1987-08-31

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to table the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and pursuant to Standing Order 67(4), the report is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, today, I welcome this opportunity to table two more petitions asking this Government to listen to the Canadian people, and especially to the many representations I and my party colleagues have made to the Members of the Party in power, the Progressive Conservative Party, all on the subject of proposed tax on food.
Conservatives in the Quebec Caucus have already said they do not want the Government to tax food, and we agree.
Mr. Speaker, the petition I am tabling on behalf of the constituents who visited my riding and especially the By Ward Market this summer, reads as follows:
Whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal has studied the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
And whereas food constitutes a vital element of day-to-day life, and imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain
categories of taxpayers, such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low income taxpayers, youth and students;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.
[DOT] <1110)


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, rise to present a petition from people mainly in Atlantic Canada opposed to the Draconian measures in Bill C-55 and call upon this House to reject the Bill and bring in one that is much more fair.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two petitions. The first deals with Bill C-55 which threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees and sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country as opposed to ensuring that genuine claimants are given protection.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings for claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Cyril Keeper: The second petition deals with the Post Office.
Whereas the federal Government's proposal to seek financial self-sufficiency by 1988 for Canada Post Corporation will result in cut-backs, deterioration in service and consequently will be at the expense of service to Canadian consumers, the petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved service the highest priority of Canada Post and abandon the policy of closing rural Post Offices and cancelling rural routes.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people in the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario concerning Bill C-55. They note that a standing committee of Parliament proposed a new procedure for

Order Paper Questions
refugees which if adopted would fairly and effectively solve problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims.
They therefore call upon Parliament to withdraw C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right of appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition concerning Bill C-55.
The petitioners state that a standing committee of Parliament proposed a new procedure for refugees which if adopted would fairly and effectively solve problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee status before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of the Cities of Toronto, Montreal and other municipalities in Ontario and Quebec. They object to Bill C-55. They point out that the concept of a safe third country has no foundation in law and no definition and therefore subjects the refugee process to undue political and diplomatic pressures. They also point out that a better alternative has been provided by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration which has the support of churches, the labour movement, the Bar Association and many other groups.
Therefore they request Parliament to withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact. In duty-bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government has kept its word and called the Bill we have on the Order Paper. I do not see either Minister to discuss the Bill. We have a series of amendments which are at this time usually the object of debate. I have one sheet of paper given to me by the Clerk concerning some amendments. I just wondered if prior to getting into the debate we could have some direction as to who is speaking for the Government in this debate and when we can expect to start debate on the amendments. The first amendment will be that of the Minister himself, Amendment No. 1.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that the debate will be led off by the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen). We are ready to go and I am sure things can proceed after your preliminary ruling.


Mr. Fennell:: Got you, JR.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have to apologize. I guess it was a Pavlovian reaction of some kind. I expected the Parliamentary Secretary to be in his place, which is on my extreme left. Today he is right in front of me. I understand there has been a shuffle and the Whip has brought some of his friends to the centre of things. I apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: This is also a problem for the Chair.

There are 23 motions on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof. I have had an opportunity to review some of the motions and propose that consideration be given as follows:
Motions Nos. 1, 4, 7, 11 and 18 standing in the name of the Minister will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motions Nos. 4, 7, 11 and 18.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 seek to delete Clause 2. Since the motion of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) was received first, it will be selected for a separate vote and debate. Motion No. 3 will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 5, 9 and 20 will be selected for separate votes
and debates.
August 31, 1987

Motions Nos. 6 and 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) are duplicates of Motions Nos. 5 and 9 and will not be selected.
The Chair will review the remaining motions and make a definite ruling at three o'clock.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 36
at page 2 the following:
"(3) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-71 entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act is assented to, then on the day this subsection comes into force, the reference in subsections 39(2) and (3) of the Immigration Act, 1976, as amended by this Act, to "19(l)(e) or (g)" shall be read as a reference to "19(1 )(e), (g) or (j)."
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 3
(a)	by striking out line 37 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "3.( 1) Subsection 40( 1) of the said Act is"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 5 at page 3 the following:
"(2) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-71 entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act is assented to, then on the day this subsection comes into force, the reference in subsection 40(1) of the Immigration Act, 1976, as amended by this Act, to "19(1 )(e), or (g)" shall be read as a reference to "19(1 )(e), (g) or (j)."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 4
(a)	by striking out line 6 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "4.(1) The said Act is further amended by"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 25 at page 6 the following:
"(2) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-71 entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act is assented to, then on the day this subsection comes into force, the reference in subsections 40(1) and (7) of the Immigration Act, 1976, as enacted by this Act, to "19(1 )(d), (e), (f) or (g)" shall be read as a reference to "19(1 )(d), (e), (f), (g) or (j)."
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 5
(a)	by striking out line 26 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor: "5.( 1) The said Act is further amended by"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 44 at page 6 the following:
"(2) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-71 entitled an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act is assented to, then on the day this subsection comes into force, the reference in paragraph 48.1(a) of the Immigration Act, 1976, as enacted by this Act, to "19(1 )(e), (f) or (g)" shall be read as a reference to " 19( 1 )(e), (f), (g) or (J)."
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 12
(a) by striking out line 31 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor: " 12.( 1) The said Act is further amended by"
Immigration Act, 1976
(b) by adding immediately after line 40 at page 21 the following:
"(2) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-71 entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act is assented to, then on the day this subsection comes into force, the reference in subsections 104.1(1), (2) and (7) of the Immigration Act, 1976, as enacted by this Act, to "19(l)(e), (f) or (g)" shall be read as a reference to "19(1 )(e), (f), (g) or (j)."


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, since giving this Bill second reading about 10 days ago the House has passed Bill C-71 which deals with war criminals and those who have committed crimes against humanity. The five motions which we have presented at this time are all consequential amendments to the passage of Bill C-71 which was passed last week. Pursuant to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will deal with these five motions in one address.
The purpose of the motion to amend Clause 2 of Bill C-84 is to add "war criminals'" to the list of types of persons who may be made the subject of security reports leading to deportation from Canada.
Bill C-71 would add a new inadmissible class of persons to the list of inadmissible classes in Subsection 19(1) of the Immigration Act, 1976. This new inadmissible class, which would be described in Section 19(1 )(j) of the Immigration Act, precludes the admission to Canada of persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe had committed a war crime or crime against humanity.
The effect of Clause 2 of Bill C-84 is to continue the existing process for handling security matters concerning permanent residents of Canada. This process, set out in Sections 39 and 40 of the Immigration Act, involves a security report signed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Solicitor General, a review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and a recommendation to the Governor in Council.
It should be noted with reference to Bill C-71 that the provisions regarding the inadmissibility of permanent residents who may have committed a war crime is not retroactive. These provisions will prevent the admission to Canada for permanent residence of any person, after the proclamation of Bill C-71, who has committed a war crime or crime against humanity and will allow for the deportation of permanent residents who commit such odious crimes after the coming into force of Section 19(1 )(j).
I am sure that all Members will agree that persons who have committed a war crime or crime against humanity ought to be treated in the same manner as other persons who pose a security risk to Canada. This motion to amend will ensure that that is the case.
The purpose of the motion to amend Clause 3 of Bill C-84 is to add a reference to "war criminals" to Section 40 of the Immigration Act. As mentioned earlier in reference to Clause 2 of Bill C-84, Sections 39 and 40 of the Immigration Act set out the process for handling security matters involving

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
permanent residents of Canada. This motion is therefore consequential on the addition of the reference to Section 19(l)(j), which describes war criminals, to Clause 2 of Bill C-84. Clause 2 amends Section 39 of the Act.
The purpose of the motion to amend Clause 4 of Bill C-84 is to add a reference to "war criminals" to the list of types of persons who may be made the subject of security certificates leading to deportation from Canada. As mentioned in reference to Clause 2 of Bill C-84, Bill C-71 would add a new Section 19(l)(j) to the Immigration Act thereby making war criminals inadmissible to Canada.
Clause 4 of Bill C-84 establishes a new process for handling security matters involving persons who are not permanent residents of Canada, that is, for example, visitors, refugee claimants, and illegal aliens in Canada. The new process involves a security report signed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Solicitor General and a review by the Federal Court.
I am sure that all Members will want to support this motion to amend Clause 4 to ensure that once Bill C-71 is proclaimed war criminals will be treated under the Immigration Act in the same manner as other security risks.
The purpose of the amendment to Clause 5 of Bill C-84 is to ensure that when Bill C-71 is proclaimed war criminals will be denied access to Canada's refugee determination system.
The United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees provides in Article IF that:
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes.
The UN Convention lists war criminals as persons considered not to be deserving of international protection. As a result, we wish to deny access to the refugee determination system to minimize the prospect that such persons will be able to manipulate the system in order to delay their removal from Canada.
Finally, there is the amendment to Clause 12. The purpose of this amendment to Clause 12 would be to add a reference to war crimes to the new provisions established in Bill C-84 for detention at the port of entry for investigation of identity or security risk.
Clause 12 of Bill C-84 would establish a new Section 104.1 of the Immigration Act. This Section would permit the Minister to issue a certificate requiring detention of a person upon arrival in Canada for up to 28 days for investigation of whether that person may pose a security risk to Canadians.
The present motion to amend Clause 12 by adding a reference to paragraph 19(l)(j) of the Immigration Act as would be established by Bill C-71, would ensure that persons
suspected of being war criminals would be treated in the same manner as other persons who are suspected of posing a security risk.
Finally, I wish to emphasize that nothing in these amendments will interfere with our ability to prosecute war criminals in Canada. Removal provisions do not overrule or override the Criminal Code.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary steering this Bill so competently through the House. While I am very happy to hear his voice, and follow the logic of his approach, I must say that with two Ministers of Immigration in the House, whose combined skills are perhaps not as good as the Parliamentary Secretary alone, 1 cannot understand why they should not be here today to deal with their Bill and guide us through the report stage.


An Hon. Member:: Where is your critic?


Mr. Caccia:: When one considers that for some reason, which is hard to understand, the Tories decided to have two Ministers in charge of immigration, at least one of them ought to be here, particularly in view of the shabby way in which they have handled questions in Question Period when we were grilling the Government on a number of questions related to Bill C-84.
I must confirm my confidence in the Parliamentary Secretary and say that actually, in a way, 1 am reassured by the fact that his presence here today shows that his skill and competence is being recognized by the Government.
The amendments to Clauses 1, 4, 7, 11, and 18, which were put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, are important because they deal with the processing of war criminals. We on this side of the House concur in the necessity of introducing these clauses and debating them under one motion as you us to do a few moments ago.
Therefore, on behalf of the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), who is due to arrive any moment, I will be very glad to concur. I believe he has been held up on constituency business, which I believe everyone understands.
He is not the proponent of the Bill and there is a big difference. The proponent of the Bill is the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and that is why I am saying he should be here.
In any case, we concur with the motion before us.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, we support this group of motions relating to this amendment. We are also very pleased that the war criminals Bill has been passed. Of course, these motions are consequent upon it.
We support these motions, notwithstanding that we oppose
those parts of Bill C-84 to which these motions relate.
Specifically, we oppose the denial of access to the refugee
August 31, 1987

process for the several classes of people who are referred to in this motion. We disagree with the interpretation that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has given, based on a quotation from one aspect of the United Nations Convention for Refugees.
Representatives from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees made it very plain when they spoke to us during our committee hearings on this Bill that, while they do not grant the absolute demand for protection to war criminals and the others described in this motion, they still ask that the decision to find the person as one of those so described should be made as part of determining the refugee status which the person has claimed. We are talking about people who have claimed refugee status but are found to be inadmissible on these grounds.
The United Nations Convention does not require that Canada or any country admit somebody that it finds inadmissible on these grounds. It does not even require that Canada observe the rule against returning that person directly or indirectly to the country where he fears persecution. Therefore, the right of Canada to do what it thinks is necessary for its security, and necessary in accordance with the war criminals Bill, is not in any way infringed or challenged either by the United Nations Convention regarding the protection of the status of refugees or by the decisions of the executive of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. This was made quite clear to us by their representative who spoke to our committee a couple of weeks ago.
However, they do urge that their procedure be followed. Their procedure includes not only recognition or non-recognition of a person's claim to refugee status, but also recognition of the facts of the crimes of this sort for which the person may either be convicted or very reasonably suspected of committing.
In their view, the difference it makes is that if there is a person in Canada who is convicted or suspected of those crimes and therefore considered unacceptable, inadmissible in Canada-of course leaving aside the extradition at the request of another country which is based on other legislation- nevertheless, in regard to refugee status, Canada ought to allow the refugee process to continue its full course, including consideration of that security risk or crime, war crime, or crime against humanity.
Considering both facts, both the crime and the fact of refugee status, it might make a difference in how that person's situation would be handled. It might be possible, if the United Nations High Commission so wished, to have that person sent to some other country than the one from which he fled. There are war crimes and there are war crimes, and this has come out during the debate on the war crimes Bill.
Not everyone is completely at one about the exact definition or scope of the definition of war crimes. Therefore, the United Nations prefers that we follow the rule it has adopted, which is
Immigration Act, 1976
not binding on us but is recommended. It prefers that we do not deny access to the refugee states process even to these people. In fact, there have been very few cases, perhaps a couple of dozen, who have come anywhere close to this category in the last couple of decades in Canada.
It is not a burdensome item and the UNHCR prefers that we keep the principle clear of not denying refugee status to a person who has claimed it. But it is an agreement with us that after that status has been granted, and in the case of someone who is also found to fall into this inadmissible category, Canada then is free to deport that person according to our own laws but it wishes we would consult with the UNHCR before we do that.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we would be supporting this clause, although we will be opposing certain parts of the Bill with which this clause deals.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker since we are discussing the amendments proposed by the Government, I have a few questions for the Parliamentary Secretary and I think it would be desirable to have some appropriate answers.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, we adopted here in the House Bill C-71, a Bill that provides the courts with the requisite mechanisms to send war criminals living in Canada back to their own countries to stand trial. I have some trouble understanding why the Government is proposing these amendments. There must be a very logical answer which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary could give me.

1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. Since Bill C-71, which was adopted last Friday, is supposed to be a "made in Canada" approach to war criminals, that is, they would be charged under the Criminal Code, why do we now want to deport, or to be able to deport these same people? My understanding is that by virtue of Section 52 of the Immigration Act, persons can be tried in Canada before they are deported. Can we have some response from the Parliamentary Secretary as to why we would want to try these people and then deport them? Is that the purpose of the amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I to understand there is unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member of Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to put his question to the Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier will understand, of course, that in order to update legislation there must be full reference to new provisions made in other legislation. It would be inappropriate and incomplete to have a new Bill passed which deals with war measures and then have another measure passed dealing with immigration, which is affected by Bill C-71 in this particular case, and not have any

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
reference to it. It would be as though the Immigration Act was blind to a new provision which had been made under Bill C-71.
Yes, it would be the view that if someone has been here as a permanent resident and now falls under the inadmissible class of Section 19( 1) 1 (j), he is deportable just as every other person mentioned on Section 19(1) is deportable if they are a permanent resident.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motions Nos. 1, 4, 7, 11, and 18. A vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to the other four motions. Therefore, the question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 1, 4, 7, 11 and 18 agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Clause 2 and Clause 3 are really, as explained in the notes, consequential on Clause 4. However, I understand we have to take them up as they come.
The effect of Clause 2 or Clause 3 is to separate out certain groups from an action that is taken by Clause 4. The effect of the three clauses together is to set up a new procedure around the matter of security certificates. In the existing legislation we have provision for security certificates.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) together may sign a security certificate which accuses a certain person of being in effect a threat to the security of Canada. They are not required by law to provide information as to the nature of the action the person is accused of committing, nor are they required to provide any of the evidence. The argument for that contrary to our otherwise normal legal procedure in Canada is that to describe the act or the evidence might of itself endanger the security of Canada or the security of certain persons. This provision has been in force for some years and I am told that in the last couple of decades about 23 people have been accused under that provision.
There is a limited degree of protection of the rights of the persons so accused. The charge and the evidence are reviewed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the same body that was set up by Parliament to monitor the work of CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The Security Intelligence Review Committee will review the information, the accusation and the evidence, and it will describe some of it to the accused person, to the extent it believes it can give that
information without endangering the security of Canada or the safety of any persons. The accused person is allowed to respond to that limited part of the information. The Security Intelligence Review Committee then makes a recommendation to the Minister as to whether the certificate should be sustained or not. If the certificate is sustained, and if the Minister judges that the person is a threat to the security of Canada, that person may be deported.
What is being done by the new law is to say that while the earlier law applies to Canadian citizens, if they are so charged, and to permanent residents of Canada, if they are so charged, it does not apply to others such as visitors on a visitor's visa or to people who have come in without any adequate documentation such as many refugee claimants claiming what we have provided in our law as the Inland Refugee Claim procedure. Those people, including those refugee claimants, instead of having the certificate reviewed by the SIRC will have it reviewed by the Supreme Court. We will be opposing that when it is dealt with under the amendments relating to Clause 4.
I will not go at length into the reasons for opposing it now. Since we are opposing the creation of this new procedure for those who are neither citizens nor permanent residents of Canada, we therefore oppose the separation of those people from citizens and permanent residents in the division of this law into two parts. There seems to us to be no sufficient reasons shown why the matter should be put before the Federal Court of Appeal rather than the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
Very briefly, the explanation given by certain persons, staff and certain Members of Parliament, is that it will expedite the action. That seems very questionable since there seems to be great evidence that the Federal Court has as great a backlog, if not a greater backlog of business, than does the SIRC. Although at present the SIRC meets only monthly it is able to meet in panels or as single persons in order to deal with matters as they come up.
To my understanding there has been no delay, or no undue delay, in having these cases, the few that have occurred, looked at by the SIRC. There may well be a delay of months, according to the backlog of the Federal Court. That would be potentially injurious to the accused person who, of course, is being detained. That sort of delay and prolongation of the process certainly increases the administrative burden of the Department and of the justice system.
Further, the Federal Court has no expertise as such in security matters. Whether some individual members may have a background in security or not, the court as such has no expertise in that area. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister pointed out during debate at second reading, the court has access to the security information provided by CSIS. It has the same access as does the review committee. That is
August 31, 1987

not the question. The question is about the court's familiarity and expertise in evaluating such information.
The whole point of the review is that the matter should not be left merely to the fact that the security authorities have presented certain evidence. That evidence has to be weighed. We have a body which is appointed for two special purposes, and one is to weigh that evidence. Over several years it has developed a recognized competence in doing that.
The Federal Court is a court which judges legal procedures. It reviews how a case has been handled to see whether or not it has been handled according to law. It is not within its expertise to handle matters of fact. It is certainly not within its expertise to weigh matters of security. Therefore we believe that as a matter of justice the group should not be divided to separate non-permanent residents from the rest.
We also believe there may very well be the occasion of a Charter challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the general spirit of the Singh decision of two and a half years ago, it may be that the Supreme Court will find that it is unconstitutional, contrary to the Charter, to deny as good a hearing to non-permanent residents as is available to permanent residents. That was certainly the spirit of the Singh decision. It would be consistent with that decision if the Supreme Court found that in this case.
Rather than waiting perhaps two or three years for a Supreme Court challenge, with the exception of that and with the trouble that may accrue to individuals in the meantime, I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment that I will put later which would withdraw that amendment to Clause 4. I am therefore asking that we withdraw this consequential amendment now.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, unlike the government Members in committee, we listened to those who appeared before our committee on Bill C-84. We carefully developed a position whereby we concluded that Clause 2, which gives considerable powers to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, should be removed. The reason is this. The Minister would be given the power to arbitrarily sign a certificate against a person without the benefit of the report by the committee. I am referring to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. This is an arbitrary power that was objected to by a number of organizations which appeared before the committee.
For instance, the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees commented, saying that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is doing a good job and has developed expertise in evaluating security certificates. It asked, why that role should be suspended? Actually, it urged that the review task be left with the committee. It felt that the jurisdiction should remain with the Security Intelligence Review Committee. It also argued that the Federal Court does not have the expertise necessary to deal with these matters.
Immigration Act, 1976
We had submissions from the Canadian Bar Association which said it could not see any reason for the inclusion of Clause 2 in the proposed Bill. Representatives of the Bar Association felt that the Federal Court is not an expert tribunal on security issues. They also confirmed that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is doing a good job. They argued that the Federal Court is not fast in making a decision, that a waiting period of six months in the Court of Appeal and longer could take place.
The Canadian Bar Association also felt that the Federal Court would not be any faster than the present process. It reinforced the notion that the committee is adequate. It, too, wanted to leave the jurisdiction with the committee and argued that, perhaps, the decision-making process of the Security Intelligence Review Committee ought to be spread out and expedited.
Amnesty International commented that it cannot see any reason to change the existing system. That association said that often foreign governments do not state the truth about the activities of people they consider as threats-among those foreign governments there are some that are friendly to Canada, as in the case of South Korea-and student security checks.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council saw no reason to transfer this responsibility to the Federal Court, which already has a heavy case-load, and that council also argued in favour of maintaining the present system.
The Canadian Jewish Congress also supported the existing procedure of the committee. It felt that the procedure for the examination of the validity of the security certificate could be stacked against the claimant; there is no appeal and no crossexamination, the Minister's case would be presented in camera, and the claimant would only receive a summary of the evidence.
The Civil Liberties Association also commented against the change, and the inclusion of Clause 2 to which we object. That organization felt that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is developing a reputation for independence, and that it does have an expertise which ought to be utilized. It also suggested that the committee procedure by the Security Intelligence Review Committee should be maintained.
We also received a submission from the coalition interested in Bill C-84. It argued that the Security Intelligence Review Committee was established to provide for proper review of security decisions. It argued and recommended in favour of leaving the present system in place. It agreed with the Canadian Bar Association proposal to impose time limits. The coalition also stated that there has been no indication that the committee is not working well. It argued that it has now developed considerable experience and knowledge.

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
There were also submissions from individuals, for example, Mr. Joe Stern, who argued that the role of the committee ought to be continued. The Etobicoke Committee for Fairness to Refugees also felt very strongly that this clause should be removed.
The Inter-Church Committee for Refugees came before the committee. It felt that if there are security worries, the people should go to the refugee division quickly and then a decision could be made regarding security.
It is interesting to note that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees made the observations that we should first determine whether or not a person is a refugee, that a person should be given time to find another country, and that the commission can assist. We would not be helpful if we did not know whether this person was a refugee. The commission argued that we should determine the refugee status first, and then decide on security issues, as it is done presently. This body has been in existence for many years, and it has been engaged in the matter of developing policy and handling the movement of refugees around the globe, and it came forward in favour of removing Clause 2 from this Bill.
Amnesty International also commented on this important matter. It said that the law should give all refugee status claimants the opportunity to be heard on the merits. It developed a rationale for handling cases where the claimants are found to be refugees and security threats.
The submission made by Rabbi Gunther Plaut is also worth considering. He also recommended that we continue with the present system for the reason that criminality is defined differently in different countries. He said that situations may look different when assessed through Canadian eyes. He said it is important to determine that a person is a refugee at the same time as the security assessment is made, and then it is important to decide what to do.
The Canadian Jewish Congress and the coalition, and other people, also appeared before the committee and made comments on this particular clause. I wish to stress that it is important that the Minister pay attention to the arguments advanced by a number of interested parties.
Because the Federal Court is inexperienced in this matter, and the Minister without the benefit of a report by the Security Intelligence Review Committee would have the powers to sign a certificate against a person and file it with the Federal Court, we are voting for the deletion of Clause 2. The present system has proven so far to function properly, and it does not give special powers to a political individual without the benefit of a report from the Security Intelligence Review Committee on which to base a decision.


Benno Friesen: I appreciate the comments of the two members opposite. As the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) correctly pointed out, the purpose of Clause 2 is to make a distinction between permanent residents and visitors.
Clause 4 will bear that out when there is a distinction made in the manner the two classes of people are treated when a decision has been made.
Broadly speaking, the people that we are talking about in this clause, and again in Section 19(1) of the Immigration Act, are the inadmissible class. Here 1 disagree with the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and I would remind Members opposite that the first purpose of the entire determination system is not to determine whether these people are refugees, but to determine whether they need protection. This was again stated last week in committee. The purpose of the determination system is to decide if these people need protection. In fact, all Members know that some people have found protection elsewhere and have chosen to leave there. As one witness stated, they are shopping for the best place to go.
The second purpose is to provide protection for Canada. We are dealing with an inadmissible class, people who have been convicted of crime, who may be security risks, and now, on the amended version, who may have been guilty of war crimes. Surely Members opposite would concede that there is a rationale for treating visitors differently from permanent residents. Permanent residents do have rights, as do citizens. They can work. They have a right to employment and to the social services of Canada. Within the immigration system they have not only a right to sponsor but a right to appeal in a sponsorship program. Visitors do not have that right. I hope Members opposite would concede that there is a difference between visitors and permanent residents.
The purpose of the process outlined in Section 2 of this Bill is to make sure that there is maximum fairness provided to those who have been investigated and who have been issued a certificate. Therefore, in order to provide maximum fairness it seems to us that you can get that by appealing to the Federal Court. The Hon. Member for Spadina said that the court was not competent to hear this evidence. I hope he will rethink the suggestion that the court system is not competent to hear evidence. What is it all about if it is not competent to hear evidence, Mr. Speaker? Surely that is the very business in which the court is engaged. If the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) together with the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) make application on the basis of security information to a Federal Court, the very competentcy of the Federal Court guarantees that the person named in that application will get maximum fairness because that decision will be made in fact and in law. Therefore, I am somewhat perplexed at the persistence on the part of the Member from Spadina in raising this matter constantly.
The Member from Spadina says there will be Charter challenges. There is no escaping that because lawyers litigate. That is what they are all about. I think it is clear that there is good argument to be made that the Charter deals with people who are similarly situated. Surely the Member will agree, and
August 31, 1987

we are confident that the court will agree that visitors and permanent residents are not similarly situated.
Finally, the Member mentions that there is a backlog in the court system. There is a backlog in the immigration appeal division but not in the trial division where expertise has been developed in determination of fact.
1 cannot accept what the Member from Spadina and the Hon. Member for Davenport have said regarding this amendment. We cannot support the amendment. 1 do not think the Member from Spadina has dealt with Clause 4. It would be interesting for him to deal with, but he has not chosen to do that and I am surprised he chose to deal with this clause. At any rate, for these reasons, we cannot support the amendment proposed by the Member from Spadina.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


An Hon. Member:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


An Hon. Member:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. 1 declare the amendment lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you said: "I declare the amendment lost." In fact, when you put the question, we said "yea" to the motion; no one said "nay". So the amendment is carried, not lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am willing to look at the record. When I asked for the yeas and nays it is my recollection that I heard someone say yea, probably the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), while a large number of Members said nay. Therefore, I declared the motion negatived. That was my recollection but I am willing to hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, why would the Opposition speak against the motion?
Immigration Act, 1976


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is what we want to know.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Let me finish. Why would the Opposition speak against or for the motion and then stay quiet and not want its voice vote to be heard? Our Party and the New Democratic Party spoke for the amendment. We voted for it and that is it as far as I am concerned. The yea vote was won by us.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You always get a second chance on Monday mornings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I sympathize with the argument put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 1 don't need that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know a member of his Party spoke against the motion-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Spoke for the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When I took the voice vote my understanding was that the nays had it.


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 thought it was by an overwhelming majority. Five Members did not stand up. No one stood. The decision will stand.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 am fairly confident that the history of Canada will not hinge or turn on the vote on the last motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 5 is a motion to delete Clause 3 and Clause 3 in turn is consequent on Clause 4. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has expressed disappointment that I did not speak on Clause 4.


Benno Friesen: Surprised.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: 1 understand that we were taking the clauses in order so I spoke on Clause 2 when we dealt with Clause 2 and 1 will speak on Clause 4 when we deal with Clause 4. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me because that, of course, is the important clause out of those three clauses.
Clause 3 is like Clause 2, it is consequent on Clause 4. Therefore, I will not speak on it at length. I would rather devote time to Clause 4.

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
I would simply say that the whole system of segregating out visitors or others who are not permanent residents or citizens as established by Clause 4 is what I wish to reject. However, I wish to take this occasion to respond to a couple of points made by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked about the court being competent to judge questions of evidence. In fact, the court's main expertise is to judge questions of procedure. According to its jurisdiction, it spends less time by far judging questions of evidence per se. It may judge a question of unreasonable disregard of evidence. Cases like that are often sent back to the jurisdictions from which they came for rehearing.
I notice that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary did not really challenge the point that the Federal Court does not have any specific expertise in security matters. The Security Intelligence Review Committee has that specific expertise. Therefore, the point I was making has not really been addressed or negated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that visitors are not situated similarly to permanent residents. That is true, but the Supreme Court heard that argument in the case of Singh, the judgment it gave two and a half years ago. At that time, the court said in effect that when it is a matter of risk of life or imprisonment, the difference of situation between a permanent and a non-permanent resident is not enough to deny the normal due process to the non-permanent resident. It is true, as the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said, that when it comes to a question of the right to take employment in Canada, there is a difference. That difference is legislated and, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been challenged at the Supreme Court, though I am not familiar with all the cases.
It was interesting that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary made a sort of facetious reference to the possibility of Charter challenges. He said that of course lawyers will litigate, implying that lawyers will litigate frivolously or that they may have some rich clients who will hire them to litigate frivolously. It reminds me of the remark made by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) a couple of months ago when confronted with the fact that lawyers in private practice with expertise in immigration matters who had spoken publicly on the Bill had all spoken against Bill C-55. The Minister responded by saying: "Oh, they are just interested in their fees".
I find it remarkable that a lawyer who is simply interested in fees would be taking up the case of refugees who are mostly very poor. Except for the occasional one who may have made a fortune dealing in drugs in Vietnam and has retired as a general in Canada, refugees are not usually regarded as rich clients.
I also find it very interesting that this has come from a Government which has been preaching for nearly three years that it is the private sector that is the engine of recovery. 1 find
it very comical that this Government, which is selling off public corporations as fast as it can, this Government which has boasted that it will reduce the number of people in public employment, should speak with scorn about or try to denigrate lawyers in private practice.
I do not know if the Minister really thinks that all those lawyers ought to be hired by the Government, and I do not know if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary thinks that they all ought to be civil servants before their opinions should be taken into consideration. 1 understand, of course, that lawyers hired by the Government have some difficulty expressing opinions in disagreement with the Government unless they have plans for other employment.
I find it strange that the Government should offer public scorn to the opinion of lawyers in the private sector whose only apparent offence from the Government's point of view is that they might want fees for their work.
I hope the Government will reconsider and will have some regard for lawyers in private practice, especially since it was lawyers in private practice who obtained the Singh decision against the expertise of government lawyers. 1 think it would be foolish on the part of the Government to dismiss the possibility of litigation brought by lawyers in private practice as though it were badly motivated and ineffective. I would ask Parliament to uphold this motion to delete Clause 3.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we argue in favour of deleting Clause 3 for the reasons to which we already referred earlier. It would be difficult to add new information to the argument.
I would only like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government once again the comments on Clauses 2 and 3 of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The High Commissioner made the important point that the first and most important thing is to determine whether or not a person is a refugee. That is the paramount decision that must be made. That must be done first because that is the nature of the matter affecting the future of a person who applies as a refugee, relying on us as a nation complying with our international agreements. The decision on security must then be made, but as a subsequent step.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has registered an important message with the Government of Canada and that message has been ignored. That is why we feel that Clause 3 ought to be deleted.
All of a sudden, the experience of the committee is being put aside and a new process is being put into place that deals more with procedure than evidence, as the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) so eloquently put it. We feel that that is not the wise approach.
Reference has also been made to the possibility of this clause being found unconstitutional, and not simply for the fun of hiring lawyers and taking the Government of Canada to
August 31, 1987

court. There may be some very good grounds for taking the Government to court on this legislation in light of our Constitution.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government takes this matter so lightly and ignores the submissions, comments and suggested amendments made by the committee. That is not good Government and it is not the open and democratic approach this Government promised in 1984. As a matter of fact, one can hardly find one comment or one suggested amendment made by the groups and individuals who appeared before the committee that has been accepted. In this case, this is an attitude of neglect on the part of the Government which is extremely difficult for us in Opposition to understand.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, to respond very briefly to what my friends across the way have said, 1 would point out again that the review committee sits only several times a year. To wait for the next sitting would be to ask the whole process to slow down and invite the committee to be burdened with decisions we feel should be made by the court. After all, the purpose of the committee is not to deal with immigration or refugee cases, it is to be a watch-dog of the whole security system. It will hear some cases, of course, but it is to provide an overview and make sure the security system is functioning well and the private lives of Canadian citizens are not invaded without reason. We feel that the court system is the place for the case to be heard. What the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has described within the court system may be true with respect to the appeal division but not the trial division which is the competent court with which we are dealing.
He drew a fairly long bow with respect to my remark regarding litigation. As usual for the NDP, sooner or later it comes down to money. The fact is that over the last five years, since the Charter was passed, all the discussion has been about Charter challenges. That is the situation we are in. What are the parameters with respect to the Charter. Laws will be challenged on the basis of the Charter. Every time you pass a law you invite that kind of challenge. We accept that. That does not invite the long lecture that I got from the Hon. Member for Spadina.
Since this proposal on the part of the Hon. Member is again consequential to the previous proposal, it is logical that we will not support it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


An Hon. Member:: Agreed.
Immigration Act, 1976


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion is Motion No. 9.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the clause the Parliamentary Secretary was waiting for. 1 hope I have now satisfied his yearning because 1 am going to speak on it as he so much wanted me to do. I see him looking very happy and his disappointment is assuaged.
This clause is basically unnecessary and therefore unfair. It is not a question of whether Canada has the right and should have the power to protect itself against persons who may threaten our security or who otherwise are serious offenders in our eyes, people such as war criminals. That is not the question. We have dealt with war criminals in Bill C-71. We have provided for their inclusion under the Immigration Act. My Party supported both those decisions. What is at stake here is the refugee determination system for those people. That is why I and my Party oppose Clause 4 and have asked for its deletion.
I am advised that the Security Review Committee meets monthly, is flexible and can meet more often, as it has had occasion to do. It can meet in panels, even panels of one. It is very flexible in its approach. It has not caused any delay in the hearing of security cases which have come before it. Any delay was not caused by the inability of the committee to meet expeditiously. It was caused by the inability of CSIS to provide the information on which the committee could meet. If CSIS does not provide the data, then neither the committee nor the Federal Court can handle the case. Therefore, there is no ground for predicting that these cases could not be handled expeditiously.
In fact, the committee was told that the two functions of the security committee actually assist each other. That is to say, the examination of the particular cases, as under the Immigration Act, together with other cases, actually assists in elucidating the possible problems the Security Review Committee has

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
to examine in the operation of CSIS. That was explained to us by the chairman of the committee.
It is very important that this committee not operate in a vacuum, only examining abstract reports. It is very important that it have access to particular cases so it can see not only the analysis but the facts on which the analysis is based. For example, there were several cases of people who came from Chile. They were admitted as permanent residents but are now being accused of being security risks. That was the information provided by CSIS. But CSIS had not evaluated that information adequately. Perhaps that is not its function. At any rate, it did not. It simply said we have this information which is very damaging to those persons with respect to security.
The matter was brought to the security review committee and, operating with their knowledge of the security operations of Canada, and in dealing with counsel for the Chileans concerned, it turned out that all the evidence against those persons was based on information from the Pinochet Government which those persons had fled. It was either police reports originating from the Pinochet police or newspaper reports originating from newspapers owned or controlled by the Pinochet Government.
It is commonplace that a dictatorial Government, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not dispute the dictatorial nature of the Pinochet Government, tries to persecute people who have left the country after opposing the Government and trying to organize a democratic resistance. When they are finally chased out of the country in fear of their lives or liberty, a Government such as Pinochet's will pursue them with lies. It will try to compromise them in the eyes of whatever country they may go to. That is what happened in the case of these Chileans.
Therefore, it was very important for those persons that the Security Intelligence Review Committee reviewed their cases. It was also very important for the work of the SIRC in monitoring, overseeing and evaluating the work of our security service. It would not be to the benefit of Canada to separate the business of looking at particular cases such as this from the over-all review and analysis by the SIRC. It would not be to the benefit of certain individuals concerned, in certain cases at least, and it would not be to the benefit of the over-all work of the review committee.
We are asking that the review committee continue to have the responsibility. If the Minister is concerned about delay, as the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary suggests, it would have been and may still be quite easy to put certain time requirements into the clause.
In fact, I moved such an amendment in committee but the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues in the government caucus, who say they are interested in speed, were not interested in speed at that time. They were not interested
in amendments to the clause which would require the SIRC to render its decisions within certain statutorily specified times.
Therefore, there is not much weight to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's argument that they are concerned about SIRC being too slow. There is no evidence that SIRC would be too slow and there is no evidence that the Government is seriously concerned about speed.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will adopt my motion to delete Clause 4 which would resolve any doubt in the Minister's mind about whether I was giving undue attention to Clauses 2 and 3.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we feel the same way. Much has been said on this matter in committee by my colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). He argued about the potential unconstitutionality of this process and about the necessity of deleting this clause.
It is interesting to note that if we do not delete this clause and the preceding one the Minister will be given enormous discretionary powers of his or her own. The decision of the Minister on the basis of a certificate will go forward to the Federal Court. The Federal Court will have to take upon itself the onus of deciding whether the reasons which led to the issuance of that certificate are valid, sound and proper. It seems to me that that is quite a lot for a court to have to decide on the basis of a political decision.
We believe that the alternative is a much better way of handling refugee cases than the one being proposed here. The method proposed here has too much of a political undertone and gives extensive powers to one person, namely, the Minister of Immigration of the day. It then shifts the entire responsibility of deciding whether the political decision is valid and ought to be accepted, namely whether the certificate is appropriate or not and whether the grounds upon which the decision was made are correct or not, to the court which must then examine a political decision. Therefore, we are very unhappy about this development and that is why we urge the deletion of this clause.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I will respond first to the last comments made by the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) that this has political overtones. It is just the opposite. If it is turned over to the Federal Court it removes any kind of political overtones from the proceedings. The Member might argue that in some of the Immigration Appeal Boards in some of the regions there may have been some intrusion of politics. He may want to argue that, but I hope he would not argue that if an application is brought before the Federal Court it becomes political. After all, it is removing the politicians from the scene. The Minister together with the Solicitor General file an application on the basis of evidence presented by CSIS which puts it in a nonpolitical arena in the federal court system. I hope my friend from Davenport will understand that.
August 31, 1987

He also said that the Minister has enormous discretionary powers. It is just the opposite. It must be dealt with in fact and in law. He does not have discretionary powers. Once he files to the federal court system it is out of his hands and the court decides.
I would now like to respond to the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who began by saying that that which is at stake is the refugee determination system. I could not agree more. That is exactly what is at stake in this section and that is why I cannot accept his proposal.
The system has been defrauded by misuse. He and 1 have heard of the case which was reported in the press not too long ago of someone from New York who was involved in a $50 million insurance fraud and came to Canada and applied for refugee status here. That is what makes the refugee determination system fall apart.
I will remind Members of the classes of people with which we are dealing. In Subsection 19(l)(d), (e), (f) and (g) and in 27(2)(c) there is reference to organized criminal activity, espionage or subversion against democratic government, subversion by force of any government and acts of violence or subversion by force of any government. It is people involved in that kind of thing with whom we are dealing.
The guarantee that there will be some fairness in this system is that the evidence which it is not in the public interest to have publicized will be heard in camera and the individual will be protected from having information about him disseminated through the media. This addresses the whole element of fairness.
My friend from Spadina talks about the Pinochet Government. 1 think all of us in the House recognize that he is no boy scout leader. It is not always pleasant living in Chile. The Member referred to the evidence which was accepted by CSIS and then thrown out by the review board. I hope he will be confident that the court will be competent enough to make the same kind of decision as the review committee could make. Surely if the review committee were brilliant enough to discard trumped up evidence on the basis of newspaper reports from Chile or statements made by the Pinochet Government, court justices will be able to see through that kind of scam too and will be competent to deal with it.
Therefore, I suggest that Clause 4 is at the heart of the entire system with which we are dealing and to accept the amendment by the Hon. Member for Spadina would be to gut the legislation. We could not accept that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, would the Parliamentary
Secretary clarify for the benefit of the House the question of
Immigration Act, 1976
certificates which we dealt with earlier? It is my understanding that the Minister does not file an application, he files a copy of the security certificate with the Federal Court. Because it is the Federal Court, the court is almost obliged to uphold this certificate unless the process of issuing that certificate is found to be improper. Will the Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether this is correct?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the court is entirely competent to accept or reject the Minister's statement.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the privilege of taking part in the committee when it considered this particular clause, but I want to echo the concerns that other people have raised about the kinds of "star chamber'' aspects of this legislation.
The argument made by the Government is that there may be security grounds related to people seeking to be refugees and therefore this is required. If I understand correctly, 1 do not believe that there have been security offences committed within Canada by any person who has been admitted to this country as a refugee.

Mr. Speaker, that is also the case with some people who try to obtain refugee status and against whom allegations are made by the government of the country from which they came. As my hon. friend from Spadina (Mr. Heap) said earlier, if, for instance, the testimony is given by the secret police of a country like Chile, a very repressive dictatorship, containing statements that the alleged refugee has committed offences against the security of their country, we do not know exactly how such testimony will be dealt with by a judge of the Federal Court of Canada. We can assume there will be some problems since one of the critics of the Bill has pointed out, with regard to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, that they have, on occasion, too readily accepted information on security from authorities in countries that are not democratic and in fact are dictatorships.
Mr. Speaker, the Government is proposing that, if a person is suspected of being a possible threat to Canada's security- and as I just said in English, we have very little, in fact no proof that this has been a problem in the past-that in this case, instead of referring the evidene to an adjudicator who knows the immigration sector, instead of having that, we start over with a new process. The Federal Court of Canada is a very busy court. Even if, according to the Bill, a judge of the Federal Court must examine the certificate within seven days, there is no guarantee that the person in question has the right to know what the charges are against him. In some cases, that person will have no idea what the allegations are, since the judge will have the right, at the Government's request, to deny all access to information referred to the Court, on the basis of which the Government wants to prevent that person from being admitted to Canada.

August 31, 1987


S. 0. 21
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Speaker, that is also the case with some people who are seeking to obtain refugee status in Canada and who will have to face allegations made against them by the Government of their own country. As was mentioned by the Elon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), if, for instance, we have testimony by the secret police of a country like Chile, a very repressive dictatorship, containing allegations that the alleged refugee has committed offences against the security of their country, we do not know exactly how this testimony will be dealt with by a judge of the Federal Court of Canada.
[Stage Direction]
I simply question the necessity for this entire heavy-handed kind of clause which again does not relate to evidence that we have had in Canada that people coming here as refugees have proven to be risks to Canadian security. They may be dealt with as security risks in Guatemala or Chile, which is precisely why they may be coming here. They are considered by those Governments to be a threat to the security of those states and are therefore being persecuted. They would not be a threat under our terms, but in seeking such simple things as dignity, land reform for peasants and better income, they are deemed to be in opposition to a government that may not be democratic.
That is why I support the efforts of my colleague, the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), and other Members, and say that if a process related to security questions is needed, it does not need to be heavy-handed in this way.
If it is needed, it does not need to be shunted into a different channel. There is no reason why it cannot be handled through the regular process of determination of refugees.
Of course, if there are security questions which trouble the Canadian authorities, then there needs to be a fast-track. However, the problem with the refugee determination process over-all is that there has not been adequate swift disposition of cases. If there was swift disposition of cases this type of instrument would not be needed and fast-tracking would probably not be required as well.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) heard what he was saying. He talked about proceeding with this on the basis of mere suspicion. I find that offensive. The whole system is based on Canada's system of evidence and rules of evidence. Our court system is not based on mere suspicion.
He also talked about the court being heavy-handed. I hope that he will reconsider his view of the court system. We are appealing to the court system because it is fair. It makes its determinations on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of suspicion. It is staffed by justices who have been trained in law
and weighing evidence. It is our judgment that the claimant will have the best hearing if he is heard by a court of law.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not as easy as the Parliamentary Secretary would have the House of Commons believe. In the last number of weeks we have heard representatives from a wide range of organizations, including the Civil Liberties Association of Canada. They mention that with this particular aspect of security plus a detainment certificate, potential claimants for refugee status are being treated, on suspicion, worse than the criminal who would rob a bank in broad daylight. Therefore, I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is completely correct.
Second, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has expressed a great deal of concern about this particular clause.
I see that it is one o'clock. 1 would like to continue the debate following Question Period.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: As you know, Mr. Speaker, deep sea drift-nets are the marine equivalent of strip mining. Individually they hang to a depth of seven metres and often stretch for 50 kilometres.
In the Pacific Ocean alone there are an estimated 30,000 kilometres of drift-nets laid by 1,700 ships which belong to South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. The nets are intended to catch salmon and squid but also trap and kill up to 50,000 mammals such as whales, dolphins and sea lions, and one million seabirds.
Strung together these nets would reach from Tokyo, across Canada, to Rome. This shocking and wasteful method of fishing must be stopped before mammal, seabird and fish populations are depleted. The International Whaling Commission could stop this unacceptable exploitation of our common resources. We urge the Government of Canada to condemn Japan, South Korea and Taiwan strongly for using drift-net fishing, and to lead an international campaign to stop this practice.
August 31, 1987



S. 0. 21 SPORTS SPORTS IMMIGRANT SPRINTER BEN JOHNSON WINS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP GOLD MEDAL

Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, many people have criticized the Government for its policy of steadily decreasing the number of immigrants admitted to this country. Some have asked just what have they added to Canada? Well, they cannot ask that question any more because a simple answer would be that Canada would not have the gold medal won by Ben Johnson, the fastest man in the world, if, 15 years ago, his mother Gloria had not decided to migrate from Jamaica to Canada and bring her family with her.
The example of Ben Johnson is not a single example. He is the most celebrated of us all today, a world-class name, but he is only one of hundreds of thousands, in fact of millions of people who have come from various countries and have made Canada a better country.
We are proud of him throughout this land but nowhere more than in the city of Scarborough where he and his family have lived these many years.



CANADIANS PROUD OF BEN JOHNSON'S OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, he is not only the fastest man in the world, he is the fastest man the world has ever seen, and he is a Canadian. As we lavish him with deserved praise and luxuriate in our own pride that he is our compatriot, we can contemplate the fact that Ben Johnson came to us from across the sea, as so many have done who have made this country great. We must remember this when we are tempted to limit the spirit of generosity that brought him and others like him to Canada.
Let us remind ourselves as well that the talent, motivation, discipline and intelligence to master one's craft, to make one's self a great athlete, are the same characteristics demanded for excellence in any field of endeavour. There is among all Canadians, irrespective of their origins, sex or race, and in every field of endeavour, the potential, if we are prepared to nourish it, to make of Canadians what Ben Johnson has taught us we can all become, the very best.
Thank you, Ben Johnson, for being a Canadian.



TRIBUTE TO BEN JOHNSON-&quot;FASTEST MAN ON EARTH&quot;

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, may I add to the comments of my colleagues. Today all Canadians are proud. They are proud of the outstanding athletic feat of Ben Johnson who, yesterday in Rome, shattered the world record for 100 metres and proved to the entire world that he is the fastest man on earth.
What Ben Johnson has demonstrated to us is that such success comes only after years of dedication, after years of a gruelling training schedule, and after years of continuing to believe in one's self. Ben Johnson has surely become a role model for all young athletes training in every part of our country.
I know 1 speak on behalf of all Members of this House and on behalf of all Canadians when 1 repeat how proud we are today of Ben Johnson. May I add, as an incidental postscript, that Ben Johnson comes from that beautiful city of Scarborough.



NEW BRUNSWICK PROVINCIAL ELECTION


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, now we know when Frank McKenna is going to be elected Premier of New Brunswick.

Yesterday in New Brunswick large crowds gathered to acclaim the Liberal Leader as he made stops in Shediac, Memramcook, Ste.-Marie, Bouctouche, Rexton, Richibouctou, and this is only the beginning. You have not seen anything yet.

The Conservatives are desperate. We can tell by the promises they are making. They are promising major projects all over the place. They are even promising bridges, and who knows, before long they may even be promising rivers.
Promises come cheap, especially when people do not intend to keep them. Some of those promises go back as far as 1982 and were conveniently forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, it will not be long. Take a deep breath,
because there is going to be a big bang in New Brunswick.

August 31, 1987



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the experience in the North has been that once land is tied up in a national park, the public, especially local people, are pretty well excluded and the area becomes part of the personnel fiefdom of parks officials.
For this reason there ought to be no expansion to the boundaries of the Nahanni National Park Reserve. 1 am opposed to any such expansion and am of the opinion that the existing 7,000 square mile reserve is quite sufficient.
The Government, which has already misled local people on the jet boat issue, should keep its sticky fingers off the Nahanni Karst, Tlogotsho Plateau and Ragged Range areas. The rights of local people to hunt, trap, prospect or just visit in these areas must not be impeded.
There must be no further land-grab in the Nahanni.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to bring to the attention of the House what is probably a very little known fact. It is that the Government subsidizes the transfer of books from libraries to citizens and between libraries. This is called the book rate.
This rate has been under active review ever since the Nielsen Task Force Report. Libraries have been unable to get any assurance that the subsidy will continue, and therefore that this service will continue.
How much are we talking about in dollars and cents? The Library association assures me that we are talking about potential increases of 400 per cent to 900 per cent. As one example, in Halifax County the increase there could be as high as 1,100 per cent. These are massive increases in costs for libraries.
The people who will be affected are those who are unable to have access to libraries, people in small rural communities. This is another attack on rural Canadian life. The blind and disabled will be affected, people who do not have easy access to library services. The elderly, who cannot find their way to libraries, will be affected. Students who are taking courses outside the city where their university may be located will also suffer.
This is a service that must continue. It is time for the Government to wake up and remember that the Post Office is a public service. It is not a private profit-making business. This is not an opportunity for the Conservative Government to continue to attack ordinary Canadians and their services.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday it was my pleasure to represent the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) at the official opening of the Bethany Care Centre in the City of Airdrie.
The complex consists of a 24-bed wing for brain-injured patients, a 50-bed seniors lodge, and a 50-bed nursing home. Each corridor has a street name and each room a house number, with individual thermostats, a window, and its own colour, while sinks, mirrors, et cetera are constructed to accommodate the aged and the disabled. There is a chapel, a crafts room, a greenhouse, a training centre and an auditorium-in fact everything to provide the best possible physical, social, spiritual and emotional care.
I commend the Lutheran Welfare Society of Alberta and all its members for sponsoring this splendid complex that will continue the long tradition of the Lutheran Society in providing care in a loving Christian manner. In fact, the Christian care for others permeates the entire complex. 1 commend the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta for sharing in this project that will keep costs down to an affordable level.
This participation shows that the federal Government and the Government of Alberta really care for our aged, our injured and our disabled.



BASEBALL-NATIONAL LITTLE LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP-TRIBUTE TO WINNING TEAM FROM GLACE BAY, N.S.

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Cape Breton and in particular the residents of the town of Glace Bay have been known throughout the country as a people proud of their heritage, and tenacious in their quest to achieve excellence.
Last week a group of young persons from that community made a long and tiring journey to participate in the Canadian National Little League Championship in British Columbia. Although they were only rated to do "just okay'', their skill, their team play and their dedication demonstrated on the
August 31, 1987

baseball field surprised and pleased their toughest critics. These young men won, and won convincingly, the Canadian Little League National Baseball Championship in British Columbia.
To the players, the coach, management, and the players' parents, I extend on behalf of all Members of Parliament our heartiest congratulations.
They also went on to participate in the World Little League Baseball Series in the United States and did exceedingly well there. Both as individuals and collectively they are Cape Breton's youngest ambassadors. They are the finest quality of young people that this country has to offer.
Congratulations on a job well done!



LABOUR RELATIONS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, contract trouble looms once again in the transportation industry. 1 understand that the conciliation report of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Air Canada was given to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) on Tuesday of last week. To date the Minister has not released the report, or indicated his intentions with regard to the report.
Meanwhile workers at Air Canada are concerned for their jobs as the management of Air Canada, under obvious instructions, continues to demand the right to hire more parttime workers. The jobs and the security of hundreds of fulltime airline employees are in jeopardy as the Government heads into the dangerous areas of deregulation and privatization.
I call upon the Government to quit its efforts at Air Canada before it sparks another confrontation with Canadian workers who are trying to protect their livelihood. Such problems, on the railways or in the air, are caused by the same attitudes and actions. Deregulation and contract concession hurt Canadian workers. The Government must change its attitude if we are to return to peaceful industrial relations in Canada's transportation industry.



FUNDING OF SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with other Members of the House in congratulating the world's fastest man, Canadian Ben Johnson. He certainly



S. 0. 21

[Stage Direction]
was an inspiration not only to the people of Canada, but to people across the world. It was a shame that at the same time that our Ben Johnson was standing to receive his medal for Canada, he was not wearing a Canadian uniform. The fact that he had to accept the medal for Canada without wearing a Canadian sweat-suit, in Ben Johnson's own words, "made me feel bad. We were supposed to get suits, but I didn't get anything. Not a top, nothing. I wore what I had".
This particular situation illustrates the precarious financial situation facing sports bodies in Canada. I was most disturbed to hear the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) suggest that he was going to start ordering athletes to participate in various ventures whether or not they wished to do so. For example, he was talking about forcing athletes to participate in the Pan-American Games, instead of preparing for Europe.
Before the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport proceed with their decision to eliminate all funding for sports organizations' functions under the new Bill C-51, they must consider some of the financial implications and be prepared to replace that funding with funding either from government or other sources.
Ben Johnson accepting a medal without wearing a Canadian sweat-suit is an insult to Canada, and something we do not wish to see repeated.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, again 1 wish to draw the attention of Canadians to our excellent economic performance which started in September, 1984. Last weekend when I was talking to people, they again told me how impressed they are with our economic performance. We are zeroing in on the creation of almost a million jobs. Interest rates are down, which means that house buying and other areas of investment are up. This means that today there is greater confidence not only in the country but in the Government.



IMMIGRATION


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, once again I urge the Government to amend Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act.

August 31. 1987
Oral Questions
I believe that all Canadians wish abuse to be curbed, and that all Canadians want all bona fide refugees within the system who request and require it to receive due processing. I believe it is incumbent upon the Government to look at the report stage and accept some of the amendments put forward in the spirit that Canadians wish.
In committee, the Government basically ignored the many recommendations and amendments that were moved passionately and with great force by witness after witness from across the country.
I urge my fellow Members on the government side, in particular the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), at this eleventh hour to accept some of the amendments in order that we can curb abuse and make the system more fair, and also ensure that this legislation is in line with the system of justice that Canadians are proud of, with the Charter of Rights, and with our international obligations. On those three merits this legislation is riding roughshod over those facts. It will be tied up in the courts, and the policy will be paralyzed unless the Government is prepared to pay a small price now, instead of, as the commercial goes, a big price later on.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome back to the House the Minister for International Trade. I wish to raise some questions with the Minister concerning what is becoming a very nasty, turbulent, and dangerous trade dispute in which the Government has totally abdicated responsibility by taking no action, making no statements, and providing no leadership. The Premier of Saskatchewan has now given notice that he intends to introduce into the Legislature a motion that would impose major restrictions on the production and export of potash, as a means of retaliation against the imposition of extraordinary tariffs imposed by the United States.
Is this an action with which the Government of Canada agrees? Is the Government of Canada supporting this initiative by the Government of Saskatchewan? What other kinds of actions and initiatives is the Government of Canada taking to head off a dispute that could result in the unemployment of 4,000 to 5,000 workers in the potash industry of Canada?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated, we share the frustration and
disappointment of Saskatchewan in this decision which was against the potash companies in the Province of Saskatchewan.
We are receiving today a detailed briefing on the reason for the decision of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and I will have more comment at such time as we have that basis of decision.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: If I may
paraphrase the Minister's words, Mr. Speaker, we find that response extraordinarily disappointing. There is an irony here. The Government is negotiating free trade and one of the backers is going to introduce perhaps one of the most severe forms of protectionist response and retaliation that we have seen in decades. Surely the Minister recognizes that there is an inherent contradiction there.
Is the Government of Canada this week, because the legislation will be introduced this week, supporting the Saskatchewan stand, or does it have an alternative? Does it have any other response that it is prepared to make before we engage in this very major trade war on the horizon?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the only inherent contradiction raised today is the stance being taken by the Hon. Member worrying about a protectionist measure in the U.S. while at the same time his Party is opposing our efforts to get a free trade agreement with the United States.
I can only advise the Hon. Member that we are in touch with the Government of Saskatchewan. We do not intend to pre-empt its announcement but we are working along with that Government.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 am afraid that the abdication of responsibility by this Government in this very crucial issue will result in incredible consequences of which we will all be the victims.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-BINDING DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask one further question of the Minister for International Trade. The ambassador for the trade negotiations over the weekend said that there was apt to be a further meeting between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada to work out remaining trade differences.
Is the Government of Canada still standing behind the commitment made by the Prime Minister that any trade agreement with the United States must include a binding dispute settlement mechanism? 1 ask the question because last week the Deputy Prime Minister refused to give that guarantee and was talking about an adequate mechanism. It is a very important difference.
August 31, 1987

Is the reason that the supposed meeting is coming about so the Prime Minister can concede, once more, another important issue and give away the particular commitment made that we would have a binding dispute mechanism as part of a free trade agreement?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the negotiators met all last week, as I believe the House knows. They made a lot of progress last week. There are many issues that still have to be resolved and the negotiators will be meeting again next week to address those.
In terms of the specific question raised by the Hon. Member, there is no contradiction between the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister, myself and others. We have always said that an adequate dispute settlement mechanism must be a binding one.


Lloyd Axworthy: Adequate is not what you said.


Pat Carney: If I am allowed to answer the Member's question, 1 will repeat my answer. We have always maintained that an adequate dispute settlement mechanism has to be binding on both parties. There is no point in having a trade treaty without binding rules to put it into effect.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to remind him that the inshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador for the past four years has been a complete disaster and that thousands of jobs are at risk. In spite of that, the Government has put northern cod on the table in its negotiations with the French. How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify that? Will he now, on behalf of the Government, stand up for the interests of Newfoundland and East Coast fishermen and tell the French that the northern cod is not negotiable and there will be no give-away of Canadian fish to French interests?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has taken a long time to ask a question on this subject. This is a matter that was thoroughly ventilated last February and March and nothing new has occurred since except that the Prime Minister was successful yesterday in his conversations with Prime Minister Chirac in having the French return to the bargaining table in order to complete negotiations on these most difficult and contentious questions about the East Coast.
Northern cod will be in no danger as long as we are looking after it. The hon. gentleman says-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The only cods that are in danger are the cods across the House, including the honourable cod that leads the NDP.
Landings for cod in the inshore to date have been down by 16 per cent, unfortunately, as compared to last year, but the landed value of cod in the inshore fishery has increased by 52 per cent. The hon. gentleman should not be too alarmist. Not everything in Newfoundland is dark and gloomy. There are some very positive signs. The landed value increased 52 per cent in the inshore cod fishery in Newfoundland.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about ventilation. The only thing that is being ventilated is the Minister. He has been replaced as the lead by Mr. Fortier. He talks about the inshore fishery. There has been a 40 per cent reduction this year from last year and he cannot deny those figures.


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH VESSELS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, there has been excessive overfishing by the French off the South Coast of Newfoundland as determined by the Government's very own Department of Fisheries. Will the Government say to the French in these negotiations that overfishing has to stop, otherwise there will be no deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. It was the hon. gentleman's Government that, in 1972, entered into a treaty with France giving France access to fish quotas in Canadian waters. Now the hon. gentleman comes to the House to complain about the fact that the French can fish in Canadian waters for certain quotas.
In addition, it was this Government that closed Canadian ports to French fishing vessels as a result of overfishing in disputed Zone 3PS, a move that has seriously affected the French and made them take a more reasonable position in these negotiations. None of that ever entered into the mind of the hon. gentleman who wrecked our prospects in the fishery during the years his Party was in power and did nothing to correct these conditions.


CANADIAN POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. I do not think this is a matter for joking concern. I think we want to hear a clear-cut statement from the Minister. Will the Government make any more concessions to France as a result of the re-establishment of negotiations? Will the Government stand firm with its present position?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, one feels delighted when one receives small mercies.

August 31, 1987
Oral Questions
The hon. gentleman's interest in this issue when he comes from Churchill, Manitoba, must, I suppose-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: He is a Canadian.


John Carnell Crosbie: I suppose some of their other Members cannot be in the House today. The position is as we have explained it-


Mr. Broadbent:: You're a gem.


John Carnell Crosbie: If 1 am a gem, the hon. gentleman is a cod. 1 have already explained that to him.
The position is that we have taken a firm stand on the matter of negotiations with the French on the two questions of the territorial boundaries and the fishing quotas off the East Coast. Nevertheless, there are serious problems that have to be resolved. They can only be resolved by negotiations.
We have first-class people in charge of negotiations, supervised by first-class people, if I might be that immodest, including the Prime Minister. We are hoping that in the next six or eight weeks, some way to resolve these issues will be found, a way that will protect the national interest of Canada and the interests of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.


Rodney Edward Murphy: 1 may be the Hon. Member for Churchill but I would like to thank the Minister for going up there in 1979 and helping make that possible. He will remember that in my first speech in the House I congratulated him for all the hard work he did on my behalf.


NORTHERN COD STOCK
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, will the Government keep northern cod off the table and maintain those jobs for Canadians?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is engaged in a negotiating process with the Government of France in accordance with an agreement signed on January 24. Of course, surrounding that agreement is a treaty entered into by Canada in 1972 which gives France access to fish quotas in Canadian waters each year, ad infinitum.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What?


John Carnell Crosbie: For infinity. There is no time limit in the treaty whatsoever. At the same time Canada and France need to settle the question of the territorial waters surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon and what economic zone they are entitled to.
We are negotiating in accordance with statements which have already been made in the House. These negotiations are now to be expedited. The Prime Minister's firm stand on this matter has brought France back to the table and you can depend upon the fact we will continue to have a firm stand and
reach a solution, if one is possible, that will be in the interests of Newfoundland and Canada.


CANADIAN POLICY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister again refuses to give a straight answer. The question is: will he protect Canadian jobs? Will he ensure that France does not gain more rights and as a result we lose Canadian jobs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is ignoring the events of recent months. We have already taken action to protect Canadian jobs. We have protested French overfishing in the disputed waters of 3PS. We barred French fishing vessels from Canadian ports because of overfishing in the disputed zone. That action was never taken by a previous Government.
We have not done what the Leader of the NDP wanted us to do, order out the Armed Forces. He was going to chase the French vessels off the high seas. How he could do it with the defence policy of the NDP of course baffles everyone in the country.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On June 18 in his tax reform speech he said: "The reformed system will strongly support two key priority areas for this Government: research and development and the labour-intensive economic sectors." However, the five high-tech business organizations which represent more than 700 companies and 210,000 employees doing more than 80 per cent of Canada's private sector research stated that the Minister's tax reform proposals will discourage the very research and development Canada needs.
I ask the Minister the same question I raised in Chicoutimi last week. Why are he and his Government determined to discourage research and development in Canada as a result of his tax reform proposals?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I stand by the statement I made on June 18. If the Hon. Member cares to review the particular proposal, I think he will see that Canada maintains one of the best, if not the best, tax regimes for research and development. As well, the Hon. Member is a member of the standing committee which is now hearing representations from various people. Those hearings are designed to hear people out, listen to their proposals and try to weigh those proposals within the context of the over-all approach to tax reform. At that time I would imagine all the proposals will come together and form the basis of the report to Parliament by that committee. At that point I would be
August 31, 1987

happy to respond in a very full way to these various representations.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, according to their associations which published the results of a survey, representatives of businesses indicated that after tax reform, 40 per cent of research and development spending will no longer be tax deductible, which will create a tremendous problem for these businesses in terms of research and development.
Does the Minister agree with the associations that published their opinions? We do not have to wait for the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. That is already taken care of. Does he agree with the associations representing research and development firms that the proposed tax reform will only discourage research and development, at a time when R&D is essential if Canada is to compete with other countries on the world market?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is quite aware of the commitment made by the Government, led by the Prime Minister who, as the Hon. Member knows, is the Chairman of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. He is also aware of the proposal to reorganize the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion with the Department of Science and Technology to ensure that we have a very full response to the demands of a growing research and development and science and technology community in Canada.
You may wish to consider, Mr. Speaker, that the questions which the Hon. Member is posing to me are the subject of committee hearings which are taking place this very day and will continue for the next six weeks. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment in the House on every representation and brief put before that committee. That would be an attempt to influence the work of the committee.
I believe the Hon. Member is quite aware of the importance of that work and I believe it is more appropriate for me to wait until the committee has had an opportunity to respond to the full range of representations which will be made over the next six weeks.
Oral Questions


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We have now seen a couple of studies and reviews by Price Waterhouse and an internal review by DRIE which said that there was an overexpenditure of some $80 million in DRIE in 1986-87.
I asked the Deputy Prime Minister this question last June before the reviews got under way. Does he agree that this overexpenditure is a breach of Section 25 of the Financial Administration Act which says:
No contract or other arrangement providing for a payment shall be entered
into with respect to any program . . . unless there is a sufficient unencumbered
balance available out of the appropriation-
Does the Minister not agree that this is a breach of the Financial Administration Act since the Department overexpended by some $80 million?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no, there has not been a breach in my view.


REQUEST THAT FORMER MINISTER RESIGN FROM CABINET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in his statement to the House last week the former Minister said that there was an overexpenditure of some $79.9 million or $80 million. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that is grounds for the resignation of the Minister since one of the most important things we can do in this House is appropriate the money of taxpayers? Is this not a violation serious enough to result in the Minister not being a member of the federal Cabinet?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is dramatizing the situation by being very selective in his approach. The reports are very clear. The Minister of Industrial Expansion and Science and Technology outlined in a very comprehensive way, I thought, the steps that were being taken to correct this situation.
If one reads the report one finds that there are many conclusions which could be drawn. However, I think the most salient point is contained in one paragraph which says that there is no one single problem or factor which caused the 1986-87 cost over-run.
There was a problem with budgeting, forecasting, and financial reporting. All of those things have been identified and corrective measures have been taken to ensure that this does not happen again.

August 31, 1987
8608________________________________
Oral Questions AIR SAFETY


INSTALLATION OF NEW EQUIPMENT IN AIRCRAFT
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In a report released last Friday the Canadian Aviation Safety Board states that "the number of aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts reported in Canada is at a level serious enough to warrant serious safety concerns".
At the same time the Canadian Pilots Association has revealed that it is pushing hard for Canadian commercial and private aircraft to be equipped with sophisticated computer technology called the TCAS-3 and the MODE-C, both capable of detecting approaching aircraft, which would permit pilots to take early action to avoid mid-air collisions.
Has the Minister directed his Department to examine the feasibility of installing this new technology and, if not, will he do so with the shortest possible delay?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, not only the Canadian Aviation Safety Board but the Department of Transport is always seriously concerned about safety in all aspects of transportation in Canada. I do not think there is anything new or startling in the report to which the hon. gentleman refers.
The Department of Transport has been examining the device to which the Hon. Member referred. It is keeping in touch with the research on it and with the U.S. authorities in connection with it. When it becomes accepted, proven, and viable we will certainly be interested in encouraging its use along with the United States. The matter is under study and is well known to us.


REPORT'S 28 RECOMMENDATIONS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in its report, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board also indicated that the number of near misses involving aircraft and ground vehicles has reached alarming levels. In order to minimize the risk on the ground, could the Minister give Canadians the assurance-since he says he is aware of all these problems-that he will act as soon as possible on the report's twenty-eight recommendations?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 think we should keep this in context. As the Director of Air Traffic Services for our Department has pointed out, we have the second highest number of registered aircraft in the world with 27,039. We have 59,395 licensed pilots and our air controllers look after five million square miles of air space.
With only about 150 general occurrences to study in a
system of that size with only about 10 per cent of them deemed
critical, 1 do not think anyone should be unduly alarmed. 1 think that puts it in context.
With reference to control of ground traffic at airports, we are now installing airport surface detection equipment, a vastly improved special type of radar which gives air traffic controllers a high resolution display of ground traffic at airports. They are being installed in Toronto, Vancouver, Dorval, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Calgary.
The system was commissioned in Vancouver on June 11 of this year and in Toronto on July 1. It will be commissioned at Dorval by the end of October, and so on. Therefore, steps are already being taken to deal with the problem of on-the-ground collision possibilities as well.


UNITED STATES TARIFF ON CANADIAN POTASH
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister for International Trade. It is with regard to the preliminary tariff imposed by the U.S. Trade Commission of up to 85.2 per cent on Canadian potash imported into that country.
Since the U.S. obtains 80 per cent of its supply of potash from Canada an embargo would increase the price of potash and underpin the weakness which has occurred in that resource. It would also contribute to reduced grain surpluses in the United States and help strengthen grain prices.
It is, therefore, very obvious that the Government's indecision on this issue has nothing to do with economics. It must be for political reasons. Can the Minister tell us what those political reasons are?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny that there has been any government indecision on this trade action brought by the U.S. We have worked with the industry from the start of this dispute to review the system. It is a dispute between the U.S. industry and Canadian producers. We have offered every possible assistance. I already stated when this decision came down that our view has been that this action should never have been brought because the companies that brought the action against the Canadian producers account for less than 5 per cent of the U.S. production.
As the Hon. Member probably understands, the United States only produces about 10 per cent of its own potash requirements. To bring an action against their major supplier does not make economic sense. As the Member already pointed out, the people who will pay for this in the long run are the U.S. farm producers and U.S. consumers.
August 31, 1987

It is for this reason that we have taken the stand from the beginning of this action that it should never have been brought. It is inconsistent with trading rules to bring this kind of action. That is the stand we have been taking in Washington.


POTASH EXPORTS-SUGGESTED EMBARGO
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it did not clarify the stand of the Government. Is it the Government's intention to cease the export of potash until the Americans are willing to discuss the issue? What is the stand with regard to an embargo as has been suggested by the Government of Saskatchewan, for instance?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I submit that that is not the stand that has been announced by the Government of Saskatchewan. The Government of Saskatchewan is considering this matter. We have been advised that it will make its announcement shortly. I certainly do not intend to pre-empt that announcement.


APARTHEID
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the Prime Minister of Canada stated in his speech at the United Nations in 1985 that Canada was prepared to implement "total sanctions", as he said, and sever absolutely diplomatic relations with South Africa unless the policy of apartheid was dismantled. We all know that the abolition of the oppressive system of apartheid certainly has not made much progress since the time the Prime Minister made his statement.
Does the Prime Minister intend now to fulfil his threat at the United Nations, given that two years have passed, or is the Prime Minister perhaps having second thoughts?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Quebec city with the French delegation. He advises me that he was in the House last week to answer that and will be in the House next week to answer that question. He has asked me to take it on notice.


FORTHCOMING FRANCOPHONE AND COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCES
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, we know that the conferences are at hand. My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who, I trust, is speaking for the Government. He is well aware that the issue of South Africa will be very high on
Oral Questions
the agenda of the upcoming Francophone Conference and the Commonwealth Conference which Canada will host. Is the Prime Minister planning to set an example before or during these conferences by invoking effective and comprehensive sanctions against South Africa, and put some kind of substance to his previous statements which he made at the United Nations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I take it the Hon. Member was unavoidably absent from the House on Friday. This issue was dealt with in some detail in response to the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville who, in a very timely fashion, raised the very point the Hon. Member is making. I would refer the Hon. Member to page 8574 and page 8575 of Hansard of last week, wherein the Secretary of State for External Affairs clearly outlined the Canadian position which is consistent with the Prime Minister's statement, and also in recognition of the fact that there are changing circumstances in which Canada will respond in accordance with the principle that was enunciated by the Prime Minister.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. It involves the new policy of the Post Office which requires residents to travel to a distant sub-Post Office to pick up parcels and registered letters.
Have the Minister and Canada Post considered the hardships being placed on the thousands of senior citizens from my riding alone who must travel up to four miles, take at least two different buses, and trudge through snow, slush, hail, rain, wind, and sub-zero temperatures, risking a bad fall or other injuries, just to pick up a parcel?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post informs me that the change in policy was to bring it closer to the customers so that if they are not home when a parcel or registered letter is delivered, they are able to call for the parcel or registered letter at sub-Post Offices, most of which are open in the evenings as opposed to the corporation-run Post Offices which close at 4.30.
There is a specific problem in Scarborough regarding one of these sub-Post Offices. I am told by the Post Office that it is looking at it and the Hon. Member's constituents will soon be able to pick up their parcels very close to their residences.
Oral Questions INVESTMENT CANADA

August 31, 1987


SALE OF WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TO UNITED STATES CORPORATION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The amendments to the Patent Act by the Tory Government tonight will result in higher drug prices to Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is false.


Raymond John Skelly: The changes to the Foreign Investment Review Act which permitted the sale of West Kootenay Power and Light to the Americans will result in higher electrical prices for consumers in British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Raymond John Skelly: Is the Minister not aware that American law would prohibit the sale of a public utility to Canada because it is not in the interest of Americans? Does the Government intend to change and improve the foreign investment review legislation so that it would prohibit such a sale that is not in the interest of Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, certainly not. It is as a result of this Government's foreign investment policy that we have had unprecedented investment in the country, unprecedented growth, and unprecedented job-creation. That is part and parcel of creating a positive climate so that the entrepreneur can go to work, create jobs, and make the economy hum.


Raymond John Skelly: The difficulty outlined by the Minister is the difference between investment and sell-out.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm, has indicated that all the assets of the Government of British Columbia are for sale. If the Government sold the B.C. ferries to the Blackball Corporation of Seattle, would the Government approve it? If it sold B.C. Hydro to Consolidated Edison, would the Government approve it?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that most of the time one question is sufficient.


Raymond John Skelly: May 1 summarize in a single question, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Raymond John Skelly: Is there no level below which the Government
will not sink in the selling out of Canada? Will you indicate to
the House that you are not prepared to sell out West Kootenay Power?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has given the Minister several choices.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is raising the ideological difference between his Party and the Social Credit Party in the Province of British Columbia. I thought that issue was resolved during the last provincial election. Clearly, the Socreds won that round.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, several months ago his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, made a formal and, I believe, very reasonable request to the Minister that there be a transfer of funds from the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program so that the Minister of Indian Affairs could use that money to create jobs on Indian reserves and, at the same time, build some houses.
That was an excellent proposal. The Minister received that request in writing and has had a lot of time to think about it. Is he prepared today to tell the House that he has reached a favourable and positive decision on that request?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, several months ago I received a request from my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, about funding totalling $8 million that would be applied or transferred to the Canadian Job Strategy Program for the construction of housing on Indian reserves.
The present state of the Job Strategy budget, however, is not such that, at this stage, I can promise my colleague that I will be able to transfer the funds mentioned.
With my colleague for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we are still looking at ways in which certain funds could be used.
I must repeat once again that this is very difficult, because the Job Strategy funds are fixed, and this particular request was not included originally; what we have here is a specific request applied in a specific way to a specific clientele. It is a very particular request, although it is being made under the Job Strategy Program.
August 31, 1987


MINISTER S POSITION
B. Keith Penner: The Minister of Employment and Immigration knows that this approach worked extremely well under the former Canada Works Program. He will forgive me, 1 am sure, but it is puzzling to me why the Minister would not respond quickly to this request because the highest unemployment in the country is on Indian reserves. At the same time there is a housing crisis there. Why would he not put those two things together, act positively and fulfil his job as the Minister of Employment for this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon friend that 1 am very proud of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I think there is no comparison with what we have known when the Liberals were in power. I think there is no comparison between the Canadian Jobs Strategy, and the hundreds of thousands of jobs we have created, and the failure which represented the former program for employment of your Government.
I agree with the Hon. Member in terms of the reality of employment on reserves. I think there is a problem there. 1 can tell the Hon. Member that my Department has put a lot of money into that sector. We have provided a lot of money for Indian people on the reserves. At the same time, we have to consider we have a lot of problems, and we are dealing quite effectively with those problems.
Once again, I would like to emphasize that the Department of Employment and Immigration has the best results of any we have seen in this country with any program of creating jobs and employment.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We understand that the Minister of Agriculture had a profitable meeting in Winnipeg with the Canadian farm leaders to discuss next year's deficiency payment. It is reported that the Minister of Agriculture has accepted in principle a deficiency payment in the neighbourhood of $3 billion. Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm this figure? And is the Deputy Prime Minister able to give us a date when an official announcement will be made regarding the 1987-88 deficiency payment?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the question raised by my colleague. If we refer to what the Canadian Government has done in the agricultural sector over the past two years, I would
Oral Questions
suggest that if there is a sector where the Canadian Government has taken initiatives, has responded to the farm community and has always been present when agricultural producers asked the Canadian Government to look after their interests, it has to be the agricultural sector, and it was our Government which took action. In that respect, I think no one needs to worry.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the statement made by my colleague, I would suggest that our problem right now has to do with agricultural surpluses and a price war, a war where both American and European administrations have decided to subsidize the agricultural sector, without any kind of restraints.
Mr. Speaker, our response as Canadians has been to refrain from waging a world-wide war of dollars, preferring instead to convince grain exporting countries-Europeans, Americans and others-that nobody can possibly win if the agricultural price war continues.
Mr. Speaker, what we did, what the Prime Minister did was to put agriculture in the agricultural sector program. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be present in the agricultural sector, we are listening to agricultural producers-


Lloyd Axworthy: Was that his maiden speech?


John Edward Broadbent: That will do until Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member may be right and I think the Minister's remarks are very interesting, but perhaps a shade too long.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I am not sure I want to start another one like that, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Make it a true or false question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is your choice.


SPECIAL CANADIAN GRAINS PROGRAM-APPLICATION TO IRRIGATION FARMERS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister because it involves Alberta and Saskatchewan. Can the Deputy Prime Minister gives us an explanation of why the irrigation farmers of Saskatchewan are not eligible for Special Grains Program payments while those in Alberta are?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Agriculture has been dealing with this particular issue. My understanding is that there are some who do qualify. However, others, because

August 31, 1987
Oral Questions
of the technicalities in the program, did not qualify. The Minister is working with the advisory groups to address this particular issue and I thank the Hon. Member for bringing it to my attention.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister in charge of Canada Post. Some months ago when the 36 cent stamp was issued, many citizens were disappointed that the issue did not include a stamp bearing the Queen's portrait. That deficiency has still not been made up. On their behalf, 1 ask the Minister if he can assure the House that such a stamp will be issued and that it will be issued soon.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can give the House that assurance. Apparently there have been some production problems with the supplier of those stamps. I was hoping they were working on a stamp with my picture on it but this is apparently not the case.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I am told that on October 1 there should be 15 million such stamps available for Canadian consumers.


INDUSTRY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the only problem with a stamp for that Minister is we would not know whether to put on back or front.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to ask him a very straight Question. Given that Firestone Canada has reneged on its commitment to 1,400 workers and to the Canadian community by refusing to guarantee the jobs of Firestone workers for 10 years, can the Minister tell me why his Government has negotiated an agreement with Firestone which will possibly permit it to keep all the money if the company is not sold, and if the company is sold it will permit Firestone to keep the interest on a S13.5 million grant paid by the Canadian taxpayers? Can he explain what kind of a deal that is?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question was answered in some detail. My understanding is there are funds which are put in escrow and that negotiations are still going on.


PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON FUNDS IN ESCROW
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should be aware, and if he is not, the ex-Minister who botched the thing should have at least briefed him about the fact that the money that was put in escrow was to be set aside with the interest going to the workers if the plant was not sold. The rules of the game have now changed. Firestone has said if the company is not sold, Firestone America in Akron, Ohio, will get the interest, not the Canadian workers. I would like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister, given the botched handling of this issue by the previous Minister, will he personally ask the Prime Minister to take this issue in hand instead of leaving it to his underlings who botched it from the start?


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a real son-of-a botch.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are still going on. The answer still remains the same.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What is the answer?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 am not sure why the Government should change its position just because the Hon. Member suggests that is the appropriate course of action. If we had followed her course of action on many of the recommendations that she advanced, we would have been sinking to oblivion just like her Leader.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Is the Minister aware that in at least a dozen areas across the country local rural communities have received the 90-day notice of a change in postal service? The distinctive characteristic of these notices is that they do not contain an offer to maintain the existing post office. The only alternative is a much reduced commissioned postal service or a rural route service.
Will the Minister acknowledge these facts? Will he tell
people whether he considers this to be genuine consultation
August 31, 1987

with communities when he goes there to close off the option of keeping their post offices open?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this policy of Canada Post has been discussed extensively for the last year, it was raised in committee of the House when the Hon. Member was present. He will know that the justification for it is that there are changes occurring across the country. Some communities are diminishing in size. In a great many places where the postmaster retires the community is no longer justified in maintaining an expensive operation for the smaller number of people who live there.
The Post Office is engaged in discussion. It is committed to giving the 90 days so that there can be discussion with the people affected and Members of Parliament to try to come up with a service that provides people with the same quality of service, and in many cases better, but not necessarily the same as it was. The world is changing. The Post Office is acknowledging that. Apparently, the NDP is not.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister acknowledge that the change that is taking place is that the Government is treating the Post Office like a profit-making private sector enterprise rather than as a public service? Does he consider it a viable option when he goes to a community such as Wilmot, Ontario, and says: "You can have a post office on a commission with one-fifth the revenue of before"? Is that not an offer that is designed for failure rather than for good service?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is exactly correct. In keeping with the commission of this House in 1981 we unanimously passed legislation turning Canada Post into a Crown corporation so that it might go out and operate as a Crown corporation like Air Canada and CNR. If it operates at a profit or on a break-even basis, I think that as representatives of the taxpayers we should be thankful.
The Hon. Member seems to be suggesting that it is somehow immoral for a Crown corporation to show profit. I do not understand that reasoning.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 9 (Mr. Heap, p. 8597).
Immigration Act, 1976
Mr. Speaker:: Before debate continues I want to advise Hon. Members that I have considered further the matters at report stage of Bill C-84. I want to add to the ruling I made this morning. I have now completed my examination of the remaining motions on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-84 and am now prepared to rule as to their procedural acceptability.
Motion No. 8 is somewhat similar to a motion moved in committee, but I intend to give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. It will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 12 and 13 require the Minister to notify the office of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees when a person claiming to be a Convention refugee is denied access to the procedures outlined in the Bill. They are attempting to add a new concept to the Bill as read a second time. Therefore I must rule that they are beyond the scope of the Bill. I would refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1) which reads in part: "An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope-". Thus both motions are out of order and will not be put to the House.
Motion No. 14 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are offered in amendment to Clause 9 of the Bill. Motions Nos. 15 and 17 were debated and negatived in committee and therefore will not be selected. Motion No. 16, which is deleting lines, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions No. 19, 21, 22 and 23 will be debated and voted on separately.
To summarize, as I noted this morning, Motions Nos. 3, 6 and 10 have not been selected. Motions Nos. 15 and 17 also have not been selected. As I said, Motions Nos. 12 and 13 are out of order.
Therefore there will be separate debates and separate votes on Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23.
I want to thank Hon. Members for co-operating with the Table in the discussions that made this ruling easier for the Chair.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 would like to thank Your Honour for the ruling on the various motions. I would like to discuss, if I may, under a point of order, Your Honour's ruling on Motions Nos. 15 and 17 which suggest that a similar amendment was discussed and proposed at committee. The key element-


Mr. Speaker:: I very much regret interrupting the Hon. Member because the Hon. Member has, as Hon. Members know, and as the public knows, worked long and hard on this particular matter. However, we have been trying to adhere to a practice, when there has been very extensive consultation between Table Officers and Members, that when it comes time for the Chair to make the ruling not to open up that ruling for further debate.

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
I just want to be sure that the Hon. Member is not getting himself into a position where he is urging the Chair to change the ruling. It may well be that what the Hon. Member has to say can be raised in debate. However, I would hear the Hon. Member further.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have the utmost respect for Your Honour and for the Chair. The Table Officers, however, and I did not discuss Motions Nos. 15 and 17.
With all due respect, what I was going to suggest is that a similar amendment was proposed by myself in committee. This particular amendment focuses on the key word "humanitarian" in an attempt to overcome Clause 95.1 and Clause 95.2 which clauses provided the most concern with respect to religious and non-religious groups. Therefore it was an attempt at report stage to try to insert the word "humanitarian" within the motion so as to exclude very clearly religious groups and non-religious groups that would be helping refugees out of humanitarianism and compassion, and certainly not to mislead the system or to propose fraudulent claims.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. While he was giving his remarks 1 was listening but 1 was also able to have some further consultation with the Clerk. Perhaps there was not quite as much consultation with the Hon. Member as I had thought, partly because these motions came in very late on Friday night, which is nobody's fault. 1 suggest that perhaps in the next little while the Hon. Member might meet with the Table Officers to discuss the matter further to see whether there might be some reason to adjust the ruling. All other rulings on all other motions stand.
Continuing debate with the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, before lunch 1 was debating Motion No. 9 moved by my colleague from the New Democratic Party. This is an amendment that is very similar to my Motion No. 10. It concerns provisions for the security certificate that we would like to amend.
What we are suggesting is that if in fact the individual claimant is found to be some kind of a security threat or falls within an undesirable category within the Immigration Act, then by all means we are supportive of detaining that individual to ascertain his identification to see whether or not there is sufficient cause to merit that individual's further detention or deportation.
Our concerns articulated by my Motion No. 10, and by Motion No. 9 which we are presently debating, are that under the current legislation any individual who is deemed to have been the recipient of such a security certificate would not necessarily have the opportunity of entering into the refugee determination process. The provision as stated in Bill C-84
would restrict accessibility to the system and undermine the crucial universality component.
Many times a certificate may be granted based on information received from the country of origin. In the case of real refugees, often it is not unusual for the government of the country from which they are escaping to provide Canada, or another country receiving that claimant, with information that would suggest that that person is either an undesirable or poses a security threat. For instance, an individual in another country may be seen as an offender, for standing up for democracy. Obviously within our system of justice, and within the Canadian parameters, someone who stands up for democracy, as we do every single day, would not be considered a security threat or an undesirable. Many times information received from the country or the government of origin would actually substantiate the fact that the person's case is probably legitimate, that is, because of political or religious pressures that individual is escaping as a refugee under the definition of the United Nations Convention.
Our first concern is that by declaring this certificate, it would override or ignore the very information that can be utilized to determine and substantiate the individual's true refugee claim. However, if Canadian authorities find the claim to merit further consideration, then that individual should not be sent back to the country from which he or she is escaping because he or she may be in some particular trouble, may face certain persecution, torture, imprisonment, or probable death.
Another aspect that colours this particular clause is that if we deny accessibility to individuals to have their case properly determined within the refuge board or the refugee system where the issue is properly disposed of rather than making a predetermined determination by the Minister or his official, that is of great concern to our United Nations obligations under the Geneva Convention. In fact, a representative of the United Nations High Commission appeared before the legislative committee which was studying Bill C-84 and expressed considerable reservation concerning this particular clause which would guarantee that an individual would not be allowed to pursue the refugee process and would be deported and expelled from the country.
That runs contrary to the non-refoulement undertaking that we as a country have given under the United Nations Convention. Therefore, it was not without passing concern from the United Nations High Commission that these representations were made at the committee, and in correspondence exchanged between the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Government of Canada. I believe there has been considerable concern expressed internationally that, if Canada enacts this particular legislation with this particular clause as it stands, it would be undermining the non-refoulement undertaking.
Since Canada has been at the leadership level in terms of providing and offering leadership for the salvaging of the plight facing refugees, the concern is that other countries may legislate similar clauses. If that happened on a frequent basis
August 31, 1987

one can see the danger of the United Nations Geneva Convention coming apart, and the very foundation being rocked. In the correspondence from the High Commissioner for Refugees to the Government of Canada there was a specific paragraph that suggested and reminded Canada that this could trigger an exodus by other countries.
It is with that spirit that we spoke to it in committee, and witnesses participated, to ensure that if the person is a security threat, or if there is need for detainment, then by all means a certificate or the powers should be available. However, this should not exclude the individual from receiving a hearing in order to properly determine if the concerns are founded and, if they are founded, what repercussions that person would face if he or she was returned to the country from which he or she was fleeing.
Our amendments suggest that the current legislation which allows an individual to participate in the refugee determination system be retained and, therefore, protect our international obligations and our obligations under the accessibility and universality of the system.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will now move to Motion No. 8.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 8
Immigration Act, 1976
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 29 to 31 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"officer or an adjudicator shall make an order to detain or release the person named in the"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively simple point in Clause 4. Clause 4 represents an amending of the Act in connection with detention of a person:
-where the Minister and the Solicitor General are of the opinion, based on security or criminal intelligence reports received and considered by them, that a person, other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, is a person described in paragraphs 19(l)(d), (e), (f) or (g), or 27(2)(c), they may sign and file a certificate to that effect with an immigration officer, a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator.
This is not the security certificate previously referred to in an earlier section. Perhaps this could be called a detention certificate. In proposed Subsection 41(2), which is the one I am dealing with, it states:
(2) Where a certificate is signed and filed in accordance with subsection (1), an inquiry under this Act concerning the person in respect of whom the certificate is filed shall not be commenced, or if commenced shall be adjourned, until the determination referred to in paragraph (4)(d) has been made and a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator shall, notwithstanding section 23 or 104, detain or make an order to detain the person named in the certificate until the making of the determination.
This concerns the making of a certificate which suggests that a certain person who is seeking entry is perhaps a criminal or a threat to the security of Canada.
What the second paragraph does, which I seek to amend, is to make it compulsory that that person be detained. An adjudicator has the power to make a decision. He is a quasi judge. An adjudicator normally is allowed to make the decision to detain or not to detain. The wording in this clause is that a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator shall notwithstanding detain, which means removing the power of the adjudicator to do what essentially an adjudicator does. I do not think it has been shown that that is necessary, Mr. Speaker. What we have been told is that people may require a longer time to investigate, but we have not been shown that inexperienced adjudicators have failed to detain people on their own judgment when given an indication by the Minister that that is something which they ought to do.
I think it is an unfortunate tendency to take away from a lower official, that is, lower than the Minister, the power he has been exercising according to law and that as far as I know he has exercised satisfactorily for the Government. I have not heard complaints that adjudicators have been irresponsibly turning people loose whom the Minister wanted detained longer. However, I have heard complaints that adjudicators have not turned people loose when some people thought they should. I even heard of one situation where it was reliably reported that the Minister thought the adjudicator should turn some people loose but still did not. It seems to me that if the adjudicator has erred, the adjudicator has erred on the side of caution, that is, detaining a person to make sure that the matter was cleared up so far as necessary.

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
I believe that in this case it is unreasonable to assume that the adjudicator would act irresponsibly when presented with a Minister's certificate. Granted, the adjudicator does not have all the information behind the certificate, but I believe that adjudicators have shown themselves responsible in this matter of security.
Therefore, I proposed the motion to delete lines 29, 30 and 31 replacing them so that the clause would read:
-a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator shall make an order to
detain or release the person named in the certificate-
1 believe that would respect the existing law in that it would allow the adjudicator to perform his or her function, he, being the man or woman on the spot who is in possession of the essential facts, including the Minister's certificate. It would allow that person to do the job that he or she should do without being overruled and turned into a mere rubber stamp by the Act, as is the case the way the Act is now worded.
I would ask Members of the House to vote for this motion to sustain, to keep intact, the responsibility of the adjudicator in this matter.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. 8. The motion is very similar to one I presented at the legislative committee which was, as all amendments were, turned down.
The reason I presented the motion then and the reason 1 speak in favour of it now is that we heard very moving testimony about the need for a check and balance. The arguments received at committee and the arguments that I put forward were not for detainment of individuals in respect of whom government officials had no identification, or that particularly valuable information was received on a claimant. That was not the concern. We are not saying that a person should not be detained. Existing legislation provides full opportunity for an individual to be detained for 48 hours without going to an adjudicator. Subsequent to that the Minister, the Crown or officials can go to an adjudicator and request detainment of an additional seven days. The question is, who makes the decision and how is it made.
A presentation by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association articulated very thoughtfully about the need to have the adjudicator make the decision based on evidence that he or she receives from the Government. In other words, the information provided to the adjudicator would be analysed and considered rather than giving total power, carte blanche if you will, to the Minister of the day. That would be seen as excessive power or unilateral power allowing the Minister to detain an individual without having to go to an adjudicator. That is why many witnesses, and certainly the leading one on this clause, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, argued for the need of a politically disinterested decision-maker rather than a politically motivated or politically interested individual. It was not meant to be a slight against the Minister or a Minister's position, but obviously it was referring to the realities of a Minister or to the realities of politicians.
You and I, Mr. Speaker, and everyone else in this Chamber receive various representations. We push and pull situations on a number of issues. Quite often from what we hear, feel and see we make a decision. The argument here is to offer protection in the system so that the Minister's powers would not be abused and misused. Again, it is not a slight against the current Minister. We are talking here about Ministers, certainly long after the present Minister and after you and I are gone, Mr. Speaker.
The request was for the adjudicator to have the flexibility and discretion of saying, "The information I receive from the Government justifies its concern and therefore, justifies further detainment". Or, perhaps based on information the adjudicator receives from the Government or other sources he will say, "Hold on, the preconceived notions are unfounded because I found a, b, c and d" which would then be offered to the Government. The Government would then have a further opportunity of rebutting the case or saying, "You are correct, Mr. Adjudicator". This offers a check and balance.
The current legislation offers those checks and balances. That point was accepted by Canadians at large that, yes, we have the powers to detain, but detain in a way to ensure that people's rights are protected and that powers are not abused and misused.
I believe the motion I put forward at committee and the very similar motion that we are debating here this afternoon is a very reasonable one, with which most Canadians would agree, given the sense of justice within this country.
I urge the House to adopt the motion so that we retain the discretion of the adjudicator, who would be in a position of being politically disinterested, borrowing a phrase from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. If we move on this it would ensure that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for which we have fought so hard, will not be challenged and it will also preclude any court challenges in the future on this particular clause. A number of legal experts suggested that this would be one of the clauses that would bring a Charter challenge under Section 8. I do not, and I am sure that neither you, Mr. Speaker, nor any other Member of this House, would want this legislation to become policy of the Government, get tied up in the courts, paralyzing our policies. If that happens six months, 12 months or 18 months down the line, Canadians will not have patience or trust in the Government any more. They want the Government and Parliament to do it right this time.
We were called back for an emergency and I would not want to leave this Chamber without the provisions of the Bill being legally accepted. If they are not, the refugee system and particularly the Government will pay a bigger price once these challenges begin to take shape in the courts. Therefore, it is with that spirit in mind that I hope the Government will move to retain the discretion of the adjudicator and allow him or her
August 31, 1987

to make the decision based on information provided by the Government.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) began by saying that this is a simple point. In terms of an amendment it may be very simple, but its effect would be very complicating both in terms of the administration of the system and the security of Canadians.
I would reiterate what I said before lunch on the previous amendment. We are dealing with what is broadly called the inadmissible class of people, those who have records of criminality, organized criminal activity, espionage or subversion against democratic Governments, subversion by force of any Government, or acts of violence or subversion by force of any Government. Those are the kinds of people about whom we are talking.
The difference between the position of government Members and that of Members of the Opposition is on whether we should release or detain these individuals under certain circumstances. The Hon. Member for Spadina read certain clauses of the Bill as it is now before the House. Clause 41(1) indicates that the Minister may sign and file a certificate to that effect. He is not obligated to do so and may do so depending upon the circumstances of the case. It may be that he is presented with old information. However, if he chooses to sign and file a certificate, then Clause 41(2) comes into effect and provides the following:
Where a certificate is signed and filed in accordance with subsection (1), an
inquiry under this Act concerning the person in respect of whom the certificate
is filed shall not be commenced, or if commenced shall be adjourned,-
That is the simple point. If there has been evidence to convince the Minister and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to file a certificate, then there are not many options left. The primary obligation is to protect the security of Canada and Canadians.
I would remind Hon. Members of what I said in committee the other day when I referred to the Bill of 1976. A distinction was made between whether coming to Canada is a privilege or a right. Most Canadians believe that it is a privilege to be in Canada. The amendments we are now debating make it look almost as though it were a right for inadmissible classes of people to maintain freedom of movement in Canada.
I would like to underscore the fact that the primary obligation of the Government, and in fact of all of us, is to protect the security of the country and of individual Canadians. The fact is that this amendment would make the detention of security risks difficult if not impossible. As well, the information on which the Ministers base their decision to file a certificate is not information that can be released to the adjudicator, so it is not surprising that in times past, adjudicators have released individuals who should not have been released and did so with all good intent. In the past, the Government has been unable to obtain an order for detention from an adjudicator in security cases because the adjudicator was not aware of the risks involved.
Immigration Act, 1976
Turning back to the Hon. Member's point, it is very simple. Do we detain or set at liberty those who the Minister and the Solicitor General are convinced are security risks? The Government must opt for the security of Canada and of individual Canadians.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
He said: Next to the clause that would make it an offence to help a refugee come to Canada and even to an immigration office without the usual passport, this clause about turning away ships has caused the greatest concern in Canada and with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Clause 8 provides that the Minister may turn a ship away that is within the internal waters of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or 12 nautical miles of the outer limit of the territorial sea of Canada if he believes that that ship is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of this Act or the regulations. In that case, the Minister may, after having due regard to the safety of the vehicle and its passengers and to the convention, direct the vehicle to leave or not to enter the internal waters of Canada or the territorial sea of Canada, as the case may be.
The Bill provides that the Minister may turn a ship away and it also specifies that any such direction may be enforced

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
by such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. Originally, there was much more concern over this clause, but it was amended in committee by a government motion. The words that are underlined in the version we have before us, "and to the convention," were added to the Bill. On the following page, Clause 8(3) gives some definitions including a definition of the convention meaning the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees.
I welcome that amendment. I am very pleased that it was moved by a government Member and that government Members as well as opposition Members adopted it. It goes some distance toward dealing with the most difficult part of the problem.
The problem with this clause is that we are told that if a ship is bringing any person into Canada, the Minister may turn it away, but if a ship had 100 passengers and the Minister believed one of them was being brought to Canada in contravention of the Act, he is authorized to turn the ship away. What happens to the other passengers who might all be quite legitimate? There is only one ship and it cannot be chopped into pieces to divide the ones the Minister considers legitimate from the ones he considers illegitimate.


An Hon. Member:: Throw them overboard.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Someone on the government side has said: "Throw them overboard". Unfortunately, that is not a joke. That sort of thing has happened perhaps not in the Atlantic but it has happened in the Pacific, particularly to the boat people from Vietnam. According to all we have heard from the UN, those people tried, usually in small boats, to get to countries like Malaysia or the Philippines and some of them were thrown overboard.
That is something the UN is very much concerned about on two levels. First, a rule like this, if it does not fully protect people who might be refugee claimants, or might even be legitimate refugee claimants, leaves in doubt what will happen to them when the ship is turned away. A simple expression of the Minister's good intentions is not good enough for a law because the people enforcing the law cannot be expected to have the good intentions of the person who may today be the Minister.
Second, Canada has very sternly and verbally attacked nations in the southwest Pacific who turned away ships with refugee claimants. The executive of the UN High Commission for Refugees adopted the principle that such ships ought not to be turned away. Therefore, for Canada to begin that practice would not only be very risky to the passengers of those ships, it would be a step backwards from the international leadership Canada has so far exercised, not just through our representatives to the UN but through the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
In 1979, the then Minister, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), took specific steps to offer resettlement to some of the people picked up by such ships so as to dissuade the captains from, as the Hon. Member across suggested and which he thought was a joke, throwing people overboard. The amendment to which I referred moves in a very good direction. However, I feel it is not strong enough. The phrase "having due regard" leaves so much to the subjective discretion of the Minister that I am afraid, since the Minister cannot be everywhere all day long or even at one time, that acting through his officials the "due regard" might be much too pale and a ship with perhaps bona fide refugee claimants may be turned away to the harm of those on board. That is not to mention the great disadvantage to legitimate passengers who might have paid their passage and who might have their passports and visas to enter Canada.
In committee we urged that instead of this rule it be amended so that the ship would be escorted into a Canadian port. If the captain was guilty of trying to arrange for the contravention of Canadian law, he would be charged and prosecuted, if necessary with bigger penalties. If there were passengers contravening the law, they could be dealt with accordingly. If there were refugee claimants, they could be dealt with according to the law. The safety of the passengers would have been assured and the deterrence of future captains would be assured. For that matter, if that captain were in prison for several years and his ship were confiscated, that certainly would be a deterrent to that particular captain and that particular ship. Simply turning them away on the high seas may be just telling them to try somewhere else tomorrow when it is dark or foggy or something like that. It is not a sufficient deterrent. However, the amendment was unfortunately lost and we have the Act as printed.
Because of the risk both to passengers who might be returned to a country in which they would be in danger through careless application of the phrase "having due regard", and because of the uncertain example it sets for countries, particularly in the southwest Pacific, I believe we should delete this clause. If the Government wishes at another date to bring forward a further clause that would deal with it in the way many of us and the public and the UNHCR asked, I would of course actively support it. In the meantime, I hope the House will accept my motion which would delete Clause 8.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, after Clause 9, Clause 8 was perhaps the most controversial clause in the Bill. If you look at what the Government has been saying for the last month or so with respect to curbing abuse and going after the smugglers, then Clause 8 is a huge contradiction. As the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) suggested, we moved an amendment which would correct the situation. That was defeated, and so we have to rely on the strength of Motion No. 14.
There are essentially three very specific errors in Clause 8.
First, obviously, you are not offering due process to any
August 31, 1987

claimants on a boat that may be turned back. We have had a policy in this country that individuals who request refugee status be granted an interview with immigration officials. They then go before the appropriate committee and the immigration appeal board in order to explain their circumstances. If you pass a law which says that the Government can, if it desires, turn a boat away, obviously you do not want to listen to and ascertain the circumstances of the passengers on that boat. You are making a predetermination based on who knows what.
Such an initiative would be a very dangerous precedent for this country. No other country in the world, save the U.S., has a provision along these lines. The U.S. has never seen fit to utilize its special powers. Therefore, I suggest that the Government be very, very leery of approving such a regressive clause. By doing so it would be unable to uphold the commitment which lies at the foundation of the UN Convention on Refugees, to which we were a signatory back in the 1950s. If that breaks, it will break the resolve of the international community to try to come to grips with an international problem and phenomenon which requires, therefore, quite logically, an international solution.
The second aspect is that this Bill is supposed to deter. It is to deter those who try to abuse our system, the smugglers who drop individuals off on our coasts, the consultants who continue to make huge and immoral profits from trafficking in human beings. No Canadian disagrees with that. Anyone who disagrees with it would be implying that there be no order in the process. If there is no order, there is no fairness, and if there is no fairness, it is the legitimate refugee who will ultimately pay a very dear price.
This clause will not deter smugglers. This clause will allow the Minister, through a Coast Guard vessel, to turn a smuggler's boat around and.send it wherever he wishes to go. If you are a captain leaving a port in Europe knowing that the worst you will face is having your boat turned around, what do you have to lose? You have collected the money from your so-called clients and it is in the bank. You chances are fifty-fifty. You may be able to drop your clients off and get away with it. At the very worst, the Government will turn the boat around and you will dump your passengers in some other place. However, your money is secure.
On the other hand, if the law says very precisely that if you are found in contravention of our laws by trying to dump people on our shores in the middle of the night, your boat will be boarded, escorted into the nearest port and seized, and you will be charged and perhaps fined or imprisoned, you will think again. We moved an amendment at the legislative committee which was turned down by the same government Members who keep talking about deterrence.
Which plan will deter smugglers the most, Mr. Speaker, the plan to turn the boat around or the plan to seize the boat and imprison the captain? I suggest that most Canadians would
Immigration Act, 1976
favour the latter, that it would be the greatest deterrent. If we capture the boat and imprison the smuggler, I am sure other smugglers in Europe will get the message that their buddy is in a Canadian jail and has lost his boat. I do not think other smugglers would set sail. We in the Opposition are saying that not only do we want to guarantee the safety of the passengers and give them due process, but that we want to ensure that the smuggler is detained.
Committee members on the government side said that some captains are not at the heart of the situation, that they are just employees, and the real smuggler is on the beach in Acapulco. Perhaps they are right. However, the way to stop the operator who is on the beach in Acapulco is not simply to turn his boat around. The crew and captain must be detained and they will probably testify. That testimony can be used against the real operator. We will, therefore, not be dealing in ignorance but will have testimony and information.
In my humble submission, Your Honour, the proper way to act is to escort the boat in every time. The Government still has not told us in what circumstances it would escort a boat in as opposed to turning it away. If the Government wants to deter, it must put its money where its political message is. It must fine, imprison, and seize boats rather than turning boats around. What kind of deterrence is that?
What kind of system are we putting in place in which a claimant who arrives on a boat is turned around and denied processing and then arrives again two days later through an airport and is processed? A passenger coming through Pearson International Airport in Toronto will not be stopped by the Government but will be processed and accepted while a claimant coming in by sea will not. That is the problem.
Claimants arriving by boat, plane, bus, car or train are all the same. We cannot allow the Government to suggest that the method by which you come to Canada will determine whether you are going to be processed. That is absurd. Of the 15,000 claimants in the backlog 14,700 arrived by means other than boat. Only 300 arrived by boat.
Through this legislation the Government is suggesting that boats can be turned around while buses cannot. What if a smuggler brings people in clandestinely on a bus? It is still wrong, but there is no legislation to stop it. It is still wrong to charter an aircraft and load it up with fraudulent refugee claimants, but it is not covered in this legislation.
We are suggesting that we need a sense of balance. The Government has thus far not shown justification for turning back a boat but not any other vehicle. That is improper and illogical. It creates two sets of refugees, the ones who arrive by boat and the ones who arrive by other means. We cannot allow the mode of transportation to dictate whether or not an individual will receive a hearing.
That is an improper precedent and will not act as a deterrent despite the suggestions of Members that this Bill will deter. The only people it will deter are real refugees. The only people

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
who will be put in prison or fined will be church representatives aiding refugees. That is the irony of this legislation. It could be very easily amended in order to protect legitimate refugees while discouraging those who wish to circumvent and undermine our regulations.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that under other legislation the Minister has the power at any time to order a vessel into port and implement fines, seizure of the vessel, and so on. This gives the Minister another power to turn a boat around.
That may or may not happen in my lifetime. The committee has included provisions that are meant to protect convention refugees and to consider health and safety.
We often forget that there are unscrupulous people throughout the world who prey upon people who are in unfortunate circumstances. Those of us who have had the fortune to see the Atlantic, the Pacific and other oceans throughout the world have some respect for the power of the ocean. Unscrupulous people may charge from $10,000 to $25,000 for transportation, forged passports and many other schemes. When we are dealing with desperate people, it is likely that sooner or later an unscrupulous sea captain will fill an unseaworthy boat with people who pay a lot of money and that boat will be lost at sea in a storm. This Bill suggests that it may not be a good idea to allow oneself to get into such a situation in order to come to Canada's shores because there are regular ways to come to this country. We have embassies throughout the world and we treat refugees and refugee claimants decently. They do not have to spend $10,000 to $25,000 and run the risk of the high seas.
I do not anticipate that this clause of the Bill would ever be used to turn away people who have a legitimate claim to refugee status, but it may stop a lot of unfortunate people from getting on to a vessel that would not see them arrive safely on our shores. Therefore, 1 would urge Members to keep this power so that we can send a message that people should come the safe way to Canada rather than the unsafe way.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it seems that this clause is a reaction of the Government to the fact that in the last year boats dropped 155 people on the shores of Newfoundland and 174 on the shores of Nova Scotia.
The wording of the clause does not make much sense. It states that if the Minister or his delegate believes that a ship within 12 miles beyond Canadian waters is bringing any person into Canada in violation of the Act, they may order the ship to refrain from entering the area within 12 miles of Canada.
The clause is objectionable because it can apply to any
person, not necessarily a boatload, as it was in this particular
case, nor any portion of that boatload.
While Members may suggest that this provision may never be used, the fact that it exists means that it can be used to turn a boat back. That may cause the very result which the Member has suggested the clause is meant to prevent, which is to allow a boat that is unseaworthy back out into the ocean and a possible disastrous situation. Consequently, I suggest that the clause should be removed entirely and the clause be left as it is.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is concerned that this type of clause may result in turning away real refugees who may have a very good reason for coming to Canada. However, since that person may happen to be a passenger on a boat which the Minister or his delegate decide should not be allowed into our waters, that person could be sent back to a possibly disastrous situation.
I have spent considerable time in other countries. We must recognize that there is a fine line between democratic countries which have Governments like ours and those which give rise to legitimate refugees. A clause such as this might put in danger refugees from such countries not only of disappearing at sea, but of being sent back to their country to face either imprisonment or death.
Furthermore, this clause is not likely to deter the smuggling which has accounted for a large portion of the refugee claimants who are coming to Canada. It will not stop the captains of these boats from seeking ways to enter Canadian waters.
Rather than simply partially amending this clause, it would be better to eliminate it entirely. That is the position we have taken on this particular amendment.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) says that this amendment is a reaction. Of course it is a reaction to what happened last summer and this summer. If we had not reacted, we would have been faulted by the Canadian people for not taking into account what was happening on the shores of our land. Of course it is a reaction, but it is not an over-reaction.
Let me begin by thanking the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for not raising the question of refoulement, because I think he knows that that is not the purpose of this clause.
The Member for Prince Albert mentioned that the implementation of this clause could lead to a possibly disastrous situation. I point out to him that the Bill states: "The Minister may, after having due regard to the safety of the vehicle and its passengers" and to the convention. All safety is looked after before a decision is made, and it is still the option of the Minister and the Department to seize the ship and prosecute the captain.
I want to point out the two conventions which are important
in this connection. One is Article 33 of the UN Convention for
Refugees which reads:
August 31, 1987

1.	No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
2.	The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.
I will read from the Law of the Sea Convention to which Canada is a signatory. Article 19 under the heading of "Meaning of Innocent Passage" states:
1.	Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2.	Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
Finally, Article 25, under "Rights of protection of the coastal State" states:
1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent
I leave Members with that convention, which is designed to protect the very people about whom Members everywhere in this House are concerned. At the same time it is designed to respect the sovereignty of the state, that is, Canada.
We are entitled to control our immigration and our refugee determination and, again, the uppermost question is, are these people in need of protection? That is the premise upon which the whole scheme stands. The clause, as tabled by the Government, protects those people on the high seas, particularly from the unscrupulous who would defraud them of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 and still not be able to guarantee them safe passage to Canada.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the exchange this afternoon on this particular clause that the Government really has failed to demonstrate that these people in need protection will be protected. The Parliamentary Secretary just mentioned the fact that people in need of protection will be given protection but without indicating how. Turning around a boat before allowing it to land and allowing our immigration officials to examine one by one the applicant refugees, without those applicants receiving the appropriate attention, will not extend to the visitors or applicant refugees the protection to which the Parliamentary Secretary refers.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that in order to extend this kind of protection, and subscribe and implement our commitments to the UN Convention for Refugees, we will have to allow the potential refugee to make his application in Canada. This is what this piece of legislation does not contemplate. This is why the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
Immigration Act, 1976
wrote the letter to the Minister of Immigration some weeks ago expressing that profound preoccupation and raising, in diplomatic language, the hope that this Bill would be changed in order to be in line and conform with the commitments Canada has made over the years through various international conventions.
We were given a promise by the Minister in committee, if I remember correctly, about an oral hearing that would be given to people arriving here by boat under this particular legislation, or Bill C-55. The Parliamentary Secretary must tell us during this debate how this will take place. Will officers of the Department of Immigration be allowed to board the boat while it is still on the high seas? Will they be boarding the boat when it enters Canadian territorial waters, or will this boat be turned around and no oral hearing will take place at all? This matter has not been clarified at all.
Actually, this is an attempt to sweep it under the rug as if somehow people should interpret the law better than the Parliamentary Secretary is capable of doing. That is not good enough. We have subscribed to several articles under the UN Convention over the years. We have been urged by the High Commissioner to stick to our commitments and to respect them, and this piece of legislation departs from those commitments.
The Parliamentary Secretary made a reference to the fact that this Bill is a reaction to what happened in the summer of 1986. Over 14 months have gone by since that happened and we are still puzzled by the poor quality of the Bill. As the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) indicated earlier, we have here a proposal, soon to become law, which will endeavour to determine whether or not people who arrive on our shores by boat are legitimate refugees, but will not give the same treatment to people who will be arriving by means other than by ship. We in the Opposition are puzzled by this different way of application. I would invite the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify this point.
Why is it that this Bill fails to apply to those who may be arriving by air? It seems to fail to apply to those who would arrive by land, by train or by bus. It applies only to people who arrive by water.
If these powers are contemplated in another piece of legislation, if the Minister has powers to proceed with the screening of potential applicants who arrive by means other than by water, then we would like to hear that from the Parliamentary Secretary. This is a very important aspect. It was addressed at second reading and it was addressed very thoroughly in committee by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), but it is still unclear as we approach third reading. Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary would do us a service by, first, clarifying the question of powers which give the Minister the opportunity to screen people regardless of the vehicle by which they choose to enter Canada, and, second, in which way are we complying with the UN Convention

August 31. 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
whereby we do recognize the right of potential refugees to seek asylum as they touch upon Canadian territory?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
At the request of the Hon. Member for York East, the Chair has taken a further look at Motions Nos. 15 and 17. Similar motions were moved in committee but the two motions, which were negatived in committee, did not use the word "humanitarian". The Chair is thus inclined to allow both motions to be moved and debated with one debate and one vote disposing of both. The Chair wishes to explain that the short lead time between the return of the Bill and the start of the report stage caused a bit of a rush. Hopefully, the House will understand this further clarification of statements made this morning and earlier this afternoon.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 25 to 32 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"95.1 Every person who knowingly, and for other than a humanitarian or commercial purpose, smuggles, organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to smuggle, organize, induce, aid or abet a person to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim is guilty of an offence and is liable".
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 1 to 9 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"95.2 Every person who knowingly, and for other than a humanitarian or commercial purpose, smuggles, organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to smuggle, organize, induce, aid or abet a group of ten or more persons to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim is guilty of an".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Your Honour and the Table Officers for allowing me to make my representations. As Your Honour has quite rightfully pointed out, there was not enough time between Friday night and today to discuss the difference between my amendment in committee and my Motions Nos. 15 and 17.
Essentially, Clause 9 was probably the one that epitomized the concern of Canadians the most, namely, that it would allow under the law an individual Canadian, a priest, a nun or any other individual layman, to be fined or imprisoned for aiding a refugee applicant who does not possess identification documents or a Canadian visa. Mr. Speaker, you can well imagine the uproar from Canadians, in particular civil liberty groups, the Canadian Bar Association, churches, non-profit organizations and Amnesty International as a result of placing the onus on these individuals to pay the price rather than on the smugglers and consultants about whom everyone has agreed something must be done.
The Minister has said, "Do not worry. We will never put in prison or fine a priest or a nun who helps legitimate refugees". I am not concerned with the meaning or the intention of the Minister since Ministers come and go. Even you and I, Mr. Speaker, will go one day, much to the regret of the House of Commons. This is why during bad governments in particular it is important to have good legislation, legislation which will protect the citizens of Canada.
This piece of legislation, perhaps interpreted by the present Minister or by someone else, can be interpreted according to the letter of the law and would therefore make liable any individual Canadian, including thousands and thousands of church groups, although this wording is not limited to religious institutions. Many social and humanitarian organizations have been at the forefront of helping those less well off than you and me, Mr. Speaker.
Who do Hon. Members think were the first to advocate food banks, particularly in the basements of churches in the Province of British Columbia? These food banks came to the aid of those who did not have food on their tables. Can Hon. Members think of any more regressive or humiliating thing than to have to line up for one's food? It was the churches and it is still the churches which have filled the vacuum in 1987 with the plenty which surrounds us, and the line-ups are getting longer.
The churches and other organizations have come to the aid of those looking for a home. To date, Governments have not said anything particularly negative about the role played by churches and non-profit organizations. However, all of a sudden the same institutions which help refugees will now be made liable to imprisonment or to fines. 1 challenge the Government to produce one Canadian who would be in favour
August 31, 1987

of that law. I am not suggesting that the churches or nonprofit organizations be put above the law. No one, including government Ministers and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), is above the law. But when there is a law that makes liable individual groups and Canadians who legitimately and out of humanitarianism come to the aid of a person fleeing persecution, then what type of country are we trying to become under this Conservative administration?
Is the Government proud to follow the lead of the United States of America? In that country members of the clergy have to hide refugees away from law enforcement officials. Is that the direction which this Government wishes to take? Unless the Government changes Section 95.1, not only will it be following the course taken by the United States of America, it will in fact supersede that country.
It is for that reason that at the committee stage and at second reading we tried to move members of the Government and the Minister away from this wording in order not to allow a blanket-type of legislation which will potentially incriminate everyone yet catch only a few. That is not the way to draft laws. When laws are drafted we have a purpose, an objective. In this case the objective is abusers of the law. Let us clearly define who are the abusers. Once we have done that, let us target our laws appropriately and effectively in order to get those people.
Why put in the same category a manipulator who charges $15,000 a head, dumps people in the oceans and leaves them to pick up another load to bring somewhere else, and a parish priest of a church in my riding who continues to help people in need whether or not they have identification documentation? The action of my parish priest is different from that of the smuggler who makes half a million dollars on every load. Why, under the law, are the priest and the smuggler potentially one and the same? It is my intention to differentiate between the two.
This is not to say that the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party or the Chairman of the standing committee are in favour of abuse because they rise to speak about this issue. This issue has become like the constitutional accord, every time we try to make an amendment, we are seen as anti-Quebec. That approach cannot be taken. That is why I am moving the amendment today to include the word "humanitarian". This is an attempt to amend the law in this way by stating:
Every person who knowingly, and for other than a humanitarian or
commercial purpose, smuggles, organizes, induces, aids or abets-
This is a specific word that would set clear in legislation the intention of which the Minister speaks, which intention suggests that churches, organizations and individuals who are helping refugees legitimately are not the target and cannot be the target under this legislation. In response in committee the Minister said: "We cannot use words that cannot be defined by the law, words that would allow smugglers or others to profit through the loopholes". I am not saying that "humanitarian"
Immigration Act, 1976
is the only word to use. However, by using that word it is our intention that we be very specific in this law.
I would like to advise the Parliamentary Secretary that the words "charity", "non-profit" and "humanitarian" have been used in 38 different statutes of this Government.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not in the mood to listen to the response from the Parliamentary Secretary when he asked what it means when the Hon. Member for York West suggests a humanitarian. It is general, broad, and it does not appear anywhere else. I am sure that when checking the federal statutes and the Immigration Act there are legal definitions of the word "humanitarian", otherwise that word would not appear 38 different times in our federal statutes. I am sure that there is a definition of a church and a non-profit organization.
My point is that the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, or indeed the government Members cannot use the excuse that legally they could not find the phrases to define those very people whom we are trying to exclude from this regressive law, but in fact the words presently are in our federal statutes. If there is a political will to state clearly in intentions and also in law that the target of the Bill will not be and cannot be those groups and Canadians who are presently serving their fellow man, in this case, refugees, then it can be implemented
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary why there was no legal word or phrase that would set forth the intention that the Government does not want to throw in jail or fine a priest, or an individual Canadian who is helping refugees, but that under the law those intentions are real? In other legislation in other areas of policy in the Government or in the federal domain drafters have been able to come up with those terms and define them. Given the precedent, and the fact that "humanitarian" is used 38 times in our federal statutes, why was it not possible to find this word or another word with the same meaning to put in this legislation in order to match intentions with the law? Intentions are only as good as the paper on which they are written. It is the courts and the decision-makers that will ultimately interpret and follow the law. According to proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 it makes liable any individual, church, or otherwise, who legitimately will be aiding refugees without documentation.
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Orlikow:: I must admit that I came in late. I wonder if I heard the Hon. Member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope that the Hon. Member is not rising on a question or a comment. There are no questions or comments allowed under Standing Order 114.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: With unanimous consent.

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North to ask a question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: I heard the Hon. Member defining the word "humanitarian" in his amendment. I did not hear him explain the three words following the word "humanitarian" which are "or commercial purpose". I wonder if the Hon. Member could explain that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for York West to answer the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: If the Hon. Member will check with the Table Officers, he will find that this was a typing error which was not part of the motion. It has been struck by the Table. The three words "or commercial purpose" should not be in that motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Spadina on debate.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: 1 rise to support the motion of my hon. friend from York West. I would have preferred to handle the same problem in a somewhat different way. 1 will discuss that at a later time.
It has been proposed that we should exempt from this law people who act for a humanitarian purpose. As the Hon. Member stated, the word "humanitarian" is one that is in legal usage. Governments, courts, and the public have found it possible to use this word with a known meaning in legal matters. Therefore, it is a possible way in which to resolve what many people see as an unclarity, a possible mix-up, or a drafting error in the law.
When we started debate on the Bill, I was very much of the mind that there was a drafting error. One of the chief drafters, the director of the legal section of the task force, gave me a briefing on this. He explained that Sections 95.1 and 95.2 hinge on the difference between the word "into" and the word "to". He spent approximately half an hour explaining to me that to bring a person "to" Canada is legal, to bring a person "into" Canada is illegal, always was, and should be.
Later the Minister told me he was wrong. I am not sure about the quality of a law that is drafted by someone who soberly and conscientiously told me one thing, and after hearing the Minister, had to admit that what he told me was not true in regard to the meaning of a crucial clause in the law.
It seems to me very ironic that this Government, no less than
the previous Government, and possibly more, has actively
sought partnership with churches, unions, and all types of nongovernmental organizations in the work of bringing refugees to Canada and helping them to settle here.
When the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) was Minister of Employment and Immigration, she told me that it was an important part of her plan to win that type of co-operation. In fact, at that time the host program began and it has continued. Churches and other such groups have joined with the Government in helping to settle refugees. Often they joined with the Government by helping very substantially to settle the refugees sponsored by the Government. Perhaps there is some confusion about how many the Government sponsored and how many the church sponsored, but one has to look at the whole picture and not pick certain figures out of context. It has been acknowledged by government officials that they have helped a great deal in providing information. The church has a good network and it is represented in places where the Government is not represented, and it is also represented in most places where the Government does have overseas posts. Therefore, information that the church has brought about countries has been greatly used by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee and by the Immigration Commission in trying to identify the type of problems that may generate refugees and attempting to clarify who are the refugees and what is needed in response to a real refugee who has been through some very terrible experiences.
All this information was actively sought by the Government, and I am glad that it was. The churches responded very positively, as did other groups. Many of those groups were ad hoc groups, for example, the Nanaimo Immigrant Aid Society and the Immigrant Aid Society in many other towns and cities. Without that assistance, the Government would have been greatly hampered in meeting its own goals in this matter.
In fact, this year the Government announced it was necessary to impose very harsh restrictions on the entry of refugee claimants into Canada over the American border. It announced those restrictions on Friday morning and on Sunday afternoon there was a great rally in the City of Fort Erie of over 300 local townspeople who were led by their clergy. For about half an afternoon in the park they held what they called a celebration of refugees. They told me that in the past two years they had billeted 500 refugees in the Town of Fort Erie. It started one evening a couple of years ago when one of our immigration officers on the bridge met a Salvadoran family, did the necessary paperwork and procedure and then asked, "Where are you going tonight?" They didn't know. The officer told them to wait. He phoned around and found them a place to stay with a friend, which by the way is the kind of thing the churches have been doing spontaneously. A committee was formed within a few days and that network billeted 500 people in a small city in two years. Southern Quebec at the same time sent a truckload of food and blankets to refugees who had been sent back to Plattsburg, New York, who had been stopped from coming into Canada. That competes with an action between Windsor and Detroit for
August 31, 1987

being the first time, at least in modern days, that refugee aid was sent to the United States of America.
There are all kinds of ways that people in the maritime provinces, the central provinces and the prairie provinces, even Alberta, are doing. 1 say that because I know the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) is very much aware of the refugee activities and refugee support activities in Alberta. Although there are fewer there than in Ontario for reasons that the Member could explain better than I, Albertans are making refugees very welcome.
It is ironic that the Government should undertake now to pass a law that refers to every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to smuggle, organize, induce aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa or passport, because thousands of people have helped thousands of people do that very thing. People have helped those coming to Canada by assisting them to the nearest immigration office believing that they were acting lawfully. Nobody in this Government, including the present Minister, ever whispered to them that they were not acting lawfully. They read the Act, they listened to the officials and the Minister. They did what was lawful and they were praised for it, at least by the preceding Minister, if not by the present one.
It is ironic that we should now have a law saying that everyone who does that is guilty of an offence and is liable, et cetera. It is not nearly good enough to say, "You are nice people and we would never prosecute you", as was made very clear by a representative of the Inter-Church Committee on Refugees, a layperson who has worked on refugee affairs for about 20 years. These people are not asking to be protected from prosecution. They are saying, "Do not make us guilty of an offence for doing what you encouraged us to do for these many years". I really thought at first that there was a misunderstanding. We tried, as we heard from an earlier speaker, to get this clause amended in committee. I remember very clearly the Parliamentary Secretary saying that he did not think words could be found any better than the ones that were in the law.
That leads me to the conclusion that there was no misunderstanding but a fundamental moral change in the law to prevent, or at least to discourage or intimidate, Canadians or anybody else from helping refugees coming into Canada unless they are privileged to have visas. It is not to help them evade the law. Even to help them meet the law will now be made an offence. It must be the first time that the Government has sought to pass a law to make it an offence to help somebody keep the law. I am very sorry but that seems to be the Government's decision. I hope there is still time for Members opposite to reconsider their position and adopt the motion that we have before us.
Immigration Act, 1976


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we have stated on several occasions today that this Bill contains too many discretionary powers. We have regretted that and pointed at passages and clauses where too much power is given to an individual Minister. We do not like it.
1 can tell you that nothing is more repugnant, Mr. Speaker, than this Clause 9 and nothing is more upsetting than the content of this measure which prompted the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) to put forward his amendment, which I fully support.
In essence, the Government is taking a line whereby it wishes to give an oral assurance to groups, volunteer organizations and churches not to prosecute them, while at the same time putting into law a measure that will prosecute them the very moment the promise is forgotten. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how naive and incompetent can one be in making the kind of statement which the Minister made in committee? You cannot do things that way. You cannot expect to give this kind of reassurance unless it is embodied in the law. It is irresponsible to expect society to function on the basis of verbal assurances by the Minister of the day. What will happen with the Minister of tomorrow, a logical question which the Hon. Member for York West already raised? You do not make laws that way.
What is repugnant about this measure, which is very upsetting, is the fact that you would treat as criminals through a blanket clause in this Bill a number of people who have been and will continue-I repeat, will continue-to be involved in matters relating to the refugee movement in Canada. Why am I saying that, Mr. Speaker? Because we have it on record in statements by two representatives of the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows very well what was said. Nancy Pocock said:
If my Government tells me it is a crime to help these people,
Namely, refugees.
-I will have to say I am obeying a higher law and I am going to continue to
help them when they need me.
This is quite a statement from a person who has high moral standards and motivation flowing from a life dedicated to this kind of work. Another member of the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, George Cram, said:
1 do not want to be guilty of committing an offence for doing humanitarian
work.
True. What civilized society would do that? It is so unCanadian. It is absolutely revolting that this kind of legislation would be allowed. It is upsetting and embarrassing. As the Hon. Member for York West said earlier, you can make a distinction between activities that are oriented by profitmaking and activities that are non-profit making. Any law writer can make that distinction, but it takes political will to do it. The Member for York West indicated the number of times where the word "humanitarian" has been used in federal statutes. It is over 30. The number is over 30. There is no

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
excuse for the Government to tell us that it cannot be done. It can be done, but the political will is not there.
To add insult to injury, we have a Minister who has the nerve to say, "Don't worry, you guys over there, the InterChurch Committee, we will not prosecute you. We will keep our word". How serious is that? How can you make laws that way? Not even a banana republic would do that. It is either on the books or it is not, and it is on the books, unfortunately.
The matter was raised at second reading stage a number of times by the Hon. Member for York West and by other Hon. Members including myself. This clause is a shame and it must be given attention by the Government if it has any respect for volunteer organizations and all those involved in this kind of work.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has a special sensitivity for the movement outside the country in which refugees are involved, and I know that he will take the matter up with the Minister. The Bill cannot be allowed to go ahead like this.
As we all know, there is an enormous difference between those who get involved for the purpose of profit-making and those who are involved for humanitarian considerations only. Everyone in this room knows that there is a big difference. The distinction can be made and it is clear. The terminology does exist if one wants to choose from it. It must find its way into this piece of legislation.
Clause 9 is a repugnant clause for which there is no room in the Bill in light of the traditions we have developed in Canada. It is not consistent with our international reputation. There is no way that this clause should be allowed by those backbenchers over there to stand on the books. It ought to be changed and ways to do it must be found.
I fully support the amendment of the Hon. Member for York West. Blanket incrimination rather than targeting those whose motives are venal is not fair and is not right. The distinction must be made.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) said that it is up to the Government to find the word to be used. Now the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) asks why the Government does not find the word. It is their amendment. Why did they not find the word? They can get themselves the latest edition of Roget's Thesaurus and use any synonym they want.
I have no objection at all to their using any word they want in their amendment. If it meets the narrow definitions of the Criminal Code, that is fine. However, I can say that the word "humanitarian" will not do it.
I agree that that word is used elsewhere in the statutes and
even in the immigration law. However, it is not used in definite
regulations. It is of course used in the context of broad Canadian goals.
I would ask the Hon. Member for Davenport, as I asked the Hon. Member for York West in committee, to define "humanitarian" in a world context. Both Hon. Members know that every radical group in the world thinks its goals and objectives are humanitarian.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Pinochet never uses it.


Benno Friesen: Of course, he is saving his country from communism. Check with Abu Nidal or the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah has saved his country from that great Satan, the United States. What a favour he has done for the Iranian people! That, in his world context, is being a humanitarian.
As I did in committee, I will bring it a little closer to home. Within the last two weeks, there was a case in British Columbia of a young lady riding a motorcycle who had an accident. Her leg was severed and she was taken to the hospital. The humanitarian staff at the hospital wanted to save her life. However, the treatment required a blood transfusion and she was a Jehovah's Witness. Try as they might to be humanitarian in their scale of values, her scale of values did not allow them to give her a transfusion, and she died.
How are we to define "humanitarian"? We cannot use a loose, subjective word like that and expect the law to carry weight and to be effective.
Hon. Members have spoken about the threat to churches. I have been interested in refugees for a long time and I have been active in my church for a long time. I have never once felt threatened by the law because of my interest in refugees.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Of course not, this law wasn't passed then.


Charles L. Caccia: That's right, big deal.


Benno Friesen: That's right, big deal. Let me offer the House the statistics. There is no need for any organization to come to the border with so-called refugees who are undocumented. To come to the U.S.-Canada border without documents is unnecessary. They can go to any Canadian Consulate in the United States to obtain documentation. They can go to refugee detention centres on the U.S.-Mexico border and be documented. Any church or humanitarian organization that so chooses can go to the United States and sponsor refugees to give them a more certain future than it would be doing it the way they describe they want to do it.
Central American landings seem to be the focus of attention of all the groups that have criticized this legislation. In 1986, the Government sponsored 299 Central American landings in Canada from Central America. Private groups sponsored 14. From the United States, the Government sponsored 1,018, and private groups sponsored 76. From others abroad, the Government sponsored 2,465, and private groups sponsored 149.
August 31, 1987

Up to June of 1987, the Government sponsored 101 Central American landings in Canada, and private groups sponsored 17. From the U.S., the Government sponsored 680 and private groups, 19.
If Hon. Members want to help Central American refugees, the simplest thing they could do is to go to the United States and sponsor all the refugees they want. If they do it in the United States, the refugees come to Canada with work permits and they are secure as soon as they are in Canada.
There are thousands of refugees in the United States. I ask Hon. Members opposite who speak on behalf of these organizations why they only brought 76 refugees from the United States in 1986 when the Government brought in 1,018. Why did they not bring in more? There are unlimited opportunities to sponsor refugees if they want to. Why in the first six months of 1987 did they bring in from the United States only 19 refugees when the Government brought in 680? If they are so interested in helping refugees, why have they not done so?


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


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, could I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no unanimous consent. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motions Nos. 15 and 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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

It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed with Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone by prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within Canada, the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms and further, the government should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to undertake similar action.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the establishment of nuclear weapons free zones in areas around the world has increased enormously over the last several years. Nuclear weapons free zones exist by international treaty in four global regions: The sea bed, Antarctica, outer space, and Latin America. International recognition is presently being sought as well for the nuclear weapons free zone established in the South Pacific during 1985. At least 17 nations have declared themselves nuclear weapons free zones, including Japan, Sweden, Austria and New Zealand. A number of other countries which are members of NATO have also done so. In addition, there are currently proposals for regional zones in the Balkan states, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, the Indian Ocean and parts of Europe.
Here in Canada as of June of this year the number of nuclear weapons free zones has grown to 169. In addition to cities such as Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Toronto, Montreal, Bathurst, Lunenburg and St. John's, scores of local Governments have passed motions declaring their own communities to be nuclear weapons free. The Provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, as well as the Northwest Territories, have done the same. Just over 59 per cent of the Canadian population now lives within nuclear weapons free zones.
Almost from its beginning the UN has urged its members to create these zones in order to build an international climate that would bring about a comprehensive arms limitation agreement. In fact, in 1978 the final report of the UN special session on disarmament declared: "The establishment of nuclear weapons free zones on the basis of arrangements arrived at among states in the region concerned constitutes an

August 31, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
important disarmament initiative. The process of establishing such zones should be encouraged with the ultimate objective of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons".
In the past, Canadian Governments have traditionally supported the thrust of this policy. At two special sessions of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament, one in 1978 and the other in 1982, Canada supported the final declarations which encouraged the establishment of nuclear weapons free zones. It would appear from all that activity that Canada should have taken the lead and shown by example what it is indeed encouraging other nations to do. Instead, we have managed to confuse our position by acts of both the present and previous Governments.
This is the third time this particular motion has been debated, once on May 29, 1984, and once on October 10, 1985. As well, two similar Private Members' Bills were debated, one put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) on March 18, 1985, and the other put forward by the previous Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, Mr. Doug Anguish, on March 30, 1985.
In reviewing those debates, the central argument used by opponents of this proposal is that if Canada were to adopt it, her obligations to her allies would be seen to be diminished. In particular, it would isolate Canada from her allies in NATO and NORAD. As I understand the policy of the present Government, it is that it does not support the declaration of a nuclear weapons free status for Canada because Canada does not possess nuclear weapons. Since such weapons are not stationed in Canada we are essentially a nuclear weapons free zone. However, since we are members of NATO, which is a defence alliance which deploys a nuclear deterrent, we would be inconsistent with our membership in NATO if we were to adopt this motion.
I fully expect to hear that same kind of argument being advanced numerous times in the course of this debate. However, my Party believes, as do I, that on the evidence the argument does not stand up. Nuclear arms are not even mentioned in the North Atlantic Treaty. Therefore, Canada is not obliged to support what has developed as a NATO policy. As well, the treaty makes it clear that it is up to member states to decide the size and nature of their commitment within NATO. Presumably that is the reason given by Canada for its recent decision to withdraw its contingent of troops from Norway. It is also why Canada took the position at the 1957 Paris heads of government meeting that whether or not Canada would commit itself to having nuclear weapons was a decision only Canada could and should make. As we all know, the record will show that we decided not to do that.
I would like to think that we made that decision because to do otherwise would have meant that we would be lending our support to the build-up of nuclear arms and contributing to the increase in world tensions and the threat of nuclear war. In my view, the position Canada took was both visionary and in keeping with the respect we have internationally as a peaceloving nation. I think we continue to enjoy that respect, but I also believe the principles we adopted then are not as clear today. In point of fact, while continuing the policy not to store or deploy nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, we also provide support for the development, testing and training in the use of nuclear weapons. We place no restrictions on Canadian industrial involvement either in the production of U.S. nuclear and nuclear capable delivery systems or, indeed, their components. Even though we have policy restrictions with respect to the export of fissionable material, there is clear evidence that this material is finding its way into arms production in France, South Korea and in the U.S. In addition to that, U.S. and British warships which are nuclear-capable, and some suspected of being actually armed with nuclear weapons, are allowed to visit Canadian ports.
It is also the policy of nuclear nations within NATO to "neither confirm nor deny" the presence of weapons on their vessels. They also apply this policy to aircraft. Yet while we as Canadians reject this policy for aircraft over Canadian territory, we seem to find it acceptable for naval vessels in our waters. I have never heard a satisfactory answer from either Government as to why this contradiction in our policy exists. However, it does.
1 can provide numerous other examples where Canada's policies are a departure from her stated principles, but I will leave that to other speakers who will be rising in the course of this debate. It is sufficient to say that these few examples 1 have given illustrate the numerous inconsistencies in our stated principles as opposed to our developed policies.
Another central argument which has been made against Canada dissociating itself entirely from this nuclear policy development is that it would threaten Canadian jobs. That is also an argument that was used in the initial stages of the debate on whether Canada should or should not be involved in the U.S. Strategic Defence Initiative or, as it is more commonly known, Star Wars. That argument was made even after many studies showed that military spending is one of the least effective ways to create employment.
One of those many studies conducted by the U.S. Labour Department showed that for every $1 billion spent on military procurement 28,000 jobs could be created. The same $1 billion would create 32,000 jobs if it were used to upgrade transportation systems, 57,000 jobs if it were spent on consumption of goods and services, and 71,000 jobs if it were spent on education.
Apart from any other consideration, I think it is irresponsible to talk about the need to create jobs through nuclear arms production when we know full well what the results of their use would be to mankind. However, it does bring me to another related point which I think brings into sharp focus the insanity of the global arms build-up and the developed world's wrong-headed setting of priorities. I am referring to the
August 31, 1987

recognition that has been given to the maxim that we cannot achieve world peace if we cannot also achieve economic and social justice on the global scale.
The United Nations has estimated that some 130 million children in our world are denied access to any form of education and that 800 million adults are considered illiterate. One-half of the Third World countries have no safe drinking water supplies, yet the technology is available to provide it within 10 years. We could do the same to prevent the hunger that is killing hundreds of thousands every year.
The World Health Organization tells us that 10 children die each minute as a result of contracting measles, diphtheria and tuberculosis and that only 10 per cent of the Third World's population is even immunized against disease. We also know that air and water pollution is responsible for increased illness and death from diseases such as asthma, cancer and heart disease.
Yet, we continue to spend billions of dollars on weapons that are capable of destroying every living thing on our planet. In my opinion and that, I am sure, of most reasonable Canadians that is the ultimate in insanity.
Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lent their support to the notion behind the motion which is before the House by signing petitions that call for the House of Commons to adopt the statements I have included in this motion. They recognize, as I do, that declaring Canada a nuclear weapons free zone will not change the world overnight. International tensions and relationships are too complex, unfortunately, for that to happen. However, I argue that by adopting this motion Canada would be affirming to the international community its position that our stated principles of the fact are to become our policies of today.
Under the rules of the House this motion will receive five hours of consideration during the time set aside for Private Members' Business. The motion is also a votable item and I ask Members on all sides of the House to give serious consideration to the debate and to the motion and to consider supporting it.
In conclusion I would like to quote from a working paper entitled "Making Canada a Nuclear Weapon-free Zone" that was made available by Project Ploughshares. In my view it sums up the argument very well. The document says:
The point of any state becoming a NWFZ-
-a nuclear weapon-free zone, Mr. Speaker-
-(or joining an international NWFZ) is not to seek immunity from nuclear war. Once war breaks out, all bets are off and any country, whether nuclear weapon-free or not, will be vulnerable to direct attack-the relevant circumstance being whether or not the nuclear combatants will consider it to their advantage to attack or not to attack-and all suffer the post-war devastation and nuclear winter.
Treaties count for little in war, and they certainly count for nothing in the sharing of the effects of war. Similarly, while a Canadian NWFZ would eliminate any willing Canadian role in nuclear warfighting, this also is not the point of a NWFZ-after the war few Canadians could either be around or inclined to celebrate the virtues of non-involvement in global self-immolation.
Nuclear Armaments
A NWFZ is not an attempt to make one immune to the effects of war, rather it is an attempt to influence national and international behaviour before war breaks out, thus helping to reduce the likelihood of war. A NWFZ is a peacetime measure to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons, to withdraw political and technical support for the nuclear arms race, and to build trust between nations and regions of the globe.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a sentiment which has been expressed by the vast majority of Canadians, both individually through petitions to the House of Commons and through the actions of representatives at local and provincial government levels. This is the first time in the last several years that the House of Commons has had an opportunity to express its view on this very important matter. I look forward to the coming debate.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) for putting this motion before the House. I believe that it is too seldom that we take a look at one of the most important aspects of our civilization, in the words of Tolstoy, war and peace.
We have been asked to consider today the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone and to encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to undertake similar action. In a perfect world the need to consider such a proposal would not present itself. Unfortunately, we well know that the world in which we live is far from perfect. Given the nature of modern submarine and missile technologies it is not fanciful to see a direct potential threat to Canadian security and sovereignty.
We must, therefore, take a realistic and pragmatic approach to conditions. The Hon. Member who just spoke is filled with good intentions and I admire them. However, we must be practical and deal with reality. To do otherwise would be more than foolish, it would be dangerous for Canada.
In the face of the known threat, of which nuclear arms are a major component, Canada has joined with other countries which share similar values and interests in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an alliance founded in a concept of collective defence. The primary role of the alliance is to safeguard the security of member nations by deterring aggression. This deterrence capability, which is weighted and balanced against the forces of the Warsaw Pact, relies ultimately on nuclear weapons. Although the alliance has pledged never to resort to force except in response to attack, it remains united in its determination to deter any aggression against its members. The Hon. Member who has just spoken wishes to do away with the deterrence. Our Government continues to believe that it is through participation in these collective defence arrangements, rather than retreating into the uncertain security of a nuclear weapons free zone, that we can make our most effective contribution to preserving peace and security for ourselves and others.

August 31, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
I would not want Members of the House, however, to believe that Canada is dragging its heels in promoting peace. Far from it. While we have not considered such zones to be a satisfactory alternative to the ratification of the non-proliferation treaty, this Government does believe that, in the absence of universal adherence to the non-proliferation treaty, the creation of such zones can make a contribution to the objective of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In order to be effective, such zones must: first, apply to a well defined geographic area; second, have support from the principal military powers of the region; third, not give military advantage to any state or group of states; fourth, contain adequate treaty assurances and means to verify that all countries abide by the commitments involved; fifth, not permit the countries of the area to have an independent nuclear explosive capability; and finally, enhance regional security and international stability.
Some Hon. Members may believe such criteria to be excessively rigorous, but we believe it is only through strict application of such criteria that nuclear weapons free zones will be effective. Canada has voted in favour of United Nations resolutions calling for such zones in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. We have also backed measures which would consolidate the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in Latin America, in accordance with the Treaty of Tlateloko. Canada also supports the South Pacific nuclear free zone which came into effect under the Treaty of Rarotonga in December, 1986.
There are some areas of the world, however, where efforts to create nuclear weapons free zones have not succeeded. It would be useful to look at some of these in order to clarify Canada's position.
The idea of a Nordic nuclear weapons free zone has been under discussion for almost 30 years. The primary impediment to its establishment is that such a zone is not considered viable without the inclusion of the Baltic region and parts of the western U.S.S.R. in the geographically designated areas. The U.S.S.R. has provided no indication that it would accept the inclusion of its territory owing to the military significance of the Kola Peninsula, which is the location of the densest concentration of nuclear weapons in the world.
The creation of a Balkan nuclear free zone appears even more remote despite expressions of interest of all the Balkan States on various occasions. The major obstacle is that the removal of American nuclear weapons from the area would create a destabilizing regional imbalance since nuclear weapons on neighbouring Soviet territory would remain untouched. The various inter-regional conflicts and multilateral differences, particularly the fact that the region includes two NATO and two Warsaw Pact members and other non-aligned nations, further complicate this issue.
In Southeast Asia, an increased Soviet naval presence and an expansionist Vietnam have prompted interest among the six Asian countries-Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand-in the establishment of a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality in their region. An important element of this concept would be the declaration of Southeast Asia as a nuclear weapons free zone. However, differences of view among the ASEAN states and practical problems of implementation have relegated the realization of the measure to the distant future.
1 have tried to show, then, that there are many factors which affect a region's ability to declare a nuclear weapons free zone. It is obviously even more difficult to make such a declaration effective and meaningful. In each case, specific and concrete strategic realities must be taken into account. It would be foolhardy and dangerous for Canada to pass such a resolution. Declaring Canada a nuclear weapons free zone would involve a serious abdication of our alliance responsibilities and might even require withdrawal from NATO. Such a proposal would clearly not have the support of our allies and would in all likelihood give military advantage to the Soviets, thus reducing regional security and international stability.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate to the House that Canada does support the declaration of nuclear weapons free zones if regional conditions permit. Such a declaration is not appropriate for Canada. A more productive approach is to encourage serious arms control and disarmament measures within established negotiating agencies such as the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Geneva. It is only through serious negotiations involving the nuclear weapon states that meaningful advances in arms control can take place.
Fortunately, the superpowers are, of late, negotiating seriously to find a mutually satisfactory way to reduce their nuclear arms. Countries such as Canada can and are doing much to encourage the superpowers to continue their efforts. In my opinion, the present situation is more hopeful than it has been in the last two decades. Progress is being made toward balance and verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons.
I am more optimistic today about nuclear disarmament than I have been since the U.S.S.R. started the new generation of nuclear weapons with its introduction of the SS-20, which destabilized the relative balance that existed in 1977.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in addressing this both provocative and important resolution, I am reminded of this summer when I had the opportunity to read a very long and fascinating book entitled The Making of the Atom Bomb. It was a study of how scientists from five or six different countries in the 1920s and 1930s arrived at the awesome discovery that we could unleash the force of the atom.
In light of the prevailing mood in Europe and the emergence
of Nazi Germany at that time, many of those scientists
decided that the force of atomic energy should be examined


August 31, 1987

with a view to making weapons, without really beginning to understand exactly what incredible power for destruction they were beginning to unleash.
That realization began to dawn in the 1940s, that this was not just another geometric expansion of dynamite, but something of unspeakable potent destruction that was unknown in the annals of humankind. Those scientists, including Niels Bohr, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and others who worked on those projects made a proposal to the politicians, specifically President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, that the possession of that weapon was a two-edged sword whose political application, if used correctly, could actually bring about an understanding among all nations that war of major proportions was impossible.
Some Elon. Members will recall the fierceness of the fire bombings of Cologne and other cities that our Armed Forces were able to wreak upon them at that time. We were able to understand that in our time we were able essentially to unleash the genie from the bottle.
The recommendation was that this weapon was so immense in its destructive power that it might just bring about a tone of sanity and perhaps form the basis for stopping wars since no one would be a winner any more. Unfortunately, the politicians did not listen to the creators of the atom bomb. In 194546 they decided that since our side had the advantage, we would attempt to use it to attain strategic advantage. They were warned that the Soviets would soon catch up because the power of the atom is not confined to any nationality, it is a universal knowledge. It was just a matter of time before someone from another country figured out how to make the bomb.
This resolution brought to mind that small history because it made me realize just how much of an eyelash away we came to actually controlling nuclear weapons and how much we lost it then. I am not saying we have more wisdom than our predecessors. Certainly we do not. However, I do mean to say that politicians, policy makers, have been faced with a number of crucial questions along the way about the application of nuclear weapons, and that we have made a lot of mistakes, beginning with the first one.
I think 1945 was when the new history began. Everything up to that was a prelude. The first explosion in New Mexico was the beginning of a new history. Since that time we have been trying to find various ways and means of putting the stop back into the bottle. We have not been too successful. When we think of it, Mr. Speaker, how many successful nuclear weapons agreements have there been since 1945? There was the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963 which limited test bans in the atmosphere. There were SALT negotiations to which the United States did not become a signatory but adhered to informally up until last year. There was the Non-proliferation Treaty of which Canada was the major architect. It tried to
Nuclear Armaments
control the application of nuclear weapons to other countries. That is about it. That about summarizes 43 years of trying to come to grips with this incredible, destructive power.
So much of it is involved in the cold war rhetoric. Somehow nuclear weapons have become intermixed with the competition between East and West, the Soviets and Americans, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and all the other competitions. We tend at times to believe that there is something plausible about a nuclear weapon. I mean, there are military people and some politicians on our side and certainly on the side of the Soviets, who believe that we could actually use nuclear weapons in wartime and get away with it. They actually say we can have a nuclear war fighting capacity. There are those people in the world and they are not locked up in insane asylums. There are in many cases people occupying very important positions in very important countries, who talk about using nuclear weapons in wartime. They say that if there are only 50 million or 60 million people killed in North America, that is an acceptable level of damage.
We have the same thinking on the Soviet side. Its military people are saying: "If we have to fight one, we will. We survived the Second World War and we can survive a Third World War". When we read these things we think, oh, my God, what are these people saying? In heaven's name, what are they talking about when they say it is okay to have 60 million or 70 million casualties in the first day, to say nothing of the impact on the environment and the atmosphere and the fact that it will totally destroy our social and economic cultural way of life? We cannot reconstruct what we have built up over the past 3000 or 4000 years after a nuclear war.
Surely, the real issue is how to get rid of the fighting. If we can never get rid of the knowledge, how can we finally find a way of putting down such implacable guidelines and controls? As 1 tried to point out, part of the question is not the techniques but the psychology. Part of it is the understanding. It is people like us in this Chamber and people in other political decision-making Chambers who have that power. We can listen to the scientists. We have listened to them in the past and we have not responded to their recommendations. It will be people like you and I, Mr. Speaker, reflecting ordinary Canadians who will be making those decisions.
Is it so wrong to think in terms of a nuclear weapons free zone? Many Canadians have latched on to that concept, not necessarily because they see it as the perfect answer, but it has a symbolic value, if nothing else. It is one way of ordinary Canadians expressing their gut reaction to us as politicians, as policy makers, which is to get rid of those things. They say: "Do not put myself and my kids in jeopardy". That is why we have resolutions in Ontario, Manitoba, the Territories and various towns and cities. It is one way for people to express themselves. I think we have to listen to that expression. We can be critical of the specifics. However, let us recognize what it represents. It is a heartfelt underlying current of opinion in this country, as it is in other countries around the world, that

August 31, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
perhaps the time has come to stop the insanity. Perhaps the time has come to try to recapture what we lost in 1945.
I have to admit to some surprise. When I introduced a motion of this kind at the policy convention of our Party last November, I did not expect it to pass. It was going to be one of those controversial resolutions. However, over 75 per cent of our delegates voted for it. Many said afterwards that they were not sure exactly what a nuclear free zone meant in terms of specifies, but they did know that it perhaps was one further extension of what this country has tried to say over the years, that is, that perhaps we are in some peculiar and unique way one of those countries that can stand up and provide a difference to this thing.
1 know I do not have much time and I wish I had another hour or two to explain this because it is a topic about which I feel strongly. Perhaps the most important nuclear weapons free zone that Canada should be arguing for right now is in the area of our Arctic, the northern territories. One of the really serious problems is that Canada can no longer treat nuclear weapons free zones as an academic exercise. It is not something that is happening in the South Pacific, in Antarctica or Latin America. We now face in our own northern territories the emergence of an arms race. We face the emergence of our own undersea submarines. In a sense I wish the resolution could be amended to say: "If there is one thing on which Canada should be united it is that we do not want an arms race on our territory underneath our own Arctic waters". We should be using every ounce of our diplomacy and persuasion to try to convince other countries who border on those Arctic waters to demilitarize and denuclearize, not to allow it to become an area of combat between Soviet and American submarines, not to allow the Forward Maritime Strategy to become the predominant philosophy.
This is an area where we can make not only a symbolic statement but a real statement because it affects us directly as Canadians. We should be negotiating with the Norwegians, the Russians, the Icelanders and the Americans rather than building up the arms race, rather than adding to the submarines, rather than putting missiles in those submarines. Let us declare our North nuclear free. Let us demilitarize. That is what I would like to see coming out of this kind of resolution, something not just symbolic in intent, as important as that may be, but something very real and tangible, and that is absolutely crucial.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be permitted the opportunity to comment on the motion of the New Democratic Party which would see Canada declaring itself a nuclear weapons free zone. I was disappointed, I must say, though, to hear the Liberal spokesman of his Party going again half-way and only wishing to declare half of Canada a nuclear free zone.
This type of motion has been debated on three previous occasions during Private Members' Business and once during an Opposition Day. The motion before us proposes a course of action for Canada which is unrealistic and hypocritical. The same could be said for the recently announced New Democratic Party's posture on defence.
No NATO members have declared themselves to be nuclear weapon free zones, and there are no NATO countries that prohibit visits by allied ships that may be carrying nuclear weapons.


Neil Young: What about New Zealand?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Some NATO countries have, either as a matter of government policy or by parliamentary resolution, decided that nuclear weapons should not, for the present, be stationed on their soil. Canada is among these countries which include Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Spain. However, these nations continue to share fully in the risks and responsibilities of Alliance collective security.
Alliance members, Canada included, have acknowledged publicly the critical requirement to maintain the continuance of nuclear and conventional deterrents as a pre-requisite to undiminished security at lower levels of armament.
Declaring Canada a nuclear weapons free zone would, first, be without precedent in NATO, as no other Alliance member has taken this course. Its consequences in terms of Alliance relationships cannot be predicted with certainty. Second, it would be incompatible with Canada's continued membership in NATO and NORAD, and, in particular, with participation in the NATO Nuclear Planning Group, which affords Canada the opportunity to consult on nuclear policy, including arms control affecting nuclear weapons.
This policy reflects the NDP's vision of a little Canada divorced from that larger community of states with which we share our traditions and basic political and social values.


Neil Young: Deal with the issue!


T.A. Bud Bradley: It suggests a ludicrous course of action which would be not only extremely costly for Canada to implement in terms of providing our own defence, but would result in a loss of credibility in the international community, reducing, not enhancing, Canada's ability on the world stage to encourage peace and stability.


Neil Young: You should talk to your Prime Minister.


T.A. Bud Bradley: For example, for Canada to take over the responsibility of the air defence alone would cost over $5 billion. I would ask: Where are the savings that the NDP proposes?
As a useful and effective international player Canada would lose the following benefits of membership by withdrawing
August 31, 1987

from NATO: the privilege of discussing with our allies the evolution of East-West relations and making our voice heard-


Neil Young: Talk about the motion, why don't you?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I was more than willing to sit very quietly and listen closely to my hon. friend.


Neil Young: But I spoke to the motion.


T.A. Bud Bradley: I would accept that he could make the same commitment to me and allow me to make my presentation.


Neil Young: At least I spoke to the motion.


T.A. Bud Bradley: We would lose the advantage of an existing consultative process in times of international crisis. We would lose the benefit of being a member of NATO taking part in arms control negotiations as exemplified by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the mutual and balanced force reductions. We would lose as a member of the NATO Nuclear Planning Group a voice in the planning process, as well as access to information shared within the Alliance.
In closing, I would argue that there is no way that Canada, deprived of the multilateral means now available through the Alliance structure, could achieve as much on the international stage if we were to follow the lead of the NDP. As our White Paper recently put it so eloquently:
Canada has never been neutral. We have always sought our security in a
larger family of like-minded nations.
In light of our position in the world, the values and traditions which have been defended steadfastly by previous generations of Canadians, and our political and economic interest, neutrality would be hypocrisy.
Our security would continue to depend on the deterrents provided by our former allies, but we would have opted out of any cohtribution to and, equally significantly, any say in the management of that deterrent. As I mentioned earlier, there is a possibility that acceptance of this motion could lead to the loss of that hope and faith we have in our collective securities.
We could turn our backs on the obligation to work for a stable world order. Technology and geography would not, however, allow us to escape the consequences should that order collapse.


Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, the motion by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) before the House today concerns a fundamental issue that is of more than passing interest to all Canadians, and that is the control of nuclear deterrence, Canada's defence and security, and peace. Mr. Speaker, I feel particularly privileged to speak to this motion today because, as you know, the headquarters of Canada's mobile force is located at CFB Saint-Hubert in the riding of Chambly which I have the honour to represent. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to mention the
Nuclear Armaments
excellent work being done by all members of Canada's mobile force.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has no nuclear arms, and right away,
I want to give Canadians the assurance that we do not intend to acquire any. Canada is a signatory to treaties guaranteeing non-proliferation and prohibiting nuclear testing. Furthermore, unlike most of its NATO allies, it neither stores nor deploys nuclear arms on its territory. Technically speaking, in peacetime Canada is, to use the terms of the motion, a nuclear arms free zone.
However, through its geographic location, it must live with the threat of a nuclear holocaust that in a conflict between the superpowers would not recognize neutrality and would spare no one.
There are only two ways to defuse such a threat: by maintaining a credible force to deter any potential aggressor and by negotiation.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know, and I want to take this opportunity to talk about Canadians, and I mean Canadians in every sense of the word, not the way the New Democrats and the Liberals use the term when they talk about the ordinary Canadian. Mr. Speaker, according to the dictionary, ordinary means: not special; common; everyday; or average. And that is what the Liberals and Socialists call the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has never called the Canadian people common or everyday. Canadians are a proud people, and the Conservative Government is proud of the Canadian people. We Conservatives would never speak in such negative and insulting terms of the people of this country.
There are no ordinary Canadians in this country. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, our present system of mutual deterrence is effective and stable. Through the most acute crises, it has given us over forty years of peace, and the Government believes this should continue. In this perspective, the Canadian Government's priority is not to create nuclear arms free zones but to maintain a peace zone. Earlier, I heard the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) mention a Third World War. Is there anyone in this House or in this Government who wants a Third World War on this planet? The Conservative Government would never dream of bringing a Third World War to this planet, to this country or to this continent.
This being a joint venture-we rely on our allies and they rely on us to deter a potential enemy-we are in favour of developing and maintaining nuclear forces which have every chance of surviving, as required if we are to set up an effective and credible deterrent system.

August 31, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
Mr. Speaker, this is why Canada contributes and must contribute to strategic deterrent forces even though it does not have nor deploy nuclear armaments.
Our role and mission in this connection are clear and securely anchored in our geography and in our history.
We must do our share to defend the North American air space, and this we accomplish through our defence effort and our membership in NORAD.
Mr. Speaker, 1 sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence and in that capacity 1 was able to tour NORAD bases and centres, not only in Canada but also at Colorado Springs in the United States, and 1 can attest to the importance of these military bases in North America and on Canadian soil. American support is essential if we are to continue to defend our large territory. Without the help of our American friends we would hardly be in a position to put up adequate defences. This would cost far more than we as a government and as a nation can afford to spend to guarantee our safety and that of our population.
We must protect NATO strategic forces by denying access to our air space, land and territorial waters to potential attackers. Mr. Speaker, this happens to be the thrust of the Government's defence program.
Finally, should the need ever arise, our allies must have ready access to our territory and our facilities.
We meet these obligations and carry out these collective security duties with due respect for our sovereignty and our integrity. In peacetime we contribute to the training and improvement of deterrent forces; in time of crisis Canada might authorize strategic force vectors to fly over its air space and use its defence facilities.
It is essential and in keeping with our policy and our commitments that our air space and firing ranges continue to be used for training and improving unarmed vectors, that our armed forces train side by side with NATO troops, and that deterrent force ships drop anchor in our ports.
This cannot be viewed as a threat against our country, it is part and parcel of its security and peace commitment.


Mr. Rossi:: Who wrote that?


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a project concerning the security of this country, yet the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) would rather make untimely remarks. He is not even interested in debating the thrust of this motion on the security of the whole Canadian population. And we are always . . . Such are the Quebec Liberal Members. That is what is left of them. We still have a few of the 74 nobodies of the 1980 administration, and they indulge in heckling while we are debating one of the most serious issues, namely the security of all Canadians.
It has a commitment to peace that is reflected in sustained
efforts to negotiate arms control and disarmament. This
negotiating process is unprecedented, both by its duration and
its intensity, and it contributes toward maintaining a dialogue between East and West. Our presence at the negotiating table, the opportunity we are given to influence the proceedings and their outcome are also the result of our membership in NATO. Our defence efforts and the fact that we share in a common defence effort have made Canada a valid and credible partner who can and does take initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think that leaving NATO or weakening its deterrent force would be the best way to contribute to world peace and security.
However odious resorting to nuclear arms to secure our defence may seem, their presence is essential to provide a balance to the Soviet nuclear arsenal. To withdraw would mean breaking our commitments. It would also mean undermining an equilibrium that is essential to maintaining peace.
In concluding, that is why I believe that the concept of having a nuclear arms free zone, though well meant, is a perilous one because it ignores the realities we must face and would reduce our capability to defend ourselves and, especially, to negotiate. That is certainly not our policy and it is not what this Government intends to do.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to speak after the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) who spoke to the motion put before the House today by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). We are debating a motion that is not an easy one, because it is very important for the future of this country and the whole world.
First of all, I would like to say that Canada's policy and practice is already in many respects attuned to the particular conditions of this motion, since Canada does not have any nuclear arms.
In normal times, that is, during peacetime, no nuclear arms are deployed or tested or built in Canada, nor are they transported in this country. Similarly, no activities involving nuclear arms take place on Canadian territory or under our country's jurisdiction without the specific consent of the Government of Canada.
I may also remind the House that Canada differs from many of its NATO allies in that it does not have nuclear arms on its territory. As for Canadian exports, our country's policy is firm in this respect. All exports of nuclear materials, equipment or technology must be used for peaceful purposes. They may not be used to trigger an explosion. The strict application of this policy is guaranteed through bilateral agreements with the co-operation of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Last Monday at the United Nations, Canada's role was
exemplified by the Secretary of State for External Affairs
(Mr. Clark). He was asked by the Secretary General of the
August 31, 1987

United Nations to be the first speaker at the historic Conference on Disarmament and Development. That was a recognition of Canada's continued leadership in seeing that the world pursues an intelligent course of nuclear disarmament and channels those moneys into developmental issues, which will solidify the problems and priorities and strengthen the Third World developments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have seven minutes left in his debate next time this motion comes up on Private Members' Business. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, August 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 10(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 1(c) and 8, because this House believes that amendments 1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (b), 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6. 7(a) and (b), 9 and 10(b) and (c) are in contradiction to the principles of the Bill which will increase intellectual property protection, increase research and development in Canada, create new high-technology jobs, improve the health care of Canadians, and protect consumers from higher drug prices. More specifically:
Amendments 1(a) and (b) delete the definitions of "Board" and "patentee". These definitions are necessary to support the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers.
Amendments 2(a) and (b) reduce Canada's export potential and fine chemical manufacturing.
Amendments 3, 4(a) and (b), reduce the periods of market exclusivity, thus eliminating the incentive for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendment 5(a) reduces the period of market exclusivity and export potential, thus reducing economic benefits for Canada.
Amendment 5(b) deletes the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers, and this amendment also removes the protection for Canadian-invented medicines and thus the incentives for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendments 6, 7(a) and (b), 10(b) and (c) arise out of amendments 1(a) and (b), 2, 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendment 9 arises out of Senate amendment 8, but is not consistent with the House amendment to Senate amendment 8, as set out below.
And, that:
Senate amendment 1(c) be amended to read as follows: "(c) Strike out lines 35 to 42 and add the following:
Patent Act
(2) For the purpose of sections 41.11 to 41.16, the notice of compliance that is first issued for either the original and distinct chemical composition of a medicine or the obvious chemical equivalent of the medicine shall be deemed to be the first notice of compliance issued in respect of that medicine."
Senate amendment 8 be amended to read as follows: "insert the heading "Transitional" and the following as clause 31:
31.(1) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shall pay to each province for each of the fiscal years commencing in the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1991, for the purpose of research and development relating to medicine, an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(i)	$25 million by
(ii)	the total population of all provinces for the fiscal year in respect of which the payment is made, by
(b)	the population of the province for the fiscal year in respect of which the payment is made.
(2)	Payment of any amount under this section shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such times and in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the population of a province for a fiscal year shall be the population of that province on the first day of June of that year as determined and published by the Chief Statistician of Canada."
and the amendment of Mr. Lewis (p. 8555).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 13(5) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Lewis for the previous question in relation to the motion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That the question be now put.
Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion
carried.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find an inclination in the House to apply the vote on the last motion to the present one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.37 o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, September 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to table the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and pursuant to Standing Order 67(4), the report is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, today, I welcome this opportunity to table two more petitions asking this Government to listen to the Canadian people, and especially to the many representations I and my party colleagues have made to the Members of the Party in power, the Progressive Conservative Party, all on the subject of proposed tax on food.
Conservatives in the Quebec Caucus have already said they do not want the Government to tax food, and we agree.
Mr. Speaker, the petition I am tabling on behalf of the constituents who visited my riding and especially the By Ward Market this summer, reads as follows:
Whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal has studied the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
And whereas food constitutes a vital element of day-to-day life, and imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain
categories of taxpayers, such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low income taxpayers, youth and students;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.
[DOT] <1110)


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, rise to present a petition from people mainly in Atlantic Canada opposed to the Draconian measures in Bill C-55 and call upon this House to reject the Bill and bring in one that is much more fair.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two petitions. The first deals with Bill C-55 which threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees and sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country as opposed to ensuring that genuine claimants are given protection.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings for claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Cyril Keeper: The second petition deals with the Post Office.
Whereas the federal Government's proposal to seek financial self-sufficiency by 1988 for Canada Post Corporation will result in cut-backs, deterioration in service and consequently will be at the expense of service to Canadian consumers, the petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved service the highest priority of Canada Post and abandon the policy of closing rural Post Offices and cancelling rural routes.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people in the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario concerning Bill C-55. They note that a standing committee of Parliament proposed a new procedure for

Order Paper Questions
refugees which if adopted would fairly and effectively solve problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims.
They therefore call upon Parliament to withdraw C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right of appeal on the basis of fact.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition concerning Bill C-55.
The petitioners state that a standing committee of Parliament proposed a new procedure for refugees which if adopted would fairly and effectively solve problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee status before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of the Cities of Toronto, Montreal and other municipalities in Ontario and Quebec. They object to Bill C-55. They point out that the concept of a safe third country has no foundation in law and no definition and therefore subjects the refugee process to undue political and diplomatic pressures. They also point out that a better alternative has been provided by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration which has the support of churches, the labour movement, the Bar Association and many other groups.
Therefore they request Parliament to withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact. In duty-bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government has kept its word and called the Bill we have on the Order Paper. I do not see either Minister to discuss the Bill. We have a series of amendments which are at this time usually the object of debate. I have one sheet of paper given to me by the Clerk concerning some amendments. I just wondered if prior to getting into the debate we could have some direction as to who is speaking for the Government in this debate and when we can expect to start debate on the amendments. The first amendment will be that of the Minister himself, Amendment No. 1.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that the debate will be led off by the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen). We are ready to go and I am sure things can proceed after your preliminary ruling.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Got you, JR.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have to apologize. I guess it was a Pavlovian reaction of some kind. I expected the Parliamentary Secretary to be in his place, which is on my extreme left. Today he is right in front of me. I understand there has been a shuffle and the Whip has brought some of his friends to the centre of things. I apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: This is also a problem for the Chair.

There are 23 motions on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof. I have had an opportunity to review some of the motions and propose that consideration be given as follows:
Motions Nos. 1, 4, 7, 11 and 18 standing in the name of the Minister will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motions Nos. 4, 7, 11 and 18.
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 seek to delete Clause 2. Since the motion of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) was received first, it will be selected for a separate vote and debate. Motion No. 3 will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 5, 9 and 20 will be selected for separate votes and debates.
August 31, 1987

Motions Nos. 6 and 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) are duplicates of Motions Nos. 5 and 9 and will not be selected.
The Chair will review the remaining motions and make a definite ruling at three o'clock.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 36
at page 2 the following:
"(3) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-71 entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act is assented to, then on the day this subsection comes into force, the reference in subsections 39(2) and (3) of the Immigration Act, 1976, as amended by this Act, to "19(l)(e) or (g)" shall be read as a reference to "19(1 )(e), (g) or (j)."
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 3
(a)	by striking out line 37 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "3.( 1) Subsection 40( 1) of the said Act is"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 5 at page 3 the following:
"(2) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-71 entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act is assented to, then on the day this subsection comes into force, the reference in subsection 40(1) of the Immigration Act, 1976, as amended by this Act, to "19(1 )(e), or (g)" shall be read as a reference to "19(1 )(e), (g) or (j)."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 4
(a)	by striking out line 6 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "4.(1) The said Act is further amended by"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 25 at page 6 the following:
"(2) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-71 entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act is assented to, then on the day this subsection comes into force, the reference in subsections 40(1) and (7) of the Immigration Act, 1976, as enacted by this Act, to "19(1 )(d), (e), (f) or (g)" shall be read as a reference to "19(1 )(d), (e), (f), (g) or (j)."
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 5
(a)	by striking out line 26 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor: "5.( 1) The said Act is further amended by"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 44 at page 6 the following:
"(2) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-71 entitled an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act is assented to, then on the day this subsection comes into force, the reference in paragraph 48.1(a) of the Immigration Act, 1976, as enacted by this Act, to "19(1 )(e), (f) or (g)" shall be read as a reference to " 19( 1 )(e), (f), (g) or (J)."
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 12
(a) by striking out line 31 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor: " 12.( 1) The said Act is further amended by"
Immigration Act, 1976
(b) by adding immediately after line 40 at page 21 the following:
"(2) If, during the second session of the thirty-third Parliament, Bill C-71 entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act is assented to, then on the day this subsection comes into force, the reference in subsections 104.1(1), (2) and (7) of the Immigration Act, 1976, as enacted by this Act, to "19(l)(e), (f) or (g)" shall be read as a reference to "19(1 )(e), (f), (g) or (j)."


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, since giving this Bill second reading about 10 days ago the House has passed Bill C-71 which deals with war criminals and those who have committed crimes against humanity. The five motions which we have presented at this time are all consequential amendments to the passage of Bill C-71 which was passed last week. Pursuant to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will deal with these five motions in one address.
The purpose of the motion to amend Clause 2 of Bill C-84 is to add "war criminals'" to the list of types of persons who may be made the subject of security reports leading to deportation from Canada.
Bill C-71 would add a new inadmissible class of persons to the list of inadmissible classes in Subsection 19(1) of the Immigration Act, 1976. This new inadmissible class, which would be described in Section 19(1 )(j) of the Immigration Act, precludes the admission to Canada of persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe had committed a war crime or crime against humanity.
The effect of Clause 2 of Bill C-84 is to continue the existing process for handling security matters concerning permanent residents of Canada. This process, set out in Sections 39 and 40 of the Immigration Act, involves a security report signed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Solicitor General, a review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and a recommendation to the Governor in Council.
It should be noted with reference to Bill C-71 that the provisions regarding the inadmissibility of permanent residents who may have committed a war crime is not retroactive. These provisions will prevent the admission to Canada for permanent residence of any person, after the proclamation of Bill C-71, who has committed a war crime or crime against humanity and will allow for the deportation of permanent residents who commit such odious crimes after the coming into force of Section 19(1 )(j).
I am sure that all Members will agree that persons who have committed a war crime or crime against humanity ought to be treated in the same manner as other persons who pose a security risk to Canada. This motion to amend will ensure that that is the case.
The purpose of the motion to amend Clause 3 of Bill C-84 is to add a reference to "war criminals" to Section 40 of the Immigration Act. As mentioned earlier in reference to Clause 2 of Bill C-84, Sections 39 and 40 of the Immigration Act set out the process for handling security matters involving

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
permanent residents of Canada. This motion is therefore consequential on the addition of the reference to Section 19(l)(j), which describes war criminals, to Clause 2 of Bill C-84. Clause 2 amends Section 39 of the Act.
The purpose of the motion to amend Clause 4 of Bill C-84 is to add a reference to "war criminals" to the list of types of persons who may be made the subject of security certificates leading to deportation from Canada. As mentioned in reference to Clause 2 of Bill C-84, Bill C-71 would add a new Section 19(l)(j) to the Immigration Act thereby making war criminals inadmissible to Canada.
Clause 4 of Bill C-84 establishes a new process for handling security matters involving persons who are not permanent residents of Canada, that is, for example, visitors, refugee claimants, and illegal aliens in Canada. The new process involves a security report signed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Solicitor General and a review by the Federal Court.
I am sure that all Members will want to support this motion to amend Clause 4 to ensure that once Bill C-71 is proclaimed war criminals will be treated under the Immigration Act in the same manner as other security risks.
The purpose of the amendment to Clause 5 of Bill C-84 is to ensure that when Bill C-71 is proclaimed war criminals will be denied access to Canada's refugee determination system.
The United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees provides in Article IF that:
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes.
The UN Convention lists war criminals as persons considered not to be deserving of international protection. As a result, we wish to deny access to the refugee determination system to minimize the prospect that such persons will be able to manipulate the system in order to delay their removal from Canada.
Finally, there is the amendment to Clause 12. The purpose of this amendment to Clause 12 would be to add a reference to war crimes to the new provisions established in Bill C-84 for detention at the port of entry for investigation of identity or security risk.
Clause 12 of Bill C-84 would establish a new Section 104.1 of the Immigration Act. This Section would permit the Minister to issue a certificate requiring detention of a person upon arrival in Canada for up to 28 days for investigation of whether that person may pose a security risk to Canadians.
The present motion to amend Clause 12 by adding a reference to paragraph 19(l)(j) of the Immigration Act as would be established by Bill C-71, would ensure that persons
suspected of being war criminals would be treated in the same manner as other persons who are suspected of posing a security risk.
Finally, I wish to emphasize that nothing in these amendments will interfere with our ability to prosecute war criminals in Canada. Removal provisions do not overrule or override the Criminal Code.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary steering this Bill so competently through the House. While I am very happy to hear his voice, and follow the logic of his approach, I must say that with two Ministers of Immigration in the House, whose combined skills are perhaps not as good as the Parliamentary Secretary alone, 1 cannot understand why they should not be here today to deal with their Bill and guide us through the report stage.


An Hon. Member:: Where is your critic?


Charles L. Caccia: When one considers that for some reason, which is hard to understand, the Tories decided to have two Ministers in charge of immigration, at least one of them ought to be here, particularly in view of the shabby way in which they have handled questions in Question Period when we were grilling the Government on a number of questions related to Bill C-84.
I must confirm my confidence in the Parliamentary Secretary and say that actually, in a way, 1 am reassured by the fact that his presence here today shows that his skill and competence is being recognized by the Government.
The amendments to Clauses 1, 4, 7, 11, and 18, which were put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, are important because they deal with the processing of war criminals. We on this side of the House concur in the necessity of introducing these clauses and debating them under one motion as you us to do a few moments ago.
Therefore, on behalf of the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), who is due to arrive any moment, I will be very glad to concur. I believe he has been held up on constituency business, which I believe everyone understands.
He is not the proponent of the Bill and there is a big difference. The proponent of the Bill is the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and that is why I am saying he should be here.
In any case, we concur with the motion before us.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, we support this group of motions relating to this amendment. We are also very pleased that the war criminals Bill has been passed. Of course, these motions are consequent upon it.
We support these motions, notwithstanding that we oppose those parts of Bill C-84 to which these motions relate. Specifically, we oppose the denial of access to the refugee
August 31, 1987

process for the several classes of people who are referred to in this motion. We disagree with the interpretation that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has given, based on a quotation from one aspect of the United Nations Convention for Refugees.
Representatives from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees made it very plain when they spoke to us during our committee hearings on this Bill that, while they do not grant the absolute demand for protection to war criminals and the others described in this motion, they still ask that the decision to find the person as one of those so described should be made as part of determining the refugee status which the person has claimed. We are talking about people who have claimed refugee status but are found to be inadmissible on these grounds.
The United Nations Convention does not require that Canada or any country admit somebody that it finds inadmissible on these grounds. It does not even require that Canada observe the rule against returning that person directly or indirectly to the country where he fears persecution. Therefore, the right of Canada to do what it thinks is necessary for its security, and necessary in accordance with the war criminals Bill, is not in any way infringed or challenged either by the United Nations Convention regarding the protection of the status of refugees or by the decisions of the executive of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. This was made quite clear to us by their representative who spoke to our committee a couple of weeks ago.
However, they do urge that their procedure be followed. Their procedure includes not only recognition or non-recognition of a person's claim to refugee status, but also recognition of the facts of the crimes of this sort for which the person may either be convicted or very reasonably suspected of committing.
In their view, the difference it makes is that if there is a person in Canada who is convicted or suspected of those crimes and therefore considered unacceptable, inadmissible in Canada-of course leaving aside the extradition at the request of another country which is based on other legislation- nevertheless, in regard to refugee status, Canada ought to allow the refugee process to continue its full course, including consideration of that security risk or crime, war crime, or crime against humanity.
Considering both facts, both the crime and the fact of refugee status, it might make a difference in how that person's situation would be handled. It might be possible, if the United Nations High Commission so wished, to have that person sent to some other country than the one from which he fled. There are war crimes and there are war crimes, and this has come out during the debate on the war crimes Bill.
Not everyone is completely at one about the exact definition or scope of the definition of war crimes. Therefore, the United Nations prefers that we follow the rule it has adopted, which is
Immigration Act, 1976
not binding on us but is recommended. It prefers that we do not deny access to the refugee states process even to these people. In fact, there have been very few cases, perhaps a couple of dozen, who have come anywhere close to this category in the last couple of decades in Canada.
It is not a burdensome item and the UNHCR prefers that we keep the principle clear of not denying refugee status to a person who has claimed it. But it is an agreement with us that after that status has been granted, and in the case of someone who is also found to fall into this inadmissible category, Canada then is free to deport that person according to our own laws but it wishes we would consult with the UNHCR before we do that.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we would be supporting this clause, although we will be opposing certain parts of the Bill with which this clause deals.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker since we are discussing the amendments proposed by the Government, I have a few questions for the Parliamentary Secretary and I think it would be desirable to have some appropriate answers.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, we adopted here in the House Bill C-71, a Bill that provides the courts with the requisite mechanisms to send war criminals living in Canada back to their own countries to stand trial. I have some trouble understanding why the Government is proposing these amendments. There must be a very logical answer which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary could give me.

1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. Since Bill C-71, which was adopted last Friday, is supposed to be a "made in Canada" approach to war criminals, that is, they would be charged under the Criminal Code, why do we now want to deport, or to be able to deport these same people? My understanding is that by virtue of Section 52 of the Immigration Act, persons can be tried in Canada before they are deported. Can we have some response from the Parliamentary Secretary as to why we would want to try these people and then deport them? Is that the purpose of the amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I to understand there is unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member of Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to put his question to the Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier will understand, of course, that in order to update legislation there must be full reference to new provisions made in other legislation. It would be inappropriate and incomplete to have a new Bill passed which deals with war measures and then have another measure passed dealing with immigration, which is affected by Bill C-71 in this particular case, and not have any

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
reference to it. It would be as though the Immigration Act was blind to a new provision which had been made under Bill C-71.
Yes, it would be the view that if someone has been here as a permanent resident and now falls under the inadmissible class of Section 19( 1) 1 (j), he is deportable just as every other person mentioned on Section 19(1) is deportable if they are a permanent resident.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motions Nos. 1, 4, 7, 11, and 18. A vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to the other four motions. Therefore, the question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 1, 4, 7, 11 and 18 agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Clause 2 and Clause 3 are really, as explained in the notes, consequential on Clause 4. However, I understand we have to take them up as they come.
The effect of Clause 2 or Clause 3 is to separate out certain groups from an action that is taken by Clause 4. The effect of the three clauses together is to set up a new procedure around the matter of security certificates. In the existing legislation we have provision for security certificates.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) together may sign a security certificate which accuses a certain person of being in effect a threat to the security of Canada. They are not required by law to provide information as to the nature of the action the person is accused of committing, nor are they required to provide any of the evidence. The argument for that contrary to our otherwise normal legal procedure in Canada is that to describe the act or the evidence might of itself endanger the security of Canada or the security of certain persons. This provision has been in force for some years and I am told that in the last couple of decades about 23 people have been accused under that provision.
There is a limited degree of protection of the rights of the persons so accused. The charge and the evidence are reviewed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the same body that was set up by Parliament to monitor the work of CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The Security Intelligence Review Committee will review the information, the accusation and the evidence, and it will describe some of it to the accused person, to the extent it believes it can give that
information without endangering the security of Canada or the safety of any persons. The accused person is allowed to respond to that limited part of the information. The Security Intelligence Review Committee then makes a recommendation to the Minister as to whether the certificate should be sustained or not. If the certificate is sustained, and if the Minister judges that the person is a threat to the security of Canada, that person may be deported.
What is being done by the new law is to say that while the earlier law applies to Canadian citizens, if they are so charged, and to permanent residents of Canada, if they are so charged, it does not apply to others such as visitors on a visitor's visa or to people who have come in without any adequate documentation such as many refugee claimants claiming what we have provided in our law as the Inland Refugee Claim procedure. Those people, including those refugee claimants, instead of having the certificate reviewed by the SIRC will have it reviewed by the Supreme Court. We will be opposing that when it is dealt with under the amendments relating to Clause 4.
I will not go at length into the reasons for opposing it now. Since we are opposing the creation of this new procedure for those who are neither citizens nor permanent residents of Canada, we therefore oppose the separation of those people from citizens and permanent residents in the division of this law into two parts. There seems to us to be no sufficient reasons shown why the matter should be put before the Federal Court of Appeal rather than the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
Very briefly, the explanation given by certain persons, staff and certain Members of Parliament, is that it will expedite the action. That seems very questionable since there seems to be great evidence that the Federal Court has as great a backlog, if not a greater backlog of business, than does the SIRC. Although at present the SIRC meets only monthly it is able to meet in panels or as single persons in order to deal with matters as they come up.
To my understanding there has been no delay, or no undue delay, in having these cases, the few that have occurred, looked at by the SIRC. There may well be a delay of months, according to the backlog of the Federal Court. That would be potentially injurious to the accused person who, of course, is being detained. That sort of delay and prolongation of the process certainly increases the administrative burden of the Department and of the justice system.
Further, the Federal Court has no expertise as such in security matters. Whether some individual members may have a background in security or not, the court as such has no expertise in that area. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister pointed out during debate at second reading, the court has access to the security information provided by CSIS. It has the same access as does the review committee. That is
August 31, 1987

not the question. The question is about the court's familiarity and expertise in evaluating such information.
The whole point of the review is that the matter should not be left merely to the fact that the security authorities have presented certain evidence. That evidence has to be weighed. We have a body which is appointed for two special purposes, and one is to weigh that evidence. Over several years it has developed a recognized competence in doing that.
The Federal Court is a court which judges legal procedures. It reviews how a case has been handled to see whether or not it has been handled according to law. It is not within its expertise to handle matters of fact. It is certainly not within its expertise to weigh matters of security. Therefore we believe that as a matter of justice the group should not be divided to separate non-permanent residents from the rest.
We also believe there may very well be the occasion of a Charter challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the general spirit of the Singh decision of two and a half years ago, it may be that the Supreme Court will find that it is unconstitutional, contrary to the Charter, to deny as good a hearing to non-permanent residents as is available to permanent residents. That was certainly the spirit of the Singh decision. It would be consistent with that decision if the Supreme Court found that in this case.
Rather than waiting perhaps two or three years for a Supreme Court challenge, with the exception of that and with the trouble that may accrue to individuals in the meantime, I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment that I will put later which would withdraw that amendment to Clause 4. I am therefore asking that we withdraw this consequential amendment now.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, unlike the government Members in committee, we listened to those who appeared before our committee on Bill C-84. We carefully developed a position whereby we concluded that Clause 2, which gives considerable powers to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, should be removed. The reason is this. The Minister would be given the power to arbitrarily sign a certificate against a person without the benefit of the report by the committee. I am referring to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. This is an arbitrary power that was objected to by a number of organizations which appeared before the committee.
For instance, the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees commented, saying that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is doing a good job and has developed expertise in evaluating security certificates. It asked, why that role should be suspended? Actually, it urged that the review task be left with the committee. It felt that the jurisdiction should remain with the Security Intelligence Review Committee. It also argued that the Federal Court does not have the expertise necessary to deal with these matters.
Immigration Act, 1976
We had submissions from the Canadian Bar Association which said it could not see any reason for the inclusion of Clause 2 in the proposed Bill. Representatives of the Bar Association felt that the Federal Court is not an expert tribunal on security issues. They also confirmed that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is doing a good job. They argued that the Federal Court is not fast in making a decision, that a waiting period of six months in the Court of Appeal and longer could take place.
The Canadian Bar Association also felt that the Federal Court would not be any faster than the present process. It reinforced the notion that the committee is adequate. It, too, wanted to leave the jurisdiction with the committee and argued that, perhaps, the decision-making process of the Security Intelligence Review Committee ought to be spread out and expedited.
Amnesty International commented that it cannot see any reason to change the existing system. That association said that often foreign governments do not state the truth about the activities of people they consider as threats-among those foreign governments there are some that are friendly to Canada, as in the case of South Korea-and student security checks.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council saw no reason to transfer this responsibility to the Federal Court, which already has a heavy case-load, and that council also argued in favour of maintaining the present system.
The Canadian Jewish Congress also supported the existing procedure of the committee. It felt that the procedure for the examination of the validity of the security certificate could be stacked against the claimant; there is no appeal and no crossexamination, the Minister's case would be presented in camera, and the claimant would only receive a summary of the evidence.
The Civil Liberties Association also commented against the change, and the inclusion of Clause 2 to which we object. That organization felt that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is developing a reputation for independence, and that it does have an expertise which ought to be utilized. It also suggested that the committee procedure by the Security Intelligence Review Committee should be maintained.
We also received a submission from the coalition interested in Bill C-84. It argued that the Security Intelligence Review Committee was established to provide for proper review of security decisions. It argued and recommended in favour of leaving the present system in place. It agreed with the Canadian Bar Association proposal to impose time limits. The coalition also stated that there has been no indication that the committee is not working well. It argued that it has now developed considerable experience and knowledge.

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
There were also submissions from individuals, for example, Mr. Joe Stern, who argued that the role of the committee ought to be continued. The Etobicoke Committee for Fairness to Refugees also felt very strongly that this clause should be removed.
The Inter-Church Committee for Refugees came before the committee. It felt that if there are security worries, the people should go to the refugee division quickly and then a decision could be made regarding security.
It is interesting to note that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees made the observations that we should first determine whether or not a person is a refugee, that a person should be given time to find another country, and that the commission can assist. We would not be helpful if we did not know whether this person was a refugee. The commission argued that we should determine the refugee status first, and then decide on security issues, as it is done presently. This body has been in existence for many years, and it has been engaged in the matter of developing policy and handling the movement of refugees around the globe, and it came forward in favour of removing Clause 2 from this Bill.
Amnesty International also commented on this important matter. It said that the law should give all refugee status claimants the opportunity to be heard on the merits. It developed a rationale for handling cases where the claimants are found to be refugees and security threats.
The submission made by Rabbi Gunther Plaut is also worth considering. He also recommended that we continue with the present system for the reason that criminality is defined differently in different countries. He said that situations may look different when assessed through Canadian eyes. He said it is important to determine that a person is a refugee at the same time as the security assessment is made, and then it is important to decide what to do.
The Canadian Jewish Congress and the coalition, and other people, also appeared before the committee and made comments on this particular clause. I wish to stress that it is important that the Minister pay attention to the arguments advanced by a number of interested parties.
Because the Federal Court is inexperienced in this matter, and the Minister without the benefit of a report by the Security Intelligence Review Committee would have the powers to sign a certificate against a person and file it with the Federal Court, we are voting for the deletion of Clause 2. The present system has proven so far to function properly, and it does not give special powers to a political individual without the benefit of a report from the Security Intelligence Review Committee on which to base a decision.


Benno Friesen: I appreciate the comments of the two members opposite. As the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) correctly pointed out, the purpose of Clause 2 is to make a distinction between permanent residents and visitors.
Clause 4 will bear that out when there is a distinction made in the manner the two classes of people are treated when a decision has been made.
Broadly speaking, the people that we are talking about in this clause, and again in Section 19(1) of the Immigration Act, are the inadmissible class. Here 1 disagree with the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and I would remind Members opposite that the first purpose of the entire determination system is not to determine whether these people are refugees, but to determine whether they need protection. This was again stated last week in committee. The purpose of the determination system is to decide if these people need protection. In fact, all Members know that some people have found protection elsewhere and have chosen to leave there. As one witness stated, they are shopping for the best place to go.
The second purpose is to provide protection for Canada. We are dealing with an inadmissible class, people who have been convicted of crime, who may be security risks, and now, on the amended version, who may have been guilty of war crimes. Surely Members opposite would concede that there is a rationale for treating visitors differently from permanent residents. Permanent residents do have rights, as do citizens. They can work. They have a right to employment and to the social services of Canada. Within the immigration system they have not only a right to sponsor but a right to appeal in a sponsorship program. Visitors do not have that right. I hope Members opposite would concede that there is a difference between visitors and permanent residents.
The purpose of the process outlined in Section 2 of this Bill is to make sure that there is maximum fairness provided to those who have been investigated and who have been issued a certificate. Therefore, in order to provide maximum fairness it seems to us that you can get that by appealing to the Federal Court. The Hon. Member for Spadina said that the court was not competent to hear this evidence. I hope he will rethink the suggestion that the court system is not competent to hear evidence. What is it all about if it is not competent to hear evidence, Mr. Speaker? Surely that is the very business in which the court is engaged. If the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) together with the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) make application on the basis of security information to a Federal Court, the very competentcy of the Federal Court guarantees that the person named in that application will get maximum fairness because that decision will be made in fact and in law. Therefore, I am somewhat perplexed at the persistence on the part of the Member from Spadina in raising this matter constantly.
The Member from Spadina says there will be Charter challenges. There is no escaping that because lawyers litigate. That is what they are all about. I think it is clear that there is good argument to be made that the Charter deals with people who are similarly situated. Surely the Member will agree, and
August 31, 1987

we are confident that the court will agree that visitors and permanent residents are not similarly situated.
Finally, the Member mentions that there is a backlog in the court system. There is a backlog in the immigration appeal division but not in the trial division where expertise has been developed in determination of fact.
1 cannot accept what the Member from Spadina and the Hon. Member for Davenport have said regarding this amendment. We cannot support the amendment. 1 do not think the Member from Spadina has dealt with Clause 4. It would be interesting for him to deal with, but he has not chosen to do that and I am surprised he chose to deal with this clause. At any rate, for these reasons, we cannot support the amendment proposed by the Member from Spadina.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


An Hon. Member:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


An Hon. Member:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. 1 declare the amendment lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you said: "I declare the amendment lost." In fact, when you put the question, we said "yea" to the motion; no one said "nay". So the amendment is carried, not lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am willing to look at the record. When I asked for the yeas and nays it is my recollection that I heard someone say yea, probably the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), while a large number of Members said nay. Therefore, I declared the motion negatived. That was my recollection but I am willing to hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, why would the Opposition speak against the motion?
Immigration Act, 1976


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is what we want to know.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Let me finish. Why would the Opposition speak against or for the motion and then stay quiet and not want its voice vote to be heard? Our Party and the New Democratic Party spoke for the amendment. We voted for it and that is it as far as I am concerned. The yea vote was won by us.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You always get a second chance on Monday mornings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I sympathize with the argument put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 1 don't need that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know a member of his Party spoke against the motion-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Spoke for the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When I took the voice vote my understanding was that the nays had it.


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 thought it was by an overwhelming majority. Five Members did not stand up. No one stood. The decision will stand.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 am fairly confident that the history of Canada will not hinge or turn on the vote on the last motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 5 is a motion to delete Clause 3 and Clause 3 in turn is consequent on Clause 4. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has expressed disappointment that I did not speak on Clause 4.


Benno Friesen: Surprised.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: 1 understand that we were taking the clauses in order so I spoke on Clause 2 when we dealt with Clause 2 and 1 will speak on Clause 4 when we deal with Clause 4. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me because that, of course, is the important clause out of those three clauses.
Clause 3 is like Clause 2, it is consequent on Clause 4. Therefore, I will not speak on it at length. I would rather devote time to Clause 4.

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
I would simply say that the whole system of segregating out visitors or others who are not permanent residents or citizens as established by Clause 4 is what I wish to reject. However, I wish to take this occasion to respond to a couple of points made by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked about the court being competent to judge questions of evidence. In fact, the court's main expertise is to judge questions of procedure. According to its jurisdiction, it spends less time by far judging questions of evidence per se. It may judge a question of unreasonable disregard of evidence. Cases like that are often sent back to the jurisdictions from which they came for rehearing.
I notice that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary did not really challenge the point that the Federal Court does not have any specific expertise in security matters. The Security Intelligence Review Committee has that specific expertise. Therefore, the point I was making has not really been addressed or negated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that visitors are not situated similarly to permanent residents. That is true, but the Supreme Court heard that argument in the case of Singh, the judgment it gave two and a half years ago. At that time, the court said in effect that when it is a matter of risk of life or imprisonment, the difference of situation between a permanent and a non-permanent resident is not enough to deny the normal due process to the non-permanent resident. It is true, as the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said, that when it comes to a question of the right to take employment in Canada, there is a difference. That difference is legislated and, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been challenged at the Supreme Court, though I am not familiar with all the cases.
It was interesting that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary made a sort of facetious reference to the possibility of Charter challenges. He said that of course lawyers will litigate, implying that lawyers will litigate frivolously or that they may have some rich clients who will hire them to litigate frivolously. It reminds me of the remark made by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) a couple of months ago when confronted with the fact that lawyers in private practice with expertise in immigration matters who had spoken publicly on the Bill had all spoken against Bill C-55. The Minister responded by saying: "Oh, they are just interested in their fees".
I find it remarkable that a lawyer who is simply interested in fees would be taking up the case of refugees who are mostly very poor. Except for the occasional one who may have made a fortune dealing in drugs in Vietnam and has retired as a general in Canada, refugees are not usually regarded as rich clients.
I also find it very interesting that this has come from a Government which has been preaching for nearly three years that it is the private sector that is the engine of recovery. 1 find
it very comical that this Government, which is selling off public corporations as fast as it can, this Government which has boasted that it will reduce the number of people in public employment, should speak with scorn about or try to denigrate lawyers in private practice.
I do not know if the Minister really thinks that all those lawyers ought to be hired by the Government, and I do not know if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary thinks that they all ought to be civil servants before their opinions should be taken into consideration. 1 understand, of course, that lawyers hired by the Government have some difficulty expressing opinions in disagreement with the Government unless they have plans for other employment.
I find it strange that the Government should offer public scorn to the opinion of lawyers in the private sector whose only apparent offence from the Government's point of view is that they might want fees for their work.
I hope the Government will reconsider and will have some regard for lawyers in private practice, especially since it was lawyers in private practice who obtained the Singh decision against the expertise of government lawyers. 1 think it would be foolish on the part of the Government to dismiss the possibility of litigation brought by lawyers in private practice as though it were badly motivated and ineffective. I would ask Parliament to uphold this motion to delete Clause 3.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we argue in favour of deleting Clause 3 for the reasons to which we already referred earlier. It would be difficult to add new information to the argument.
I would only like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government once again the comments on Clauses 2 and 3 of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The High Commissioner made the important point that the first and most important thing is to determine whether or not a person is a refugee. That is the paramount decision that must be made. That must be done first because that is the nature of the matter affecting the future of a person who applies as a refugee, relying on us as a nation complying with our international agreements. The decision on security must then be made, but as a subsequent step.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has registered an important message with the Government of Canada and that message has been ignored. That is why we feel that Clause 3 ought to be deleted.
All of a sudden, the experience of the committee is being put aside and a new process is being put into place that deals more with procedure than evidence, as the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) so eloquently put it. We feel that that is not the wise approach.
Reference has also been made to the possibility of this clause being found unconstitutional, and not simply for the fun of hiring lawyers and taking the Government of Canada to
August 31, 1987

court. There may be some very good grounds for taking the Government to court on this legislation in light of our Constitution.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government takes this matter so lightly and ignores the submissions, comments and suggested amendments made by the committee. That is not good Government and it is not the open and democratic approach this Government promised in 1984. As a matter of fact, one can hardly find one comment or one suggested amendment made by the groups and individuals who appeared before the committee that has been accepted. In this case, this is an attitude of neglect on the part of the Government which is extremely difficult for us in Opposition to understand.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, to respond very briefly to what my friends across the way have said, 1 would point out again that the review committee sits only several times a year. To wait for the next sitting would be to ask the whole process to slow down and invite the committee to be burdened with decisions we feel should be made by the court. After all, the purpose of the committee is not to deal with immigration or refugee cases, it is to be a watch-dog of the whole security system. It will hear some cases, of course, but it is to provide an overview and make sure the security system is functioning well and the private lives of Canadian citizens are not invaded without reason. We feel that the court system is the place for the case to be heard. What the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has described within the court system may be true with respect to the appeal division but not the trial division which is the competent court with which we are dealing.
He drew a fairly long bow with respect to my remark regarding litigation. As usual for the NDP, sooner or later it comes down to money. The fact is that over the last five years, since the Charter was passed, all the discussion has been about Charter challenges. That is the situation we are in. What are the parameters with respect to the Charter. Laws will be challenged on the basis of the Charter. Every time you pass a law you invite that kind of challenge. We accept that. That does not invite the long lecture that I got from the Hon. Member for Spadina.
Since this proposal on the part of the Hon. Member is again consequential to the previous proposal, it is logical that we will not support it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


An Hon. Member:: Agreed.
Immigration Act, 1976


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion is Motion No. 9.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the clause the Parliamentary Secretary was waiting for. 1 hope I have now satisfied his yearning because 1 am going to speak on it as he so much wanted me to do. I see him looking very happy and his disappointment is assuaged.
This clause is basically unnecessary and therefore unfair. It is not a question of whether Canada has the right and should have the power to protect itself against persons who may threaten our security or who otherwise are serious offenders in our eyes, people such as war criminals. That is not the question. We have dealt with war criminals in Bill C-71. We have provided for their inclusion under the Immigration Act. My Party supported both those decisions. What is at stake here is the refugee determination system for those people. That is why I and my Party oppose Clause 4 and have asked for its deletion.
I am advised that the Security Review Committee meets monthly, is flexible and can meet more often, as it has had occasion to do. It can meet in panels, even panels of one. It is very flexible in its approach. It has not caused any delay in the hearing of security cases which have come before it. Any delay was not caused by the inability of the committee to meet expeditiously. It was caused by the inability of CSIS to provide the information on which the committee could meet. If CSIS does not provide the data, then neither the committee nor the Federal Court can handle the case. Therefore, there is no ground for predicting that these cases could not be handled expeditiously.
In fact, the committee was told that the two functions of the security committee actually assist each other. That is to say, the examination of the particular cases, as under the Immigration Act, together with other cases, actually assists in elucidating the possible problems the Security Review Committee has

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
to examine in the operation of CSIS. That was explained to us by the chairman of the committee.
It is very important that this committee not operate in a vacuum, only examining abstract reports. It is very important that it have access to particular cases so it can see not only the analysis but the facts on which the analysis is based. For example, there were several cases of people who came from Chile. They were admitted as permanent residents but are now being accused of being security risks. That was the information provided by CSIS. But CSIS had not evaluated that information adequately. Perhaps that is not its function. At any rate, it did not. It simply said we have this information which is very damaging to those persons with respect to security.
The matter was brought to the security review committee and, operating with their knowledge of the security operations of Canada, and in dealing with counsel for the Chileans concerned, it turned out that all the evidence against those persons was based on information from the Pinochet Government which those persons had fled. It was either police reports originating from the Pinochet police or newspaper reports originating from newspapers owned or controlled by the Pinochet Government.
It is commonplace that a dictatorial Government, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not dispute the dictatorial nature of the Pinochet Government, tries to persecute people who have left the country after opposing the Government and trying to organize a democratic resistance. When they are finally chased out of the country in fear of their lives or liberty, a Government such as Pinochet's will pursue them with lies. It will try to compromise them in the eyes of whatever country they may go to. That is what happened in the case of these Chileans.
Therefore, it was very important for those persons that the Security Intelligence Review Committee reviewed their cases. It was also very important for the work of the SIRC in monitoring, overseeing and evaluating the work of our security service. It would not be to the benefit of Canada to separate the business of looking at particular cases such as this from the over-all review and analysis by the SIRC. It would not be to the benefit of certain individuals concerned, in certain cases at least, and it would not be to the benefit of the over-all work of the review committee.
We are asking that the review committee continue to have the responsibility. If the Minister is concerned about delay, as the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary suggests, it would have been and may still be quite easy to put certain time requirements into the clause.
In fact, I moved such an amendment in committee but the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues in the government caucus, who say they are interested in speed, were not interested in speed at that time. They were not interested
in amendments to the clause which would require the SIRC to render its decisions within certain statutorily specified times.
Therefore, there is not much weight to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's argument that they are concerned about SIRC being too slow. There is no evidence that SIRC would be too slow and there is no evidence that the Government is seriously concerned about speed.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will adopt my motion to delete Clause 4 which would resolve any doubt in the Minister's mind about whether I was giving undue attention to Clauses 2 and 3.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we feel the same way. Much has been said on this matter in committee by my colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). He argued about the potential unconstitutionality of this process and about the necessity of deleting this clause.
It is interesting to note that if we do not delete this clause and the preceding one the Minister will be given enormous discretionary powers of his or her own. The decision of the Minister on the basis of a certificate will go forward to the Federal Court. The Federal Court will have to take upon itself the onus of deciding whether the reasons which led to the issuance of that certificate are valid, sound and proper. It seems to me that that is quite a lot for a court to have to decide on the basis of a political decision.
We believe that the alternative is a much better way of handling refugee cases than the one being proposed here. The method proposed here has too much of a political undertone and gives extensive powers to one person, namely, the Minister of Immigration of the day. It then shifts the entire responsibility of deciding whether the political decision is valid and ought to be accepted, namely whether the certificate is appropriate or not and whether the grounds upon which the decision was made are correct or not, to the court which must then examine a political decision. Therefore, we are very unhappy about this development and that is why we urge the deletion of this clause.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I will respond first to the last comments made by the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) that this has political overtones. It is just the opposite. If it is turned over to the Federal Court it removes any kind of political overtones from the proceedings. The Member might argue that in some of the Immigration Appeal Boards in some of the regions there may have been some intrusion of politics. He may want to argue that, but I hope he would not argue that if an application is brought before the Federal Court it becomes political. After all, it is removing the politicians from the scene. The Minister together with the Solicitor General file an application on the basis of evidence presented by CSIS which puts it in a nonpolitical arena in the federal court system. I hope my friend from Davenport will understand that.
August 31, 1987

He also said that the Minister has enormous discretionary powers. It is just the opposite. It must be dealt with in fact and in law. He does not have discretionary powers. Once he files to the federal court system it is out of his hands and the court decides.
I would now like to respond to the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who began by saying that that which is at stake is the refugee determination system. I could not agree more. That is exactly what is at stake in this section and that is why I cannot accept his proposal.
The system has been defrauded by misuse. He and 1 have heard of the case which was reported in the press not too long ago of someone from New York who was involved in a $50 million insurance fraud and came to Canada and applied for refugee status here. That is what makes the refugee determination system fall apart.
I will remind Members of the classes of people with which we are dealing. In Subsection 19(l)(d), (e), (f) and (g) and in 27(2)(c) there is reference to organized criminal activity, espionage or subversion against democratic government, subversion by force of any government and acts of violence or subversion by force of any government. It is people involved in that kind of thing with whom we are dealing.
The guarantee that there will be some fairness in this system is that the evidence which it is not in the public interest to have publicized will be heard in camera and the individual will be protected from having information about him disseminated through the media. This addresses the whole element of fairness.
My friend from Spadina talks about the Pinochet Government. 1 think all of us in the House recognize that he is no boy scout leader. It is not always pleasant living in Chile. The Member referred to the evidence which was accepted by CSIS and then thrown out by the review board. I hope he will be confident that the court will be competent enough to make the same kind of decision as the review committee could make. Surely if the review committee were brilliant enough to discard trumped up evidence on the basis of newspaper reports from Chile or statements made by the Pinochet Government, court justices will be able to see through that kind of scam too and will be competent to deal with it.
Therefore, I suggest that Clause 4 is at the heart of the entire system with which we are dealing and to accept the amendment by the Hon. Member for Spadina would be to gut the legislation. We could not accept that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, would the Parliamentary
Secretary clarify for the benefit of the House the question of
Immigration Act, 1976
certificates which we dealt with earlier? It is my understanding that the Minister does not file an application, he files a copy of the security certificate with the Federal Court. Because it is the Federal Court, the court is almost obliged to uphold this certificate unless the process of issuing that certificate is found to be improper. Will the Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether this is correct?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the court is entirely competent to accept or reject the Minister's statement.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the privilege of taking part in the committee when it considered this particular clause, but I want to echo the concerns that other people have raised about the kinds of "star chamber'' aspects of this legislation.
The argument made by the Government is that there may be security grounds related to people seeking to be refugees and therefore this is required. If I understand correctly, 1 do not believe that there have been security offences committed within Canada by any person who has been admitted to this country as a refugee.

Mr. Speaker, that is also the case with some people who try to obtain refugee status and against whom allegations are made by the government of the country from which they came. As my hon. friend from Spadina (Mr. Heap) said earlier, if, for instance, the testimony is given by the secret police of a country like Chile, a very repressive dictatorship, containing statements that the alleged refugee has committed offences against the security of their country, we do not know exactly how such testimony will be dealt with by a judge of the Federal Court of Canada. We can assume there will be some problems since one of the critics of the Bill has pointed out, with regard to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, that they have, on occasion, too readily accepted information on security from authorities in countries that are not democratic and in fact are dictatorships.
Mr. Speaker, the Government is proposing that, if a person is suspected of being a possible threat to Canada's security- and as I just said in English, we have very little, in fact no proof that this has been a problem in the past-that in this case, instead of referring the evidene to an adjudicator who knows the immigration sector, instead of having that, we start over with a new process. The Federal Court of Canada is a very busy court. Even if, according to the Bill, a judge of the Federal Court must examine the certificate within seven days, there is no guarantee that the person in question has the right to know what the charges are against him. In some cases, that person will have no idea what the allegations are, since the judge will have the right, at the Government's request, to deny all access to information referred to the Court, on the basis of which the Government wants to prevent that person from being admitted to Canada.

August 31, 1987


S. 0. 21
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Speaker, that is also the case with some people who are seeking to obtain refugee status in Canada and who will have to face allegations made against them by the Government of their own country. As was mentioned by the Elon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), if, for instance, we have testimony by the secret police of a country like Chile, a very repressive dictatorship, containing allegations that the alleged refugee has committed offences against the security of their country, we do not know exactly how this testimony will be dealt with by a judge of the Federal Court of Canada.
[Stage Direction]
I simply question the necessity for this entire heavy-handed kind of clause which again does not relate to evidence that we have had in Canada that people coming here as refugees have proven to be risks to Canadian security. They may be dealt with as security risks in Guatemala or Chile, which is precisely why they may be coming here. They are considered by those Governments to be a threat to the security of those states and are therefore being persecuted. They would not be a threat under our terms, but in seeking such simple things as dignity, land reform for peasants and better income, they are deemed to be in opposition to a government that may not be democratic.
That is why I support the efforts of my colleague, the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), and other Members, and say that if a process related to security questions is needed, it does not need to be heavy-handed in this way.
If it is needed, it does not need to be shunted into a different channel. There is no reason why it cannot be handled through the regular process of determination of refugees.
Of course, if there are security questions which trouble the Canadian authorities, then there needs to be a fast-track. However, the problem with the refugee determination process over-all is that there has not been adequate swift disposition of cases. If there was swift disposition of cases this type of instrument would not be needed and fast-tracking would probably not be required as well.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) heard what he was saying. He talked about proceeding with this on the basis of mere suspicion. I find that offensive. The whole system is based on Canada's system of evidence and rules of evidence. Our court system is not based on mere suspicion.
He also talked about the court being heavy-handed. I hope that he will reconsider his view of the court system. We are appealing to the court system because it is fair. It makes its determinations on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of suspicion. It is staffed by justices who have been trained in law
and weighing evidence. It is our judgment that the claimant will have the best hearing if he is heard by a court of law.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is not as easy as the Parliamentary Secretary would have the House of Commons believe. In the last number of weeks we have heard representatives from a wide range of organizations, including the Civil Liberties Association of Canada. They mention that with this particular aspect of security plus a detainment certificate, potential claimants for refugee status are being treated, on suspicion, worse than the criminal who would rob a bank in broad daylight. Therefore, I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is completely correct.
Second, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has expressed a great deal of concern about this particular clause.
I see that it is one o'clock. 1 would like to continue the debate following Question Period.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: As you know, Mr. Speaker, deep sea drift-nets are the marine equivalent of strip mining. Individually they hang to a depth of seven metres and often stretch for 50 kilometres.
In the Pacific Ocean alone there are an estimated 30,000 kilometres of drift-nets laid by 1,700 ships which belong to South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. The nets are intended to catch salmon and squid but also trap and kill up to 50,000 mammals such as whales, dolphins and sea lions, and one million seabirds.
Strung together these nets would reach from Tokyo, across Canada, to Rome. This shocking and wasteful method of fishing must be stopped before mammal, seabird and fish populations are depleted. The International Whaling Commission could stop this unacceptable exploitation of our common resources. We urge the Government of Canada to condemn Japan, South Korea and Taiwan strongly for using drift-net fishing, and to lead an international campaign to stop this practice.
August 31, 1987



S. 0. 21 SPORTS SPORTS IMMIGRANT SPRINTER BEN JOHNSON WINS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP GOLD MEDAL

Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, many people have criticized the Government for its policy of steadily decreasing the number of immigrants admitted to this country. Some have asked just what have they added to Canada? Well, they cannot ask that question any more because a simple answer would be that Canada would not have the gold medal won by Ben Johnson, the fastest man in the world, if, 15 years ago, his mother Gloria had not decided to migrate from Jamaica to Canada and bring her family with her.
The example of Ben Johnson is not a single example. He is the most celebrated of us all today, a world-class name, but he is only one of hundreds of thousands, in fact of millions of people who have come from various countries and have made Canada a better country.
We are proud of him throughout this land but nowhere more than in the city of Scarborough where he and his family have lived these many years.



CANADIANS PROUD OF BEN JOHNSON'S OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT

Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, he is not only the fastest man in the world, he is the fastest man the world has ever seen, and he is a Canadian. As we lavish him with deserved praise and luxuriate in our own pride that he is our compatriot, we can contemplate the fact that Ben Johnson came to us from across the sea, as so many have done who have made this country great. We must remember this when we are tempted to limit the spirit of generosity that brought him and others like him to Canada.
Let us remind ourselves as well that the talent, motivation, discipline and intelligence to master one's craft, to make one's self a great athlete, are the same characteristics demanded for excellence in any field of endeavour. There is among all Canadians, irrespective of their origins, sex or race, and in every field of endeavour, the potential, if we are prepared to nourish it, to make of Canadians what Ben Johnson has taught us we can all become, the very best.
Thank you, Ben Johnson, for being a Canadian.



TRIBUTE TO BEN JOHNSON-&quot;FASTEST MAN ON EARTH&quot;

Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, may I add to the comments of my colleagues. Today all Canadians are proud. They are proud of the outstanding athletic feat of Ben Johnson who, yesterday in Rome, shattered the world record for 100 metres and proved to the entire world that he is the fastest man on earth.
What Ben Johnson has demonstrated to us is that such success comes only after years of dedication, after years of a gruelling training schedule, and after years of continuing to believe in one's self. Ben Johnson has surely become a role model for all young athletes training in every part of our country.
I know 1 speak on behalf of all Members of this House and on behalf of all Canadians when 1 repeat how proud we are today of Ben Johnson. May I add, as an incidental postscript, that Ben Johnson comes from that beautiful city of Scarborough.



NEW BRUNSWICK PROVINCIAL ELECTION


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, now we know when Frank McKenna is going to be elected Premier of New Brunswick.

Yesterday in New Brunswick large crowds gathered to acclaim the Liberal Leader as he made stops in Shediac, Memramcook, Ste.-Marie, Bouctouche, Rexton, Richibouctou, and this is only the beginning. You have not seen anything yet.

The Conservatives are desperate. We can tell by the promises they are making. They are promising major projects all over the place. They are even promising bridges, and who knows, before long they may even be promising rivers.
Promises come cheap, especially when people do not intend to keep them. Some of those promises go back as far as 1982 and were conveniently forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, it will not be long. Take a deep breath, because there is going to be a big bang in New Brunswick.

August 31, 1987



NATIONAL PARKS


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the experience in the North has been that once land is tied up in a national park, the public, especially local people, are pretty well excluded and the area becomes part of the personnel fiefdom of parks officials.
For this reason there ought to be no expansion to the boundaries of the Nahanni National Park Reserve. 1 am opposed to any such expansion and am of the opinion that the existing 7,000 square mile reserve is quite sufficient.
The Government, which has already misled local people on the jet boat issue, should keep its sticky fingers off the Nahanni Karst, Tlogotsho Plateau and Ragged Range areas. The rights of local people to hunt, trap, prospect or just visit in these areas must not be impeded.
There must be no further land-grab in the Nahanni.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to bring to the attention of the House what is probably a very little known fact. It is that the Government subsidizes the transfer of books from libraries to citizens and between libraries. This is called the book rate.
This rate has been under active review ever since the Nielsen Task Force Report. Libraries have been unable to get any assurance that the subsidy will continue, and therefore that this service will continue.
How much are we talking about in dollars and cents? The Library association assures me that we are talking about potential increases of 400 per cent to 900 per cent. As one example, in Halifax County the increase there could be as high as 1,100 per cent. These are massive increases in costs for libraries.
The people who will be affected are those who are unable to have access to libraries, people in small rural communities. This is another attack on rural Canadian life. The blind and disabled will be affected, people who do not have easy access to library services. The elderly, who cannot find their way to libraries, will be affected. Students who are taking courses outside the city where their university may be located will also suffer.
This is a service that must continue. It is time for the Government to wake up and remember that the Post Office is a public service. It is not a private profit-making business. This is not an opportunity for the Conservative Government to continue to attack ordinary Canadians and their services.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday it was my pleasure to represent the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) at the official opening of the Bethany Care Centre in the City of Airdrie.
The complex consists of a 24-bed wing for brain-injured patients, a 50-bed seniors lodge, and a 50-bed nursing home. Each corridor has a street name and each room a house number, with individual thermostats, a window, and its own colour, while sinks, mirrors, et cetera are constructed to accommodate the aged and the disabled. There is a chapel, a crafts room, a greenhouse, a training centre and an auditorium-in fact everything to provide the best possible physical, social, spiritual and emotional care.
I commend the Lutheran Welfare Society of Alberta and all its members for sponsoring this splendid complex that will continue the long tradition of the Lutheran Society in providing care in a loving Christian manner. In fact, the Christian care for others permeates the entire complex. 1 commend the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta for sharing in this project that will keep costs down to an affordable level.
This participation shows that the federal Government and the Government of Alberta really care for our aged, our injured and our disabled.



BASEBALL-NATIONAL LITTLE LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP-TRIBUTE TO WINNING TEAM FROM GLACE BAY, N.S.

David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the people of Cape Breton and in particular the residents of the town of Glace Bay have been known throughout the country as a people proud of their heritage, and tenacious in their quest to achieve excellence.
Last week a group of young persons from that community made a long and tiring journey to participate in the Canadian National Little League Championship in British Columbia. Although they were only rated to do "just okay'', their skill, their team play and their dedication demonstrated on the
August 31, 1987

baseball field surprised and pleased their toughest critics. These young men won, and won convincingly, the Canadian Little League National Baseball Championship in British Columbia.
To the players, the coach, management, and the players' parents, I extend on behalf of all Members of Parliament our heartiest congratulations.
They also went on to participate in the World Little League Baseball Series in the United States and did exceedingly well there. Both as individuals and collectively they are Cape Breton's youngest ambassadors. They are the finest quality of young people that this country has to offer.
Congratulations on a job well done!



LABOUR RELATIONS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, contract trouble looms once again in the transportation industry. 1 understand that the conciliation report of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Air Canada was given to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) on Tuesday of last week. To date the Minister has not released the report, or indicated his intentions with regard to the report.
Meanwhile workers at Air Canada are concerned for their jobs as the management of Air Canada, under obvious instructions, continues to demand the right to hire more parttime workers. The jobs and the security of hundreds of fulltime airline employees are in jeopardy as the Government heads into the dangerous areas of deregulation and privatization.
I call upon the Government to quit its efforts at Air Canada before it sparks another confrontation with Canadian workers who are trying to protect their livelihood. Such problems, on the railways or in the air, are caused by the same attitudes and actions. Deregulation and contract concession hurt Canadian workers. The Government must change its attitude if we are to return to peaceful industrial relations in Canada's transportation industry.



FUNDING OF SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS

Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with other Members of the House in congratulating the world's fastest man, Canadian Ben Johnson. He certainly



S. 0. 21

[Stage Direction]
was an inspiration not only to the people of Canada, but to people across the world. It was a shame that at the same time that our Ben Johnson was standing to receive his medal for Canada, he was not wearing a Canadian uniform. The fact that he had to accept the medal for Canada without wearing a Canadian sweat-suit, in Ben Johnson's own words, "made me feel bad. We were supposed to get suits, but I didn't get anything. Not a top, nothing. I wore what I had".
This particular situation illustrates the precarious financial situation facing sports bodies in Canada. I was most disturbed to hear the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) suggest that he was going to start ordering athletes to participate in various ventures whether or not they wished to do so. For example, he was talking about forcing athletes to participate in the Pan-American Games, instead of preparing for Europe.
Before the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport proceed with their decision to eliminate all funding for sports organizations' functions under the new Bill C-51, they must consider some of the financial implications and be prepared to replace that funding with funding either from government or other sources.
Ben Johnson accepting a medal without wearing a Canadian sweat-suit is an insult to Canada, and something we do not wish to see repeated.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, again 1 wish to draw the attention of Canadians to our excellent economic performance which started in September, 1984. Last weekend when I was talking to people, they again told me how impressed they are with our economic performance. We are zeroing in on the creation of almost a million jobs. Interest rates are down, which means that house buying and other areas of investment are up. This means that today there is greater confidence not only in the country but in the Government.



IMMIGRATION


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, once again I urge the Government to amend Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act.

August 31. 1987
Oral Questions
I believe that all Canadians wish abuse to be curbed, and that all Canadians want all bona fide refugees within the system who request and require it to receive due processing. I believe it is incumbent upon the Government to look at the report stage and accept some of the amendments put forward in the spirit that Canadians wish.
In committee, the Government basically ignored the many recommendations and amendments that were moved passionately and with great force by witness after witness from across the country.
I urge my fellow Members on the government side, in particular the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), at this eleventh hour to accept some of the amendments in order that we can curb abuse and make the system more fair, and also ensure that this legislation is in line with the system of justice that Canadians are proud of, with the Charter of Rights, and with our international obligations. On those three merits this legislation is riding roughshod over those facts. It will be tied up in the courts, and the policy will be paralyzed unless the Government is prepared to pay a small price now, instead of, as the commercial goes, a big price later on.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome back to the House the Minister for International Trade. I wish to raise some questions with the Minister concerning what is becoming a very nasty, turbulent, and dangerous trade dispute in which the Government has totally abdicated responsibility by taking no action, making no statements, and providing no leadership. The Premier of Saskatchewan has now given notice that he intends to introduce into the Legislature a motion that would impose major restrictions on the production and export of potash, as a means of retaliation against the imposition of extraordinary tariffs imposed by the United States.
Is this an action with which the Government of Canada agrees? Is the Government of Canada supporting this initiative by the Government of Saskatchewan? What other kinds of actions and initiatives is the Government of Canada taking to head off a dispute that could result in the unemployment of 4,000 to 5,000 workers in the potash industry of Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated, we share the frustration and
disappointment of Saskatchewan in this decision which was against the potash companies in the Province of Saskatchewan.
We are receiving today a detailed briefing on the reason for the decision of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and I will have more comment at such time as we have that basis of decision.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: If I may
paraphrase the Minister's words, Mr. Speaker, we find that response extraordinarily disappointing. There is an irony here. The Government is negotiating free trade and one of the backers is going to introduce perhaps one of the most severe forms of protectionist response and retaliation that we have seen in decades. Surely the Minister recognizes that there is an inherent contradiction there.
Is the Government of Canada this week, because the legislation will be introduced this week, supporting the Saskatchewan stand, or does it have an alternative? Does it have any other response that it is prepared to make before we engage in this very major trade war on the horizon?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the only inherent contradiction raised today is the stance being taken by the Hon. Member worrying about a protectionist measure in the U.S. while at the same time his Party is opposing our efforts to get a free trade agreement with the United States.
I can only advise the Hon. Member that we are in touch with the Government of Saskatchewan. We do not intend to pre-empt its announcement but we are working along with that Government.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 am afraid that the abdication of responsibility by this Government in this very crucial issue will result in incredible consequences of which we will all be the victims.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-BINDING DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask one further question of the Minister for International Trade. The ambassador for the trade negotiations over the weekend said that there was apt to be a further meeting between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada to work out remaining trade differences.
Is the Government of Canada still standing behind the commitment made by the Prime Minister that any trade agreement with the United States must include a binding dispute settlement mechanism? 1 ask the question because last week the Deputy Prime Minister refused to give that guarantee and was talking about an adequate mechanism. It is a very important difference.
August 31, 1987

Is the reason that the supposed meeting is coming about so the Prime Minister can concede, once more, another important issue and give away the particular commitment made that we would have a binding dispute mechanism as part of a free trade agreement?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the negotiators met all last week, as I believe the House knows. They made a lot of progress last week. There are many issues that still have to be resolved and the negotiators will be meeting again next week to address those.
In terms of the specific question raised by the Hon. Member, there is no contradiction between the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister, myself and others. We have always said that an adequate dispute settlement mechanism must be a binding one.


Lloyd Axworthy: Adequate is not what you said.


Pat Carney: If I am allowed to answer the Member's question, 1 will repeat my answer. We have always maintained that an adequate dispute settlement mechanism has to be binding on both parties. There is no point in having a trade treaty without binding rules to put it into effect.


FISHERIES
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to remind him that the inshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador for the past four years has been a complete disaster and that thousands of jobs are at risk. In spite of that, the Government has put northern cod on the table in its negotiations with the French. How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify that? Will he now, on behalf of the Government, stand up for the interests of Newfoundland and East Coast fishermen and tell the French that the northern cod is not negotiable and there will be no give-away of Canadian fish to French interests?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has taken a long time to ask a question on this subject. This is a matter that was thoroughly ventilated last February and March and nothing new has occurred since except that the Prime Minister was successful yesterday in his conversations with Prime Minister Chirac in having the French return to the bargaining table in order to complete negotiations on these most difficult and contentious questions about the East Coast.
Northern cod will be in no danger as long as we are looking after it. The hon. gentleman says-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The only cods that are in danger are the cods across the House, including the honourable cod that leads the NDP.
Landings for cod in the inshore to date have been down by 16 per cent, unfortunately, as compared to last year, but the landed value of cod in the inshore fishery has increased by 52 per cent. The hon. gentleman should not be too alarmist. Not everything in Newfoundland is dark and gloomy. There are some very positive signs. The landed value increased 52 per cent in the inshore cod fishery in Newfoundland.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about ventilation. The only thing that is being ventilated is the Minister. He has been replaced as the lead by Mr. Fortier. He talks about the inshore fishery. There has been a 40 per cent reduction this year from last year and he cannot deny those figures.


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH VESSELS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, there has been excessive overfishing by the French off the South Coast of Newfoundland as determined by the Government's very own Department of Fisheries. Will the Government say to the French in these negotiations that overfishing has to stop, otherwise there will be no deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. It was the hon. gentleman's Government that, in 1972, entered into a treaty with France giving France access to fish quotas in Canadian waters. Now the hon. gentleman comes to the House to complain about the fact that the French can fish in Canadian waters for certain quotas.
In addition, it was this Government that closed Canadian ports to French fishing vessels as a result of overfishing in disputed Zone 3PS, a move that has seriously affected the French and made them take a more reasonable position in these negotiations. None of that ever entered into the mind of the hon. gentleman who wrecked our prospects in the fishery during the years his Party was in power and did nothing to correct these conditions.


CANADIAN POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. I do not think this is a matter for joking concern. I think we want to hear a clear-cut statement from the Minister. Will the Government make any more concessions to France as a result of the re-establishment of negotiations? Will the Government stand firm with its present position?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, one feels delighted when one receives small mercies.

August 31, 1987
Oral Questions
The hon. gentleman's interest in this issue when he comes from Churchill, Manitoba, must, I suppose-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: He is a Canadian.


John Carnell Crosbie: I suppose some of their other Members cannot be in the House today. The position is as we have explained it-


John Edward Broadbent: You're a gem.


John Carnell Crosbie: If 1 am a gem, the hon. gentleman is a cod. 1 have already explained that to him.
The position is that we have taken a firm stand on the matter of negotiations with the French on the two questions of the territorial boundaries and the fishing quotas off the East Coast. Nevertheless, there are serious problems that have to be resolved. They can only be resolved by negotiations.
We have first-class people in charge of negotiations, supervised by first-class people, if I might be that immodest, including the Prime Minister. We are hoping that in the next six or eight weeks, some way to resolve these issues will be found, a way that will protect the national interest of Canada and the interests of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.


Rodney Edward Murphy: 1 may be the Hon. Member for Churchill but I would like to thank the Minister for going up there in 1979 and helping make that possible. He will remember that in my first speech in the House I congratulated him for all the hard work he did on my behalf.


NORTHERN COD STOCK
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, will the Government keep northern cod off the table and maintain those jobs for Canadians?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is engaged in a negotiating process with the Government of France in accordance with an agreement signed on January 24. Of course, surrounding that agreement is a treaty entered into by Canada in 1972 which gives France access to fish quotas in Canadian waters each year, ad infinitum.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What?


John Carnell Crosbie: For infinity. There is no time limit in the treaty whatsoever. At the same time Canada and France need to settle the question of the territorial waters surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon and what economic zone they are entitled to.
We are negotiating in accordance with statements which have already been made in the House. These negotiations are now to be expedited. The Prime Minister's firm stand on this matter has brought France back to the table and you can depend upon the fact we will continue to have a firm stand and
reach a solution, if one is possible, that will be in the interests of Newfoundland and Canada.


CANADIAN POLICY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister again refuses to give a straight answer. The question is: will he protect Canadian jobs? Will he ensure that France does not gain more rights and as a result we lose Canadian jobs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is ignoring the events of recent months. We have already taken action to protect Canadian jobs. We have protested French overfishing in the disputed waters of 3PS. We barred French fishing vessels from Canadian ports because of overfishing in the disputed zone. That action was never taken by a previous Government.
We have not done what the Leader of the NDP wanted us to do, order out the Armed Forces. He was going to chase the French vessels off the high seas. How he could do it with the defence policy of the NDP of course baffles everyone in the country.


TAX REFORM
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On June 18 in his tax reform speech he said: "The reformed system will strongly support two key priority areas for this Government: research and development and the labour-intensive economic sectors." However, the five high-tech business organizations which represent more than 700 companies and 210,000 employees doing more than 80 per cent of Canada's private sector research stated that the Minister's tax reform proposals will discourage the very research and development Canada needs.
I ask the Minister the same question I raised in Chicoutimi last week. Why are he and his Government determined to discourage research and development in Canada as a result of his tax reform proposals?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I stand by the statement I made on June 18. If the Hon. Member cares to review the particular proposal, I think he will see that Canada maintains one of the best, if not the best, tax regimes for research and development. As well, the Hon. Member is a member of the standing committee which is now hearing representations from various people. Those hearings are designed to hear people out, listen to their proposals and try to weigh those proposals within the context of the over-all approach to tax reform. At that time I would imagine all the proposals will come together and form the basis of the report to Parliament by that committee. At that point I would be
August 31, 1987

happy to respond in a very full way to these various representations.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, according to their associations which published the results of a survey, representatives of businesses indicated that after tax reform, 40 per cent of research and development spending will no longer be tax deductible, which will create a tremendous problem for these businesses in terms of research and development.
Does the Minister agree with the associations that published their opinions? We do not have to wait for the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. That is already taken care of. Does he agree with the associations representing research and development firms that the proposed tax reform will only discourage research and development, at a time when R&D is essential if Canada is to compete with other countries on the world market?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is quite aware of the commitment made by the Government, led by the Prime Minister who, as the Hon. Member knows, is the Chairman of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. He is also aware of the proposal to reorganize the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion with the Department of Science and Technology to ensure that we have a very full response to the demands of a growing research and development and science and technology community in Canada.
You may wish to consider, Mr. Speaker, that the questions which the Hon. Member is posing to me are the subject of committee hearings which are taking place this very day and will continue for the next six weeks. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment in the House on every representation and brief put before that committee. That would be an attempt to influence the work of the committee.
I believe the Hon. Member is quite aware of the importance of that work and I believe it is more appropriate for me to wait until the committee has had an opportunity to respond to the full range of representations which will be made over the next six weeks.
Oral Questions


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We have now seen a couple of studies and reviews by Price Waterhouse and an internal review by DRIE which said that there was an overexpenditure of some $80 million in DRIE in 1986-87.
I asked the Deputy Prime Minister this question last June before the reviews got under way. Does he agree that this overexpenditure is a breach of Section 25 of the Financial Administration Act which says:
No contract or other arrangement providing for a payment shall be entered
into with respect to any program . . . unless there is a sufficient unencumbered
balance available out of the appropriation-
Does the Minister not agree that this is a breach of the Financial Administration Act since the Department overexpended by some $80 million?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no, there has not been a breach in my view.


REQUEST THAT FORMER MINISTER RESIGN FROM CABINET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in his statement to the House last week the former Minister said that there was an overexpenditure of some $79.9 million or $80 million. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that is grounds for the resignation of the Minister since one of the most important things we can do in this House is appropriate the money of taxpayers? Is this not a violation serious enough to result in the Minister not being a member of the federal Cabinet?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is dramatizing the situation by being very selective in his approach. The reports are very clear. The Minister of Industrial Expansion and Science and Technology outlined in a very comprehensive way, I thought, the steps that were being taken to correct this situation.
If one reads the report one finds that there are many conclusions which could be drawn. However, I think the most salient point is contained in one paragraph which says that there is no one single problem or factor which caused the 1986-87 cost over-run.
There was a problem with budgeting, forecasting, and financial reporting. All of those things have been identified and corrective measures have been taken to ensure that this does not happen again.

August 31, 1987
8608________________________________
Oral Questions AIR SAFETY


INSTALLATION OF NEW EQUIPMENT IN AIRCRAFT
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In a report released last Friday the Canadian Aviation Safety Board states that "the number of aircraft-to-aircraft conflicts reported in Canada is at a level serious enough to warrant serious safety concerns".
At the same time the Canadian Pilots Association has revealed that it is pushing hard for Canadian commercial and private aircraft to be equipped with sophisticated computer technology called the TCAS-3 and the MODE-C, both capable of detecting approaching aircraft, which would permit pilots to take early action to avoid mid-air collisions.
Has the Minister directed his Department to examine the feasibility of installing this new technology and, if not, will he do so with the shortest possible delay?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, not only the Canadian Aviation Safety Board but the Department of Transport is always seriously concerned about safety in all aspects of transportation in Canada. I do not think there is anything new or startling in the report to which the hon. gentleman refers.
The Department of Transport has been examining the device to which the Hon. Member referred. It is keeping in touch with the research on it and with the U.S. authorities in connection with it. When it becomes accepted, proven, and viable we will certainly be interested in encouraging its use along with the United States. The matter is under study and is well known to us.


REPORT'S 28 RECOMMENDATIONS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in its report, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board also indicated that the number of near misses involving aircraft and ground vehicles has reached alarming levels. In order to minimize the risk on the ground, could the Minister give Canadians the assurance-since he says he is aware of all these problems-that he will act as soon as possible on the report's twenty-eight recommendations?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 think we should keep this in context. As the Director of Air Traffic Services for our Department has pointed out, we have the second highest number of registered aircraft in the world with 27,039. We have 59,395 licensed pilots and our air controllers look after five million square miles of air space.
With only about 150 general occurrences to study in a system of that size with only about 10 per cent of them deemed
critical, 1 do not think anyone should be unduly alarmed. 1 think that puts it in context.
With reference to control of ground traffic at airports, we are now installing airport surface detection equipment, a vastly improved special type of radar which gives air traffic controllers a high resolution display of ground traffic at airports. They are being installed in Toronto, Vancouver, Dorval, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Calgary.
The system was commissioned in Vancouver on June 11 of this year and in Toronto on July 1. It will be commissioned at Dorval by the end of October, and so on. Therefore, steps are already being taken to deal with the problem of on-the-ground collision possibilities as well.


UNITED STATES TARIFF ON CANADIAN POTASH
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister for International Trade. It is with regard to the preliminary tariff imposed by the U.S. Trade Commission of up to 85.2 per cent on Canadian potash imported into that country.
Since the U.S. obtains 80 per cent of its supply of potash from Canada an embargo would increase the price of potash and underpin the weakness which has occurred in that resource. It would also contribute to reduced grain surpluses in the United States and help strengthen grain prices.
It is, therefore, very obvious that the Government's indecision on this issue has nothing to do with economics. It must be for political reasons. Can the Minister tell us what those political reasons are?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny that there has been any government indecision on this trade action brought by the U.S. We have worked with the industry from the start of this dispute to review the system. It is a dispute between the U.S. industry and Canadian producers. We have offered every possible assistance. I already stated when this decision came down that our view has been that this action should never have been brought because the companies that brought the action against the Canadian producers account for less than 5 per cent of the U.S. production.
As the Hon. Member probably understands, the United States only produces about 10 per cent of its own potash requirements. To bring an action against their major supplier does not make economic sense. As the Member already pointed out, the people who will pay for this in the long run are the U.S. farm producers and U.S. consumers.
August 31, 1987

It is for this reason that we have taken the stand from the beginning of this action that it should never have been brought. It is inconsistent with trading rules to bring this kind of action. That is the stand we have been taking in Washington.


POTASH EXPORTS-SUGGESTED EMBARGO
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it did not clarify the stand of the Government. Is it the Government's intention to cease the export of potash until the Americans are willing to discuss the issue? What is the stand with regard to an embargo as has been suggested by the Government of Saskatchewan, for instance?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I submit that that is not the stand that has been announced by the Government of Saskatchewan. The Government of Saskatchewan is considering this matter. We have been advised that it will make its announcement shortly. I certainly do not intend to pre-empt that announcement.


APARTHEID
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the Prime Minister of Canada stated in his speech at the United Nations in 1985 that Canada was prepared to implement "total sanctions", as he said, and sever absolutely diplomatic relations with South Africa unless the policy of apartheid was dismantled. We all know that the abolition of the oppressive system of apartheid certainly has not made much progress since the time the Prime Minister made his statement.
Does the Prime Minister intend now to fulfil his threat at the United Nations, given that two years have passed, or is the Prime Minister perhaps having second thoughts?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Quebec city with the French delegation. He advises me that he was in the House last week to answer that and will be in the House next week to answer that question. He has asked me to take it on notice.


FORTHCOMING FRANCOPHONE AND COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCES
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, we know that the conferences are at hand. My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who, I trust, is speaking for the Government. He is well aware that the issue of South Africa will be very high on
Oral Questions
the agenda of the upcoming Francophone Conference and the Commonwealth Conference which Canada will host. Is the Prime Minister planning to set an example before or during these conferences by invoking effective and comprehensive sanctions against South Africa, and put some kind of substance to his previous statements which he made at the United Nations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I take it the Hon. Member was unavoidably absent from the House on Friday. This issue was dealt with in some detail in response to the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville who, in a very timely fashion, raised the very point the Hon. Member is making. I would refer the Hon. Member to page 8574 and page 8575 of Hansard of last week, wherein the Secretary of State for External Affairs clearly outlined the Canadian position which is consistent with the Prime Minister's statement, and also in recognition of the fact that there are changing circumstances in which Canada will respond in accordance with the principle that was enunciated by the Prime Minister.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. It involves the new policy of the Post Office which requires residents to travel to a distant sub-Post Office to pick up parcels and registered letters.
Have the Minister and Canada Post considered the hardships being placed on the thousands of senior citizens from my riding alone who must travel up to four miles, take at least two different buses, and trudge through snow, slush, hail, rain, wind, and sub-zero temperatures, risking a bad fall or other injuries, just to pick up a parcel?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post informs me that the change in policy was to bring it closer to the customers so that if they are not home when a parcel or registered letter is delivered, they are able to call for the parcel or registered letter at sub-Post Offices, most of which are open in the evenings as opposed to the corporation-run Post Offices which close at 4.30.
There is a specific problem in Scarborough regarding one of these sub-Post Offices. I am told by the Post Office that it is looking at it and the Hon. Member's constituents will soon be able to pick up their parcels very close to their residences.
Oral Questions INVESTMENT CANADA

August 31, 1987


SALE OF WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TO UNITED STATES CORPORATION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The amendments to the Patent Act by the Tory Government tonight will result in higher drug prices to Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is false.


Raymond John Skelly: The changes to the Foreign Investment Review Act which permitted the sale of West Kootenay Power and Light to the Americans will result in higher electrical prices for consumers in British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Raymond John Skelly: Is the Minister not aware that American law would prohibit the sale of a public utility to Canada because it is not in the interest of Americans? Does the Government intend to change and improve the foreign investment review legislation so that it would prohibit such a sale that is not in the interest of Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, certainly not. It is as a result of this Government's foreign investment policy that we have had unprecedented investment in the country, unprecedented growth, and unprecedented job-creation. That is part and parcel of creating a positive climate so that the entrepreneur can go to work, create jobs, and make the economy hum.


Raymond John Skelly: The difficulty outlined by the Minister is the difference between investment and sell-out.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm, has indicated that all the assets of the Government of British Columbia are for sale. If the Government sold the B.C. ferries to the Blackball Corporation of Seattle, would the Government approve it? If it sold B.C. Hydro to Consolidated Edison, would the Government approve it?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that most of the time one question is sufficient.


Raymond John Skelly: May 1 summarize in a single question, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Raymond John Skelly: Is there no level below which the Government will not sink in the selling out of Canada? Will you indicate to
the House that you are not prepared to sell out West Kootenay Power?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has given the Minister several choices.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is raising the ideological difference between his Party and the Social Credit Party in the Province of British Columbia. I thought that issue was resolved during the last provincial election. Clearly, the Socreds won that round.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, several months ago his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, made a formal and, I believe, very reasonable request to the Minister that there be a transfer of funds from the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program so that the Minister of Indian Affairs could use that money to create jobs on Indian reserves and, at the same time, build some houses.
That was an excellent proposal. The Minister received that request in writing and has had a lot of time to think about it. Is he prepared today to tell the House that he has reached a favourable and positive decision on that request?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, several months ago I received a request from my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, about funding totalling $8 million that would be applied or transferred to the Canadian Job Strategy Program for the construction of housing on Indian reserves.
The present state of the Job Strategy budget, however, is not such that, at this stage, I can promise my colleague that I will be able to transfer the funds mentioned.
With my colleague for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we are still looking at ways in which certain funds could be used.
I must repeat once again that this is very difficult, because the Job Strategy funds are fixed, and this particular request was not included originally; what we have here is a specific request applied in a specific way to a specific clientele. It is a very particular request, although it is being made under the Job Strategy Program.
August 31, 1987


MINISTER S POSITION
B. Keith Penner: The Minister of Employment and Immigration knows that this approach worked extremely well under the former Canada Works Program. He will forgive me, 1 am sure, but it is puzzling to me why the Minister would not respond quickly to this request because the highest unemployment in the country is on Indian reserves. At the same time there is a housing crisis there. Why would he not put those two things together, act positively and fulfil his job as the Minister of Employment for this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon friend that 1 am very proud of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I think there is no comparison with what we have known when the Liberals were in power. I think there is no comparison between the Canadian Jobs Strategy, and the hundreds of thousands of jobs we have created, and the failure which represented the former program for employment of your Government.
I agree with the Hon. Member in terms of the reality of employment on reserves. I think there is a problem there. 1 can tell the Hon. Member that my Department has put a lot of money into that sector. We have provided a lot of money for Indian people on the reserves. At the same time, we have to consider we have a lot of problems, and we are dealing quite effectively with those problems.
Once again, I would like to emphasize that the Department of Employment and Immigration has the best results of any we have seen in this country with any program of creating jobs and employment.


AGRICULTURE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We understand that the Minister of Agriculture had a profitable meeting in Winnipeg with the Canadian farm leaders to discuss next year's deficiency payment. It is reported that the Minister of Agriculture has accepted in principle a deficiency payment in the neighbourhood of $3 billion. Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm this figure? And is the Deputy Prime Minister able to give us a date when an official announcement will be made regarding the 1987-88 deficiency payment?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the question raised by my colleague. If we refer to what the Canadian Government has done in the agricultural sector over the past two years, I would
Oral Questions
suggest that if there is a sector where the Canadian Government has taken initiatives, has responded to the farm community and has always been present when agricultural producers asked the Canadian Government to look after their interests, it has to be the agricultural sector, and it was our Government which took action. In that respect, I think no one needs to worry.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the statement made by my colleague, I would suggest that our problem right now has to do with agricultural surpluses and a price war, a war where both American and European administrations have decided to subsidize the agricultural sector, without any kind of restraints.
Mr. Speaker, our response as Canadians has been to refrain from waging a world-wide war of dollars, preferring instead to convince grain exporting countries-Europeans, Americans and others-that nobody can possibly win if the agricultural price war continues.
Mr. Speaker, what we did, what the Prime Minister did was to put agriculture in the agricultural sector program. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be present in the agricultural sector, we are listening to agricultural producers-


Lloyd Axworthy: Was that his maiden speech?


John Edward Broadbent: That will do until Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member may be right and I think the Minister's remarks are very interesting, but perhaps a shade too long.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I am not sure I want to start another one like that, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Make it a true or false question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is your choice.


SPECIAL CANADIAN GRAINS PROGRAM-APPLICATION TO IRRIGATION FARMERS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister because it involves Alberta and Saskatchewan. Can the Deputy Prime Minister gives us an explanation of why the irrigation farmers of Saskatchewan are not eligible for Special Grains Program payments while those in Alberta are?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Agriculture has been dealing with this particular issue. My understanding is that there are some who do qualify. However, others, because

August 31, 1987
Oral Questions
of the technicalities in the program, did not qualify. The Minister is working with the advisory groups to address this particular issue and I thank the Hon. Member for bringing it to my attention.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister in charge of Canada Post. Some months ago when the 36 cent stamp was issued, many citizens were disappointed that the issue did not include a stamp bearing the Queen's portrait. That deficiency has still not been made up. On their behalf, 1 ask the Minister if he can assure the House that such a stamp will be issued and that it will be issued soon.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can give the House that assurance. Apparently there have been some production problems with the supplier of those stamps. I was hoping they were working on a stamp with my picture on it but this is apparently not the case.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I am told that on October 1 there should be 15 million such stamps available for Canadian consumers.


INDUSTRY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the only problem with a stamp for that Minister is we would not know whether to put on back or front.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to ask him a very straight Question. Given that Firestone Canada has reneged on its commitment to 1,400 workers and to the Canadian community by refusing to guarantee the jobs of Firestone workers for 10 years, can the Minister tell me why his Government has negotiated an agreement with Firestone which will possibly permit it to keep all the money if the company is not sold, and if the company is sold it will permit Firestone to keep the interest on a S13.5 million grant paid by the Canadian taxpayers? Can he explain what kind of a deal that is?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question was answered in some detail. My understanding is there are funds which are put in escrow and that negotiations are still going on.


PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON FUNDS IN ESCROW
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should be aware, and if he is not, the ex-Minister who botched the thing should have at least briefed him about the fact that the money that was put in escrow was to be set aside with the interest going to the workers if the plant was not sold. The rules of the game have now changed. Firestone has said if the company is not sold, Firestone America in Akron, Ohio, will get the interest, not the Canadian workers. I would like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister, given the botched handling of this issue by the previous Minister, will he personally ask the Prime Minister to take this issue in hand instead of leaving it to his underlings who botched it from the start?


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a real son-of-a botch.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are still going on. The answer still remains the same.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What is the answer?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 am not sure why the Government should change its position just because the Hon. Member suggests that is the appropriate course of action. If we had followed her course of action on many of the recommendations that she advanced, we would have been sinking to oblivion just like her Leader.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Is the Minister aware that in at least a dozen areas across the country local rural communities have received the 90-day notice of a change in postal service? The distinctive characteristic of these notices is that they do not contain an offer to maintain the existing post office. The only alternative is a much reduced commissioned postal service or a rural route service.
Will the Minister acknowledge these facts? Will he tell people whether he considers this to be genuine consultation
August 31, 1987

with communities when he goes there to close off the option of keeping their post offices open?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this policy of Canada Post has been discussed extensively for the last year, it was raised in committee of the House when the Hon. Member was present. He will know that the justification for it is that there are changes occurring across the country. Some communities are diminishing in size. In a great many places where the postmaster retires the community is no longer justified in maintaining an expensive operation for the smaller number of people who live there.
The Post Office is engaged in discussion. It is committed to giving the 90 days so that there can be discussion with the people affected and Members of Parliament to try to come up with a service that provides people with the same quality of service, and in many cases better, but not necessarily the same as it was. The world is changing. The Post Office is acknowledging that. Apparently, the NDP is not.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister acknowledge that the change that is taking place is that the Government is treating the Post Office like a profit-making private sector enterprise rather than as a public service? Does he consider it a viable option when he goes to a community such as Wilmot, Ontario, and says: "You can have a post office on a commission with one-fifth the revenue of before"? Is that not an offer that is designed for failure rather than for good service?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is exactly correct. In keeping with the commission of this House in 1981 we unanimously passed legislation turning Canada Post into a Crown corporation so that it might go out and operate as a Crown corporation like Air Canada and CNR. If it operates at a profit or on a break-even basis, I think that as representatives of the taxpayers we should be thankful.
The Hon. Member seems to be suggesting that it is somehow immoral for a Crown corporation to show profit. I do not understand that reasoning.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 9 (Mr. Heap, p. 8597).
Immigration Act, 1976
Mr. Speaker:: Before debate continues I want to advise Hon. Members that I have considered further the matters at report stage of Bill C-84. I want to add to the ruling I made this morning. I have now completed my examination of the remaining motions on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-84 and am now prepared to rule as to their procedural acceptability.
Motion No. 8 is somewhat similar to a motion moved in committee, but I intend to give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. It will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 12 and 13 require the Minister to notify the office of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees when a person claiming to be a Convention refugee is denied access to the procedures outlined in the Bill. They are attempting to add a new concept to the Bill as read a second time. Therefore I must rule that they are beyond the scope of the Bill. I would refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1) which reads in part: "An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope-". Thus both motions are out of order and will not be put to the House.
Motion No. 14 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are offered in amendment to Clause 9 of the Bill. Motions Nos. 15 and 17 were debated and negatived in committee and therefore will not be selected. Motion No. 16, which is deleting lines, will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions No. 19, 21, 22 and 23 will be debated and voted on separately.
To summarize, as I noted this morning, Motions Nos. 3, 6 and 10 have not been selected. Motions Nos. 15 and 17 also have not been selected. As I said, Motions Nos. 12 and 13 are out of order.
Therefore there will be separate debates and separate votes on Motions Nos. 8, 9, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23.
I want to thank Hon. Members for co-operating with the Table in the discussions that made this ruling easier for the Chair.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 would like to thank Your Honour for the ruling on the various motions. I would like to discuss, if I may, under a point of order, Your Honour's ruling on Motions Nos. 15 and 17 which suggest that a similar amendment was discussed and proposed at committee. The key element-


Mr. Speaker:: I very much regret interrupting the Hon. Member because the Hon. Member has, as Hon. Members know, and as the public knows, worked long and hard on this particular matter. However, we have been trying to adhere to a practice, when there has been very extensive consultation between Table Officers and Members, that when it comes time for the Chair to make the ruling not to open up that ruling for further debate.

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
I just want to be sure that the Hon. Member is not getting himself into a position where he is urging the Chair to change the ruling. It may well be that what the Hon. Member has to say can be raised in debate. However, I would hear the Hon. Member further.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have the utmost respect for Your Honour and for the Chair. The Table Officers, however, and I did not discuss Motions Nos. 15 and 17.
With all due respect, what I was going to suggest is that a similar amendment was proposed by myself in committee. This particular amendment focuses on the key word "humanitarian" in an attempt to overcome Clause 95.1 and Clause 95.2 which clauses provided the most concern with respect to religious and non-religious groups. Therefore it was an attempt at report stage to try to insert the word "humanitarian" within the motion so as to exclude very clearly religious groups and non-religious groups that would be helping refugees out of humanitarianism and compassion, and certainly not to mislead the system or to propose fraudulent claims.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. While he was giving his remarks 1 was listening but 1 was also able to have some further consultation with the Clerk. Perhaps there was not quite as much consultation with the Hon. Member as I had thought, partly because these motions came in very late on Friday night, which is nobody's fault. 1 suggest that perhaps in the next little while the Hon. Member might meet with the Table Officers to discuss the matter further to see whether there might be some reason to adjust the ruling. All other rulings on all other motions stand.
Continuing debate with the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, before lunch 1 was debating Motion No. 9 moved by my colleague from the New Democratic Party. This is an amendment that is very similar to my Motion No. 10. It concerns provisions for the security certificate that we would like to amend.
What we are suggesting is that if in fact the individual claimant is found to be some kind of a security threat or falls within an undesirable category within the Immigration Act, then by all means we are supportive of detaining that individual to ascertain his identification to see whether or not there is sufficient cause to merit that individual's further detention or deportation.
Our concerns articulated by my Motion No. 10, and by Motion No. 9 which we are presently debating, are that under the current legislation any individual who is deemed to have been the recipient of such a security certificate would not necessarily have the opportunity of entering into the refugee determination process. The provision as stated in Bill C-84
would restrict accessibility to the system and undermine the crucial universality component.
Many times a certificate may be granted based on information received from the country of origin. In the case of real refugees, often it is not unusual for the government of the country from which they are escaping to provide Canada, or another country receiving that claimant, with information that would suggest that that person is either an undesirable or poses a security threat. For instance, an individual in another country may be seen as an offender, for standing up for democracy. Obviously within our system of justice, and within the Canadian parameters, someone who stands up for democracy, as we do every single day, would not be considered a security threat or an undesirable. Many times information received from the country or the government of origin would actually substantiate the fact that the person's case is probably legitimate, that is, because of political or religious pressures that individual is escaping as a refugee under the definition of the United Nations Convention.
Our first concern is that by declaring this certificate, it would override or ignore the very information that can be utilized to determine and substantiate the individual's true refugee claim. However, if Canadian authorities find the claim to merit further consideration, then that individual should not be sent back to the country from which he or she is escaping because he or she may be in some particular trouble, may face certain persecution, torture, imprisonment, or probable death.
Another aspect that colours this particular clause is that if we deny accessibility to individuals to have their case properly determined within the refuge board or the refugee system where the issue is properly disposed of rather than making a predetermined determination by the Minister or his official, that is of great concern to our United Nations obligations under the Geneva Convention. In fact, a representative of the United Nations High Commission appeared before the legislative committee which was studying Bill C-84 and expressed considerable reservation concerning this particular clause which would guarantee that an individual would not be allowed to pursue the refugee process and would be deported and expelled from the country.
That runs contrary to the non-refoulement undertaking that we as a country have given under the United Nations Convention. Therefore, it was not without passing concern from the United Nations High Commission that these representations were made at the committee, and in correspondence exchanged between the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Government of Canada. I believe there has been considerable concern expressed internationally that, if Canada enacts this particular legislation with this particular clause as it stands, it would be undermining the non-refoulement undertaking.
Since Canada has been at the leadership level in terms of providing and offering leadership for the salvaging of the plight facing refugees, the concern is that other countries may legislate similar clauses. If that happened on a frequent basis
August 31, 1987

one can see the danger of the United Nations Geneva Convention coming apart, and the very foundation being rocked. In the correspondence from the High Commissioner for Refugees to the Government of Canada there was a specific paragraph that suggested and reminded Canada that this could trigger an exodus by other countries.
It is with that spirit that we spoke to it in committee, and witnesses participated, to ensure that if the person is a security threat, or if there is need for detainment, then by all means a certificate or the powers should be available. However, this should not exclude the individual from receiving a hearing in order to properly determine if the concerns are founded and, if they are founded, what repercussions that person would face if he or she was returned to the country from which he or she was fleeing.
Our amendments suggest that the current legislation which allows an individual to participate in the refugee determination system be retained and, therefore, protect our international obligations and our obligations under the accessibility and universality of the system.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will now move to Motion No. 8.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 8
Immigration Act, 1976
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 29 to 31 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"officer or an adjudicator shall make an order to detain or release the person named in the"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively simple point in Clause 4. Clause 4 represents an amending of the Act in connection with detention of a person:
-where the Minister and the Solicitor General are of the opinion, based on security or criminal intelligence reports received and considered by them, that a person, other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, is a person described in paragraphs 19(l)(d), (e), (f) or (g), or 27(2)(c), they may sign and file a certificate to that effect with an immigration officer, a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator.
This is not the security certificate previously referred to in an earlier section. Perhaps this could be called a detention certificate. In proposed Subsection 41(2), which is the one I am dealing with, it states:
(2) Where a certificate is signed and filed in accordance with subsection (1), an inquiry under this Act concerning the person in respect of whom the certificate is filed shall not be commenced, or if commenced shall be adjourned, until the determination referred to in paragraph (4)(d) has been made and a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator shall, notwithstanding section 23 or 104, detain or make an order to detain the person named in the certificate until the making of the determination.
This concerns the making of a certificate which suggests that a certain person who is seeking entry is perhaps a criminal or a threat to the security of Canada.
What the second paragraph does, which I seek to amend, is to make it compulsory that that person be detained. An adjudicator has the power to make a decision. He is a quasi judge. An adjudicator normally is allowed to make the decision to detain or not to detain. The wording in this clause is that a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator shall notwithstanding detain, which means removing the power of the adjudicator to do what essentially an adjudicator does. I do not think it has been shown that that is necessary, Mr. Speaker. What we have been told is that people may require a longer time to investigate, but we have not been shown that inexperienced adjudicators have failed to detain people on their own judgment when given an indication by the Minister that that is something which they ought to do.
I think it is an unfortunate tendency to take away from a lower official, that is, lower than the Minister, the power he has been exercising according to law and that as far as I know he has exercised satisfactorily for the Government. I have not heard complaints that adjudicators have been irresponsibly turning people loose whom the Minister wanted detained longer. However, I have heard complaints that adjudicators have not turned people loose when some people thought they should. I even heard of one situation where it was reliably reported that the Minister thought the adjudicator should turn some people loose but still did not. It seems to me that if the adjudicator has erred, the adjudicator has erred on the side of caution, that is, detaining a person to make sure that the matter was cleared up so far as necessary.

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
I believe that in this case it is unreasonable to assume that the adjudicator would act irresponsibly when presented with a Minister's certificate. Granted, the adjudicator does not have all the information behind the certificate, but I believe that adjudicators have shown themselves responsible in this matter of security.
Therefore, I proposed the motion to delete lines 29, 30 and 31 replacing them so that the clause would read:
-a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator shall make an order to
detain or release the person named in the certificate-
1 believe that would respect the existing law in that it would allow the adjudicator to perform his or her function, he, being the man or woman on the spot who is in possession of the essential facts, including the Minister's certificate. It would allow that person to do the job that he or she should do without being overruled and turned into a mere rubber stamp by the Act, as is the case the way the Act is now worded.
I would ask Members of the House to vote for this motion to sustain, to keep intact, the responsibility of the adjudicator in this matter.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. 8. The motion is very similar to one I presented at the legislative committee which was, as all amendments were, turned down.
The reason I presented the motion then and the reason 1 speak in favour of it now is that we heard very moving testimony about the need for a check and balance. The arguments received at committee and the arguments that I put forward were not for detainment of individuals in respect of whom government officials had no identification, or that particularly valuable information was received on a claimant. That was not the concern. We are not saying that a person should not be detained. Existing legislation provides full opportunity for an individual to be detained for 48 hours without going to an adjudicator. Subsequent to that the Minister, the Crown or officials can go to an adjudicator and request detainment of an additional seven days. The question is, who makes the decision and how is it made.
A presentation by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association articulated very thoughtfully about the need to have the adjudicator make the decision based on evidence that he or she receives from the Government. In other words, the information provided to the adjudicator would be analysed and considered rather than giving total power, carte blanche if you will, to the Minister of the day. That would be seen as excessive power or unilateral power allowing the Minister to detain an individual without having to go to an adjudicator. That is why many witnesses, and certainly the leading one on this clause, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, argued for the need of a politically disinterested decision-maker rather than a politically motivated or politically interested individual. It was not meant to be a slight against the Minister or a Minister's position, but obviously it was referring to the realities of a Minister or to the realities of politicians.
You and I, Mr. Speaker, and everyone else in this Chamber receive various representations. We push and pull situations on a number of issues. Quite often from what we hear, feel and see we make a decision. The argument here is to offer protection in the system so that the Minister's powers would not be abused and misused. Again, it is not a slight against the current Minister. We are talking here about Ministers, certainly long after the present Minister and after you and I are gone, Mr. Speaker.
The request was for the adjudicator to have the flexibility and discretion of saying, "The information I receive from the Government justifies its concern and therefore, justifies further detainment". Or, perhaps based on information the adjudicator receives from the Government or other sources he will say, "Hold on, the preconceived notions are unfounded because I found a, b, c and d" which would then be offered to the Government. The Government would then have a further opportunity of rebutting the case or saying, "You are correct, Mr. Adjudicator". This offers a check and balance.
The current legislation offers those checks and balances. That point was accepted by Canadians at large that, yes, we have the powers to detain, but detain in a way to ensure that people's rights are protected and that powers are not abused and misused.
I believe the motion I put forward at committee and the very similar motion that we are debating here this afternoon is a very reasonable one, with which most Canadians would agree, given the sense of justice within this country.
I urge the House to adopt the motion so that we retain the discretion of the adjudicator, who would be in a position of being politically disinterested, borrowing a phrase from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. If we move on this it would ensure that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for which we have fought so hard, will not be challenged and it will also preclude any court challenges in the future on this particular clause. A number of legal experts suggested that this would be one of the clauses that would bring a Charter challenge under Section 8. I do not, and I am sure that neither you, Mr. Speaker, nor any other Member of this House, would want this legislation to become policy of the Government, get tied up in the courts, paralyzing our policies. If that happens six months, 12 months or 18 months down the line, Canadians will not have patience or trust in the Government any more. They want the Government and Parliament to do it right this time.
We were called back for an emergency and I would not want to leave this Chamber without the provisions of the Bill being legally accepted. If they are not, the refugee system and particularly the Government will pay a bigger price once these challenges begin to take shape in the courts. Therefore, it is with that spirit in mind that I hope the Government will move to retain the discretion of the adjudicator and allow him or her
August 31, 1987

to make the decision based on information provided by the Government.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) began by saying that this is a simple point. In terms of an amendment it may be very simple, but its effect would be very complicating both in terms of the administration of the system and the security of Canadians.
I would reiterate what I said before lunch on the previous amendment. We are dealing with what is broadly called the inadmissible class of people, those who have records of criminality, organized criminal activity, espionage or subversion against democratic Governments, subversion by force of any Government, or acts of violence or subversion by force of any Government. Those are the kinds of people about whom we are talking.
The difference between the position of government Members and that of Members of the Opposition is on whether we should release or detain these individuals under certain circumstances. The Hon. Member for Spadina read certain clauses of the Bill as it is now before the House. Clause 41(1) indicates that the Minister may sign and file a certificate to that effect. He is not obligated to do so and may do so depending upon the circumstances of the case. It may be that he is presented with old information. However, if he chooses to sign and file a certificate, then Clause 41(2) comes into effect and provides the following:
Where a certificate is signed and filed in accordance with subsection (1), an
inquiry under this Act concerning the person in respect of whom the certificate
is filed shall not be commenced, or if commenced shall be adjourned,-
That is the simple point. If there has been evidence to convince the Minister and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to file a certificate, then there are not many options left. The primary obligation is to protect the security of Canada and Canadians.
I would remind Hon. Members of what I said in committee the other day when I referred to the Bill of 1976. A distinction was made between whether coming to Canada is a privilege or a right. Most Canadians believe that it is a privilege to be in Canada. The amendments we are now debating make it look almost as though it were a right for inadmissible classes of people to maintain freedom of movement in Canada.
I would like to underscore the fact that the primary obligation of the Government, and in fact of all of us, is to protect the security of the country and of individual Canadians. The fact is that this amendment would make the detention of security risks difficult if not impossible. As well, the information on which the Ministers base their decision to file a certificate is not information that can be released to the adjudicator, so it is not surprising that in times past, adjudicators have released individuals who should not have been released and did so with all good intent. In the past, the Government has been unable to obtain an order for detention from an adjudicator in security cases because the adjudicator was not aware of the risks involved.
Immigration Act, 1976
Turning back to the Hon. Member's point, it is very simple. Do we detain or set at liberty those who the Minister and the Solicitor General are convinced are security risks? The Government must opt for the security of Canada and of individual Canadians.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
He said: Next to the clause that would make it an offence to help a refugee come to Canada and even to an immigration office without the usual passport, this clause about turning away ships has caused the greatest concern in Canada and with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Clause 8 provides that the Minister may turn a ship away that is within the internal waters of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or 12 nautical miles of the outer limit of the territorial sea of Canada if he believes that that ship is bringing any person into Canada in contravention of this Act or the regulations. In that case, the Minister may, after having due regard to the safety of the vehicle and its passengers and to the convention, direct the vehicle to leave or not to enter the internal waters of Canada or the territorial sea of Canada, as the case may be.
The Bill provides that the Minister may turn a ship away and it also specifies that any such direction may be enforced

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
by such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. Originally, there was much more concern over this clause, but it was amended in committee by a government motion. The words that are underlined in the version we have before us, "and to the convention," were added to the Bill. On the following page, Clause 8(3) gives some definitions including a definition of the convention meaning the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees.
I welcome that amendment. I am very pleased that it was moved by a government Member and that government Members as well as opposition Members adopted it. It goes some distance toward dealing with the most difficult part of the problem.
The problem with this clause is that we are told that if a ship is bringing any person into Canada, the Minister may turn it away, but if a ship had 100 passengers and the Minister believed one of them was being brought to Canada in contravention of the Act, he is authorized to turn the ship away. What happens to the other passengers who might all be quite legitimate? There is only one ship and it cannot be chopped into pieces to divide the ones the Minister considers legitimate from the ones he considers illegitimate.


An Hon. Member:: Throw them overboard.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Someone on the government side has said: "Throw them overboard". Unfortunately, that is not a joke. That sort of thing has happened perhaps not in the Atlantic but it has happened in the Pacific, particularly to the boat people from Vietnam. According to all we have heard from the UN, those people tried, usually in small boats, to get to countries like Malaysia or the Philippines and some of them were thrown overboard.
That is something the UN is very much concerned about on two levels. First, a rule like this, if it does not fully protect people who might be refugee claimants, or might even be legitimate refugee claimants, leaves in doubt what will happen to them when the ship is turned away. A simple expression of the Minister's good intentions is not good enough for a law because the people enforcing the law cannot be expected to have the good intentions of the person who may today be the Minister.
Second, Canada has very sternly and verbally attacked nations in the southwest Pacific who turned away ships with refugee claimants. The executive of the UN High Commission for Refugees adopted the principle that such ships ought not to be turned away. Therefore, for Canada to begin that practice would not only be very risky to the passengers of those ships, it would be a step backwards from the international leadership Canada has so far exercised, not just through our representatives to the UN but through the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
In 1979, the then Minister, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), took specific steps to offer resettlement to some of the people picked up by such ships so as to dissuade the captains from, as the Hon. Member across suggested and which he thought was a joke, throwing people overboard. The amendment to which I referred moves in a very good direction. However, I feel it is not strong enough. The phrase "having due regard" leaves so much to the subjective discretion of the Minister that I am afraid, since the Minister cannot be everywhere all day long or even at one time, that acting through his officials the "due regard" might be much too pale and a ship with perhaps bona fide refugee claimants may be turned away to the harm of those on board. That is not to mention the great disadvantage to legitimate passengers who might have paid their passage and who might have their passports and visas to enter Canada.
In committee we urged that instead of this rule it be amended so that the ship would be escorted into a Canadian port. If the captain was guilty of trying to arrange for the contravention of Canadian law, he would be charged and prosecuted, if necessary with bigger penalties. If there were passengers contravening the law, they could be dealt with accordingly. If there were refugee claimants, they could be dealt with according to the law. The safety of the passengers would have been assured and the deterrence of future captains would be assured. For that matter, if that captain were in prison for several years and his ship were confiscated, that certainly would be a deterrent to that particular captain and that particular ship. Simply turning them away on the high seas may be just telling them to try somewhere else tomorrow when it is dark or foggy or something like that. It is not a sufficient deterrent. However, the amendment was unfortunately lost and we have the Act as printed.
Because of the risk both to passengers who might be returned to a country in which they would be in danger through careless application of the phrase "having due regard", and because of the uncertain example it sets for countries, particularly in the southwest Pacific, I believe we should delete this clause. If the Government wishes at another date to bring forward a further clause that would deal with it in the way many of us and the public and the UNHCR asked, I would of course actively support it. In the meantime, I hope the House will accept my motion which would delete Clause 8.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, after Clause 9, Clause 8 was perhaps the most controversial clause in the Bill. If you look at what the Government has been saying for the last month or so with respect to curbing abuse and going after the smugglers, then Clause 8 is a huge contradiction. As the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) suggested, we moved an amendment which would correct the situation. That was defeated, and so we have to rely on the strength of Motion No. 14.
There are essentially three very specific errors in Clause 8. First, obviously, you are not offering due process to any
August 31, 1987

claimants on a boat that may be turned back. We have had a policy in this country that individuals who request refugee status be granted an interview with immigration officials. They then go before the appropriate committee and the immigration appeal board in order to explain their circumstances. If you pass a law which says that the Government can, if it desires, turn a boat away, obviously you do not want to listen to and ascertain the circumstances of the passengers on that boat. You are making a predetermination based on who knows what.
Such an initiative would be a very dangerous precedent for this country. No other country in the world, save the U.S., has a provision along these lines. The U.S. has never seen fit to utilize its special powers. Therefore, I suggest that the Government be very, very leery of approving such a regressive clause. By doing so it would be unable to uphold the commitment which lies at the foundation of the UN Convention on Refugees, to which we were a signatory back in the 1950s. If that breaks, it will break the resolve of the international community to try to come to grips with an international problem and phenomenon which requires, therefore, quite logically, an international solution.
The second aspect is that this Bill is supposed to deter. It is to deter those who try to abuse our system, the smugglers who drop individuals off on our coasts, the consultants who continue to make huge and immoral profits from trafficking in human beings. No Canadian disagrees with that. Anyone who disagrees with it would be implying that there be no order in the process. If there is no order, there is no fairness, and if there is no fairness, it is the legitimate refugee who will ultimately pay a very dear price.
This clause will not deter smugglers. This clause will allow the Minister, through a Coast Guard vessel, to turn a smuggler's boat around and.send it wherever he wishes to go. If you are a captain leaving a port in Europe knowing that the worst you will face is having your boat turned around, what do you have to lose? You have collected the money from your so-called clients and it is in the bank. You chances are fifty-fifty. You may be able to drop your clients off and get away with it. At the very worst, the Government will turn the boat around and you will dump your passengers in some other place. However, your money is secure.
On the other hand, if the law says very precisely that if you are found in contravention of our laws by trying to dump people on our shores in the middle of the night, your boat will be boarded, escorted into the nearest port and seized, and you will be charged and perhaps fined or imprisoned, you will think again. We moved an amendment at the legislative committee which was turned down by the same government Members who keep talking about deterrence.
Which plan will deter smugglers the most, Mr. Speaker, the plan to turn the boat around or the plan to seize the boat and imprison the captain? I suggest that most Canadians would
Immigration Act, 1976
favour the latter, that it would be the greatest deterrent. If we capture the boat and imprison the smuggler, I am sure other smugglers in Europe will get the message that their buddy is in a Canadian jail and has lost his boat. I do not think other smugglers would set sail. We in the Opposition are saying that not only do we want to guarantee the safety of the passengers and give them due process, but that we want to ensure that the smuggler is detained.
Committee members on the government side said that some captains are not at the heart of the situation, that they are just employees, and the real smuggler is on the beach in Acapulco. Perhaps they are right. However, the way to stop the operator who is on the beach in Acapulco is not simply to turn his boat around. The crew and captain must be detained and they will probably testify. That testimony can be used against the real operator. We will, therefore, not be dealing in ignorance but will have testimony and information.
In my humble submission, Your Honour, the proper way to act is to escort the boat in every time. The Government still has not told us in what circumstances it would escort a boat in as opposed to turning it away. If the Government wants to deter, it must put its money where its political message is. It must fine, imprison, and seize boats rather than turning boats around. What kind of deterrence is that?
What kind of system are we putting in place in which a claimant who arrives on a boat is turned around and denied processing and then arrives again two days later through an airport and is processed? A passenger coming through Pearson International Airport in Toronto will not be stopped by the Government but will be processed and accepted while a claimant coming in by sea will not. That is the problem.
Claimants arriving by boat, plane, bus, car or train are all the same. We cannot allow the Government to suggest that the method by which you come to Canada will determine whether you are going to be processed. That is absurd. Of the 15,000 claimants in the backlog 14,700 arrived by means other than boat. Only 300 arrived by boat.
Through this legislation the Government is suggesting that boats can be turned around while buses cannot. What if a smuggler brings people in clandestinely on a bus? It is still wrong, but there is no legislation to stop it. It is still wrong to charter an aircraft and load it up with fraudulent refugee claimants, but it is not covered in this legislation.
We are suggesting that we need a sense of balance. The Government has thus far not shown justification for turning back a boat but not any other vehicle. That is improper and illogical. It creates two sets of refugees, the ones who arrive by boat and the ones who arrive by other means. We cannot allow the mode of transportation to dictate whether or not an individual will receive a hearing.
That is an improper precedent and will not act as a deterrent despite the suggestions of Members that this Bill will deter. The only people it will deter are real refugees. The only people

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
who will be put in prison or fined will be church representatives aiding refugees. That is the irony of this legislation. It could be very easily amended in order to protect legitimate refugees while discouraging those who wish to circumvent and undermine our regulations.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that under other legislation the Minister has the power at any time to order a vessel into port and implement fines, seizure of the vessel, and so on. This gives the Minister another power to turn a boat around.
That may or may not happen in my lifetime. The committee has included provisions that are meant to protect convention refugees and to consider health and safety.
We often forget that there are unscrupulous people throughout the world who prey upon people who are in unfortunate circumstances. Those of us who have had the fortune to see the Atlantic, the Pacific and other oceans throughout the world have some respect for the power of the ocean. Unscrupulous people may charge from $10,000 to $25,000 for transportation, forged passports and many other schemes. When we are dealing with desperate people, it is likely that sooner or later an unscrupulous sea captain will fill an unseaworthy boat with people who pay a lot of money and that boat will be lost at sea in a storm. This Bill suggests that it may not be a good idea to allow oneself to get into such a situation in order to come to Canada's shores because there are regular ways to come to this country. We have embassies throughout the world and we treat refugees and refugee claimants decently. They do not have to spend $10,000 to $25,000 and run the risk of the high seas.
I do not anticipate that this clause of the Bill would ever be used to turn away people who have a legitimate claim to refugee status, but it may stop a lot of unfortunate people from getting on to a vessel that would not see them arrive safely on our shores. Therefore, 1 would urge Members to keep this power so that we can send a message that people should come the safe way to Canada rather than the unsafe way.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it seems that this clause is a reaction of the Government to the fact that in the last year boats dropped 155 people on the shores of Newfoundland and 174 on the shores of Nova Scotia.
The wording of the clause does not make much sense. It states that if the Minister or his delegate believes that a ship within 12 miles beyond Canadian waters is bringing any person into Canada in violation of the Act, they may order the ship to refrain from entering the area within 12 miles of Canada.
The clause is objectionable because it can apply to any person, not necessarily a boatload, as it was in this particular case, nor any portion of that boatload.
While Members may suggest that this provision may never be used, the fact that it exists means that it can be used to turn a boat back. That may cause the very result which the Member has suggested the clause is meant to prevent, which is to allow a boat that is unseaworthy back out into the ocean and a possible disastrous situation. Consequently, I suggest that the clause should be removed entirely and the clause be left as it is.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is concerned that this type of clause may result in turning away real refugees who may have a very good reason for coming to Canada. However, since that person may happen to be a passenger on a boat which the Minister or his delegate decide should not be allowed into our waters, that person could be sent back to a possibly disastrous situation.
I have spent considerable time in other countries. We must recognize that there is a fine line between democratic countries which have Governments like ours and those which give rise to legitimate refugees. A clause such as this might put in danger refugees from such countries not only of disappearing at sea, but of being sent back to their country to face either imprisonment or death.
Furthermore, this clause is not likely to deter the smuggling which has accounted for a large portion of the refugee claimants who are coming to Canada. It will not stop the captains of these boats from seeking ways to enter Canadian waters.
Rather than simply partially amending this clause, it would be better to eliminate it entirely. That is the position we have taken on this particular amendment.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) says that this amendment is a reaction. Of course it is a reaction to what happened last summer and this summer. If we had not reacted, we would have been faulted by the Canadian people for not taking into account what was happening on the shores of our land. Of course it is a reaction, but it is not an over-reaction.
Let me begin by thanking the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for not raising the question of refoulement, because I think he knows that that is not the purpose of this clause.
The Member for Prince Albert mentioned that the implementation of this clause could lead to a possibly disastrous situation. I point out to him that the Bill states: "The Minister may, after having due regard to the safety of the vehicle and its passengers" and to the convention. All safety is looked after before a decision is made, and it is still the option of the Minister and the Department to seize the ship and prosecute the captain.
I want to point out the two conventions which are important in this connection. One is Article 33 of the UN Convention for Refugees which reads:
August 31, 1987

1.	No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
2.	The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.
I will read from the Law of the Sea Convention to which Canada is a signatory. Article 19 under the heading of "Meaning of Innocent Passage" states:
1.	Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2.	Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
Finally, Article 25, under "Rights of protection of the coastal State" states:
1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent
I leave Members with that convention, which is designed to protect the very people about whom Members everywhere in this House are concerned. At the same time it is designed to respect the sovereignty of the state, that is, Canada.
We are entitled to control our immigration and our refugee determination and, again, the uppermost question is, are these people in need of protection? That is the premise upon which the whole scheme stands. The clause, as tabled by the Government, protects those people on the high seas, particularly from the unscrupulous who would defraud them of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 and still not be able to guarantee them safe passage to Canada.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the exchange this afternoon on this particular clause that the Government really has failed to demonstrate that these people in need protection will be protected. The Parliamentary Secretary just mentioned the fact that people in need of protection will be given protection but without indicating how. Turning around a boat before allowing it to land and allowing our immigration officials to examine one by one the applicant refugees, without those applicants receiving the appropriate attention, will not extend to the visitors or applicant refugees the protection to which the Parliamentary Secretary refers.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that in order to extend this kind of protection, and subscribe and implement our commitments to the UN Convention for Refugees, we will have to allow the potential refugee to make his application in Canada. This is what this piece of legislation does not contemplate. This is why the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
Immigration Act, 1976
wrote the letter to the Minister of Immigration some weeks ago expressing that profound preoccupation and raising, in diplomatic language, the hope that this Bill would be changed in order to be in line and conform with the commitments Canada has made over the years through various international conventions.
We were given a promise by the Minister in committee, if I remember correctly, about an oral hearing that would be given to people arriving here by boat under this particular legislation, or Bill C-55. The Parliamentary Secretary must tell us during this debate how this will take place. Will officers of the Department of Immigration be allowed to board the boat while it is still on the high seas? Will they be boarding the boat when it enters Canadian territorial waters, or will this boat be turned around and no oral hearing will take place at all? This matter has not been clarified at all.
Actually, this is an attempt to sweep it under the rug as if somehow people should interpret the law better than the Parliamentary Secretary is capable of doing. That is not good enough. We have subscribed to several articles under the UN Convention over the years. We have been urged by the High Commissioner to stick to our commitments and to respect them, and this piece of legislation departs from those commitments.
The Parliamentary Secretary made a reference to the fact that this Bill is a reaction to what happened in the summer of 1986. Over 14 months have gone by since that happened and we are still puzzled by the poor quality of the Bill. As the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) indicated earlier, we have here a proposal, soon to become law, which will endeavour to determine whether or not people who arrive on our shores by boat are legitimate refugees, but will not give the same treatment to people who will be arriving by means other than by ship. We in the Opposition are puzzled by this different way of application. I would invite the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify this point.
Why is it that this Bill fails to apply to those who may be arriving by air? It seems to fail to apply to those who would arrive by land, by train or by bus. It applies only to people who arrive by water.
If these powers are contemplated in another piece of legislation, if the Minister has powers to proceed with the screening of potential applicants who arrive by means other than by water, then we would like to hear that from the Parliamentary Secretary. This is a very important aspect. It was addressed at second reading and it was addressed very thoroughly in committee by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), but it is still unclear as we approach third reading. Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary would do us a service by, first, clarifying the question of powers which give the Minister the opportunity to screen people regardless of the vehicle by which they choose to enter Canada, and, second, in which way are we complying with the UN Convention

August 31. 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
whereby we do recognize the right of potential refugees to seek asylum as they touch upon Canadian territory?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
At the request of the Hon. Member for York East, the Chair has taken a further look at Motions Nos. 15 and 17. Similar motions were moved in committee but the two motions, which were negatived in committee, did not use the word "humanitarian". The Chair is thus inclined to allow both motions to be moved and debated with one debate and one vote disposing of both. The Chair wishes to explain that the short lead time between the return of the Bill and the start of the report stage caused a bit of a rush. Hopefully, the House will understand this further clarification of statements made this morning and earlier this afternoon.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 25 to 32 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"95.1 Every person who knowingly, and for other than a humanitarian or commercial purpose, smuggles, organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to smuggle, organize, induce, aid or abet a person to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim is guilty of an offence and is liable".
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-84 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 1 to 9 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"95.2 Every person who knowingly, and for other than a humanitarian or commercial purpose, smuggles, organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to smuggle, organize, induce, aid or abet a group of ten or more persons to make a manifestly unfounded or fraudulent refugee claim is guilty of an".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Your Honour and the Table Officers for allowing me to make my representations. As Your Honour has quite rightfully pointed out, there was not enough time between Friday night and today to discuss the difference between my amendment in committee and my Motions Nos. 15 and 17.
Essentially, Clause 9 was probably the one that epitomized the concern of Canadians the most, namely, that it would allow under the law an individual Canadian, a priest, a nun or any other individual layman, to be fined or imprisoned for aiding a refugee applicant who does not possess identification documents or a Canadian visa. Mr. Speaker, you can well imagine the uproar from Canadians, in particular civil liberty groups, the Canadian Bar Association, churches, non-profit organizations and Amnesty International as a result of placing the onus on these individuals to pay the price rather than on the smugglers and consultants about whom everyone has agreed something must be done.
The Minister has said, "Do not worry. We will never put in prison or fine a priest or a nun who helps legitimate refugees". I am not concerned with the meaning or the intention of the Minister since Ministers come and go. Even you and I, Mr. Speaker, will go one day, much to the regret of the House of Commons. This is why during bad governments in particular it is important to have good legislation, legislation which will protect the citizens of Canada.
This piece of legislation, perhaps interpreted by the present Minister or by someone else, can be interpreted according to the letter of the law and would therefore make liable any individual Canadian, including thousands and thousands of church groups, although this wording is not limited to religious institutions. Many social and humanitarian organizations have been at the forefront of helping those less well off than you and me, Mr. Speaker.
Who do Hon. Members think were the first to advocate food banks, particularly in the basements of churches in the Province of British Columbia? These food banks came to the aid of those who did not have food on their tables. Can Hon. Members think of any more regressive or humiliating thing than to have to line up for one's food? It was the churches and it is still the churches which have filled the vacuum in 1987 with the plenty which surrounds us, and the line-ups are getting longer.
The churches and other organizations have come to the aid of those looking for a home. To date, Governments have not said anything particularly negative about the role played by churches and non-profit organizations. However, all of a sudden the same institutions which help refugees will now be made liable to imprisonment or to fines. 1 challenge the Government to produce one Canadian who would be in favour
August 31, 1987

of that law. I am not suggesting that the churches or nonprofit organizations be put above the law. No one, including government Ministers and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), is above the law. But when there is a law that makes liable individual groups and Canadians who legitimately and out of humanitarianism come to the aid of a person fleeing persecution, then what type of country are we trying to become under this Conservative administration?
Is the Government proud to follow the lead of the United States of America? In that country members of the clergy have to hide refugees away from law enforcement officials. Is that the direction which this Government wishes to take? Unless the Government changes Section 95.1, not only will it be following the course taken by the United States of America, it will in fact supersede that country.
It is for that reason that at the committee stage and at second reading we tried to move members of the Government and the Minister away from this wording in order not to allow a blanket-type of legislation which will potentially incriminate everyone yet catch only a few. That is not the way to draft laws. When laws are drafted we have a purpose, an objective. In this case the objective is abusers of the law. Let us clearly define who are the abusers. Once we have done that, let us target our laws appropriately and effectively in order to get those people.
Why put in the same category a manipulator who charges $15,000 a head, dumps people in the oceans and leaves them to pick up another load to bring somewhere else, and a parish priest of a church in my riding who continues to help people in need whether or not they have identification documentation? The action of my parish priest is different from that of the smuggler who makes half a million dollars on every load. Why, under the law, are the priest and the smuggler potentially one and the same? It is my intention to differentiate between the two.
This is not to say that the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party or the Chairman of the standing committee are in favour of abuse because they rise to speak about this issue. This issue has become like the constitutional accord, every time we try to make an amendment, we are seen as anti-Quebec. That approach cannot be taken. That is why I am moving the amendment today to include the word "humanitarian". This is an attempt to amend the law in this way by stating:
Every person who knowingly, and for other than a humanitarian or
commercial purpose, smuggles, organizes, induces, aids or abets-
This is a specific word that would set clear in legislation the intention of which the Minister speaks, which intention suggests that churches, organizations and individuals who are helping refugees legitimately are not the target and cannot be the target under this legislation. In response in committee the Minister said: "We cannot use words that cannot be defined by the law, words that would allow smugglers or others to profit through the loopholes". I am not saying that "humanitarian"
Immigration Act, 1976
is the only word to use. However, by using that word it is our intention that we be very specific in this law.
I would like to advise the Parliamentary Secretary that the words "charity", "non-profit" and "humanitarian" have been used in 38 different statutes of this Government.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not in the mood to listen to the response from the Parliamentary Secretary when he asked what it means when the Hon. Member for York West suggests a humanitarian. It is general, broad, and it does not appear anywhere else. I am sure that when checking the federal statutes and the Immigration Act there are legal definitions of the word "humanitarian", otherwise that word would not appear 38 different times in our federal statutes. I am sure that there is a definition of a church and a non-profit organization.
My point is that the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, or indeed the government Members cannot use the excuse that legally they could not find the phrases to define those very people whom we are trying to exclude from this regressive law, but in fact the words presently are in our federal statutes. If there is a political will to state clearly in intentions and also in law that the target of the Bill will not be and cannot be those groups and Canadians who are presently serving their fellow man, in this case, refugees, then it can be implemented
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary why there was no legal word or phrase that would set forth the intention that the Government does not want to throw in jail or fine a priest, or an individual Canadian who is helping refugees, but that under the law those intentions are real? In other legislation in other areas of policy in the Government or in the federal domain drafters have been able to come up with those terms and define them. Given the precedent, and the fact that "humanitarian" is used 38 times in our federal statutes, why was it not possible to find this word or another word with the same meaning to put in this legislation in order to match intentions with the law? Intentions are only as good as the paper on which they are written. It is the courts and the decision-makers that will ultimately interpret and follow the law. According to proposed Sections 95.1 and 95.2 it makes liable any individual, church, or otherwise, who legitimately will be aiding refugees without documentation.
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: I must admit that I came in late. I wonder if I heard the Hon. Member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope that the Hon. Member is not rising on a question or a comment. There are no questions or comments allowed under Standing Order 114.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: With unanimous consent.

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North to ask a question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: I heard the Hon. Member defining the word "humanitarian" in his amendment. I did not hear him explain the three words following the word "humanitarian" which are "or commercial purpose". I wonder if the Hon. Member could explain that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for York West to answer the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: If the Hon. Member will check with the Table Officers, he will find that this was a typing error which was not part of the motion. It has been struck by the Table. The three words "or commercial purpose" should not be in that motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Spadina on debate.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: 1 rise to support the motion of my hon. friend from York West. I would have preferred to handle the same problem in a somewhat different way. 1 will discuss that at a later time.
It has been proposed that we should exempt from this law people who act for a humanitarian purpose. As the Hon. Member stated, the word "humanitarian" is one that is in legal usage. Governments, courts, and the public have found it possible to use this word with a known meaning in legal matters. Therefore, it is a possible way in which to resolve what many people see as an unclarity, a possible mix-up, or a drafting error in the law.
When we started debate on the Bill, I was very much of the mind that there was a drafting error. One of the chief drafters, the director of the legal section of the task force, gave me a briefing on this. He explained that Sections 95.1 and 95.2 hinge on the difference between the word "into" and the word "to". He spent approximately half an hour explaining to me that to bring a person "to" Canada is legal, to bring a person "into" Canada is illegal, always was, and should be.
Later the Minister told me he was wrong. I am not sure about the quality of a law that is drafted by someone who soberly and conscientiously told me one thing, and after hearing the Minister, had to admit that what he told me was not true in regard to the meaning of a crucial clause in the law.
It seems to me very ironic that this Government, no less than the previous Government, and possibly more, has actively
sought partnership with churches, unions, and all types of nongovernmental organizations in the work of bringing refugees to Canada and helping them to settle here.
When the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) was Minister of Employment and Immigration, she told me that it was an important part of her plan to win that type of co-operation. In fact, at that time the host program began and it has continued. Churches and other such groups have joined with the Government in helping to settle refugees. Often they joined with the Government by helping very substantially to settle the refugees sponsored by the Government. Perhaps there is some confusion about how many the Government sponsored and how many the church sponsored, but one has to look at the whole picture and not pick certain figures out of context. It has been acknowledged by government officials that they have helped a great deal in providing information. The church has a good network and it is represented in places where the Government is not represented, and it is also represented in most places where the Government does have overseas posts. Therefore, information that the church has brought about countries has been greatly used by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee and by the Immigration Commission in trying to identify the type of problems that may generate refugees and attempting to clarify who are the refugees and what is needed in response to a real refugee who has been through some very terrible experiences.
All this information was actively sought by the Government, and I am glad that it was. The churches responded very positively, as did other groups. Many of those groups were ad hoc groups, for example, the Nanaimo Immigrant Aid Society and the Immigrant Aid Society in many other towns and cities. Without that assistance, the Government would have been greatly hampered in meeting its own goals in this matter.
In fact, this year the Government announced it was necessary to impose very harsh restrictions on the entry of refugee claimants into Canada over the American border. It announced those restrictions on Friday morning and on Sunday afternoon there was a great rally in the City of Fort Erie of over 300 local townspeople who were led by their clergy. For about half an afternoon in the park they held what they called a celebration of refugees. They told me that in the past two years they had billeted 500 refugees in the Town of Fort Erie. It started one evening a couple of years ago when one of our immigration officers on the bridge met a Salvadoran family, did the necessary paperwork and procedure and then asked, "Where are you going tonight?" They didn't know. The officer told them to wait. He phoned around and found them a place to stay with a friend, which by the way is the kind of thing the churches have been doing spontaneously. A committee was formed within a few days and that network billeted 500 people in a small city in two years. Southern Quebec at the same time sent a truckload of food and blankets to refugees who had been sent back to Plattsburg, New York, who had been stopped from coming into Canada. That competes with an action between Windsor and Detroit for
August 31, 1987

being the first time, at least in modern days, that refugee aid was sent to the United States of America.
There are all kinds of ways that people in the maritime provinces, the central provinces and the prairie provinces, even Alberta, are doing. 1 say that because I know the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) is very much aware of the refugee activities and refugee support activities in Alberta. Although there are fewer there than in Ontario for reasons that the Member could explain better than I, Albertans are making refugees very welcome.
It is ironic that the Government should undertake now to pass a law that refers to every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to smuggle, organize, induce aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa or passport, because thousands of people have helped thousands of people do that very thing. People have helped those coming to Canada by assisting them to the nearest immigration office believing that they were acting lawfully. Nobody in this Government, including the present Minister, ever whispered to them that they were not acting lawfully. They read the Act, they listened to the officials and the Minister. They did what was lawful and they were praised for it, at least by the preceding Minister, if not by the present one.
It is ironic that we should now have a law saying that everyone who does that is guilty of an offence and is liable, et cetera. It is not nearly good enough to say, "You are nice people and we would never prosecute you", as was made very clear by a representative of the Inter-Church Committee on Refugees, a layperson who has worked on refugee affairs for about 20 years. These people are not asking to be protected from prosecution. They are saying, "Do not make us guilty of an offence for doing what you encouraged us to do for these many years". I really thought at first that there was a misunderstanding. We tried, as we heard from an earlier speaker, to get this clause amended in committee. I remember very clearly the Parliamentary Secretary saying that he did not think words could be found any better than the ones that were in the law.
That leads me to the conclusion that there was no misunderstanding but a fundamental moral change in the law to prevent, or at least to discourage or intimidate, Canadians or anybody else from helping refugees coming into Canada unless they are privileged to have visas. It is not to help them evade the law. Even to help them meet the law will now be made an offence. It must be the first time that the Government has sought to pass a law to make it an offence to help somebody keep the law. I am very sorry but that seems to be the Government's decision. I hope there is still time for Members opposite to reconsider their position and adopt the motion that we have before us.
Immigration Act, 1976


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we have stated on several occasions today that this Bill contains too many discretionary powers. We have regretted that and pointed at passages and clauses where too much power is given to an individual Minister. We do not like it.
1 can tell you that nothing is more repugnant, Mr. Speaker, than this Clause 9 and nothing is more upsetting than the content of this measure which prompted the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) to put forward his amendment, which I fully support.
In essence, the Government is taking a line whereby it wishes to give an oral assurance to groups, volunteer organizations and churches not to prosecute them, while at the same time putting into law a measure that will prosecute them the very moment the promise is forgotten. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how naive and incompetent can one be in making the kind of statement which the Minister made in committee? You cannot do things that way. You cannot expect to give this kind of reassurance unless it is embodied in the law. It is irresponsible to expect society to function on the basis of verbal assurances by the Minister of the day. What will happen with the Minister of tomorrow, a logical question which the Hon. Member for York West already raised? You do not make laws that way.
What is repugnant about this measure, which is very upsetting, is the fact that you would treat as criminals through a blanket clause in this Bill a number of people who have been and will continue-I repeat, will continue-to be involved in matters relating to the refugee movement in Canada. Why am I saying that, Mr. Speaker? Because we have it on record in statements by two representatives of the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows very well what was said. Nancy Pocock said:
If my Government tells me it is a crime to help these people,
Namely, refugees.
-I will have to say I am obeying a higher law and I am going to continue to
help them when they need me.
This is quite a statement from a person who has high moral standards and motivation flowing from a life dedicated to this kind of work. Another member of the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, George Cram, said:
1 do not want to be guilty of committing an offence for doing humanitarian
work.
True. What civilized society would do that? It is so unCanadian. It is absolutely revolting that this kind of legislation would be allowed. It is upsetting and embarrassing. As the Hon. Member for York West said earlier, you can make a distinction between activities that are oriented by profitmaking and activities that are non-profit making. Any law writer can make that distinction, but it takes political will to do it. The Member for York West indicated the number of times where the word "humanitarian" has been used in federal statutes. It is over 30. The number is over 30. There is no

August 31, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
excuse for the Government to tell us that it cannot be done. It can be done, but the political will is not there.
To add insult to injury, we have a Minister who has the nerve to say, "Don't worry, you guys over there, the InterChurch Committee, we will not prosecute you. We will keep our word". How serious is that? How can you make laws that way? Not even a banana republic would do that. It is either on the books or it is not, and it is on the books, unfortunately.
The matter was raised at second reading stage a number of times by the Hon. Member for York West and by other Hon. Members including myself. This clause is a shame and it must be given attention by the Government if it has any respect for volunteer organizations and all those involved in this kind of work.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has a special sensitivity for the movement outside the country in which refugees are involved, and I know that he will take the matter up with the Minister. The Bill cannot be allowed to go ahead like this.
As we all know, there is an enormous difference between those who get involved for the purpose of profit-making and those who are involved for humanitarian considerations only. Everyone in this room knows that there is a big difference. The distinction can be made and it is clear. The terminology does exist if one wants to choose from it. It must find its way into this piece of legislation.
Clause 9 is a repugnant clause for which there is no room in the Bill in light of the traditions we have developed in Canada. It is not consistent with our international reputation. There is no way that this clause should be allowed by those backbenchers over there to stand on the books. It ought to be changed and ways to do it must be found.
I fully support the amendment of the Hon. Member for York West. Blanket incrimination rather than targeting those whose motives are venal is not fair and is not right. The distinction must be made.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) said that it is up to the Government to find the word to be used. Now the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) asks why the Government does not find the word. It is their amendment. Why did they not find the word? They can get themselves the latest edition of Roget's Thesaurus and use any synonym they want.
I have no objection at all to their using any word they want in their amendment. If it meets the narrow definitions of the Criminal Code, that is fine. However, I can say that the word "humanitarian" will not do it.
I agree that that word is used elsewhere in the statutes and even in the immigration law. However, it is not used in definite
regulations. It is of course used in the context of broad Canadian goals.
I would ask the Hon. Member for Davenport, as I asked the Hon. Member for York West in committee, to define "humanitarian" in a world context. Both Hon. Members know that every radical group in the world thinks its goals and objectives are humanitarian.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Pinochet never uses it.


Benno Friesen: Of course, he is saving his country from communism. Check with Abu Nidal or the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah has saved his country from that great Satan, the United States. What a favour he has done for the Iranian people! That, in his world context, is being a humanitarian.
As I did in committee, I will bring it a little closer to home. Within the last two weeks, there was a case in British Columbia of a young lady riding a motorcycle who had an accident. Her leg was severed and she was taken to the hospital. The humanitarian staff at the hospital wanted to save her life. However, the treatment required a blood transfusion and she was a Jehovah's Witness. Try as they might to be humanitarian in their scale of values, her scale of values did not allow them to give her a transfusion, and she died.
How are we to define "humanitarian"? We cannot use a loose, subjective word like that and expect the law to carry weight and to be effective.
Hon. Members have spoken about the threat to churches. I have been interested in refugees for a long time and I have been active in my church for a long time. I have never once felt threatened by the law because of my interest in refugees.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Of course not, this law wasn't passed then.


Charles L. Caccia: That's right, big deal.


Benno Friesen: That's right, big deal. Let me offer the House the statistics. There is no need for any organization to come to the border with so-called refugees who are undocumented. To come to the U.S.-Canada border without documents is unnecessary. They can go to any Canadian Consulate in the United States to obtain documentation. They can go to refugee detention centres on the U.S.-Mexico border and be documented. Any church or humanitarian organization that so chooses can go to the United States and sponsor refugees to give them a more certain future than it would be doing it the way they describe they want to do it.
Central American landings seem to be the focus of attention of all the groups that have criticized this legislation. In 1986, the Government sponsored 299 Central American landings in Canada from Central America. Private groups sponsored 14. From the United States, the Government sponsored 1,018, and private groups sponsored 76. From others abroad, the Government sponsored 2,465, and private groups sponsored 149.
August 31, 1987

Up to June of 1987, the Government sponsored 101 Central American landings in Canada, and private groups sponsored 17. From the U.S., the Government sponsored 680 and private groups, 19.
If Hon. Members want to help Central American refugees, the simplest thing they could do is to go to the United States and sponsor all the refugees they want. If they do it in the United States, the refugees come to Canada with work permits and they are secure as soon as they are in Canada.
There are thousands of refugees in the United States. I ask Hon. Members opposite who speak on behalf of these organizations why they only brought 76 refugees from the United States in 1986 when the Government brought in 1,018. Why did they not bring in more? There are unlimited opportunities to sponsor refugees if they want to. Why in the first six months of 1987 did they bring in from the United States only 19 refugees when the Government brought in 680? If they are so interested in helping refugees, why have they not done so?


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


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, could I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no unanimous consent. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motions Nos. 15 and 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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

It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed with Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE
Neil Young: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone by prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within Canada, the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms and further, the government should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to undertake similar action.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the establishment of nuclear weapons free zones in areas around the world has increased enormously over the last several years. Nuclear weapons free zones exist by international treaty in four global regions: The sea bed, Antarctica, outer space, and Latin America. International recognition is presently being sought as well for the nuclear weapons free zone established in the South Pacific during 1985. At least 17 nations have declared themselves nuclear weapons free zones, including Japan, Sweden, Austria and New Zealand. A number of other countries which are members of NATO have also done so. In addition, there are currently proposals for regional zones in the Balkan states, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, the Indian Ocean and parts of Europe.
Here in Canada as of June of this year the number of nuclear weapons free zones has grown to 169. In addition to cities such as Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Toronto, Montreal, Bathurst, Lunenburg and St. John's, scores of local Governments have passed motions declaring their own communities to be nuclear weapons free. The Provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, as well as the Northwest Territories, have done the same. Just over 59 per cent of the Canadian population now lives within nuclear weapons free zones.
Almost from its beginning the UN has urged its members to create these zones in order to build an international climate that would bring about a comprehensive arms limitation agreement. In fact, in 1978 the final report of the UN special session on disarmament declared: "The establishment of nuclear weapons free zones on the basis of arrangements arrived at among states in the region concerned constitutes an

August 31, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
important disarmament initiative. The process of establishing such zones should be encouraged with the ultimate objective of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons".
In the past, Canadian Governments have traditionally supported the thrust of this policy. At two special sessions of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament, one in 1978 and the other in 1982, Canada supported the final declarations which encouraged the establishment of nuclear weapons free zones. It would appear from all that activity that Canada should have taken the lead and shown by example what it is indeed encouraging other nations to do. Instead, we have managed to confuse our position by acts of both the present and previous Governments.
This is the third time this particular motion has been debated, once on May 29, 1984, and once on October 10, 1985. As well, two similar Private Members' Bills were debated, one put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) on March 18, 1985, and the other put forward by the previous Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, Mr. Doug Anguish, on March 30, 1985.
In reviewing those debates, the central argument used by opponents of this proposal is that if Canada were to adopt it, her obligations to her allies would be seen to be diminished. In particular, it would isolate Canada from her allies in NATO and NORAD. As I understand the policy of the present Government, it is that it does not support the declaration of a nuclear weapons free status for Canada because Canada does not possess nuclear weapons. Since such weapons are not stationed in Canada we are essentially a nuclear weapons free zone. However, since we are members of NATO, which is a defence alliance which deploys a nuclear deterrent, we would be inconsistent with our membership in NATO if we were to adopt this motion.
I fully expect to hear that same kind of argument being advanced numerous times in the course of this debate. However, my Party believes, as do I, that on the evidence the argument does not stand up. Nuclear arms are not even mentioned in the North Atlantic Treaty. Therefore, Canada is not obliged to support what has developed as a NATO policy. As well, the treaty makes it clear that it is up to member states to decide the size and nature of their commitment within NATO. Presumably that is the reason given by Canada for its recent decision to withdraw its contingent of troops from Norway. It is also why Canada took the position at the 1957 Paris heads of government meeting that whether or not Canada would commit itself to having nuclear weapons was a decision only Canada could and should make. As we all know, the record will show that we decided not to do that.
I would like to think that we made that decision because to do otherwise would have meant that we would be lending our support to the build-up of nuclear arms and contributing to the increase in world tensions and the threat of nuclear war. In my view, the position Canada took was both visionary and in keeping with the respect we have internationally as a peaceloving nation. I think we continue to enjoy that respect, but I also believe the principles we adopted then are not as clear today. In point of fact, while continuing the policy not to store or deploy nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, we also provide support for the development, testing and training in the use of nuclear weapons. We place no restrictions on Canadian industrial involvement either in the production of U.S. nuclear and nuclear capable delivery systems or, indeed, their components. Even though we have policy restrictions with respect to the export of fissionable material, there is clear evidence that this material is finding its way into arms production in France, South Korea and in the U.S. In addition to that, U.S. and British warships which are nuclear-capable, and some suspected of being actually armed with nuclear weapons, are allowed to visit Canadian ports.
It is also the policy of nuclear nations within NATO to "neither confirm nor deny" the presence of weapons on their vessels. They also apply this policy to aircraft. Yet while we as Canadians reject this policy for aircraft over Canadian territory, we seem to find it acceptable for naval vessels in our waters. I have never heard a satisfactory answer from either Government as to why this contradiction in our policy exists. However, it does.
1 can provide numerous other examples where Canada's policies are a departure from her stated principles, but I will leave that to other speakers who will be rising in the course of this debate. It is sufficient to say that these few examples 1 have given illustrate the numerous inconsistencies in our stated principles as opposed to our developed policies.
Another central argument which has been made against Canada dissociating itself entirely from this nuclear policy development is that it would threaten Canadian jobs. That is also an argument that was used in the initial stages of the debate on whether Canada should or should not be involved in the U.S. Strategic Defence Initiative or, as it is more commonly known, Star Wars. That argument was made even after many studies showed that military spending is one of the least effective ways to create employment.
One of those many studies conducted by the U.S. Labour Department showed that for every $1 billion spent on military procurement 28,000 jobs could be created. The same $1 billion would create 32,000 jobs if it were used to upgrade transportation systems, 57,000 jobs if it were spent on consumption of goods and services, and 71,000 jobs if it were spent on education.
Apart from any other consideration, I think it is irresponsible to talk about the need to create jobs through nuclear arms production when we know full well what the results of their use would be to mankind. However, it does bring me to another related point which I think brings into sharp focus the insanity of the global arms build-up and the developed world's wrong-headed setting of priorities. I am referring to the
August 31, 1987

recognition that has been given to the maxim that we cannot achieve world peace if we cannot also achieve economic and social justice on the global scale.
The United Nations has estimated that some 130 million children in our world are denied access to any form of education and that 800 million adults are considered illiterate. One-half of the Third World countries have no safe drinking water supplies, yet the technology is available to provide it within 10 years. We could do the same to prevent the hunger that is killing hundreds of thousands every year.
The World Health Organization tells us that 10 children die each minute as a result of contracting measles, diphtheria and tuberculosis and that only 10 per cent of the Third World's population is even immunized against disease. We also know that air and water pollution is responsible for increased illness and death from diseases such as asthma, cancer and heart disease.
Yet, we continue to spend billions of dollars on weapons that are capable of destroying every living thing on our planet. In my opinion and that, I am sure, of most reasonable Canadians that is the ultimate in insanity.
Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lent their support to the notion behind the motion which is before the House by signing petitions that call for the House of Commons to adopt the statements I have included in this motion. They recognize, as I do, that declaring Canada a nuclear weapons free zone will not change the world overnight. International tensions and relationships are too complex, unfortunately, for that to happen. However, I argue that by adopting this motion Canada would be affirming to the international community its position that our stated principles of the fact are to become our policies of today.
Under the rules of the House this motion will receive five hours of consideration during the time set aside for Private Members' Business. The motion is also a votable item and I ask Members on all sides of the House to give serious consideration to the debate and to the motion and to consider supporting it.
In conclusion I would like to quote from a working paper entitled "Making Canada a Nuclear Weapon-free Zone" that was made available by Project Ploughshares. In my view it sums up the argument very well. The document says:
The point of any state becoming a NWFZ-
-a nuclear weapon-free zone, Mr. Speaker-
-(or joining an international NWFZ) is not to seek immunity from nuclear war. Once war breaks out, all bets are off and any country, whether nuclear weapon-free or not, will be vulnerable to direct attack-the relevant circumstance being whether or not the nuclear combatants will consider it to their advantage to attack or not to attack-and all suffer the post-war devastation and nuclear winter.
Treaties count for little in war, and they certainly count for nothing in the sharing of the effects of war. Similarly, while a Canadian NWFZ would eliminate any willing Canadian role in nuclear warfighting, this also is not the point of a NWFZ-after the war few Canadians could either be around or inclined to celebrate the virtues of non-involvement in global self-immolation.
Nuclear Armaments
A NWFZ is not an attempt to make one immune to the effects of war, rather it is an attempt to influence national and international behaviour before war breaks out, thus helping to reduce the likelihood of war. A NWFZ is a peacetime measure to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons, to withdraw political and technical support for the nuclear arms race, and to build trust between nations and regions of the globe.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a sentiment which has been expressed by the vast majority of Canadians, both individually through petitions to the House of Commons and through the actions of representatives at local and provincial government levels. This is the first time in the last several years that the House of Commons has had an opportunity to express its view on this very important matter. I look forward to the coming debate.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) for putting this motion before the House. I believe that it is too seldom that we take a look at one of the most important aspects of our civilization, in the words of Tolstoy, war and peace.
We have been asked to consider today the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone and to encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to undertake similar action. In a perfect world the need to consider such a proposal would not present itself. Unfortunately, we well know that the world in which we live is far from perfect. Given the nature of modern submarine and missile technologies it is not fanciful to see a direct potential threat to Canadian security and sovereignty.
We must, therefore, take a realistic and pragmatic approach to conditions. The Hon. Member who just spoke is filled with good intentions and I admire them. However, we must be practical and deal with reality. To do otherwise would be more than foolish, it would be dangerous for Canada.
In the face of the known threat, of which nuclear arms are a major component, Canada has joined with other countries which share similar values and interests in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an alliance founded in a concept of collective defence. The primary role of the alliance is to safeguard the security of member nations by deterring aggression. This deterrence capability, which is weighted and balanced against the forces of the Warsaw Pact, relies ultimately on nuclear weapons. Although the alliance has pledged never to resort to force except in response to attack, it remains united in its determination to deter any aggression against its members. The Hon. Member who has just spoken wishes to do away with the deterrence. Our Government continues to believe that it is through participation in these collective defence arrangements, rather than retreating into the uncertain security of a nuclear weapons free zone, that we can make our most effective contribution to preserving peace and security for ourselves and others.

August 31, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
I would not want Members of the House, however, to believe that Canada is dragging its heels in promoting peace. Far from it. While we have not considered such zones to be a satisfactory alternative to the ratification of the non-proliferation treaty, this Government does believe that, in the absence of universal adherence to the non-proliferation treaty, the creation of such zones can make a contribution to the objective of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In order to be effective, such zones must: first, apply to a well defined geographic area; second, have support from the principal military powers of the region; third, not give military advantage to any state or group of states; fourth, contain adequate treaty assurances and means to verify that all countries abide by the commitments involved; fifth, not permit the countries of the area to have an independent nuclear explosive capability; and finally, enhance regional security and international stability.
Some Hon. Members may believe such criteria to be excessively rigorous, but we believe it is only through strict application of such criteria that nuclear weapons free zones will be effective. Canada has voted in favour of United Nations resolutions calling for such zones in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. We have also backed measures which would consolidate the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in Latin America, in accordance with the Treaty of Tlateloko. Canada also supports the South Pacific nuclear free zone which came into effect under the Treaty of Rarotonga in December, 1986.
There are some areas of the world, however, where efforts to create nuclear weapons free zones have not succeeded. It would be useful to look at some of these in order to clarify Canada's position.
The idea of a Nordic nuclear weapons free zone has been under discussion for almost 30 years. The primary impediment to its establishment is that such a zone is not considered viable without the inclusion of the Baltic region and parts of the western U.S.S.R. in the geographically designated areas. The U.S.S.R. has provided no indication that it would accept the inclusion of its territory owing to the military significance of the Kola Peninsula, which is the location of the densest concentration of nuclear weapons in the world.
The creation of a Balkan nuclear free zone appears even more remote despite expressions of interest of all the Balkan States on various occasions. The major obstacle is that the removal of American nuclear weapons from the area would create a destabilizing regional imbalance since nuclear weapons on neighbouring Soviet territory would remain untouched. The various inter-regional conflicts and multilateral differences, particularly the fact that the region includes two NATO and two Warsaw Pact members and other non-aligned nations, further complicate this issue.
In Southeast Asia, an increased Soviet naval presence and an expansionist Vietnam have prompted interest among the six Asian countries-Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand-in the establishment of a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality in their region. An important element of this concept would be the declaration of Southeast Asia as a nuclear weapons free zone. However, differences of view among the ASEAN states and practical problems of implementation have relegated the realization of the measure to the distant future.
1 have tried to show, then, that there are many factors which affect a region's ability to declare a nuclear weapons free zone. It is obviously even more difficult to make such a declaration effective and meaningful. In each case, specific and concrete strategic realities must be taken into account. It would be foolhardy and dangerous for Canada to pass such a resolution. Declaring Canada a nuclear weapons free zone would involve a serious abdication of our alliance responsibilities and might even require withdrawal from NATO. Such a proposal would clearly not have the support of our allies and would in all likelihood give military advantage to the Soviets, thus reducing regional security and international stability.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate to the House that Canada does support the declaration of nuclear weapons free zones if regional conditions permit. Such a declaration is not appropriate for Canada. A more productive approach is to encourage serious arms control and disarmament measures within established negotiating agencies such as the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Geneva. It is only through serious negotiations involving the nuclear weapon states that meaningful advances in arms control can take place.
Fortunately, the superpowers are, of late, negotiating seriously to find a mutually satisfactory way to reduce their nuclear arms. Countries such as Canada can and are doing much to encourage the superpowers to continue their efforts. In my opinion, the present situation is more hopeful than it has been in the last two decades. Progress is being made toward balance and verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons.
I am more optimistic today about nuclear disarmament than I have been since the U.S.S.R. started the new generation of nuclear weapons with its introduction of the SS-20, which destabilized the relative balance that existed in 1977.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in addressing this both provocative and important resolution, I am reminded of this summer when I had the opportunity to read a very long and fascinating book entitled The Making of the Atom Bomb. It was a study of how scientists from five or six different countries in the 1920s and 1930s arrived at the awesome discovery that we could unleash the force of the atom.
In light of the prevailing mood in Europe and the emergence of Nazi Germany at that time, many of those scientists decided that the force of atomic energy should be examined


August 31, 1987

with a view to making weapons, without really beginning to understand exactly what incredible power for destruction they were beginning to unleash.
That realization began to dawn in the 1940s, that this was not just another geometric expansion of dynamite, but something of unspeakable potent destruction that was unknown in the annals of humankind. Those scientists, including Niels Bohr, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and others who worked on those projects made a proposal to the politicians, specifically President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, that the possession of that weapon was a two-edged sword whose political application, if used correctly, could actually bring about an understanding among all nations that war of major proportions was impossible.
Some Elon. Members will recall the fierceness of the fire bombings of Cologne and other cities that our Armed Forces were able to wreak upon them at that time. We were able to understand that in our time we were able essentially to unleash the genie from the bottle.
The recommendation was that this weapon was so immense in its destructive power that it might just bring about a tone of sanity and perhaps form the basis for stopping wars since no one would be a winner any more. Unfortunately, the politicians did not listen to the creators of the atom bomb. In 194546 they decided that since our side had the advantage, we would attempt to use it to attain strategic advantage. They were warned that the Soviets would soon catch up because the power of the atom is not confined to any nationality, it is a universal knowledge. It was just a matter of time before someone from another country figured out how to make the bomb.
This resolution brought to mind that small history because it made me realize just how much of an eyelash away we came to actually controlling nuclear weapons and how much we lost it then. I am not saying we have more wisdom than our predecessors. Certainly we do not. However, I do mean to say that politicians, policy makers, have been faced with a number of crucial questions along the way about the application of nuclear weapons, and that we have made a lot of mistakes, beginning with the first one.
I think 1945 was when the new history began. Everything up to that was a prelude. The first explosion in New Mexico was the beginning of a new history. Since that time we have been trying to find various ways and means of putting the stop back into the bottle. We have not been too successful. When we think of it, Mr. Speaker, how many successful nuclear weapons agreements have there been since 1945? There was the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963 which limited test bans in the atmosphere. There were SALT negotiations to which the United States did not become a signatory but adhered to informally up until last year. There was the Non-proliferation Treaty of which Canada was the major architect. It tried to
Nuclear Armaments
control the application of nuclear weapons to other countries. That is about it. That about summarizes 43 years of trying to come to grips with this incredible, destructive power.
So much of it is involved in the cold war rhetoric. Somehow nuclear weapons have become intermixed with the competition between East and West, the Soviets and Americans, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and all the other competitions. We tend at times to believe that there is something plausible about a nuclear weapon. I mean, there are military people and some politicians on our side and certainly on the side of the Soviets, who believe that we could actually use nuclear weapons in wartime and get away with it. They actually say we can have a nuclear war fighting capacity. There are those people in the world and they are not locked up in insane asylums. There are in many cases people occupying very important positions in very important countries, who talk about using nuclear weapons in wartime. They say that if there are only 50 million or 60 million people killed in North America, that is an acceptable level of damage.
We have the same thinking on the Soviet side. Its military people are saying: "If we have to fight one, we will. We survived the Second World War and we can survive a Third World War". When we read these things we think, oh, my God, what are these people saying? In heaven's name, what are they talking about when they say it is okay to have 60 million or 70 million casualties in the first day, to say nothing of the impact on the environment and the atmosphere and the fact that it will totally destroy our social and economic cultural way of life? We cannot reconstruct what we have built up over the past 3000 or 4000 years after a nuclear war.
Surely, the real issue is how to get rid of the fighting. If we can never get rid of the knowledge, how can we finally find a way of putting down such implacable guidelines and controls? As 1 tried to point out, part of the question is not the techniques but the psychology. Part of it is the understanding. It is people like us in this Chamber and people in other political decision-making Chambers who have that power. We can listen to the scientists. We have listened to them in the past and we have not responded to their recommendations. It will be people like you and I, Mr. Speaker, reflecting ordinary Canadians who will be making those decisions.
Is it so wrong to think in terms of a nuclear weapons free zone? Many Canadians have latched on to that concept, not necessarily because they see it as the perfect answer, but it has a symbolic value, if nothing else. It is one way of ordinary Canadians expressing their gut reaction to us as politicians, as policy makers, which is to get rid of those things. They say: "Do not put myself and my kids in jeopardy". That is why we have resolutions in Ontario, Manitoba, the Territories and various towns and cities. It is one way for people to express themselves. I think we have to listen to that expression. We can be critical of the specifics. However, let us recognize what it represents. It is a heartfelt underlying current of opinion in this country, as it is in other countries around the world, that

August 31, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
perhaps the time has come to stop the insanity. Perhaps the time has come to try to recapture what we lost in 1945.
I have to admit to some surprise. When I introduced a motion of this kind at the policy convention of our Party last November, I did not expect it to pass. It was going to be one of those controversial resolutions. However, over 75 per cent of our delegates voted for it. Many said afterwards that they were not sure exactly what a nuclear free zone meant in terms of specifies, but they did know that it perhaps was one further extension of what this country has tried to say over the years, that is, that perhaps we are in some peculiar and unique way one of those countries that can stand up and provide a difference to this thing.
1 know I do not have much time and I wish I had another hour or two to explain this because it is a topic about which I feel strongly. Perhaps the most important nuclear weapons free zone that Canada should be arguing for right now is in the area of our Arctic, the northern territories. One of the really serious problems is that Canada can no longer treat nuclear weapons free zones as an academic exercise. It is not something that is happening in the South Pacific, in Antarctica or Latin America. We now face in our own northern territories the emergence of an arms race. We face the emergence of our own undersea submarines. In a sense I wish the resolution could be amended to say: "If there is one thing on which Canada should be united it is that we do not want an arms race on our territory underneath our own Arctic waters". We should be using every ounce of our diplomacy and persuasion to try to convince other countries who border on those Arctic waters to demilitarize and denuclearize, not to allow it to become an area of combat between Soviet and American submarines, not to allow the Forward Maritime Strategy to become the predominant philosophy.
This is an area where we can make not only a symbolic statement but a real statement because it affects us directly as Canadians. We should be negotiating with the Norwegians, the Russians, the Icelanders and the Americans rather than building up the arms race, rather than adding to the submarines, rather than putting missiles in those submarines. Let us declare our North nuclear free. Let us demilitarize. That is what I would like to see coming out of this kind of resolution, something not just symbolic in intent, as important as that may be, but something very real and tangible, and that is absolutely crucial.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be permitted the opportunity to comment on the motion of the New Democratic Party which would see Canada declaring itself a nuclear weapons free zone. I was disappointed, I must say, though, to hear the Liberal spokesman of his Party going again half-way and only wishing to declare half of Canada a nuclear free zone.
This type of motion has been debated on three previous occasions during Private Members' Business and once during an Opposition Day. The motion before us proposes a course of action for Canada which is unrealistic and hypocritical. The same could be said for the recently announced New Democratic Party's posture on defence.
No NATO members have declared themselves to be nuclear weapon free zones, and there are no NATO countries that prohibit visits by allied ships that may be carrying nuclear weapons.


Neil Young: What about New Zealand?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Some NATO countries have, either as a matter of government policy or by parliamentary resolution, decided that nuclear weapons should not, for the present, be stationed on their soil. Canada is among these countries which include Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Spain. However, these nations continue to share fully in the risks and responsibilities of Alliance collective security.
Alliance members, Canada included, have acknowledged publicly the critical requirement to maintain the continuance of nuclear and conventional deterrents as a pre-requisite to undiminished security at lower levels of armament.
Declaring Canada a nuclear weapons free zone would, first, be without precedent in NATO, as no other Alliance member has taken this course. Its consequences in terms of Alliance relationships cannot be predicted with certainty. Second, it would be incompatible with Canada's continued membership in NATO and NORAD, and, in particular, with participation in the NATO Nuclear Planning Group, which affords Canada the opportunity to consult on nuclear policy, including arms control affecting nuclear weapons.
This policy reflects the NDP's vision of a little Canada divorced from that larger community of states with which we share our traditions and basic political and social values.


Neil Young: Deal with the issue!


T.A. Bud Bradley: It suggests a ludicrous course of action which would be not only extremely costly for Canada to implement in terms of providing our own defence, but would result in a loss of credibility in the international community, reducing, not enhancing, Canada's ability on the world stage to encourage peace and stability.


Neil Young: You should talk to your Prime Minister.


T.A. Bud Bradley: For example, for Canada to take over the responsibility of the air defence alone would cost over $5 billion. I would ask: Where are the savings that the NDP proposes?
As a useful and effective international player Canada would lose the following benefits of membership by withdrawing
August 31, 1987

from NATO: the privilege of discussing with our allies the evolution of East-West relations and making our voice heard-


Neil Young: Talk about the motion, why don't you?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I was more than willing to sit very quietly and listen closely to my hon. friend.


Neil Young: But I spoke to the motion.


T.A. Bud Bradley: I would accept that he could make the same commitment to me and allow me to make my presentation.


Neil Young: At least I spoke to the motion.


T.A. Bud Bradley: We would lose the advantage of an existing consultative process in times of international crisis. We would lose the benefit of being a member of NATO taking part in arms control negotiations as exemplified by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the mutual and balanced force reductions. We would lose as a member of the NATO Nuclear Planning Group a voice in the planning process, as well as access to information shared within the Alliance.
In closing, I would argue that there is no way that Canada, deprived of the multilateral means now available through the Alliance structure, could achieve as much on the international stage if we were to follow the lead of the NDP. As our White Paper recently put it so eloquently:
Canada has never been neutral. We have always sought our security in a
larger family of like-minded nations.
In light of our position in the world, the values and traditions which have been defended steadfastly by previous generations of Canadians, and our political and economic interest, neutrality would be hypocrisy.
Our security would continue to depend on the deterrents provided by our former allies, but we would have opted out of any cohtribution to and, equally significantly, any say in the management of that deterrent. As I mentioned earlier, there is a possibility that acceptance of this motion could lead to the loss of that hope and faith we have in our collective securities.
We could turn our backs on the obligation to work for a stable world order. Technology and geography would not, however, allow us to escape the consequences should that order collapse.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, the motion by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) before the House today concerns a fundamental issue that is of more than passing interest to all Canadians, and that is the control of nuclear deterrence, Canada's defence and security, and peace. Mr. Speaker, I feel particularly privileged to speak to this motion today because, as you know, the headquarters of Canada's mobile force is located at CFB Saint-Hubert in the riding of Chambly which I have the honour to represent. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to mention the
Nuclear Armaments
excellent work being done by all members of Canada's mobile force.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has no nuclear arms, and right away,
I want to give Canadians the assurance that we do not intend to acquire any. Canada is a signatory to treaties guaranteeing non-proliferation and prohibiting nuclear testing. Furthermore, unlike most of its NATO allies, it neither stores nor deploys nuclear arms on its territory. Technically speaking, in peacetime Canada is, to use the terms of the motion, a nuclear arms free zone.
However, through its geographic location, it must live with the threat of a nuclear holocaust that in a conflict between the superpowers would not recognize neutrality and would spare no one.
There are only two ways to defuse such a threat: by maintaining a credible force to deter any potential aggressor and by negotiation.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know, and I want to take this opportunity to talk about Canadians, and I mean Canadians in every sense of the word, not the way the New Democrats and the Liberals use the term when they talk about the ordinary Canadian. Mr. Speaker, according to the dictionary, ordinary means: not special; common; everyday; or average. And that is what the Liberals and Socialists call the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has never called the Canadian people common or everyday. Canadians are a proud people, and the Conservative Government is proud of the Canadian people. We Conservatives would never speak in such negative and insulting terms of the people of this country.
There are no ordinary Canadians in this country. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, our present system of mutual deterrence is effective and stable. Through the most acute crises, it has given us over forty years of peace, and the Government believes this should continue. In this perspective, the Canadian Government's priority is not to create nuclear arms free zones but to maintain a peace zone. Earlier, I heard the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) mention a Third World War. Is there anyone in this House or in this Government who wants a Third World War on this planet? The Conservative Government would never dream of bringing a Third World War to this planet, to this country or to this continent.
This being a joint venture-we rely on our allies and they rely on us to deter a potential enemy-we are in favour of developing and maintaining nuclear forces which have every chance of surviving, as required if we are to set up an effective and credible deterrent system.

August 31, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
Mr. Speaker, this is why Canada contributes and must contribute to strategic deterrent forces even though it does not have nor deploy nuclear armaments.
Our role and mission in this connection are clear and securely anchored in our geography and in our history.
We must do our share to defend the North American air space, and this we accomplish through our defence effort and our membership in NORAD.
Mr. Speaker, 1 sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence and in that capacity 1 was able to tour NORAD bases and centres, not only in Canada but also at Colorado Springs in the United States, and 1 can attest to the importance of these military bases in North America and on Canadian soil. American support is essential if we are to continue to defend our large territory. Without the help of our American friends we would hardly be in a position to put up adequate defences. This would cost far more than we as a government and as a nation can afford to spend to guarantee our safety and that of our population.
We must protect NATO strategic forces by denying access to our air space, land and territorial waters to potential attackers. Mr. Speaker, this happens to be the thrust of the Government's defence program.
Finally, should the need ever arise, our allies must have ready access to our territory and our facilities.
We meet these obligations and carry out these collective security duties with due respect for our sovereignty and our integrity. In peacetime we contribute to the training and improvement of deterrent forces; in time of crisis Canada might authorize strategic force vectors to fly over its air space and use its defence facilities.
It is essential and in keeping with our policy and our commitments that our air space and firing ranges continue to be used for training and improving unarmed vectors, that our armed forces train side by side with NATO troops, and that deterrent force ships drop anchor in our ports.
This cannot be viewed as a threat against our country, it is part and parcel of its security and peace commitment.


Carlo Rossi: Who wrote that?


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a project concerning the security of this country, yet the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) would rather make untimely remarks. He is not even interested in debating the thrust of this motion on the security of the whole Canadian population. And we are always . . . Such are the Quebec Liberal Members. That is what is left of them. We still have a few of the 74 nobodies of the 1980 administration, and they indulge in heckling while we are debating one of the most serious issues, namely the security of all Canadians.
It has a commitment to peace that is reflected in sustained efforts to negotiate arms control and disarmament. This negotiating process is unprecedented, both by its duration and
its intensity, and it contributes toward maintaining a dialogue between East and West. Our presence at the negotiating table, the opportunity we are given to influence the proceedings and their outcome are also the result of our membership in NATO. Our defence efforts and the fact that we share in a common defence effort have made Canada a valid and credible partner who can and does take initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think that leaving NATO or weakening its deterrent force would be the best way to contribute to world peace and security.
However odious resorting to nuclear arms to secure our defence may seem, their presence is essential to provide a balance to the Soviet nuclear arsenal. To withdraw would mean breaking our commitments. It would also mean undermining an equilibrium that is essential to maintaining peace.
In concluding, that is why I believe that the concept of having a nuclear arms free zone, though well meant, is a perilous one because it ignores the realities we must face and would reduce our capability to defend ourselves and, especially, to negotiate. That is certainly not our policy and it is not what this Government intends to do.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to speak after the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) who spoke to the motion put before the House today by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). We are debating a motion that is not an easy one, because it is very important for the future of this country and the whole world.
First of all, I would like to say that Canada's policy and practice is already in many respects attuned to the particular conditions of this motion, since Canada does not have any nuclear arms.
In normal times, that is, during peacetime, no nuclear arms are deployed or tested or built in Canada, nor are they transported in this country. Similarly, no activities involving nuclear arms take place on Canadian territory or under our country's jurisdiction without the specific consent of the Government of Canada.
I may also remind the House that Canada differs from many of its NATO allies in that it does not have nuclear arms on its territory. As for Canadian exports, our country's policy is firm in this respect. All exports of nuclear materials, equipment or technology must be used for peaceful purposes. They may not be used to trigger an explosion. The strict application of this policy is guaranteed through bilateral agreements with the co-operation of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Last Monday at the United Nations, Canada's role was exemplified by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). He was asked by the Secretary General of the
August 31, 1987

United Nations to be the first speaker at the historic Conference on Disarmament and Development. That was a recognition of Canada's continued leadership in seeing that the world pursues an intelligent course of nuclear disarmament and channels those moneys into developmental issues, which will solidify the problems and priorities and strengthen the Third World developments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have seven minutes left in his debate next time this motion comes up on Private Members' Business. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, August 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 10(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 1(c) and 8, because this House believes that amendments 1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (b), 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6. 7(a) and (b), 9 and 10(b) and (c) are in contradiction to the principles of the Bill which will increase intellectual property protection, increase research and development in Canada, create new high-technology jobs, improve the health care of Canadians, and protect consumers from higher drug prices. More specifically:
Amendments 1(a) and (b) delete the definitions of "Board" and "patentee". These definitions are necessary to support the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers.
Amendments 2(a) and (b) reduce Canada's export potential and fine chemical manufacturing.
Amendments 3, 4(a) and (b), reduce the periods of market exclusivity, thus eliminating the incentive for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendment 5(a) reduces the period of market exclusivity and export potential, thus reducing economic benefits for Canada.
Amendment 5(b) deletes the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers, and this amendment also removes the protection for Canadian-invented medicines and thus the incentives for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendments 6, 7(a) and (b), 10(b) and (c) arise out of amendments 1(a) and (b), 2, 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendment 9 arises out of Senate amendment 8, but is not consistent with the House amendment to Senate amendment 8, as set out below.
And, that:
Senate amendment 1(c) be amended to read as follows: "(c) Strike out lines 35 to 42 and add the following:
Patent Act
(2) For the purpose of sections 41.11 to 41.16, the notice of compliance that is first issued for either the original and distinct chemical composition of a medicine or the obvious chemical equivalent of the medicine shall be deemed to be the first notice of compliance issued in respect of that medicine."
Senate amendment 8 be amended to read as follows: "insert the heading "Transitional" and the following as clause 31:
31.(1) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shall pay to each province for each of the fiscal years commencing in the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1991, for the purpose of research and development relating to medicine, an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(i)	$25 million by
(ii)	the total population of all provinces for the fiscal year in respect of which the payment is made, by
(b)	the population of the province for the fiscal year in respect of which the payment is made.
(2)	Payment of any amount under this section shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such times and in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the population of a province for a fiscal year shall be the population of that province on the first day of June of that year as determined and published by the Chief Statistician of Canada."
and the amendment of Mr. Lewis (p. 8555).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 13(5) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Lewis for the previous question in relation to the motion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That the question be now put.
Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion
carried.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find an inclination in the House to apply the vote on the last motion to the present one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.37 o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 1, 1987