain crops early and sold it as green feed at lower prices because of the subsidy to feed lots, the major purchasers of hay, thus denying the hay producers their market.
Although the feed lots preferred hay, they could not resist the opportunity to buy feed at a lower price. By the same token, the hay producers could not match the subsidized prices which were below the cost of producing the hay. Consequently, the program helped farmers who produced green feed instead of letting the crops mature and selling the grain, or because weather or other factors prevented the proper maturing of the grain. Properly, the barley producers were helped, but the hay producers had to survive on prices that did not even pay for the production of the hay.
In my constituency, some hay farmers in an attempt to survive tried to sell hay to Japan. They were advised that compressed hay was being subsidized by the Americans. Consequently, again the hay producers could not meet the prices that were being subsidized with public money.
The Hon. Minister advised that he had checked with his farm leaders who were convinced that compressed hay was not being so subsidized. I am presently expecting a letter from the U.S. administrators as to whether it is. If it is not, someone in the United States led our hay farmers down the garden path.
September 10, 1987

In making payment to farmers, the same average yield was used for crops grown on summer fallowed land as was grown on stubble or on irrigated land. Yields on all three are different. While the average for crops grown on stubble and on summer fallow might be reasonably close, they could also be quite different. But yields on irrigated lands may be three or four times higher than those grown on summer fallow or stubble. After the first pay-out, this was brought to the attention of the Minister. This spring in the second pay-out, the error in the payment for irrigated lands was partially corrected. 1 commend the Minister and his administrators for listening to what the farmers had to say, and for making the necessary adjustments.
Elowever, in paying farmers who irrigate on their actual average yield, the administrators decided to limit the payment to farmers who received the water from an irrigation district, while all private irrigators were excluded. This resulted in some 200 or 300 farmers in my riding in southern Alberta being denied the subsidy. These farmers are termed "private" irrigators because they do not belong to an irrigation district, even though they grow the same crops, have equal yields, use the same type of equipment, and have similar costs as those in an irrigation district and have been denied the subsidy.
One difference between farmers who irrigate from a river and those who belong to a district is that a water distribution system of canals and ditches is not necessary. Canals and ditches in irrigation districts are highly subsidized by Governments, whereas the farmers who are being denied any subsidy pay for their machinery and needed equipment.
In my view if land is irrigated and other factors are equal or similar, then payment should also be made to those who are irrigating "privately", as the administrators call it. The so-called "private" farmers in my constituency-and I suppose it is the same elsewhere in Canada-pay a fee to the provincial Government annually for the specific amount of water taken from a river. I have heard that farmers could be dishonest and say that they used more water than they actually did. This would not be possible where the provincial Government or some other municipal district is paid for the water rights and for the amount of water taken out of the river.
Another excuse for no payment to water users is that private irrigators had accepted payment under the drought program in 1985. This is strange, as some farmers who belong to an irrigation district were also paid drought money and properly so. This is unfair treatment of farmers who, through an association or privately, irrigate their land. I am sure every reasonable Canadian will view it as such.
Another unfair item in both payments that was not corrected in the second payment was the yield on summer fallow being the same as that on stubble. There is a difference in production yields.
Adjournment Debate
In addition, the Province of Alberta, by using this method, is taking the chance that some farmers may be paid twice for the same grain-once from the Special Canadian Grains Program and once from the Feed Freight Assistance Program which is operated in Alberta and maybe in other provinces. This is an excuse rather than a reason.
Paying on the seeded acreage encourages farmers to seed to the hilt which in turn this leads to "mining" the soil, which is certainly not in the best interests of the country. Payment on the total acreage is the recommendation of many experienced farmers, and this would not add to the surplus.
Other farmers, including mustard producers and other pulse farmers, now claim that their income was adversely affected because of the depressed climate in agriculture and are very angry at being left out.
In conclusion, 1 urge the Ministers involved in this program to heed the material in this debate, as the points mentioned are not only the views of a Member of Parliament but of a large body of practical farmers who are Canadians too.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has certainly raised some important points in his remarks in relation to the inclusion of hay in this program. I appreciate some of the arguments he has made, especially situations where grain crops were cut as green feed, which of course in turn displaced the hay crop in feed lots and in other areas.
Let me point out again that the $1 billion Special Canadian Grains Program is an interim assistance measure to cushion the impact of the current trade dispute between the European Economic Community and the United States of America. Grain and oilseed prices have been depressed severely because of that subsidy war. Grain and oilseed prices on world markets have been driven down very substantially because of unfair subsidies.
Of course the Government responded by implementing the $1 billion Special Canadian Grains Program. As of September 8, $966 million of that $1 billion program had been mailed out to 200,609 producers. Nearly all the $1 billion has been taken up at this point.
The Special Canadian Grains Program was developed through broad consultation with farm organizations across Canada. It was a consensus of those groups that program benefits should be paid to producers who have been directly and seriously affected by the international subsidy practices, particularly between the EEC and the United States.
Hay was considered when the list of eligible commodities was established. However, the lower prices received for hay last year were felt to be largely the result of normal supply and demand forces.
Canadian hay producers enjoyed an unusually good harvest and today there is still an abundance of hay on domestic

September 10, 1987
Adjournment Debate
markets. Hay prices have not been depressed by international subsidy practices. For this reason, hay was not included in the list of eligible commodities for the Special Canadian Grains Program. Clearly, the aim of this program is not to reward grains and oilseeds producers or to penalize hay producers. The program simply is providing much needed assistance to individuals most seriously affected by the depressed prices on world markets.
As a result of surplus hay production in Canada, the federal Government is currently providing assistance to develop export markets for hay products. One major initiative in this area has been the provision of transportation assistance through the inclusion of pellets and cubes and eligible commodities under the Western Grain Transportation Act. The Government continues to support the efforts of hay producers to maintain and expand markets abroad, and I am pleased to note that despite fierce competition in 1986, the industry successfully maintained its share of foreign markets.
In closing, the Special Canadian Grains Program was an interim measure to deal immediately with lower returns for
1986 crops. One billion dollars was put in place to meet that special need. Our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) along with the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) since that time and in recent weeks and months have been meeting with farm leaders to discuss possible assistance covering the 1987 crop and beyond. It is quite obvious that our Government is committed to helping our farmers. In fact, our assistance has been second to no other government in the past. I know that our Ministers will continue to assist Canadian farmers.
Several options are being considered for the future, and I am sure the remarks of the Hon. Member for Bow River will be given serious consideration by the Ministers in future deliberations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 11, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers