1988-01-28

Hon. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report concerning the eleventh conference on the Caribbean and Central American Action, which was held in the City of Miami from November 30 to December 2, 1987.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS ACT
Hon. Charles Mayer (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-107, an Act respecting plant breeders' rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 211 will be answered today.


Mr. Penner: 1.	For each of the (a) Chairman (b) Vice-Chairman (c) other members of the Northern Ontario Advisory Board for FEDNOR, what are the (i) salary, stipend or honorarium (ii) amounts allowed for expenses (iii) other terms and conditions attached to the appointments?
2.	Are the amounts in part (ii) additional to those in part (i)?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. (a) (i) $300 per working day, (b) (i) $240 per working day, (c) (i) $180 per working day.
(ii)	Reasonable and accountable expenses, as per Treasury Board directives on travel, Chapter 370.
(iii)	There are no other terms and conditions concerning financial arrangements of the appointments. All appointments are for a three-year term. All appointments are subject to the Conflict of Interest Guidelines for public office holders and Board Members have received a copy.
2. Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Privilege-Mr. Riis PRIVILEGE

January 28, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: On Monday, January 25, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) raised a matter relating to the actions of the former Commissioner of Canada Elections, Mr. Joseph Gorman, in rendering a decision after an investigation into alleged breaches of the Canada Elections Act by the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse).
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap argued that the decision of the Commissioner not to charge the Minister "diminished the public's respect for the House of Commons and for Members of Parliament" and, further, that this failure to charge was contempt of this House.

Let me first refresh Hon. Members' memories about the provisions of the Standing Orders of the House on the required notice.
Standing Order 20(2) clearly provides as follows:
-any Member proposing to raise a question of privilege, other than one
arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting, shall
give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior
to raising the question in the House.
NO)

Former Speakers have been clear on this. The purpose of the rule is to save the time of the House so that the Speaker, in advance, can look into the situation or matter being brought forward. The notice should be complete enough so that the Chair is as fully informed as possible of the matters to be raised.
With respect to the issue brought forward on January 25 by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, when some time was obviously taken to prepare the arguments in advance of raising them in the House, the notice could have been given earlier and could perhaps have been more explicit. I merely caution all Members in this respect, and I do so in the interests of the good functioning of our proceedings.
I come now to the specific issue dealing with the actions of the former commissioner, Mr. Gorman. While he is not an officer of Parliament in the usual sense of that expression, he is an official who is appointed by and reports to the Chief Electoral Officer who is an officer of Parliament. Mr. Gorman was appointed Commissioner of Canada Elections under Section 70 subsection (3) of the Canada Elections Act. Under subsection (4) of Section 70 the commissioner is given certain authority, namely, the power to give or withhold consent to prosecution under that Act. The House of Commons, indeed, Parliament gave him that authority.
In the argument presented in the House, it was clear that Mr. Gorman was exercising powers given to him under the
Act. The exercising of powers given to an official under an Act cannot be a matter for the Speaker to rule on unless there are circumstances which amount to a breach of privilege or a contempt of Parliament. In this case there is nothing before the Chair to support a claim of breach of privilege or contempt. Thus, there is no role for the Speaker in this case.
I would remind the House that it is not the duty of the Speaker to judge the actions of public officials in the fulfilment of their duties. It is my duty only to determine whether or not sufficient evidence has been presented to judge if there has been a prima facie breach of privilege or a contempt of the House. In this case, I do not find that either has occurred.
During Question Period in the past several days the suggestion has been made that the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure should look into this matter. As all Hon. Members know, standing committees now have permanent orders of reference. In the case of the privileges committee, the process followed by the Chief Electoral Officer and his officials, in particular, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, could be looked into by the committee. However, only the committee can decide to look at this matter. It is a decision for the committee to take, it is not one for the Speaker.
I would caution Members that no charge of misconduct has been laid against any public official or any Member of the House in this case. The committees powers are limited to studying and reporting on matters relating to the process and procedure under the relevant statute. Again, this is a decision for the committee to make, but my reading of the statute did not discover any provision for review by or appeal to a committee of this House of the decisions or specific cases made by an electoral commissioner. Having said that, the committee should not be shy of reviewing the process and procedures that Parliament has enacted.

This is an important question to which the House has devoted a lot of time during the oral question period. However, with all due respect, I cannot conclude that a case has been made for the Chair to rule that the actions or omissions of the former commissioner constitute contempt of the House or a breach of privilege.

Let me close by thanking the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap, the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hawkes) for their contributions.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to thank you on behalf of the House for your very reasoned judgment. I want to signal that the Government is content for the matter to be examined by the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure so that the committee can examine the mandate of the commissioner and the decision
January 28, 1988

making process. We would hope that this can proceed as soon as possible.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank you for the work you have done in making your decision. I was glad to hear the Minister, speaking for the Government, say that the Government is willing to have the committee go forward on this issue. I hope the chairperson of that committee will call a meeting quickly so arrangements can be made. I know our representative on the committee will be available for a meeting to be called very quickly.
1 think it is also important that the inquiry not be restricted to just Mr. Gorman. I think there may be other people who have to be called on this topic to get the complete picture.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I want to thank you for your most informative ruling on the question of privilege. 1 have noted the statement of the Government House Leader to the effect that the Government wants to see the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure go into this matter. Obviously our representative on the committee will be ready to do his duty with respect to the work of the committee. We hope that the Government will make it clear to its members on the committee that they should not be constrained in how they look into this question.
I want to observe that if and when the committee goes into this matter this does not mean, as far as the Official Opposition is concerned, that it is no longer appropriate to raise the subject in the course of the House of Commons Question Period in so far as we are also dealing here with the matter of the responsibility and accountability of the ministry to the House of Commons and the people of Canada. This remains an issue for the House through the Question Period or otherwise even though some aspects of the matter may be under study by the Elections and privileges committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could respond to the latter point which the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has made. I do not think there was anything in my ruling suggesting that appropriate questions ought to be precluded. The Chair always has to consider questions in their context which, of course, I will continue to do on behalf of all Hon. Members. I want to reiterate that, provided the questions are appropriate, the ruling in itself does not preclude them.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise this morning on a question of privilege regarding a matter of the breach of the rights of three Members of Parliament as it relates to the privacy of their physical offices.
Privileges
As you are aware, the Board of Internal Economy approved a pilot project for the installation of personal computers in, 1 believe, about 30 offices on the Hill. Three of those computers were installed in the Office of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the Whip, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), and the Chairperson of the NDP caucus, myself, the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
We are entering a new age, Mr. Speaker. I think we have to ensure that the rules that have applied to the old ways also apply to the new. The day before yesterday an employee of the House of Commons, the Oasis group, entered my office, that of the Member for Churchill, that of the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap and perhaps the offices of other Members of Parliament who are participating in the pilot project. The impression was given to staff that the individual was interested in determining the usage of the equipment and the software contained therein. They purposely removed a software program from the computers in a systematic way without indicating to either staff or Members their reason for doing so. I want to be very clear; I am not suggesting that the removal was unnecessary, but 1 am complaining about the manner in which it was accomplished.
[DOT] (M20)
Perhaps I could use an analogy. I think it is the common understanding in this House that if we received documentation, for example an Oasis manual which explains how a particular program is to work, and I had my staff place that manual in a cardboard file and place that file in a filing cabinet, no employee of the House of Commons would even think of walking into my office, going to that filing cabinet and removing that documentation. In fact, the Oasis staff were removing the electronic file that had been installed in the computers in my office, in the office of the Hon. Member for Churchill and in the office of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.
I think it is important that we ensure that from here on in, regardless of why the information was installed in that computer and why it needed to be removed, such information will only be removed with the explicit permission of those responsible within the offices. In other words, we should treat electronic material no differently than we would treat what we refer to as hard-copy material. Electronic information must be handled in the same manner.
In addition to this unauthorized removal of the software which was basically the instructions for one of the programs, a number of other files were accidentally erased.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review the rules of the House of Commons as they apply to the offices of Members to ensure that, from here on in, employees of the House of Commons are not allowed to remove electronic information from computers installed in Members' offices. Let us remember that the Board of Internal Economy has authorized the

January 28, 1988
Supply
installation of personal computers in all Members' offices here on the Hill. It is a matter that is important to all Members of the House of Commons.
It is important that we establish that the rules and procedures that have applied for years to our normal files apply to our electronic files. I would ask you to examine the issue, Mr. Speaker, and my staff, the staff of the Hon. Member for Churchill and the staff of the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap as well as ourselves would be more than willing to provide any additional information we can.
Finally, it is irrelevant why the information had to be removed. It is the process that I am concerned about.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Hon. Member would move the usual motion in the event that I would find that there is a prima facie case of privilege?


Iain Francis Angus: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with some concern to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). There may be other Members who can relate similar experiences. If that is so, I would invite them to call my office immediately.
What has taken place may well have been done in the greatest innocence, but I will most certainly look into it. An electronic file is just as much a file as any other file. I hope that we will find that the answer is innocent enough, but certainly the practice is not to be condoned. I will report back to the House at the very earliest opportunity.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

["It being one o'clock p.m. I do now rise until two o'clock this day.\nAt 1.07 p.m. the House took recess.\nJanuary 28, 1988"]
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 78, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of the Whole for consideration of an item of the Supplementary Estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988-Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Resolved-That a sum not exceeding $803,903,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, as follows: Vote 35D- Agriculture-Grains and Oilseeds-Operating expenditures and the grants listed in the Estimates, $803,903,000.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, we are here today on behalf of Canadian farmers as a result of an announcement made by the
Prime Minister in Ottawa at the Agriculture Outlook Conference in December. Perhaps I could say a few words about the circumstances that have led us to this motion in the House.
I think most Canadians are aware that we are in the middle of a very serious international grains situation. International prices have fallen dramatically over the last three or four years. Canada is a major player on the export market. In the case of wheat, about 80 per cent of what our producers grow must be exported. As international prices fall, it becomes a very difficult situation for Canadian grain producers.
The result has been that many farmers, especially on the grain and oilseeds side, are in some considerable difficulty. This has shown up in all sorts of areas. Prices have dropped pretty dramatically and in some cases as much as 50 per cent in the last two and a half years. I think all of us can relate to that. If we were to have our incomes or salaries cut by some 50 per cent over the last two and a half years, all of us would realize the dramatic effect that would have on the way we operate our businesses or our households.
There is no question that we are facing a very difficult situation. In many ways it is an international war, but in this case it is an insidious and undeclared war that is seeing casualties show up in the agricultural communities.
As a Government, we have responded in three areas and with three distinct policies on a consistent basis since the very serious situation developed. First, we have taken a deliberate policy of showing support for our agricultural sector. This has shown up in many ways. We have reduced the amount of tax payable by Canadian farmers. When prices fall, input costs must be cut, and that is the normal reaction of any business. Part of the input cost is associated with taxes and the Government has reduced the amount of tax payable on farm fuel. That has resulted in a saving of over $200 million to grain and oilseeds producers since the inception of that program.
Second, the Government has made a direct injection of cash. A year ago, many will recall that $1 billion was made available to grain and oilseeds producers right across Canada under the auspices of the Special Canadian Grains Program. Some 30 per cent of that money was put into the hands of farmers prior to the beginning of the last seeding season. That money was in the hands of farmers in February and March, 1987. The money we are talking about today will be in the hands of farmers in a similar period of time, except in this case we are making 75 per cent of the money available as an initial payment and those cheques will be going out prior to the end of March, whereas a year ago we made available 30 per cent of the over-all payment.
That is a substantial amount of money. Under this program alone approximately $1.5 billion will go to farmers in this fiscal year. That is an unprecedented amount of direct cash support for Canadian farmers, but we face an unprecedented situation.
January 28, 1988

I think that most farmers, if given a choice, would much prefer to receive their income from the market-place, but unfortunately one could make the case that the international market for grain and oilseeds products is not a market-place. We have to do what we can to support our farmers.
It is even more important that we support our farmers because they are not in difficulty because they are inefficient producers, because they produce an inferior quality product, or because our grain industry has a bad reputation for not fulfilling commitments or executing contracts when we say we will. We are in difficulty because of some foolishness going on in an international subsidy war, largely between the Americans and the Europeans. It is very important that we provide cash and assistance to our farmers in a very difficult time.
The third thing the Government has done is to follow a deliberate policy of selling. Many of us will remember that when we were in a similar situation in the late 60s and early 70s a decision was taken to try to back away from the market and not sell at low prices. The ideal was that if you do not sell when prices are very low the market forces will increase price and you will then be able to sell. That resulted in Canada taking a decision to decrease its production as a result of what was then called the Lower Inventory for Tomorrow Program. In the early 70s Canada cut its wheat production by almost half as a result of a policy encouraging farmers not to produce.
We have taken the exact opposite approach. We think that to back away from the market would send the wrong signal to the Europeans and Americans. We think that our farmers are much better off to sell as much as we can even though the prices are very low. We are better off to sell even at low prices than to back away from the market and not sell at all. If you have grain in your bin and do not sell it, you get nothing for it. If you have grain which you sell, even at a low price, you have some cash flow.
The result has been that in the last three years Canada has increased its share of the world wheat markets. That sends a signal to our competitors, namely, the Europeans and the Americans, that if Canada is able to match the price internationally we are then able to make sales on balance better than our competitors because there is no doubt that we have a very high quality product. Second, our country's reputation for being a reliable supplier and not using food as an embargo, as the Americans have done a couple of times in the past, has allowed us to increase our market share in the last three consecutive years. As I have said, we have been successful in maintaining and increasing our market share.
The fourth thing we have done is one of the most important aspects. We have taken a very aggressive role internationally to try to bring about a solution to the international trade war. The Prime Minister made agriculture part of the discussions at both of the last summit meetings. There is already indication that it will be part of the upcoming summit meeting in Toronto. We have taken a leading role in raising agriculture at the GATT discussions which are now under way. In many
Supply
other areas internationally, where we have had an opportunity, we have raised agriculture as an issue.
I think most farmers would agree that if there is to be a lasting solution to the very depressed international prices it has to come about internationally. We have to back away from some of the trade-distorting subsidies which are causing problems. We must back away from some of the trade barriers that are preventing the free flow of agricultural goods. If we continue the way we are a country of 25 million people will find it very difficult to compete with a country the size of the United States with a population of 235 million or 240 million and with the European community with a population of over 300 million. The federal Treasuries in those communities are much larger than our Treasury.
If we are successful internationally, which must be the real solution to the problem, we will find that a Canadian farmer is able to compete against an American farmer and a European farmer, as opposed to the situation, now wherein a Canadian farmer has to compete not only against the American farmer but against the American Treasury, and not only against the European farmer but against the European Economic Community Treasury.
That is the situation we face. It is a very serious one for Canadian farmers. When we think about grain and oilseeds production we tend to think about the western provinces. That is not entirely the case. Ontario has more farmers than has any other province in the country. Ontario produces as much grain as does the Province of Manitoba. In point of fact, if you list the provinces in order of grain production you find that Saskatchewan is the largest producer, then Alberta, then Ontario, and then Manitoba. There is also grain production in other parts of the country. Therefore, it is not only a western or regional problem but genuinely a national problem and the Government has approached it as such.
The Supplementary Estimates with which we are dealing today confirm the commitment which the Government has to this very important industry at a very difficult time. Passing these Estimates will enable us to put some $800 million into the hands of Canadian farmers by the end of March which will be very useful in terms of encouraging and assisting farmers to seed crops this spring. Additionally, we will be proposing some amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act which we think will be useful in terms of providing support. There are many other things which we have done on the fiscal side. I am happy to be here this morning on behalf of the Government dealing with this very important issue for Canadian grains and oilseeds producers.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words with regard to Supplementary Estimates (D), and I guess there will be a Bill flowing from that, which essentially provides the funding for the Special Canadian Grains Program in the fiscal year of some $800 million. These Supplementary Estimates result directly from the United States' farm bill and the reduction in

January 28, 1988
Supply
the world price of grain. Clearly this past two and a half or three years has seen a devastating situation in the grain or agriculture price wars that have been going on in the international markets. We not only see the U.S. setting its loan rate so low that it pushes the world price of grain to a very low level, but it is providing as well an Export Enhancement Program which drives the price down even further. It is really a destructive policy.
Our Government has paid only passing attention to that policy because it has been involved in the free trade negotiations and has pretty well abandoned any criticism of the U.S. Farm Bill which without doubt has had a more devastating impact on Canadian grain and oilseeds and other cash crops than any other single piece of legislation passed in any Parliament or legislature in the world.
The Government should have been making stronger representations and fighting harder to see that the impact of this legislation is reduced. The Minister likes to talk about how the Prime Minister raised this matter at the Venice Summit last June. Certainly he did, but the President of the U.S. shot him down as soon as he did and the whole issue was thrown out far as any real action being taken by the U.S. administration is concerned, and the world price of grain continues to drop.
Unfortunately, the Minister had not done his homework and was unable to tell the Standing Committee on Agriculture a week or so ago how much further the U.S. farm bill will rachet down the price of grain in the coming crop year. There seems to be some indication that it will be reduced and it would be nice to know exactly what the impact will be.
Although the Government made a massive payment this year of $1.1 billion, that is only $100 million more than last year and the coverage is wider so the return to farmers will be lower. Yet the price of grain is 20 per cent lower this year than it was last year. Essentially, farmers are receiving approximately the same amount of money from the Special Canadian Grains Program when prices have dropped by 20 per cent and input costs have continued to increase. It is an extremely serious situation and will probably be worse in the coming crop year.
The tragedy in this does not apply only to the U.S. Government and its spending of some $25 billion or $30 billion on subsidies, in effect reducing the world price of grain. It applies to every grain producing country of Europe, as well as Australia, Argentina, and other prominent grain producing countries.
We were amazed that the Government of Canada should sign a trade agreement which the U.S. Government, immediately abrogated with respect to agriculture. According to that trade agreement Canada's interest were to be taken into account. Yet after that agreement was signed the U.S. aggressively went after Canadian customers using its Export Enhancement Program in violation of the agreement. There
was supposed to be a standstill clause in that agreement to the effect that neither country would take action which could jeopardize approval of the agreement. Clearly that provision does not apply to the Export Enhancement Program.
There is considerable concern across the country with the program itself. I have a statement from the Ontario Soya-bean Growers' Marketing Board concerning a one-cent per bushel subsidy producers were to receive. The Chairman of that Board, Owen Dobbyn said that:
The program was supposed to be equitable for all grain and oilseed producers and not influence the farmer's planting decisions-In fact, last spring Agricultural Minister John Wise told farmers not to base their planting decisions on government programs but on the returns they could expect from the marketplace.
This one-cent per bushel payment for soybeans is telling soybean growers they made the wrong planting decision-they should have planted the crops which received a higher subsidy rate.
Next spring farmers won't know which crops to plant. Should they look at market prices or plant the crops receiving the greatest subsidies?
Unifarm of Alberta took the Deputy Prime Minister to task at a meeting in Edmonton in early January. During a question period at their annual meeting delegates wanted to know why a proposal developed by western members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was not used by the federal Government when setting up the Special Canadian Grains Program. An article in the Western Producer says:
At the heart of the complaints was a fear that the $1.1 billion program will not be market-neutral.
-when interviewed. Unifarm President Ralph Jesperson was highly critical of the program.
"If Members of Parliament and individual farmers have the ability to overrule us, it makes a mockery of the Government suggesting 'come up with a proposal through cnsultation and we will follow it,"' Jesperson said. "It's an aggravating situation."
Clearly, there has been much criticism of the program in that regard.
Concern was also expressed about the fact that at the same time the Prime Minister was announcing the special grains program, he was cancelling some $750 million of debt under the Western Grain Stabilization Program. Those who do not come under that Act believe that any additional subsidy or assistance should have been provided on a universal basis. The Western Grain Stabilization Program operates on the basis of those who have opted into the program.
I would like to know whether the Minister is contemplating any assistance for those who are not subject to the Act. One would normally expect this to be a universal program, but it is not in this case because the Government has cancelled some $750 million of the debt under the Western Grain Stabilization Program.
Those are some of the concerns that have been expressed to me since the program was announced. When the Prime Minister announced the Special Canadian Grains Program for this coming year, he outlined a long list of other programs
January 28, 1988

which the Government will continue. He announced the amount of funds that will be lost by the Farm Credit Corporation with regard to farm fuel assistance. Clearly, that whole situation in the farm debt crisis is being ignored or covered up by the Government. The Farm Credit Corporation has been in a state of crisis for the last year. Its equity position slipped below $124 million of deficit in the last fiscal year, with arrears of some $345 million in the last fiscal year.
It is estimated that in the fiscal year 1987-88, its deficit in equity will be minus $300 million and its arrears will balloon to over $405 million. The Government is either ignoring the farm debt crisis or attempting to sweep it under the carpet.
The chairman and the vice-chairman of the FCC were let go in early December. They have been proposing recovery programs for that farm debt crisis for over a year but the Government accepted none of them. It brought in a new chairman and vice-chairman, neither of whom is a farmer as I understand, but more oriented towards Treasury Board and the Department of Finance.
Therefore, we must question the future of the Farm Credit Corporation because the assistance provided for in this Bill is clearly inadequate to salvage thousands of farmers facing serious financial difficulty.
There is great concern in the agricultural community that the Government is planning to wind down the FCC just as it did with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The Minister brought in that legislation on an urgent basis last June, telling the Opposition and the New Democratic Party that we must pass this legislation immediately because the life of the Farm Improvement Loans Act was coming to an end. That Act had provided some $300 million a year in loan guarantees for farm loans that were used for equipment, livestock, improvement to farm operations and so on. Yet seven months later, those amendments and the extension of the Farm Improvement Loans Act has not even been proclaimed.
The agricultural community is very concerned about whether the Government is planning to privatize or wind up those programs. We are still facing a farm debt crisis. Studies show that over 50,000 farmers out of some 170,000 who have sales of more than $20,000 a year are either insolvent or in serious financial difficulty. I hope the Government will take the problems facing Canadian agriculture with the farm debt crisis seriously because it does not seem that any action has been taken in the last 12 months, except to announce studies and replace staff.
We want these funds to be made available for the coming planting season. 1 was in Saskatchewan and Manitoba earlier this week, where many farmers told me that with the reduction in the price of grain by some 20 per cent this past crop year they will not have adequate funds, even with this program that will provide an average benefit of $7,000 per producer, to even plant a crop. This program will be helpful to those who are in a more favourable position, but it certainly will not help many
Supply
farmers facing the prospect of lower grain prices in this crop year and even worse in the coming year.
During our exchange in the committee I hope the Minister will be able to respond to those questions which have been raised by the farming community during this terrible crisis which has befallen them in the last two or three years.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Chairman, it is remarkable to hear the Minister concede this morning that we did not face an international market situation. He also indicated that this was an unprecedented situation for Canadian farmers.
At the outset, I want to stress that this is absolutely the case, not only in western Canada but in Ontario, as the Minister pointed out, and with respect to many farmers in Quebec.

The agricultural community in Quebec is faced with a lot of problems, and this is something which should also be looked into.

Yet, given that unprecedented situation of a serious set of problems which have built up, the Government is coming before us and essentially patting itself on the back, saying that it is doing as much as can possibly be done. Of course, it says that it regrets the situation but is doing everything it possibly can. That is simply because, in this case, it is throwing $800 million at the problem.
We support, in fact, again and again in this House we called for much earlier announcements so that farmers could plan with some security knowing what was going to face them in terms of financial help this coming year. Yet it was not until far into the crop year that actual announcements were made. That suggests to me and to my Party that there is no strategy. There is no broad understanding of the difficulties farmers face, and there is no broad response to those problems coming from this Government. Instead, we see a series of ad hoc actions which, although they are discussed with farmers, are not in themselves worked out with the goal of solving the longterm, very serious and, as the Minister has said, unprecedented situations faced by farmers.
As someone who represents a constituency which includes a great many farmers, that is the message 1 hear. It is a message which says very forcefully to me that the Government, despite the concern which farmers recognize on the part of the two Ministers-now the three Ministers who are involved in this subject area-is not addressing the problem with sufficient urgency. It is not being addressed with sufficient comprehensiveness. It is not, therefore, being addressed with sufficient seriousness.
The farmers in my constituency look, for instance, at a situation which faces them in which it is clear, despite the comments of an ambiguous sort from the Minister of National


January 28, 1988
Supply
Revenue, that tax audits continue to be an active part of the program of the Department of National Revenue with respect to farmers, even though those farmers face what the Minister himself says is an unprecedented situation.
We have a set of debt review boards established. Yet those debt review boards do not have within them the capacity to actually work out solutions which would lead to the potential write-downs of some debt or a potential packaging of combinations of debts with the FCC and with individual banks. There has not been given to these debt review boards that kind of power, despite the urgent necessity for that kind of capacity in order to intervene in the debt situation which exists for many farmers throughout this country.
We have to recognize that the debt situation of farmers as it stands in 1988 is at the heart of many of their difficulties. That debt situation is not something which was caused by them. It was something which was established by a foolish decision of the previous Government to permit interest rates to rise to absolutely ridiculous levels, and because the banks imposed this rise in interest rates on those farmers who had taken out loans with them. That is eating up much of the support being provided through this first and second round of deficiency payments which have been allocated and which are being discussed here today.
We have to raise very serious questions. Why the lack of a comprehensive approach? Why is there a lack of a broad strategy? Why is there this continual last minute recourse to ad hoc situations and ad hoc support, which is necessary and which we have called for, but which does not satisfactorily deal with the basic problems with which the farm sector is faced?
I have to say also, as a representative of one of two counties in Ontario which produce the bulk of soybeans, that the derisory one cent allocation for soybean producers is something which has hurt the Government far worse than had it decided to simply leave soybeans out of the program entirely. I would not, of course, recommend that. Instead, 1 would recommend a support for soybeans which would provide some kind of equitable recognition of the cost of production after stabilization payments have been taken into account. That would give a fair return to soybeans in comparison with corn and wheat which, in my part of Ontario, is very often grown together, as is the case in Kent County as well. That inequity simply has to be addressed by the Government in the Bill it will eventually bring in and the regulations which that Bill will permit to be established.
I would like to conclude by saying that all of us who represent, at least in part, farm constituencies, recognize that the problem farmers face is not an easy problem. It is a problem which requires action at the national level, at the international level and at the provincial level. But we also have to see the urgency of this problem as something that pushes us to try to deal with it in a much more comprehensive way and, therefore, in a much more serious way. Farmers are, of course, thankful for the ad hoc support, but they are not thankful for
the delays with respect to announcements of programs. They are not thankful for the inequities which affect a commodity such as soybeans. They are not thankful for the failure of the Government to do what it said it would do before it was elected, that is, to establish a comprehensive and effective program to put the family farm back on a firm basis.
Certainly, as far as my part of Ontario is concerned, and as far as much of western Canada is concerned, the family farm is still very much at threat. Part of the reason for this is due to international programs and the policies of the United States. However, another part of it, too, has to do with the fact that the Government has not adopted a strategy. It has not tried to make a strategy to deal with the problems that face farmers, in particular, the debt problem which is something that represents a large failure on the part of the Government. It is something that farmers will recognize and pay back in terms of support for other alternatives in the coming election.
I believe that if the New Democratic Party were to form the next Government, we would adopt such a comprehensive policy. However, I hope that whatever Party forms the Government it will have a comprehensive across-the-board strategy to deal with the whole set of problems which farmers have been facing. That would be better than the continual ad hoc, last minute and, for that reason, unsatisfactory approach to the problem which farmers face.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Chairman, 1 wish to take this opportunity to say a few words about the matter that is before us today, particularly since I come from Manitoba, a province in which agriculture plays such a major economic role. While I represent an urban area, I feel that most Manitobans have a direct and vital interest in agriculture. I hope that by contributing to this debate we can light a fire under the Government to increase its sense of urgency with regard to agricultural problems.
I wish to say right off the mark that I feel that the Government has failed the test of leadership when it comes to facing agricultural problems and when it comes to resolving the crises that are facing farmers today. Let me be clear that today in the House we are facilitating the Government's efforts to make a payment of $800 million under this special agricultural program.
In terms of the over-all picture of the crisis that is facing agriculture I want to say something about the Government's responsibilities and its failure to meet the test of leadership.
What types of problems are farmers facing today? What situation do we find in agricultural Canada? What type of a situation do we find among grain producers? The situation is at a crisis point. It is critical. If we were talking about a patient in the hospital we would be talking about life and death. This is a situation which requires not cosmetic surgery but immediate and radical surgery in order to bring the patient back to health.
*
m

January 28, 1988

Farmers are facing debts which threaten their existence. The number of bankruptcies is rising. Those farmers who can continue to farm have no disposable income. They are living in poverty. The prices for their products are falling while the costs of production continue to rise. From the point of view of farmers, they are in a critical situation. Critical situations demand fundamental and radical solutions.
What is the Government doing? Today it is moving and today it deserves credit. It is making available an additional $800 million that will be going to farm producers. This will provide some $5,000 or $6,000 to each producer. Thus it is helpful and the Government deserves some credit for taking some positive action.
Is it enough? Will it resolve the fundamental problems that have put the farmer in the crisis situations that they are facing today? Will it ease the poverty of farmers? The answer to those questions is a resounding no.
I wish to mention a couple of other areas in which the Government has tackled the agricultural question and failed in the test of leadership when it comes to resolving these problems. One such area has to do with the international negotiations in which the Government is involved. In this respect it is approaching the problem with band-aid solutions when what is required is radical surgery.
The Government takes credit for the fact that agriculture is on the agenda of GATT. Just because it is on the agenda does not mean that it will be resolved adequately. It does not mean that the agricultural war in subsidies between the European Common Market and the United States, which is hurting our producers, will be resolved. We have all gone to meetings at which items of vital concern to us are on the agenda and we have all walked away from such meetings disappointed because our problems were not resolved. Simply to have the item on the agenda is not enough.
The trade deal of the Prime Minister has a section which deals with trade subsidies. I opened the trade deal up to read those words carefully, because when we were holding hearings with regard to the trade deal an agricultural group came before us in support of it. I thought then that there must be a resolution to the problems of farmers in this trade deal. When I read the words of the deal I saw that it was a promise to deal with agricultural subsidies, a promise and nothing more. We have had promises before. We have had inflated promises before from the Prime Minister. If there is one thing that our Prime Minister is famous for it is his inflated promises.
To deal specifically with the American-Canadian relationship, we have had promises with regard to acid rain. Those have created no concrete results. Here again we have promises that the Government will deal with the problems facing agriculture, but they are nothing more than promises.
To sum up what the Government is doing with regard to agriculture, it is taking a band-aid approach to a festering sore. It makes available some short term payments which are
Supply
welcome and which are necessary but, then, a starving man will always accept a slice of bread. The Government has said that the problem of the grain subsidy war is on the agenda at GATT. Yet it has not enunciated any convincing strategy for resolving the problem at that level. The Prime Minister's trade deal has a promise for some time in the future to deal with subsidies, but there have been no results.
I want to deal with a final aspect of the crisis in agriculture and the failure of the Government to meet the test of leadership in resolving the problems of farmers by looking at them from the point of view of what is required. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the farming community is in critical condition because of the subsidy war between the United States and the European Economic Community in agricultural matters. We need peace in the agricultural subsidy war, and we need this country to live up to its potential in international negotiations.
Former Prime Minister Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for his international negotiations, for having brought peace to a conflict in the Middle East. Let us reach for that potential once again and apply it to international trading relationships as they affect agriculture.
Primarily the Prime Minister is running for public support on the basis of a free trade agreement which he negotiated on the international scene. He is claiming to be a great negotiator and a great conciliator. Let him apply those skills to agriculture. Let him bring peace to the agricultural war on subsidies which is critically hurting our farmers.
I want to sum up by simply saying that in my view-and 1 am sure it is the view of most farmers-the Government has failed the leadership test when it comes to resolving the problems in agriculture. I say "leadership test" because leadership would find solutions to problems to resolve the situation so that we do not have to live with them every day.
The Government has found band-aid solutions, which means that the sore continues to fester. It has yet to demonstrate in its actions an awareness that farmers are faced with a crisis today or that the farming community is in critical condition. What the Government has done so far is palliative, and what is needed is fundamental, radical surgery. We want a solution to the problems facing agriculture. We want the Government to show strong leadership and to take initiatives which will resolve the trading war that is hurting our farmers, rather than having the Prime Minister cosy up to the American President and singing "When Irish Eyes are Smiling", while they are selling out Canadian agriculture.


Charles James Mayer: What would you do? Tell us your policy. What would you do?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I hear a voice over there. I would welcome the Minister standing in the House and explaining why he is supporting a trade deal with the United

January 28, 1988
Supply
States which fails to resolve the problems of agriculture and at the same time protects the nuclear industry. Why does he take strong action when it comes to the nuclear industry and sell out farmers? Why is he supporting a trade deal which fails to resolve the subsidy war that is destroying agriculture in Canada? I challenge the Minister to answer that question. He can only yell from his seat.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister could respond to a couple of questions.
Clearly there was strong criticism of the Government's mechanism for establishing the Special Canadian Grains Program by Ralph Jesperson, the President of Unifarm in Alberta, when he debated it with the Deputy Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago. Could the Minister outline the reasons for rejecting the proposal made by members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture from western Canada to base the acreage on seeded acreage rather than use planted acreage for several years? I think the argument was that the seeded acreage for this crop year encouraged farmers to do what one of the Minister's colleagues on the government side has described as "recreational seeding". Be that as it may, this responsible group recommended another basis for providing benefits rather than the one adopted by the Government which seems to encourage the planting of greater acreage and potentially could lead to abuse.
Essentially that same argument or a similar one was made by soybean growers in Ontario. Of course the incredibly small payment of one cent per bushel was a strange arrangement.
Could the Minister tell us why the current year seeded acreage arrangement was used when some farm groups, especially those in Alberta, were recommending planted acreage over a period of several years?
Another aspect is that about 15 per cent of farmers who are not members of the Western Grain Stabilization Program have indicated concern that some $750 million of debt was cancelled from that program. They feel that that should have been done on a universal basis. There may have been other reasons for the Government cancelling that debt rather than just to benefit farmers. For instance, how much debt can be paid through a contribution of $1 by the farmer for every $2 by the federal Government to a plan where the premiums paid by farmers at the present time are $600?
Could the Minister respond to those two or three issues which have been raised by various farm groups?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member raised a question about Unifarm. I was not at the meeting, and I have not had a chance to talk with anyone who was there. I am going by the press reports as is, I assume, the Hon. Member. I have two or three things to say in that regard.
We did not ignore the so-called CFA proposal. It was not strictly a CFA proposal per se but it was under the auspices of CFA. We used its suggestion on the price side, that we use the
1985 prices as compared with 1987 prices. If the press reports of Mr. Jesperson, the President of Unifarm, are accurate, I do not accept them at all.
If we are to make something market neutral, we must include the reality of what is out there. The reality is that there are special crops and there is summer fallow. In fact we took the CFA proposal and enhanced it.
We have a situation in western Canada-and that is what we are talking about-where there are about 80 million acres of cultivated land, of which approximately 18 million acres are in summer fallow. I would take the exact arguments the Hon. Member makes and turn them around. If we had not included summer fallow, which is a reality to the extent the acreage payment is an incentive for people to do something, it would encourage so-called "recreational seeding". You could have people, if they are going to get $12 or $15 an acre, taking a drill, running in a bushel of oats calling it seeded, or running in a bushel of wheat per acre and calling it a seeded acre and then collecting the payment on it. By including special crops, by including summer fallow, in my view, you make it as market neutral as you possibly can.
We certainly did not ignore the CFA proposal. We took it as a foundation and a fundamental and we built on it. We had many discussions with farmers in the Prairie region on this very issue. We talked with them about what they thought of summer fallow and what level would be reasonable in terms of their costs of working an acre of summer fallow as opposed to seeding an acre of wheat or barley. What was the split? We got figures from 25 per cent to 40 per cent or 50 per cent. Hence we made a judgment call and included summer fallow at the rate of one-third of the amount of money that an acre adjacent to it would get if that acre were seeded to wheat, barley, canola or whatever.
To recap, Mr. Chairman, we took the CFA proposal, added to it and, in doing so, made it much more market neutral. Outside of Mr. Jesperson, to whom I have not spoken and to whom I would like to speak to on this issue-perhaps I will have a chance-I have not heard any criticism that we are including summer fallow and special crops.
The Member talks about soybeans and the soybean growers concern. There is no question about that. We must accept the fact, as the Hon. Member did when he spoke, that the main problem we are facing is a result of the U.S. farm Bill which came into effect in 1985. What we are trying to do in this program is address the hurt or the drop in the market-place since 1985. The reason there is a very small payment for soybeans is that in 1985 the crop returned $244.95 a tonne. Those are the figures. We estimate that for the 1987 crop, producers will receive $243.80. In other words, it is $1.15 a tonne less for the 1987 crop than what they got in 1985. If the Hon. Member follows what is going on in prices, prices for soybeans in Ontario now are considerably higher than that.
January 28, 1988

They are in the $260 a tonne range. Everyone says "Look, we want to get our income from the market-place" Soybean growers for the 1987 crop will get, by our estimates, very, very close to what they got from the market-place in 1985, hence, no payment.
If you are going to establish some of these programs that have criteria, surely you have to base them on what is going on in the actual market-place and make your payments based on those kinds of criteria. That is what we have done. Every other producer should be so lucky. What if we went to people who grow wheat or barley and said "There isn't going to be much of a payment because wheat prices are back to the 1985 levels, what would you sooner have, the support that is coming from the Special Canadian Grains Program or the same prices you got in 1985?" Everybody would say "Give us the 1985 prices". Very simply, when you look at the figures, you will see the point I am making.
The third point the Member raised is the WGSA. People chose either to be in the program or out of the program in 1976. They had to make a deliberate choice. People who chose not to be in the program and now see part of the deficit being written off, I think, have a very legitimate and valid concern. They say, "Look, the rules have been changed part-way through the program, part-way through this crop year". The rule change being that the Government has decided to write down part of the deficit by $750 million. Producers outside of the program with some considerable justification say, "We don't mind the fund making payments on the basis of money that goes in from the producer and the Government the way the plan was originally intended to operate, but when the fund gets into such a large deficit-''the Hon. Member knows the numbers and I am going through this very quickly because it will take 10 to 15 minutes to explain this thoroughly and I am sure the Member understands that"-it risks becoming totally insolvent. The Government does not want to see that happen. The producers that are a part of it do not want to see it happen. So the Government stepped forward, and we have to say thank you to the Minister of Finance for the $750 million which is not an insignificant amount of money, with which we are going to write down the deficit. Producers not part of the program say that they should have part of it. They have a very legitimate concern. We say that we will also alter the rules for then, the producers, who are not part of the program for the 1987-88 crop year.
We will be bringing forth amendments quite quickly-I cannot say we will guarantee this but I do not see any reason why we will not have the amendments in the House and well along at committee stage and hopefully we will be able to pass the Bill as quickly as we can, so the producers who are not part of the plan now will have a chance to join it as of August 1, 1987.
Between 10 and 15 per cent of producers are not in the plan. They will also have a chance to join on a much more attractive basis than they had as of the beginning of this year. Considerable more benefit will go to them in the present crop year than
Supply
had they joined August 1, bearing in mind that they are outside of the plan now and there is nothing in the legislation that allows or gives them the opportunity to have any benefits from the present plan.
Third, we want to open the plan up so that more producers can contribute more crops, virtually all of the specialty crops, so that we get away from just the major crops. On that basis, it becomes more market neutral. The amendments we are talking about are quite substantive. To give you some figures, Mr. Chairman, the amendments we are talking about, depending upon how many producers join, will see as much $80 million to $100 million going to producers who are not now part of the Western Grain Stabilization Plan.
1 have had producers approach us who say they want to have the plan retroactive to 1976 when it first started. I do not think we can accomplish that. That, in my mind, is not legitimate or fair-minded. What we can do and what we are proposing is to give people who are not now part of the plan an opportunity to be part of the payments for the present crop year. I know this will not satisfy everyone and it will not go as far as some people would like, but it certainly will be a considerable benefit to producers who are not part of the plan. Obviously, the last thing we will have to do is raise the levy.
To clarify that, if I heard the Hon. Member correctly, he is not accurate in what he says about the levy. It is not two for one. The producer contributes a percentage of his gross sales. He contributes presently 1 per cent of his gross sales to a maximum of $60,000 which means the most any producer can contribute is $600. The Government contributes 2 per cent more than that, so the Government contributes 3 per cent. If we raise the levy, for instance, to 4 per cent, the Government would contribute 6 per cent. It is on a percentage basis as opposed to one for two or one for three. We are looking at raising the levy rate to help keep the deficit down.
Let me make one more brief response, if I may, in answer to some of the concerns raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. The Member can stand up in the House and say that he does not like our policy, but he should not accuse us of not having a policy because we certainly do. What that tells me is that speakers this morning from the New Democratic Party do not understand what the Government has been doing in long range policies as far as agriculture is concerned.
Just to make the point, we have policies. New Democrats may not agree with them but they are very simple and fundamental. I will send the Member a copy of the initiatives that we announced on December 15 because they are quite substantial in commitment. It is approximately a $3 billion commitment which covers many auspices. It is not only cash injection, it is down the road research, soil conservation, market development; the whole thing. The fundamental facts of Canadian agriculture are that 50 cents of every dollar a Canadian farmer takes in comes from trade. That is a fact. We cannot close our borders and sell all our product to Canadian consumers. We produce in abundance. We live in a very,

January 28, 1988
Supply
favoured part of the world, Our farmers do a fantastic job for the Canadian consumer. They are very competitive internationally, but they cannot be competitive if we cannot agree to play by and abide by some trade rules.
The most fundamental approach that any Government can take on behalf of Canadian agriculture, if it understands it at all, is to attempt to put some order in the international trading system. Again, we may be accused of using a policy with which the NDP does not agree, but to say that we do not have a policy shows a fundamental ignorance on the part of the NDP of what Canadian agriculture is all about. Hence, the emphasis on the trade deal with the United States.
For the Hon. Member's information, the agriculture critic of his Party is a farmer who comes from the middle of Saskatchewan, Humboldt-Lake Centre, an area of Canada that produces some of the highest-quality product in the world. With this trade deal with the United States we are attempting to give that Hon. Member as a farmer, and his neighbours as farmers, an opportunity to sell that high-quality product in other markets in the world without trade-distorting barriers, whether they be subsidies or non-tariff barriers. That is why we are so concerned about the GATT negotiations.
The Hon. Member is absolutely right when he says that there are no guarantees that simply because agriculture is part of the agenda there will be progress or a solution. On the other hand, we can guarantee him totally that if agriculture is not on the agenda, something which has been the case in the past, there will be no progress.
Having said that, I believe that considerable progress is being made. However, we should understand that the most fundamental policy any Government of Canada can have on behalf of agriculture, understanding that 50 cents out of every dollar a Canadian farmers earns comes from trade, must be to provide some sanity in the international market for agricultural commodities.
As an example, there is, roughly, a $2-billion hog industry in Canada and $800-million of that is exported. That means that 40 per cent of it is exported, and of that amount about three-quarters goes to the United States. Why does it not make sense to try to work out some trading arrangements with the United States so that we will know on what basis we will be able to trade with the United States? That is fundamental.
Our approach is a multi-faceted one. First, we are supporting the farmers, and everyone knows that is for the short run. We are negotiating as hard as we can internationally to bring about some sanity so that farmers can trade with some security of access to markets. In the meantime, we are selling aggressively, using the fact that we have some of the best quality grains and oilseeds in the world.
I would argue that we have one of the best gene pools for livestock, beef cattle and dairy cattle in the world. We produce
quality animals. The fact is that our climate allows us to produce those things. I could go on to list, for all the commodities, the opportunities that exist internationally. However, if Canadian agriculture is to survive on a long-term basis and be the vital part of Canada it has been in the past, it must trade. We are attempting to get some international rules for trading under the leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could advise the House if the present formula for payments under the Special Canadian Grains Program which he has outlined in some detail meets the criteria the Government is developing to meet the requirements of the OECD countries. It is my understanding that the OECD countries want a formula for deficiency payments which is totally market neutral. Obviously Ralph Jesperson and the Unifarm organization in Alberta do not think that this is neutral enough. The Minister, however, says that it is. 1 would be interested to know if it meets the criteria the Government is using for that.
There is a great deal of concern in the agriculture community about how that formula is drafted. Farmers do not like welfare so they do not want a formula that is not related somehow to production. Obviously that is why the Minister is using this particular formula. At the same time, we should not be encouraging recreational seeding.
Would the Minister be willing to table in the House or with the Agriculture Committee the formula which is being proposed for the OECD studies? Second, I appreciate the Minister's comments with regard to the Western Grain Stabilization Act, but there has been great concern among farmers who are not a part of it. They see a special payment of S750 million being made and they claim it should be paid across the board rather than just to people who take part in the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
Will those people who have applied during the previous crop year, 1986-87, be eligible, as I took from the Minister's comments, to be taken into the fund under the proposed amendments as of August 1, 1987? Will they be eligible for payments during the 1987-88 crop year or will it be the following year? Will it be on a full participation basis or will they be eligible for only a portion of the program?
It seems to me that we should move to strengthen the Western Grain Stabilization Act approach to stabilization, rather than going through the Special Canadian Grains Program, while at the same time maintaining the upper limit at a level which does not end up seeing many very large farmers receiving very large payments.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member is talking about two ways the OECD has of measuring subsidies, the producer-subsidy equivalent or the trade-distorting equivalent. The simple answer to his question is yes. I would suggest, and it very fundamental, that if the Special Grains Program only pays on seeded acres, farmers would have to seed to be eligible. That is an incentive to produce. However, if we pay, in
January 28, 1988

addition to seeded acres, for summer fallow, that is neutral in my opinion. We believe, after much discussion with producers, that the percentage that goes to summer fallow is reasonable when balanced with what is paid on an acre of seeded crop. If we pay on all cultivated acres, it is production neutral. The farmer will get assistance if he does seed a crop and he will get assistance if he does not seed a crop.
The simple answer to the Hon. Member's question is yes, it is helpful as far as the OECD is concerned. I think the Elon. Member can understand that the answer is yes, subsidies that do not encourage production are acceptable.
Although that is taken into consideration when we decide what to do to support farmers, it is certainly not the main consideration. We do our very best to establish policies we think will be helpful to Canadian producers and at the same time bear in mind their international consequences. The main concern is with what goes on domestically.
Very briefly, in response to the question about the WGSA, producers who applied to join prior to July 31, 1987, last crop year, then will also have more benefits under the amendments we are proposing than they would have had without the amendments. Everyone that joins the plan under the amendments will be eligible for benefits for the 1987-88 crop year. We are not looking at bringing them into full participation in the first year, but it is quite attractive and does not have a 10 per cent penalty. There are some things in the present Act that we can use to make joining quite attractive to producers presently outside the program. The proof of how attractive it is, is that we anticipate it could result in the distribution of another $80 million to $100 million to people presently outside the plan.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the resolution carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall I report the resolution?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Charles James Mayer: thereupon moved that Bill C-108, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


Charles James Mayer: thereupon moved that Bill C-108, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
On Clause 2-$803,903,000 granted for 1987-88.
Supply
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a copy of the Bill? 1 think it would be nice if the Minister had one, too, since he is carrying the Bill.
1 would like to ask the Minister if he could tell us what date the cheques will be sent out to farmers for the first two-thirds of the payments under the Special Canadian Grains Program?
I would also like to ask if the same kind of appeal arrangements will be available under this Bill as were available last year so that farmers who are not satisfied with the decision regarding payment will be able to appeal to a body of their peers? Will the same or strengthened arrangements be provided in that regard?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to provide the information. The application forms for people living outside the Wheat Board region were in the mail last week. We anticipate initial payments in the Wheat Board region, and I think the Hon. Member understands the difference because we are using Wheat Board figures out of permit books on the initial payments for the Wheat Board area, being in the mail February 26. We anticipate the initial payment for the other parts of the country being in the mail and in producers' hands prior to the end of March. The final payments will be out at the end of May, the beginning of June, basically the same time frame as last year.
As to whether we will be using an advisory committee, the answer is yes. This is not really an appeal process. The advisory committee will not be the final arbitrator. It will look at individual cases, get the facts, make its best judgment and, on that basis, make recommendations to the Government on how to proceed. The advisory committee was a very useful committee last year and it will be used on the same basis for the present program.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I still do not have a copy of the Bill. I was given another Bill. I assume the Chairman of the Committee has a copy. I think at least one Member on each side of the House should have a copy of the Bill before us so we know what we are approving. We have the Estimates and that is fine.
While that is being provided, I wonder if the Minister can clarify something. It was my understanding that we had more than an advisory committee last year. We had an actual appeal committee. If a decision was made that a farmer felt was unjust, he could appeal the decision.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. There has been a little bit of confusion about provision of the Bill. I wonder if we might just have unanimous consent not to see the clock so we can finish things before the normal hour of adjournment?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

January 28, 1988
Supply


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, in response to the Hon. Member for Algoma, that was not the way the committee functioned last year. I guess you could say in one sense the committee heard appeals or concerns from producers. However, that was not the process which resulted in action being taken. We are trying to make the plan as effective as we can and we want to accommodate as many producer concerns as we possibly can. Everyone should understand that the review committee will be hearing appeals and, on the basis of what they hear, they will make representations to the Government as to how to proceed with those appeals.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I think it is extremely bad form to be proceeding with a Bill which is not available to Members of the House generally.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I agree that that should not happen. I regret that the Hon. Member has not received a copy of the Bill. 1 am sure he will receive it later today.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I just want to echo my colleague's comments that we should have the legislation before us.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I hope that the Minister or the Chairman of the Committee can give assurances to Members on this side of the House that the Bill includes exactly what was in Supplementary Estimates (D). Otherwise it is really a sham for the House to be operating on this basis without having the Bill before us. 1 hope you can give us that assurance, Mr. Chairman, because I am not sure that the Minister has a copy of the Bill either.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, without trying to belabour the point, I have to agree with those sentiments. We are talking about a major expenditure of money. This is a very important issue which no one wants to delay. It is important that these appropriations be approved so that we can get the process under way.
I will give the Hon. Member whatever assurance I can that the Bill is in total conformity with the Supplementary Estimates as they were printed. I see no reason for anyone to doubt that, but to agree with what has been said, it would be much better for all of us, as far as the process is concerned, if we knew exactly what we are dealing with. It is a major and fundamental issue. I do not think anyone wants to delay it. Surely we should be able to have the proper paperwork done so that we can proceed in an orderly fashion.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, we obviously want to facilitate the passage of this legislation. I will accept the assurances of the Minister that the Bill is in conformity with the program and with the Supplementary Estimates. I will leave it to the Chairman to look more deeply into how we arrived at a situation in which we have no legislation but are between a rock and hard place in terms of allowing this legislation through the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I could rise and report progress of the Bill and then come back at three o'clock, have Hon. Members receive a copy of the Bill, and resume Committee of the Whole. If that is agreed, we will carry on in that way. Members have the assurance of the Minister that the Estimates are the same as the Bill. I am left to the discretion of Hon. Members.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I think we should complete the work of the committee at three o'clock.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I think you have found a practical solution to a very difficult problem.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to have some provision. I assume that when we recommence at three o'clock we would still be in Committee of the Whole. Would that be your intention, or have we gotten to the stage where the Bill is actually reported to the House and we are in report stage?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am rising to report progress of the Bill and that will finish it until three o'clock.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Can I assume, Mr. Chairman, that we would be in report stage so that if there was a problem with the actual appropriation Bill in that it deviated in some way, we would have a mechanism available at report stage, under unanimous consent, to correct a figure or some such small error and would move then immediately to third reading without debate if there were no such errors and would take a voice vote? Is that what the Opposition has in mind?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, that would be in conformity with my proposal that we report progress and return to Committee of the Whole when we have the Bill before us at three o'clock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall I rise and report progress?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It being one o'clock p.m. I do now rise until two o'clock this day.
At 1.07 p.m. the House took recess.
January 28, 1988



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec City region no longer seems to have a strong spokesman in the Conservative Government. Issues are left to stagnate, and promises made by the Hon. Member for Langelier (Mr. Cote) and Minister responsible for the Quebec City region are not kept.
Where is the federal subsidy of $200,000 promised in 1986 for setting up an arbitration centre attached to Laval University? Where are the $600,000 the federal Government promised for the high tech industrial park at Ste-Foy?
Why has the federal Government failed to take any measures to guarantee the future of the Inter-Port Corporation responsible for the economic development of the harbour area? Why have surplus funds from Rendez-vous 1987 yet to be distributed among regional agencies such as Carnaval de Quebec and the Festival d'ete de Quebec, as promised by the Minister responsible?
Recently, Mr. Pierre Racine, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Greater Quebec City, expressed his concern, saying it would be a great disappointment if the federal Government failed to keep its promises.
Why does the Minister responsible for the Quebec City region, the Hon. Member for Langelier, make promises he cannot keep? Why is he dragging his feet? People in and around Quebec City were used to having strong men in Ottawa to defend their interests, but compared with Jean Marchand, Gilles Lamontagne, Pierre Bussieres and Charles Lapointe, the present Minister is a lightweight.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that the future productivity of our nation is dependent on our ability to use science and technology with increased effectiveness. This makes the recent announcement
of the additional $1.3 billion commitment to research and development important to all Canadians.
Despite the constant criticism from those who expect the Government to support most research budgets, the Government has chosen the right direction by providing our universities with much needed R and D funding and scholarships.
The creation of centres of excellence, combined with university scholarships, will help expand the pool of human resources necessary for the continued development of this country. Those businesses and industries which strive for continued success will provide opportunities for Canada's young scientists and researchers. I am hopeful that a centre of excellence will be established at the University of Saskatchewan to allow all Canadians to share in the world-class research now being done there.
I see the allocation of these new R and D funds as the beginning of a new direction for science and technology in Saskatoon, as well as across the country.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in 1983 the Province of Alberta took the right to strike away from the nurses of Alberta. The Alberta Hospital Association capitalized on this anti-strike legislation by cutting back nurses' wages by 3 per cent.
At the same time the Conservative Government in Alberta has been severely underfunding health care and starving hospital budgets, a situation which is exacerbated by the diminishing federal share of health care dollars. Hospitals are so underfunded in Alberta that there are 290 vacant nursing positions which the hospitals cannot afford to fill.
Instead of promoting a less expensive, preventive approach to health care, Tories prefer to pass regressive legislation which takes away the right to strike, and then scapegoats the traditionally female profession of nursing. This is responsible for creating the present health care crisis in Alberta.
There are no more dedicated professionals than underpaid nurses who work very hard in caring for the patients. The nurses of Alberta are supported by Albertans and by editorial comment.
Bill 44 should be repealed, and the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada should fund health care adequately so that patients will have adequate care and nurses will be paid what they are worth.

January 28, 1988



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has not given up the fight against acid rain. None in this House are pleased with the recent American proposals to curb acid rain. The proposals fall very short of what I expected.
However, as the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) said in the House on Tuesday, the Government has been successful in raising the profile of this serious pollution problem in the United States.
Our program aimed at American tourists coming to this country has been successful in making a majority of Americans aware of our concerns.
The determination of the Minister has resulted in some progress. Congressmen like Gerry Sikorski and Robert C. Smith are but two of the friends we have within the American system. Senator George Mitchell is another good example. A Senate committee in the United States recently passed one of his Bills to combat pollution and reduce it greatly.
This Bill, teamed up with the concerns of many political leaders in the United States, will likely result in some intelligent action being taken on this problem.
The next eight months are extremely important. Some 60 cities in the United States are liable for sanctions under the Clean Air Act. I am sure everyone in Canada wishes to see the Hon. Minister of the Environment continue the good work he has done. We hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) keeps the pressure on the President as well.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear after yesterday's announcement that the Government is in a dilemma about the all-news channel going to CBC. It seems the belief of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is that the CBC is too negative in its reports on his Government, so I propose an easy solution.
The Prime Minister should give the CBC and all other media some good news to report. He should stamp out the many ongoing scandals and get on with serious legislation. Does the Prime Minister not realize that it is the unsavory land and money scandals, the confusion on free trade, the threat of a tax on food, the rise in drug prices, issues of conduct and questions of ethical standards, which provide nothing but well founded negative coverage?
It is clear that as long as the Government continues its present bizarre and dubious behaviour, it will take an all-news channel just to keep up with the daily revelations. My real concern is that the Right Hon. Prime Minister should not have further damaged his credibility by interfering with the decision by the CRTC, which was arrived at through fair and open competition. Let his Ministers and other Conservative Members get down to serious work and don't shoot the messenger, just change the message.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, what is the matter these days with the Socialists? They used to be vindictive, arrogant and negative in their attitudes to the Free Trade Agreement, but today we hardly hear them anymore. Have they noticed, by any chance, that Canadians want free trade? Did they notice that in Quebec, Premier Bourassa's Liberal Government is one of the most fervent defenders of the Free Trade Agreement? Did they notice that the aspirant Leader of the Official Opposition in the National Assembly is a staunch supporter of free trade?
Mr. Speaker, if they were really serious when they spoke out against free trade, why today's silence? Why the about-face?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians must ask the Socialists, and they must tell us, why they have nothing more to say about Quebec and free trade.
Did the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) receive orders from Bob White? Was he gagged, just as he gagged the Member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy) the day before yesterday? I really don't know, Mr. Speaker.



WILDLIFE


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last year not a single egg hatched from a 52 nest colony of great blue herons at Crofton, British Columbia. Fragments of the eggs were found to have traces of dioxin. On Monday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) provided information on testing of shellfish from waters around pulp mills at Crofton and Nanaimo. The lab confirmed an earlier study released by Greenpeace showing traces of dioxin in shellfish at the Harmac pulp mill.
January 28, 1988

The Department of National Health and Welfare has assured Canadians that the level of contamination is well below the level of risk. We await the findings of the Department of the Environment as to the affects on wildlife.
The issue of dioxin contamination is not new, but not until late last fall did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment initiate a national program to determine dioxin levels around Canadian pulp mills. It was only because of the publicity for the Greenpeace study that the single testing lab of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans pushed the B.C. samples to the head of the line.
Since the Greenpeace report was released, MacMillan Bloedel announced it would stop dioxin contamination near company mills by March 31, by using a different process. I applaud the action MacMillan Bloedel has taken. However, I wonder if it would have found the substitute sooner if the federal Government had given this issue a higher priority and had begun testing sooner.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON ENERGY INDUSTRY

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's free trade agreement with the United States is good for our energy industry. Canada will be a reliable supplier if the United States is a reliable customer. Both countries will share their energy supplies in the event of an energy shortage. This is not a new idea. It builds on our long-standing commitment made through the International Energy Agency, a commitment based on the reality of interdependence and the disastrous global consequences of energy shortages.
Both countries remain free to determine whether and when to allow exports, and may continue to monitor and license exports. The agreement will not stand in the way of Canada following its own energy policy since current restrictions on foreign takeovers have been retained. Provinces retain the right to control their resources.
Additional development of our petroleum resources could require well over $100 billion to the end of the century. Trends in energy supply and demand indicate that we are entering a period in which megaprojects will dominate domestic energy production. The agreement provides potential investors, be they Canadian or foreign, with assured access for energy commodities to the North American market as a whole. Our ability to implement a strategy of assistance for megaprojects is on a case-by-case basis.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement is good for the energy industry, and it is good for Canada.



PENSIONS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government announced that it intended to proceed with the second reading stage of Bill C-33, whose purpose is to make certain amendments to Public Service pension plans. Fortunately, it changed its mind. 1 am very glad it did, because to me, this Bill discriminates against public servants, who, as we all know, pay a substantial share of the cost of indexation and of the pensions themselves.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to take full indexation and the requisite guarantees away from retired public servants. I am in favour of pension indexation. I am in favour of providing the elderly with better protection against poverty.
I am for sound management of public pension funds. I am for an employer-employee management committee that will discuss and administer pension plans, but I am against Bill C-33 because it is unfair and discriminatory.
Bill C-33 should be withdrawn altogether. All Conservative Members should rise in their seats, one after the other, and tel! us where they stand on this issue. And for the love of God, protect retired public servants! Say you are against Bill C-33!



ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I stand today in response to recent comments by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) regarding the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The criticism of the Hon. Member is completely unfounded. I deplore the fact that he would want to play partisan politics with an agency that is so important for the economic future of the Atlantic region.
It is true that Savoie reported that some members of the region's business community expressed concern that past regional development efforts in the region had, on occasion, been tailored for partisan political considerations. To prevent this in the future, Mr. Savoie recommended the establishment of an advisory board to guide the work of the new agency. The Government responded by setting up an advisory board of 19 individuals from Atlantic Canada of all political and professional stripes who are now sharing their expertise for the benefit of Atlantic Canadians.
1 urge the Hon. Member and all Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada to leave partisan politics aside, for if there is one issue which requires the full support of all elected officials in Atlantic Canada it is federal regional development efforts in the area.

January 28, 1988
Atlantic Canadians want this agency to succeed. Its chance of success will be enhanced only if each and every Member puts his shoulder to the wheel and offers co-operation to make it work.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION POSITION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) referred to the goon squad which was able to bring the Government to heel with respect to the CBC all-news channel. It is an appropriate description for the people who were involved in getting the Minister in charge of communications to do the high-wire act that she did yesterday.
We have to wonder whether this is not the first of a number of occasions on which we will see this same goon squad overrule things which should be left in place. I am thinking in particular of whether or not the next Minister to be the victim of the goon squad will be the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) who, we know, has been under a lot of pressure to change the legislation which he tabled in the House with respect to national parks and their preservation. We know that the goon squad wants to put condominiums all over our national parks. Will this be the next thing to which we will be subjected as a result of the Alberta Tory caucus?



THE SENATE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Canada needs a Triple E Senate. Note: our excellent Immigration Ministers and MPs gave up part of their summer to streamline our immigration laws, and then the other place dilly-dallied for weeks even though the vast majority of Canadians want this legislation.
Again, in a report by a Senate committee on terrorism the following sentence appears:
-Those groups that have recently been, are currently viewed to be, or could in the immediate future become sources of domestic terrorism in Canada include-extreme elements of anti-abortion groups-
Anti-abortion and pro-life groups are the very antithesis of terrorism. Hundreds of splendid Canadians labour to stop the
murder of thousands of unborn babies, and this committee slanders these Canadians.
This Senate is responsible to no one. A Triple E Senate would require all Senators to answer to the people for their actions. How much longer can Canadians stomach what is going on in the other place?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it now appears that the Government has seen the light and abandoned its wrong-headed Bill C-33 to de-index public service pensions. Apparently the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) announced earlier today that the Tories had withdrawn the infamous Bill.
Why did they do so? The answer is quite simple. The PSAC, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said yesterday that it would work diligently to defeat any Member of Parliament who voted for the Bill. This has scared Tory Members of Parliament in such a way as to render useful the old recycled free trade publications, and they are now, of course, toilet paper. Free trade will be useful after all in this issue.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MINISTER'S POSITION ON 24-HOUR ALL-NEWS CHANNEL FOR FRANCOPHONES IN QUEBEC AND OUTSIDE QUEBEC

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) is to be commended for taking a clear stand on the proposed all-news tv channel, and for considering the impact this would have on Francophones both in and outside Quebec. It is too bad the Government had to point out to the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that our country has two language groups. By her comments, the Minister was simply confirming the specific cultural identity of Francophones as recognised by a Conservative Government.
Mr. Speaker, we can expect a partnership between the CBC and private broadcasters to produce some very promising and innovative approaches, while respecting the culture of our two founding peoples. What must be done now is to put in place a new broadcasting policy for this country, since the present legislation no longer meets today's needs, the proof being this whole controversy about all-news services.
January 28, 1988



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has gone a little too far this time. Yesterday he acted like some character from a Grade B gangster movie.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Napier Turner: He issued a veiled threat against the Deputy House Leader of the Liberal Party; read it in Hansard. He demanded that people respect the independence of the former elections commissioner, and then he maliciously attacked him. Then, finally, he tried to compare my political career to his scandal-ridden Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Napier Turner: I have searched for a lot of words that would escape your scrutiny as not being parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, but what I will say is that that performance yesterday was unworthy of the office of Prime Minister; that is what 1 will say. I want to tell him that those tactics won't work and the truth will eventually come out-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate very much to interrupt the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, especially on a lead question. However, 1 must remind Hon. Members that, no matter how intense they may feel, there must be some self-discipline on pejorative preambles. There are, of course, lots of places to argue the consequences of a response of a Minister, or lack of response.
1 would ask the Right Hon. Member to put his question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by that ruling and draw to your attention that the Prime Minister typically launches these counterattacks after my third question so that we cannot get back at him on the same day.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Can the Prime Minister explain why his Minister of Energy told reporters that he had just skimmed that letter from the former elections commissioner and then stuffed it in a desk drawer for two years, when lawyer Jean Guilbeault from Montreal says that he was consulted by the Minister on the context of that letter?
When are Canadians going to get the whole truth from this Government?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend, of course, in regard to that question will have to, I suppose, address it to the Minister. In regard to any conversations which the Minister might have had with his own attorney that is something that he would want to talk to him about if he cares to raise it in the House.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is not my responsibility to talk to the Minister about what happened to the letter. Who is running the show in this country? It is the Prime Minister's responsibility to find out what happened to that letter.


COMMISSIONER'S LETTER-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION VIS-AVIS MEMBER FOR FRONTENAC
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, apparently, the Minister did not mention the letter to the Prime Minister. He claimed he put the letter in his desk drawer and left it there for two years. The Minister said he merely skimmed through the letter. However, a Montreal lawyer told reporters that the Minister had consulted him about the letter. The question is not only why the letter was written but why the Prime Minister was not aware of the letter. Why did he attack the former Commissioner of Elections yesterday, and why are there several versions of what the Minister did with the letter?
Is the Prime Minister going to tell us the truth about what the Minister did with the letter and fire the Minister for failing to speak frankly to his boss, the Prime Minister of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wonders why I did not know. As the Minister pointed out, I had not been told. I answered that question yesterday when I said 1 read about it in a newspaper article. Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer these important questions, but the Official Opposition will have to give me a chance to do so. This is an important matter, and I want to answer as accurately as I can. I can say that I was advised of the matter in the circumstances I mentioned yesterday.
The second point raised by the Leader of the Opposition concerns the Commissioner's decision. Under an Act of Parliament, when a complaint is filed concerning a Member's conduct, an investigation is conducted by an independent official, in this case the Commissioner. That is what happened here. The Commissioner has full discretionary powers either to lay or not to lay charges against the Member. Upon completing his investigation the Commissioner decided not to lay charges against the Hon. Member for Frontenac. That is what I was told. That is public knowledge, and 1 acted accordingly.
Regarding the hypothetical situation also referred to by the Commissioner in his letter, 1 suggested yesterday that this matter should be considered by a parliamentary committee and that Mr. Gorman should be invited to appear before the

January 28, 1988
Oral Questions
Committee to answer questions as appropriate. 1 think it is quite normal and proper to proceed in this way.


NON-RECEIPT OF LETTER BY PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is one part of that response of the Prime Minister with which I agree. We would all like to know why the commissioner wrote the letter. Agreed, he had the discretion to proceed or not to proceed. But that is a very unusual letter. Was he under pressure? Why did the RCMP officer conduct a second investigation? Was he under pressure? Why were only some people charged and not others?
[DOT] (M25)


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I hesitate to interrupt. The difficulty we are getting into is that those questions seem to me to go directly to the internal workings of an independent commission headed by an officer of Parliament. The commissioner himself is not an officer but reports to the officer, the Chief Electoral Officer.
My difficulty is that there may be entirely legitimate inquiries in that regard, but my concern is the procedural problem with respect to the matter, because those questions that go into the internal workings of the commission are not matters that ordinarily would be permitted under our rules as questions to the Ministry itself. That is what is giving me my difficulty with the questions raised in the preamble.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by the judgment you have made and will put a question to the Prime Minister.
Why does the Prime Minister not even now have a satisfactory explanation for why he did not receive a copy of that letter, either from the Minister or from other sources, and what does he have to tell the House of the different versions the Minister of Energy has given as to what happened to the letter when the Minister received it? That is something the Prime Minister should have within his own knowledge and be able to share with the House, regardless of the independence of the role played by the electoral commissioner.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks if I have a satisfactory explanation for not having received a copy of the letter. Yes, I do. It is because the Minister did not give me a copy of the letter.


John Napier Turner: Did you ask him why he didn't give you a copy of the letter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I explained that and I explained all aspects relating to it yesterday. The matter has been gone over very, very carefully. I am asked a question. I have given the right hon. gentleman a reply.
With respect to questions that he might want to ask the commissioner-


Ms. Copps:: You should ask them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East says they are questions that I should ask the commissioner. To do that would be to violate the fundamental independence of the commissioner who is an officer of Parliament. If I did that, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East would be attacking me for trampling on the rights and independence of Parliament.
Yesterday, I conveyed as well the view of the Government that this matter quite properly could and should be handled by a parliamentary committee. I understand that there are discussions ongoing with House Leaders in that regard and I would-


John Napier Turner: No, there are no discussions.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am informed that there are discussions. Perhaps my right hon. friend would want to correct that, but that information has been given to me.
I point out to my right hon. friend that he began by raising some concerns and his final question contained insinuations and veiled suggestions almost of obstruction of justice by members of the Government and the Commissioner. There is the double standard. The Leader of the Opposition asks for understanding and fairness for himself and his members but cares never to give them to anyone else in this House of Commons.


MASSE AFFAIR-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION VIS-A- VIS MR. GORMAN
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just told us that it would not have been proper for him to communicate with the Elections Commissioner as Mr. Gorman is an independant officer of the House. However, yesterday, as reported in Hansard, he was quite willing to criticize strongly the Elections Commissioner by saying:
-(he) put in that comment which Le Devoir properly referred to this
morning as une lettre empoisonnee which violates the fundamental rights of a
Member of Parliament and a fundamental right of any Canadian.
I simply want to ask this to the Prime Minister: How can he make such a scathing comment about this independant officer of Parliament when, for several days, he has been using Mr. Gorman's comments to justify his decision to keep the Minister in his Cabinet and to defend the indefensible behaviour of his Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because, Mr. Speaker, as there was no specific charges laid against him, the Hon. Member for Frontenac, was unable to defend himself as a Canadian citizen is entitled to do. There is a legal mechanism which allows an independant authority to decide
January 28, 1988

whether or not to press charges. There is no mention of the possibility that, if no charges are laid, it can be suggested that they should have been, because in such a case, the Minister or Member of Parliament is left without any means of defense, which would violate the rights not only of the Elon. Member for Frontenac, but also of the Hon. Member who has just asked the question.
I underline the fact that there was no attack against the Commissioner. The Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago and the Leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday said, I think, that this is an unusual letter. It is indeed a statement of position and a rather unusual letter. The letter shows an understanding of the basic difficulties facing Members of Parliament. I wish to emphasize the fact that we have to comply with the law, as not doing so would be unfair to all Members of Parliament.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER BE REMOVED FROM CABINET
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return for a moment to the ever-changing version of the facts as expressed by the Minister of Energy. First he said he did not find enough time to read the letter because he was summoned to the Prime Minister's Office where, obviously, he did not find enough time to talk to the Prime Minister about the contents of the letter. Yesterday we learned that he found the time to phone Montreal PC lawyer Jean Guilbeault and recite the contents of the letter to him. Yesterday the Prime Minister, in defending his decision, said this:
-1 did the right thing in inviting the Minister to rejoin the Government of
Canada, on the basis of information I had-
Now that he knows more about the subject and that the Minister hid the facts both from him and the people of Canada for more than two years, will the Prime Minister not review his decision and send the Minister to the back bench where he will have ample time to finalize his ever-changing version of the facts?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the facts that I mentioned yesterday. The Hon. Minister stepped aside from Cabinet in September of 1985 when it appeared that an investigation might be initiated against him. He properly stepped aside and was on the sidelines for two months. During that time a full investigation by the appropriate officer of Parliament took place. That officer of Parliament concluded that charges ought not to be the issue. That was conveyed to the Hon. Member for Frontenac.
I am not astonished or offended by the fact that when he received that information he conveyed the verdict to his lawyer. I am not offended by that. I think most people would with some joy advise their attorney with whom they had just gone through the two months that that took place.
Oral Questions
I was advised of the decision of the independent commissioner of Parliament and that decision, clear and unequivocal, was that no charges would or should be laid against the Hon. Member for Frontenac. That caused me to believe exactly what it said, that the man is a Canadian citizen, had been the object of an investigation, had then been cleared, and was entitled to a clear name and an honourable reputation like any other Member of this House.


COMMUNIQUE ISSUED BY CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Chief Electoral Officer himself, if I remember correctly, in a communique issued on this subject, said it was not his office that cleared the Minister. There were inappropriate or otherwise conclusions drawn from the statement issued about whether the Minister was cleared. That is a major difference.
The Prime Minister just said he is not surprised that the Minister consulted his lawyer. A lot of us would not be surprised. Regrettably, the Minister himself said that was not the case. The Minister said all he did was to skim the letter and stick it in a drawer. On the other hand, Mr. Guilbeault, who was acting as his lawyer in this matter at the time, said something different, namely, that the Minister telephoned him, read out the contents, obviously to be consulted.
Whom does the Prime Minister believe in this matter, Mr. Guilbeault or the Minister? They both cannot be telling the truth.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first I want to refresh my hon. friend's memory about the communique that was issued. It was a news release issued on November 28, 1985, and it said the following:
The Commissioner of Elections Canada, Joseph Gorman, today issued the following statement:
"1 have reviewed the results of the investigation which I received at 1300 hours on Thursday, November 21, 1985, as well as the recommendations of independent counsel which 1 received at 2030 hours on November 26, 1985. 1 have decided that no charges will be laid against the Hon. Marcel Masse or his official agent, Jean Morissette".
That was the statement conveyed by the only officer of Parliament capable of making that determination and advising the House of Commons and the public.
I also indicated in response to questions by my hon. friend exactly what I was informed of and in what circumstances. In light of the information which has been discussed I expressed the opinion, and it is only an opinion as a human being, that one involved as a parliamentarian in the trauma of stepping aside from his cabinet responsibilities for a period of two months while an investigation is going on, finding out that this is the result of the investigation, that indeed he is not going to be charged with any offence of any kind, I am not astonished or offended by the notion that at some point in time he conveyed that judgment to the attorney who defended him throughout the process.

January 28, 1988
Oral Questions
I was not there on that day and I am not capable of telling my hon. friend what thoughts went through the mind of the Hon. Member for Frontenac, what emotions he experienced. 1 imagine the emotions were deep, as they would be with any human being confronted with this kind of reality.
The important matter was that the only official of Parliament charged with making this determination made one favourable to the Hon. Member and he conducted himself appropriately in those circumstances.


STATEMENTS MADE BY MINISTER AND BY MINISTER'S LAWYER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 say with respect that the Prime Minister did not deal adequately with either part of my question. He said earlier that the Commissioner of Elections cleared the Minister. I said that was not the case. They were the Prime Minister's words, not mine. That office made it very clear that it did not clear the Minister, including what the Prime Minister read in the press release. They said no charges had been laid. However, that office knows very well that what was said in the letter was that the Minister participated in breaking the law and presumably was relying on the Prime Minister and the Minister himself to draw the proper conclusion from that, which they did not do.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Incredible assumption!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Prime Minister to deal with the second part of the question because it is very important with respect to the integrity of the ministry and the Minister in question.
The Minister said in the past 24 hours that he skimmed the letter, then he stuck it in a drawer and did nothing else. His lawyer said something flatly to the contrary that cannot be ignored. His lawyer says he was consulted on the phone. 1 want to ask the Prime Minister to deal with that issue seriously now.
Does he believe the Minister was telling the truth or does he believe the Minister's lawyer was telling the truth? Which?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend wants to display his forensic talents he can do so before the committee of the House of Commons. The Hon. Member raises a matter involving another Member of Parliament. The matter has been considered here. The suggestion is that it be considered by a parliamentary committee. When the Minister returns the Hon. Member may want to interrogate him-


John Edward Broadbent: 1 cannot under the rules.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Oh, you can so. Go to the committee.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Member says that he cannot under the rules. He can in the committee. If the matter is referred to a committee and is considered, then surely the Hon. Member's concerns can be satisfied by properly pursuing this with the man who can give him the answers.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER QUESTION MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the Prime Minister said earlier that there were House Leaders' discussions about this committee. There has been no such House Leaders' discussion. 1 have consulted with our House Leader and there has been no such discussion as the Prime Minister mentioned. The Prime Minister knows that under the rules we cannot ask the Minister questions in the House pertaining to an event which took place when he was a Minister in a different Department.
The Prime Minister has still not answered the question which, with respect, Sir, 1 think the Prime Minister has to answer. Has he determined, by asking the Minister himself directly, what the truth is? Has he asked the Minister in the past 24 hours: "Was Mr. Guilbeault telling the truth or you, Mr. Masse, are you telling the truth"? If the Prime Minister has not asked that question yet, why has he not?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised the question of House Leaders' discussions. The Hon. Member will know that when Mr. Speaker rendered his decision earlier this morning I attended the House specifically to commence discussions. 1 indicated at that time that the Government was pleased to have the matter considered by a committee. The Hon. House Leader for the Opposition replied and the Whip for the New Democratic Party replied. There have been House Leaders' discussions.
The Hon. Member will know that there are two ways of sending this to committee. One is by a specific reference and one is by the committee deciding how it wants to handle it. We are up for discussions.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the Prime Minister would answer the question which was directed to him. On the procedural matter I had information from my House Leader. However, I will accept that there has been some disagreement on the point of the House Leaders' discussions.
Would the Prime Minister please answer the last question I put to him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is just a little too easy. The Member just made a flat statement in the House that there had been no discussions. Now we find out that there have been discussions.
Clearly, if the hon. gentleman wants an answer to any given question he will want to give me an opportunity to refer to any transcripts which might exist of conversations on which he is basing such thundering denunciations. Let us examine them carefully and we will provide Members with whatever answers are available.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Answer the question.
January 28, 1988


Martin Brian Mulroney: Surely my hon. friend would want me to proceed on the basis of transcripts of the conversations and not on the basis of what somebody may have said in whatever circumstances.


ETHICAL CONDUCT OF MINISTERS-PRIME MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated earlier that he considered there to be only one official in Parliament who could deal with the question of the Minister's conduct in relation to the Elections Act and he referred to the Elections Act official.
How does that square with the statement which he made and the position he took in the conflict of interest guidelines wherein he said that the responsibility for the ethical conduct of his Ministers would not be sloughed off to other officials, other members of the Government, but that he would be responsible as Prime Minister for the ethical conduct of his Ministers? Has he discharged that responsibility in relation to this particular Minister?
Allegations have been made and not answered. Conflicting evidence has been presented about what the Minister said and what he did with his lawyer. Where is the Prime Minister with his responsibility for the ethical behaviour of his Ministers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is a statute that governs the conduct of Members of Parliament in respect of election activity. That statute, passed by Members of this House, provides for an officer, in the event of a charge being laid or an accusation being made, to investigate charges relating to a Member of Parliament. It also provides thereafter, pursuant to the evidence, for charges being laid against a Member of Parliament unless the commissioner comes to the conclusion that the allegations do not sustain the laying of a charge.
Charges were made after the last election and investigations were conducted of members of all political Parties in this House. Pursuant to the law the commissioner conducted investigations and arrived at conclusions with regard to whether to lay charges, yes or no.
In the case of the Member for Frontenac or the case of the Member for Hamilton East or others-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Leave me out of this.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -the decision was not to lay charges.


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 was cleared.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That was specifically made clear. Only the officer of Parliament could make that adjudication and determination, and he did.
That determination was conveyed to me, not the opinion that somebody might have had or somebody thought possible. His responsibility is to lay charges, yes or no, failing which
Oral Questions
there is an invitation extended by the House to explain anything else.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER REVIEW FACTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there is an Elections Act; there is also a Criminal Code. Does that mean that the Prime Minister can leave the responsibility for Ministers' ethical behaviour code to the police because there is a Criminal Code; to the elections officials because there is an Elections Act? No.
He said in the conflict of interest guidelines that there was an ethical standard which, I took to be higher than the Criminal Code and higher than whether prosecutions can be sustained under the Elections Act for ethical behaviour by Ministers, and he has failed to discharge the responsibility he assumed.
Whatever the Committee on Elections and Privileges decides, when will he review the facts in issue and make a decision about whether that Minister is ethically fit to remain in his Cabinet?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of my hon. friend is truly an invidious one. It places any Member of Parliament in an unacceptable position.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Some Prime Minister, some leader.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the braying of the Member for Hamilton East is unhelpful to the House and precludes the possibility of a sensible exchange of views on an important matter.


Mr. Marchi:: Adjourn the House.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member says "Let's adjourn the House". Let us not adjourn the House. Let us refer this matter to the parliamentary committee so it can be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the suggestion is meant to be helpful but I do not think there is any need to adjourn the House. I would ask Hon. Members, when the Right Hon. Prime Minister or other Ministers are replying, to give the usual courtesies and allow the questions to be answered.


MINISTER'S INTEGRITY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates again to his responsibility as the Prime Minister. He knows that there is a discrepancy between what Mr. Masse has said to be the truth and what Mr. Guilbeault has said to be the truth.
Is it not the responsibility of the Prime Minister to look into this matter and find out whether the Member, whom he made the Minister of Energy of this country, has the credibility and integrity to tell the truth to the people of the country?

January 28, 1988
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's Leader has already referred to the letter in question as an unusual one. That is an understatement, for the very simple reason that under our system of British common law charges are either laid or they are not.
Charges are recommended under this statute by an independent officer of Parliament. The independent officer of Parliament came to the conclusion that Mr. Masse should not be charged. In the course of conveying that formal opinion he also put out a point of view on a provision of the statute.
I cannot explain why that was done in a manner in which I believe would make it difficult for any Member of Parliament to defend himself or herself, because no charges were laid. The only person who can tell you why he did that, may I say respectfully, is Mr. Gorman, which is why we have suggested that this go to a parliamentary committee so that my hon. friend can ask Mr. Gorman. Once Mr. Gorman has responded, perhaps we can consider the matter again.


STATEMENTS MADE BY MINISTER AND BY MINISTER'S LAWYER
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the questions that have been asked in the last couple of days have dealt with why the Prime Minister was not informed by the Member for Frontenac about the contents of that letter. The Member for Frontenac said that he put it underneath his laundry, that he just skimmed that letter.
Mr. Guilbeault, who is not just Mr. Masse's lawyer but a PC lawyer and the PC representative on the ad hoc committee with regard to the Elections Act, a very significant person, is saying that Mr. Masse is not telling the truth.
Is it not important to the Prime Minister to find out whether or not Mr. Masse, the Minister of Energy, is telling the truth or not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, just to show the carelessness of the accusations and the reason why I hope we will be very prudent in the assessments of statements, my hon. friend just said that Mr. Guilbeault said that Mr. Masse is not telling the truth. That is a falsehood. Mr. Guilbeault said no such thing and the Hon. Member has just done a grave injustice to both Mr. Guilbeault and Mr. Masse with this statement.
I have responded to a serious question by the Leader of the New Democratic Party who asked about a statement by Mr. Guilbeault. I have indicated that I will look at the transcripts of what was said and respond to my hon. friend once I have done that.
The important consideration, if you believe in justice, is that the reputation of someone who has not been accused of a crime or accused of an offence is being tarnished on the floor of the House of Commons. He is being subject to attack, innuendo and character assassination, but cannot defend himself in the
absence of a formal charge which is fundamental to the nature of our system of justice. All I am saying is to either charge the Member of Parliament or not. If you have any problems with it, cause the man who has the concerns to come before the House of Commons or a committee thereof and explain why. Surely that is fundamental and elementary to our system of justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Transport).
Last Friday, Canadian National employees at Jonquiere were told seventeen positions in their shop would be cut.
This is the second time in less than 20 months that Jonquiere is paying for CN's rationalization policies. Do CN authorities realize that between 15 and 20 per cent of their revenue in Quebec is generated by the Saguenay

Lac Saint-Jean area? Do they realize that although we only have about a hundred jobs out of a total of 8,000 in the province, 28 per cent of those jobs will be cut? Does the Crown corporation believe the regions should bear the brunt of its rationalization policies?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Jonquiere is aware, Canadian National is a Crown corporation operating on a market basis and must operate as efficiently and competitively as possible.
As a member of this Government, I also regret that this rationalization plan has led to lay-offs in regions like the one you just mentioned.
However, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that the company's rationalization program is national in scope and that its purpose is certainly not to victimize the regions.


ABORTION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. We welcome today's historic decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
January 28, 1988

Since the present abortion law is now judged to be fundamentally unfair and contrary to the Charter of Rights, will the Minister convene an early meeting of provincial Attorneys General in consultation with Health Ministers to work on the implication of this historic judgment?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that this has been a far-reaching decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and certainly brings to our attention the new realities under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of our country and the role of the Supreme Court of Canada in defining the limitations and the abilities of legislatures at all levels of government to deal with important issues.
I have not had an opportunity to examine fully the judgment, as 1 am sure is the case with the Hon. Member. I will want to examine the matter carefully with my officials.
Certainly, as a Government I am sure I, with my other colleagues who have responsibilities in these areas, would propose to talk to the provinces. There is an important provincial element in this question with respect to health services. Naturally we will talk to our provincial colleagues with respect to the implications of this particular decision.


WOMEN'S ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. In view of today's decision I am sure the Minister agrees that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health services wherever they live in Canada. Will she press the Minister of National Health and Welfare to allocate adequate resources to make this a reality, including the reinstatement of funding for planned parenthood?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the Minister of Justice, I have not had an opportunity to go through all this judgment. It has been an issue on which the women of Canada have not had a consensus, as others have not. We are continually pursuing with the Minister of National Health and Welfare matters that are of concern to women about their health and every stage of women's reproductive life. I would expect that process to continue.
Oral Questions
[Translation)


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION LICENCE AWARDED TO CBC FOR ALL-NEWS TELEVISION CHANNEL-QUERY WHETHER FUNDS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR SERVICE OF SAME QUALITY FOR FRANCOPHONES
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications said one of her concerns is to have the same type of news service available in French. Too bad she didn't think of that before.
My question is this: If the same type of service is offered but must be financed through subscription fees like the All News Service, and considering that the number of subscribers on the French side is much smaller than on the English side, is the federal Government prepared to provide financial assistance to ensure the same quality of service is available on the French side?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the position taken by the Liberal Party, and especially by the Party critic. On Monday, in her speech on official languages, the Hon. Member endorsed the concept of services in both official languages, French and English, and their availability across the country. However, now that we are pointing out the absence of a French service to the president of the CBC, the Liberal Party objects. Mr. Speaker, this is another case of the Liberal Party throwing its principles overboard on this issue.


COST OF FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICE
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the Hon. Minister does not understand my French and cannot even understand the translation-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: All of us who have learned later in life the second official language of our country may sometimes have difficulties, but I do not think it is appropriate to comment upon it in the Chamber. 1 am sure the Hon. Member would want to withdraw that part of her preamble.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, if it was offensive it was because I really presumed the Minister understood the good will and interest I have had in French.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. Instead of using my supplementary, I will rephrase the question in English so the Minister clearly understands.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw. Order.


Mr. Speaker:: It does not matter to the Chair which language the Hon. Member uses. Both are equally acceptable

January 28, 1988
Oral Questions
in this country and in this place. However, whatever language the Hon. Member uses, I would ask her to put her question.


Sheila Finestone: My question is quite a simple one. If a French quality service is designed to meet the needs of Frenchspeaking Canadians across this land, as we hope it would be, and if financing is required because there are less subscribers in French than there are in English, does the Minister plan to enable that financing through public funds or does she plan that the private and public sector in this case shall share the cost?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, what my hon. friend talks about was not done in respect of the Olympics. However, I was waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to rise immediately and reprimand his own Member for the offensive remarks made about the Member for Kingston and the Islands who, in respect of bilingualism and every other national policy, has been a model of tolerance for all Canadian citizens. What you said is a disgrace, and the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Solicitor General. It has come to my attention that Kamal Ratti, an Indian citizen under arrest in Canada, requested consular access to the Indian High Commissioner alleging that he was being severely mistreated in Millhaven Penitentiary, but that this request was not passed on to the Indian High Commissioner because it was administratively inconvenient.
What steps is the Government taking to ensure that Canada lives up to its own obligations under the Vienna Convention, so that we are on firmer moral grounds when we ask that our citizens who are under arrest in foreign countries be protected?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. friend, who has had a long interest in this matter, I am informed that on November 13 the Indian High Commission was informed by CSC headquarters and Millhaven authorities that consular access would be granted. The Indian High Commission proposed November 20 as a scheduled visit to one Indian national and, due to circumstances prevailing at the time in Millhaven, the Millhaven authorities could not guarantee the visit would take place on the proposed date.
A meeting took place between the Indian national and the consular agent from the Indian High Commission on December 3, 1987.


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to whichever Minister is delegated today to answer for the Mirabel land scandal. On Tuesday, in answer to a question on the issue at hand, the Minister of Public Works said, and I quote from page 12295 of Hansard:
In the areas of-agricultural renewal a structured and controlled process was put in place in accordance with Treasury Board terms and conditions and regularly monitored-
Given that Mr. Andre Bouvette of Mirabel said:
The farmer's group did not have to explain to the Government how it chose to spend the money. The Government gave the money to the farmers' union to spend as it saw fit.
Which is it? And what measures did the Government take to ensure that money that was to go into farming went into farming instead of paying for trips to the desert to study agriculture in Israel?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that both trips were at the invitation of the Quebec Department of Food, Fish and Agriculture and the Quebec Farmers Union. The corporation was invited to participate and assist in market development.
The Togo trip resulted in sales of agricultural machinery, tractors, and the largest export contract of mineral water in Canadian history.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Canada Lands Company is to sell vacant land back to farmers. What does that have to do with travelling to Israel?


METHOD OF DEALING WITH FARMERS AND SPECULATORS
Don Boudria: I should like to direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. Knowing as we do that 40 per cent of the deals benefited speculators, a good many of them friends of the Conservative Party, can the Prime Minister explain why speculators got the same treatment as Canadian farmers with respect to buying back the lands? How come speculators are treated the same way as Canadian farmers?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we would like to explain to
January 28, 1988

the Hon. Member that one hundred million dollars in lawsuits against the previous Liberal Administration were dropped, that 95 per cent of the land has been returned to the people, that an investment of more than $20 million from the private sector has resulted, and that personnel at Mirabel has been reduced by some 80 per cent since 1984.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed to the next order of business, I wonder if I could ask the Government House Leader for the usual statement on Government business?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, provided we are able to complete the Bill before the House today, we would then proceed to Bill C-84, that is the response of the Government to the Senate amendments. If that is not completed today, we will continue on that tomorrow and through Monday until it is completed.
We also have up for discussion on Monday, Bill C-60, which is at report stage. We hope we can complete that. After that, we are looking at trying to deal with Bill C-105, the Rail Safety Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-108, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988-Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I understand that immediately prior to the recess there was some discussion as to availability of a Bill for reading by the House. I do wish to advise the House that earlier this morning, during routine proceedings, a copy of that Bill was delivered to the Table for printing purposes.


Steve Eugene Paproski: When the committee was interrupted at one o'clock p.m., the question, shall I rise and report the Bill, was before the committee. Therefore, the question is shall I rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported and concurred in.
Supply


Mr. Wise (for Mr. Ma/ankowski) moved: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am rising on third reading is that this is the first opportunity the committee has had to see the Bill which we dealt with this morning in committee. While it is true the Bill only implements the provisions within Supplementary Estimates (D), I think it is well that we not move too precipitously with the details of the Bill until we have a chance to consider it at third reading.
On first blush it seems to be in conformity with Supplementary Estimates (D) which provides for $803,903,000 for the Special Canadian Grains Program which was announced back in December. 1 think it is important that future occasions like this, where we are dealing with the spending estimates of a Department, that the Bill be made available first thing in the morning so that Members can have the opportunity to peruse the Bill to ensure that it is in conformity with the estimates.
The estimates have been before the House for a week but this particular Bill was not made available until the report stage of this Bill just a few moments ago. There is at least one Member on our side who wants to have an opportunity to say a few words with regard to the Bill. The Bill has only been before us since three o'clock.
It is important that the legislation be expedited. The agricultural scene of the country today is the most difficult since the 1930s, especially in the grains and oilseeds sector, as well as in the cash crop areas. Thus it is important that this legislation be expedited, but not to the extent that we pass it without even having the Bill before the House. This is the first time I have experienced that circumstance, something we saw this morning during the debate on second reading.
I want to see the matter expedited. I hope the Government will be processing the cheques and sending them out to farmers so that they can get on with their cropping this spring and so that some of the pain of this most difficult time will be eased by this Special Canadian Grains Program.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make note of the fact that we have the Bill before us now, Bill C-108. The whole procedure with the Bill has been a comedy of errors. Clearly, we on this side of the House want to facilitate the passage of the legislation allowing for $800 million to go to farmers. We intend to continue through with that commitment.
I must say that the legislation would already have been passed had it been available to us sooner. It now seems that we are adding another laugh to this comedy of errors in that the Liberal caucus seems to be sneaking in another speaker in the circumstances of the absence of the Bill, another speaker who could have been here this morning. I assume that eventually the legislation will pass and that the farmers will receive their

January 28, 1988
Supply
money. It is too bad that all speakers from the Liberal caucus were not here this morning and that the Bill was not here either.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is debate on third reading of the Bill. Notwithstanding the fact that Members of the NDP are trying to scuttle debate and stop those who are interested in agriculture and who represent a large number of farmers, as I do in my constituency representing 2,000 dairy farmers I will not make any apologies to anyone, least of all the New Democrats or socialists-I intend to speak on third reading of this Bill about agriculture in the House of Commons.
Agriculture is the mainstay and the livelihood of the constituency which I represent-


Cyril Keeper: Were you asleep this morning?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was present this morning. Members may recall that some difficulties arose with respect to the printing of the Bill. I believe that the Bill was with the Table at the appropriate hour before we began this morning. Something did seem to go wrong and the Bill was not printed and available for distribution. This became apparent at approximately 1 p.m. at which time we reached a series of agreements. The Hon. Member who has the floor might not be aware of those agreements. However, I can recall being on my feet and asking specifically if what we were agreeing to was adjournment at that time, after having unanimous consent not to see the clock so that we could finish in all stages, to recommence with the Bill at 3 p.m. with the intention of finishing off report and third reading stages, with one codicil; that is to say, that the Minister assured us that, indeed, the Bill as printed was in accordance with the Supplementary Estimates and unless there was an error of some kind which needed to be corrected we would proceed without debate.
That was the unanimous sense in the House at that time. 1 tried to be very specific on that point before giving my consent to adjourn the House at noon. I thought that that was the spirit and the intent-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that there was a copy of the Bill at the Table. Hon. Members received copies of the Bill at 2 p.m. 1 agree with the comments of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), but the House cannot prevent anyone from debating a Bill at third reading. If there is an agreement then it is up to Hon. Members to agree among themselves to respect that agreement.
Is the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) rising on a point of order?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am rising on a point of order. When we rose at one o'clock or thereabouts we simply agreed that we would rise and report progress from committee and complete the Bill after Question Period. There was no
commitment or understanding that Members would not be permitted to speak on third reading. That is simply not the case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor. We should allow him to have his say.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, of course it is not that the Liberals are trying to delay this Bill. It will be passed today unless it is filibustered by the Tories, the NDP or by some other people. It will surely not be by us-


Cyril Keeper: Who are the other people?


Don Boudria: There are independent Members in the House.
The Liberals are very interested in the Bill. The proof of that is that in our Party both the critic and the associate critic are speaking on the Bill. The Members of the New Democratic Party who hold those positions are not speaking on this Bill. Thus we can see instantly the different level of interest that there is between the various political persuasions in the House.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is casting a slur on this caucus. We were well represented here this morning in the debate. He was the one who was not here to participate in the debate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will commence his remarks on the debate. Does the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) have a point of order to raise?


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I understand the rules of the House, it is not appropriate to indicate anything with respect to the absence or the presence of Members-


Mr. Rossi:: Tell that to your Member.


Steven W. Langdon: I think it is also important to say that the interest in this Bill which has been shown by the two official spokesmen for agriculture in this Party has been reflected in question after question throughout the last eight months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has the floor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we have now finished with the points of orders that were really not points of order. We all know that one cannot comment on the presence or absence of Members, and I did not, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I only commented on people who had or had not spoken on the Bill. I know that all Members were here this morning, as I was, because all Hon. Members are always deemed to be present in the House. When they are here it does not necessarily mean that they always participate in debate. Nevertheless, we were all present here this morning, I remember it very well.

Having said that on behalf of those of us who were present, whether we spoke or not, 1 would like to add a few comments on the Bill. 1 hope that this time the NDP will not mind if 1 speak since it is, of course, the duty of Members who represent agricultural areas to speak on legislation that is important for the agricultural community. That is the reason I chose to speak this afternoon.
The Bill we have before us today, as my colleague from Algoma and my other colleague from Winnipeg North Centre have indicated, was brought to the attention of the House quite late. Given that this is an agricultural Bill, I would suggest to the Minister and to the Government that it has the sympathy of all Parties in the House. However, the Government should not make a habit of abusing the generosity and co-operation which are always present in the Opposition. Even though we are on the opposition side of the House, we are always helpful to the Government, as much as possible. The Government should not abuse that and bring forward Bills which necessitate the unanimous consent of the House because they were not brought to our attention in the required amount of time. As I said previously, the Opposition is always willing to cooperate in order to provide good government to the country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Very limited numbers of people participate in House Leaders' meetings representing the Parties. It was for the convenience of opposition Members that today was the day adopted. Many days were discussed, including days last week, and there were some problems because of the commitments of other people. Indeed the Government put out the Estimates some time ago and the Bill gives effect to the Estimates. It is a well-known procedure which occurs in the House all the time.
I think the record should be clear that the Government accommodated the Opposition in terms of today being the day for debate. The Government met its obligations in terms of the presentation of the Bill at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what standing order that particular interjection falls under. Obviously the answer is none of them.
I will continue my remarks. There has been usual, good cooperation on the part of the Opposition in order to assist Canadian farmers. As much as I support the bill, it is important to note that it does not solve the Canadian agricultural financing problem. However, in a small way it assists farmers in distress. It is important to note that many Canadians have indicated that present farm problems just will not go away. They have been with us almost since the Government has been in office, by strange coincidence.
In large part the difficulties which farmers are experiencing are due to the predatory practices of the United States administration and its farm bill, the infamous bill which was designed and adopted with the purpose, as all Canadians know.
Supply
of lowering the prices of Canadian agricultural commodities. It was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States right in the middle of the free trade negotiations with our Government. Some $70 billion U.S. were placed by the United States Government to displace our Canadian markets. However, there is no point in being overly partisan about the issue, even though the Government has messed it up, as well as other things.
I should like to refer to some media reports. For instance, a story appeared in the December 26, 1987 edition of The Globe and Mail entitled "Farmers' paradox: going bust in good times", which refers to some of the goings on in agriculture for the year 1987. In quoting an official of the Department of Agriculture, the article reads:
"Apparently, there is a paradox here,'* said Brian Perkins as he went over a mass of confusing evidence he has collected on the industry.
The article went on to indicate:
A director-general in the policy directorate of the federal Department of Agriculture, he has spent considerable time with his staff trying to reconcile the two opposing views, and his conclusions show the complexity of the farming business.
Consider first the view that farmers are well off.
Of course we know that that is an erroneous view. The only reason they sometimes appear to be well off is that they are involved in a business which requires many assets. In many cases the assets are financed extensively. However, even for people in the agricultural industry who have assets which are not financed quite as much, the fact is that they have low incomes. It requires a large amount of assets in order to produce that low income, which has created some of the problems we see in the agricultural industry at the present time.
Another article entitled "Grain farmers glad to see end of 1987" appeared in The Edmonton Journal. Darlene Rude of Canadian Press was interviewing a gentleman by the name of Harvey McEwen, a 35 year old Saskatchewan farmer. Here is what he had to say according to the article:
"I'm glad it's over," he said from his 400-hectare farm an hour southeast of Regina, where he raises wheat. Canola and a small herd of cattle.
While livestock producers enjoyed another prosperous year, grain farmers like McEwen found little to celebrate as prices continued a downward slide, dropping 25 per cent in the summer.
That downward slide was caused in large measure by the U.S. farm bill. It has created downward pressure on prices in the agricultural industry.
Wayne Easter of the National Farmers Union said that the $1.1 billion payment to grains and oilseed producers was not enough. I will quote from an article which is attributed to Mr. Easter:
Wayne Easter, who was in Prince Albert Wednesday to speak on free trade, said the payment, which was announced earlier in the week by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, should have been at least $2.6 billion if the industry is to maintain its share of the work marketplace.
"It's an investment in the future," he said.

January 28, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
I do not want to take up any more time on this issue, but in summary I want to say that although the funds that have been appropriated in today's Bill are indeed necessary and required by farmers-and as I said earlier, that is why the Opposition has been so co-operative with the Government across the way-it is still a fact that the funds appropriated are insufficient for the present agricultural situation.
We could deal with other sectors of farming which are in distress right now. The lack of funding available to the Farm Credit Corporation over the past year has been apparent. Last year it was unable to assist farmers in my constituency and elsewhere.
We could also discuss today issues involving the negative effect of free trade on much of the agricultural industry, an industry which has been savaged by the Conservative Government in its wrong-headed free trade initiative. I am sure that there will be other opportunities for myself and others to tell the Government what we think of its free trade initiative and the negative effects it will have on agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, although the measure under consideration today is inadequate in terms of assistance to Canadian farm producers, we have decided to support it because, to some extent, it will help the agricultural sector, particularly grain and wheat producers in Canada. Still we point out how very important it would be for the Government to create the kind of climate likely to bring agricultural prosperity back in this country. One way to create this climate would be to put an end to the war of subsidies between the European Common Market and the United States of America. This war has been going on for a long time in the case of the European Economic Community and, in the case of the United States, since December 1985 when the famous U.S. Farm Bill was adopted.
1 hope this Bill will be adopted today just so we might bring some relief to the Canadian agricultural community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.



[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House agrees with amendments 8 and 13(e) made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, but disagrees with amendments 4, 5(a), (b) and (c), 6(a) and (b), 9, 10, II, 12 and 13(a) because this House believes they contradict the principles of the Bill for the following reasons:
Amendment 4 would exclude only criminals and war criminals from the refugee determination process, but would allow terrorists, spies and subversives to pursue a claim to refugee status, notwithstanding the fact that Article 33 of the UN Convention would permit the removal of these latter individuals to their countries of nationality or permanent residence, even if they were determined to be Convention refugees.
Amendment 5(a) would eliminate the authority of the Minister to direct a ship to leave or not to enter Canadian waters. This amendment would reopen a significant gap in Canada's ability to control its borders.
Amendments 5(b) and (c) arise out of Senate amendment 5(a), which is not acceptable, and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendments 6(a) and (b) would reverse the policy on which the Immigration Act, 1976 was based, which policy was not changed in the Bill as passed by this House. The amendments jeopardize the possibility of successfully prosecuting persons who profit from organizing illegal migration and from counselling fraud among refugee claimants.
Amendments 9 and 10 would restrict the ability of peace officers and immigration officers to act quickly to search for evidence of major offences under the Immigration Act, 1976, in exigent circumstances, where lives are at risk or where evidence with respect to those offences may be lost or destroyed.
Amendments 11 and 12 would restrict the ability of peace officers and immigration officers to execute search warrants which have been duly authorized by a justice of the peace, by denying explicit authority to break open containers where it is reasonably believed evidence will be found and by limiting the authority to execute these warrants at night.
Amendment 13(a) would reduce the initial period of detention without review from seven days to forty-eight hours, which would allow insufficient time for the gathering of information to substantiate allegations or to identify the individual, particularly when large groups of undocumented persons arrive at one time.
And that this House agrees with the principles set out in amendments 1, 2(a), 3, 7 and 13(b), (c) and (d), but would propose the following amendments:
Amendment 1 be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 22 and 23 on page 1, and substitute the following:
(c) to deter those who assist in the illegal entry of persons into Canada and thereby minimize the"
Amendment 2(a) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 29 to 39, on page 4, and substitute the following:
(a) examine within seven days, in camera, the security or criminal intelligence reports considered by the Minister and the Solicitor General and hear any other evidence or information that may be presented by or on behalf of those Ministers and may, on the request of the Minister or the Solicitor General, hear all or part of such evidence or information in the absence of the person named in the certificate and any counsel representing the person where, in the opinion of the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, the evidence or information should not be disclosed on the grounds that such disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons;"
[Stage Direction]
Amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 7 to 12, on page 5, and substitute the following:
(d) determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information available to the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and, if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate; and"
Amendment 7 be amended to read as follows:
"Add, immediately after line 6, on page 10, the following:
95.21 No proceedings for an offence under Section 95.1 or Section 95.2 shall be instituted except by or with the personal consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada or Deputy Attorney General of Canada."
Amendment 13(b) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 1 to 22, on page 21, and substitute the following:
(2)	Where, with respect to a person detained under subsection (1), the Minister certifies in writing
(a)	that
(i)	the person's identity has not been established, or
(ii)	the Minister has reason to suspect that the person may be a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19( 1 )(e), (f) or (g), and
(b)	that an additional period of detention is required to investigate the matter referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith and at least once during every seven-day period thereafter, at which times the adjudicator shall review the reasons for the person's continued detention."
Amendment 13(c) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 23 to 47, on page 21, and substitute the following:
(2.1)	Where the Minister has issued a certificate under subsection (2), the Minister may amend the certificate to which the detention relates to include any matter referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(i) or (ii), following which the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith and at least once during every seven-day period thereafter, at which times the adjudicator shall review the reasons for the person's continued detention.
(3)	Where a person is detained under subsection (1) and the Minister has not issued a certificate under subsection (2), the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith after the expiration of the period during which the person is being detained and that person shall be brought before an adjudicator at least once during every seven-day period thereafter, at which times the reasons for continued detention shall be reviewed."
Amendment 13(d) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out lines 48 to 50, on page 21, and lines 1 to 18. on page 22, and substitute the following:
(4)	Where an adjudicator who conducts a review under subsection (2) or
(2.1)	is satisfied that reasonable efforts are being made by the Minister to investigate the matter referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(i) or (ii), the adjudicator shall continue the person's detention.
(4.1)	Every review under subsection (2) or (2.1) of the detention of a person suspected of being a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(1 )(e), (0 or (g) shall be conducted in camera.
(4.2)	Where (a) the Minister is of the opinion that any evidence or information to be presented by or on behalf of the Minister at any review under subsection (2) or (2.1) of the detention of a person referred to in subsection (4.1) should not be disclosed on the grounds that its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons, and (b) a request therefore is made by the minister, the adjudicator shall order that the review or any part thereof be conducted in the absence of the person and any counsel representing the person.
(4.3)	Any person excluded by an order under subsection (4.2) from the whole or any part of the review under subsection (2) or (2.1) may apply to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or to a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice for the purposes of this subsection to have the order quashed and sections 36.1 and 36.2 of the Canada Evidence Act shall apply, with such modifications as the circumstances may require, to such applications.
Immigration Act, 1976
(4.4)	Unless quashed, an order under subsection (4.2) shall, with respect to the person to whom the order relates, apply to every review under subsection (2) or (2.1), or part thereof, at which the Minister is of the opinion that any evidence or information to be presented by or on behalf of the Minister at the review, or part thereof, should not be disclosed on the grounds that its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons.
(5)	Where the adjudicator who conducts a review under subsection (2) or (2.1) does not continue a person's detention under subsection (4), the adjudicator shall make the appropriate order under subsection 104(3).
(6)	An adjudicator who conducts a review under subsection (3) shall make the appropriate order under subsection 104(3)."
And the amendment of Mr. Marchi:
That the message of the House of Commons to the Senate be amended by:
a)	deleting, in paragraph one, the reference to Senate amendment 4;
b)	deleting paragraph two;
c)	adding to paragraph nine a reference to Senate amendment 4; and
d)	adding after amendment 3 the following:
"That amendment 4 of the Senate be amended by deleting the said
amendment and by striking out line 16 on page 7 of the Bill and substituting
the following therefor:
"(2)(c) and against whom a deportation order has been upheld by the Board; or""
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I notice Members on the Government side are in a hurry, but that should not keep us from expressing our views in the House on legislation as important as Bill C-84.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to provide some background on Bill C-84 and remind Hon. Members and Canadians that we came back during the summer because there was an emergency-remember? There was a national emergency because one morning, a hundred or so refugees were found on the shores of Nova Scotia. Once the House had been reconvened to introduce this Bill, the Government took its own sweet time, giving various excuses for the subsequent delay. The result is that today, in January 1988-I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that between August 1987 and January 1988, there was no national emergency, and if the Government intended to amend the Immigration Act, if it intended to table a new immigration policy for this country, it could have done so during our regular session without rushing things, without the phony excuse that we were faced with a national emergency in this country.
Mr. Speaker, Canada and Canadians are known for their tolerance. This country has opened its doors to millions of people from all parts of the world who have made this country a multicultural mosaic where they feel at home, a country that is free in every sense of the word. The Conservative Government has tried several times to change this tradition at some very difficult moments in our history when refugees arrived at our borders without going through the normal process. Granted, in several cases these were phony refugees, but in many cases they were genuine.
Mr. Speaker, it was these circumstances that the Government tried to use in August 1987 to create a so-called national emergency so that it could recall Parliament.

January 28, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
If we want to set up a system to stop phony refugees from entering our country, we should realize it is equally important to make sure that genuine refugees can enter this country.
Over that long period of time, Mr, Speaker, the Opposition Parties, as well as various Canadian groups and individuals have begged the Minister of Immigration and this Tory Government to amend Bill C-84 in an effort to uphold this great Canadian tradition of tolerance, to maintain our great open door policy for genuine immigrants and to preserve our reputation as a tolerant country where all citizens of the world who fear for their lives can find here a secure heaven. This way we could continue to show leadership and thus urge all the other countries of the world to hold an international conference, thereby making sure that all those who are persecuted everywhere in the world would not give up hope of coming to a country such as Canada.
Mr. Speaker, of course there are abuses. As in any society, there are abuses: abuses of the unemployment insurance scheme, abuses of the income tax legislation, abuses of the Transport Act. Abuses are everywhere. We are all human and there are people who will take advantage of the system. It is indeed our responsibility, as Parliamentarians, to try to improve our system, to do the utmost to limit the number of possible abuses. But the fact that there are abuses does not justify closing all doors and adopting legislation which is not consistent with the traditions and aspirations of Canadians.
When, having adopted Bill C-84, the Parliament of Canada and this Tory Government with its enormous majority sent it to the other place-I mean, the Senate-the Senators decided to fully discharge their constitutional responsibility and to examine this Bill like any other Bill. They heard witnesses who had come from every part of Canada to make sure that this Bill was consistent with our traditions and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
After a while which I would describe as short, without delaying unduly the whole process or using delaying tactics not to be accused of filibustering, a charge this Tory Government has made often recently-the Senate sent back this bill to the House with a few reasonable amendments which would make it possible for the Government to correct the deficiencies which existed in the original Bill C-84.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Senators were not the only ones to propose these amendments. The whole Senate did, which means both Parties represented there. They said this to the Minister: We are proposing a few amendments which we believe are reasonable. We believe that these amendments will improve this bill and make it more consistent with the Canadian tradition and our Charter of Rights of Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, when we consider the amendments the Minister accepted and those he rejected, we really wonder whether-


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), on a point of order.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member mention the results of the vote in the Senate on this Bill. He said that the Conservative Senators voted with the Liberals.
When the Bill was examined in committee, one of the Conservative Senators voted with the Liberals. When the Bill came before a Committee of the Whole, I think the House ought to know-because he did not say what he should have said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate. If the Hon. Member wishes to ask the Hon. Member a question or make a comment, it would be fine to do so after the speech. I do not consider that to be a point of order, and the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) has the floor.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Hon. Member, and just to set his mind at rest, I did not say the senators voted. I said the Conservative Senators did not vote against, in other words, they did not block the Bill. That means they agreed. You could call that tacit agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to bring to the attention of all Hon. Members that it is not customary to state in this House what goes on in the other place. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) and also to the attention of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, we will try to focus on the Bill, but 1 am sure you realize this is quite difficult, since the proposed amendments come from the other place.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the purpose of these changes was to amend a Bill that was tabled in the House in August 1987 to cope with a so-called national emergency.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is now January 1988, and Canada is facing neither war nor famine, there is no revolution, and at the time all we had was a hundred or so refugees who arrived one morning on the shores of Nova Scotia.
To get back to the amendments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the matter of ships whether the Minister has the power to turn back ships. Of course, last summer, at one time the Minister spread rumours that there were boatloads of refugees coming to Canada. Those rumours proved to be no more than that.
So I wonder how we are going to board all ships approaching Canadian shores and make sure everybody on board has a
January 28, 1988

passport and the right papers. Wouldn't it be more convenient, once a ship arrives in a Canadian port, to have legislation so that if there are refugees on board we can take legal steps, confiscate the ship, put the captain in prison, all of which would act as a deterrent to others. On the other hand, if a ship is prevented from entering Canadian waters or a Canadian port, what is going to prevent it from doing what happened this summer, when the ship's captain put his refugees ashore in small boats, at night while no one was looking? In that case, will the Canadian Government at least consider increasing very substantially the surveillance of its shores?
Mr. Speaker, I think the amendments are reasonable. I think the Government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) could have accepted these amendments and thus have a piece of legislation that would reflect Canadian tradition and conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, although the Minister accepted a few amendments because he really had no choice, he said no to all the others because they allegedly changed the substance of the Bill and he could therefore not accept them.

Therefore, we cannot support the action of the Minister in refusing these amendments. We believe that the amendments were necessary in order to keep the Canadian tradition of tolerance and to open our border to those who are in danger.
Yes, there are abuses. There are abuses in the immigration law, there are abuses in the tax law, there are abuses in the transportation laws and there are abuses in the environment laws. So what? Do we arrest everyone? Do we reject completely the unemployment insurance system because some have abused it, or do we try to improve the system and ensure that no one abuses it or that those who abuse it can be prosecuted in a fair and legal way? That is what the other place is trying to tell us. It is not filibustering anything. It is trying to ensure that we in this House pass a Bill that reflects the Canadian tradition and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Government has accepted some more minor and technical recommendations. This has signalled a recognition on its part that the Bill was overkill. The flexibility proves it erred in drafting the Bill and has vindicated the position we have articulated throughout the debate on Bill C-84. That was not only our position but it was the position of many Canadian groups, churches, unions and people who every day work with refugees.
Let me touch on another point that was part of these amendments which were rejected by the Minister. Let me give the House an example of what sometimes happens to us in our role as Members of Parliament. What will we do if one day someone knocks at the door of my riding office and is desperate, telling me that his life is in danger? Am I to ask him for proof that his life is in danger? I would look at the person and say that I think he is telling the truth and would decide to help the person get refugee status.
Immigration Act, 1976
If, after investigating all the facts, the Immigration Department finds that that person was not telling the truth, am I to go to jail because I helped someone in need, believing and trusting that person who, I thought, was telling the truth? Is that not the Canadian tradition? Is that not what Canada is all about?
Why do we have to close all the doors? If, in 1968 when I came to Canada, the doors had been closed, I would not be here. Perhaps my colleague would not be here and maybe your parents would not be here, Mr. Speaker. Canada would not be the same. Why are we changing something that is so fundamental to Canadian life? That is what we have been telling the Government since August when the Government called Parliament back by saying that there was an emergency. Since then, we have been debating it, and now even the other place is.
Regardless of what government Members or members of the NDP say about the other place, I think it is very reasonable and sensible. They gave us a message. They tried to tell us not to make mistakes and change the Canadian way. I say, let us make those amendments to the Bill and we are going to have a law that reflects and represents Canadian aspirations, Canadian traditions, the Canadian way, and then our kids for generations to come can be proud.

Mr. Speaker, I have about three minutes left. It is important that we as Canadians continue the tradition of our predecessors and show other countries that Canada is a just and free country, and that when a person arrives at our borders and is telling the truth and says that he needs help and needs a place to live, he should be allowed to stay. Since there are people who take advantage of the situation and are trafficking in refugees or abusing the system, we should have legislation that provides for severe penalties in those cases, Mr. Speaker. However, penalizing someone who was acting in good faith to save someone else's life is certainly not the right way. It is not the Canadian way, to let a person who just wanted to help save another human being's life be penalized because that other person abused the system and did not tell the truth. I think the person who failed to tell the truth should be penalized, not the person who was trying to help him. I think that is a very fundamental point, Mr. Speaker. This is part of our Canadian tradition and should remain so.
Mir. Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to the speech by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leon-ard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano). He spoke very eloquently and I may say very emotionally about the subject of immigration and refugees.
I would like to ask one question of my colleague and it concerns the question he raised in his speech, namely the legal implications of this legislation. One of the overriding, if not the

January 28, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
overriding, responsibilities of this Chamber and its Members is to draft legislation in keeping with the Constitution, which is our basic law, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have been told by virtually every legal expert who appeared before the legislative committee dealing with this Bill that it is so seriously flawed that as soon as it hits the books every lawyer worth his or her salt will be challenging it in the courts. It was the same story in the Senate committee. Many of those experts predicted that the court would agree that it is flawed.
That sets up the possibility of a very dangerous situation developing. The Government is conducting a public relations campaign to try to convince Canadians that somehow this legislation will take care of all our problems. The Government is saying not to worry, from this day forward our problems with the refugee determination system will be cured. What, then, is the Government going to do if a court strikes this legislation down because it violates the Charter? That will obviously paralyze the policy and again throw it into chaos.
Could the Hon. Member perhaps share with this House his thoughts on what that will do to the confidence of Canadians in the law, as well as causing increasing frustration and anger among people who have been misled into believing that the problem was solved only to find it worse than before?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank my colleague for reminding me of this aspect of the legislation and the overall public relations framework the Government has been building since last summer. You will recall that we were called back in the middle of the summer recess because there was a national emergency. One morning we found around 170 refugees on the Nova Scotia coast. Years back we received thousands of refugees and there was no emergency, but the Government is trying to convince Canadians that there is an emergency now. It said there was something drastically wrong with our system and the only way to solve it was to call Parliament back to deal with this Bill, which gave the false hope that it would solve all the problems. Yes, our immigration and refugee policy needs to be amended, but not in this fashion.
I agree with my hon. colleague that the possibilities are very high that this legislation will be challenged in the court, so that this exercise is useless. We go back to the beginning and those people who should be penalized, those people who take advantage of the system, those people who charge a fee to bring in false refugees, will increase their activities and we will be in a worse situation than we were last summer.
Therefore, I agree with my colleague that the amendments proposed by the other place should be accepted so that this legislation is at least in accordance with our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It can then be put in place and we hope the Government will continue to look at our
refugee policy so that Canada can continue its traditions, which are very well accepted by the rest of the world.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Saint-Leon-ard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) quite correctly pointed out the false hope which this administration was trying to generate by trying to fabricate and create a crisis which only existed in the wild imagination of the people on the other side. A measure of that false hope can be seen in the changes which the Government has made in response to the report from the other place. That is to say, even though those changes are to the more minor aspects of the legislation, the Government still made changes which it was not prepared to make last summer.
After a few months had passed and government Members had an opportunity to reflect on what they had done, 1 think they recognized that they had erred and that the legislation was overkill. I would like to commend the Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou for his observations.
The other aspect was that of creating a new offence for religious institutions, other organizations, and individual Canadians who help with refugees who may not have documents to come to this country. I find that very offensive. Could the Member go into some detail on what he thinks about this particular aspect upon which he touched very briefly?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow a very short response by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, if before a refugee comes into Canada he has to wait to ensure that he has all the documents to prove he is a genuine refugee, I do not think he will ever make it to Canada. Therefore, it is important that our system allow refugees to come to Canada so that they can be safe, and we can then verify whether they are genuine refugees.
With this legislation we will close all the doors. We will even tell boats not to come near us, to get away because they are not allowed to come. I do not know what measures we will use to accomplish that. Is the Minister going to call in the Army to start shooting? We shall see. Let us hope that we never go that far. This is how ridiculous this thing is getting. It is paranoia. Let us allow any refugee who comes here to come in. We can check them and if they are real refugees they will be welcome because that is our tradition and policy. If they are not genuine refugees they should be looked after and we will ensure that those who profited from bringing them here are penalized. Instead of turning the boat away we should confiscate the boat, arrest the captain, and ensure that the next captains know about it so that they will not take the risk of losing their ships.
January 28, 1988


THE BUDGET
Hon.   Gerald. S. Merrithew@Minister of State (Forestry and Mines: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 84(2) I ask that you designate an Order of the Day for February 10, 1988, to allow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to present his Budget.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)- External Affairs-Arctic Co-operation-Proposals made by Soviet Union leader; the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Canada Lands Company-Alleged failure to file annual financial return/ Request that annual report be presented by next Monday at latest; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp)-Shipbuilding-Inquiry when six frigates will be built/ Request that Minister of Finance meet representatives of shipbuilding industry.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, and the amendment of Mr. Marchi (p. 12340).
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take a few minutes to deal with the legislation put forward by the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mr. Bouchard), the Minister for Employment and Immigration, which legislation is aimed primarily at stopping the massive entry of bogus refugees into this country. As you know, faced with repeated instances of refugee groups coming to this country, we had to recall in August 1987 the House of Commons in order to prepare our legislation aimed at stopping human traffickers, those who offered for financial gain to bring people into Canada, to have them enter illegally. A stop had to be put to that kind of traffic with an aim, first to protect their victims, second to ensure a greater degree of security to Canadians and to protect
Immigration Act, 1976
the interests of Canadian taxpayers who for all practical purposes foot the bill each time there is a massive influx of people by sea or air.
That whole legislation was prepared with a view to maintaining a hospitable climate for legitimate refugees and people who want to enter Canada in order to later live here legally. Those considerations are an integral part of the legislation.
Our proposal received massive support from the people- there were only a few objections.
The opposition comes mainly from the coalition, what we now call the Liberal-Socialist coalition, a coalition described by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner), because they claim that at the next election, if there is a coalition of people from the left, this will help sink us lower into debt, as those people from the left did during the last 20 years under Liberal rule.
We therefore face an opposition from a coalition of Liberals in partnership with their Socialist comrades. Those people always refused to support the introduction of our Bill to the Senate.
We introduced it recently to the Senate, and it came back. Because in the Senate they also decided to oppose democracy.
Some 120 years ago, Mr. Speaker, this Chamber was given authority to legislate. And since last year the Senate, which is dominated by Liberals, Grits, friends of the former Prime Minister-perhaps enemies of the current Leader of the Opposition-has increasingly opposed legislation from the House of Commons, defying the Canadian Constitution, defying democracy. Curiously, the Senate should be the keeper of democracy-
So, they opposed our legislation, they sent it back. As they did when we proposed Bill C-22 concerning the Drugs Act. It was a non-ending struggle against the Senate. Liberal senators travelled across Canada, as they did with this legislation, in order to listen to Canadians, to hear them repeat the same things. Canadians agreed with Bill C-22, but the Senate, supported by the Liberal caucus-and I see that some members of the Liberal caucus are here now-defied the House of Commons on Bill C-22 and continues to defy it on Bill C-84, with the support of some of the Members from Quebec. For instance, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) was quite happy to delay passage of Bill C-22, which could create thousands of jobs in the Montreal region.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to expedite passage of this Bill because there are now 30,000 claims for refugee status in Canada. In 1987, 30,000 applications were made. We have to speed up the processing of these claims, but to do so, the Members of the Liberal-socialist coalition must help us move matters forward, and it is especially important for the Liberal caucus and its questioned and questionable Leader to advise Members opposite of the urgency of this legislation. There are

January 28, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
still two parties in the Opposition; the coalition is not a fact yet.
It would also be appropriate to tell the public about the position of the socialist party as concerns this Bill. Their lack of interest is obvious as there are not very many of them in the House to discuss this Bill. However, what is their position? What have they been saying?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski)):: Order. I would hope the Hon. Member would not bring attention to attendance in the House. There are people outside this Chamber who are watching the proceedings on television. There could be Members outside. Attendance should never be brought up in debate.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I would like the socialists to explain their position. They want to maintain the right to claim refugee status in the legislation, even in the case of a recognized terrorist.
However, as you know, Mr. Speaker, last week, these same socialists demanded that the case of Mr. Mohammad be settled immediately. They were screaming: "Crucify him! Send him back immediately! Rid the country of that individual!" Yet, these same people now ask that the right to claim refugee status be maintained for terrorists in this particular Bill.
I would therefore like the Leader of the socialist party, of this whole group of comrades, to tell us where he stands. Does he want us to settle quickly the case of terrorists or would he prefer us to keep them in Canada? The fact is that the socialist Leader is an opportunist. Last week, it was convenient for him to say: "Crucify him!" Yet, this week, the same man should not be crucified. This week, we should set up a system which would delay the processing of each claim from recognized terrorists. That is the socialist party, Mr. Speaker. They are inconsistent. They say one thing one day and another the next. They are chameleons. 1 find it surprising that the Liberals would want to try to get into bed with the socialist party. This is a questionable alliance, Mr. Speaker, but their Leader himself has mentioned the possibility. This is unfortunate because it will make the left stronger and emphasize its leftist tendencies in Canada, which is not good for our businesses.
1 find the position of the socialist Leader on Bill C-84 surprising. He has two positions. He wants to keep the terrorists, but when one of them makes the headlines in the newspapers, he gets crucified. It is the same for the Meech Lake Accord. In Quebec, the socialist party says that it finds the Accord quite acceptable. Elsewhere in the country their position is different. Concerning Bill C-22, they spoke against it in the rest of Canada, but they would not say so in the Province of Quebec. That is still their position.
When we prepare our budgets we want to reduce expenditures, but they are against that. If we suggest a new tax they are against that too. Just where do they stand? When talking
about the foreign policy of the socialist party ... I am glad to see the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is listening to me. When talking about the foreign policy of the socialist party-


Carlo Rossi: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) is talking about everything but Bill C-84. He is referring to Bill C-22 and talking about all kinds of bills except Bill C-84. I think he ought to be more knowledgeable and stick to Bill C-84.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Hon. Member was just coming to Bill C-84. Does the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) wish to raise a point of order?


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to let the Hon. Member continue to speak about anything he wants because he displays his ignorance with every subject he mentions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no point of order. That was a point of debate. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) has the floor.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to focus on the contradictory positions taken by the socialist party. 1 simply wanted to explain . . . You did say that people outside the House of Commons are listening to us. I wanted to explain to them that the socialist party does not have a position on anything, a position which relates to a philosophy and a strategy. They come up with a new position every day, and I was about to explain how they see the position of Canada with respect to NATO: some of their Members said we must withdraw, others said no, we have to stay.
We heard the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre say that some of the Atlantic Canada shipbuilding contracts ought to be cancelled, yet within 24 hours his leader gave him a dressing-down about that. Not long after the leader himself was on the carpet before Bob White, because Bob White happens to be their boss, the man who pays them with the workers' union dues. So Bob White told the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to tone down his opposition to free trade because now they see that the people are getting more enthusiatic about this issue, and coming out too strongly against free trade might prove to be an albatross come election time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Members of the Liberal-socialist coalition to co-operate with the Government. More specifically, the Liberals ought to reconsider their
January 28, 1988

caucus directive and get the senators to work more closely with the Elouse of Commons, and especially to show more respect for the democratic system under which we live. That is the way the Senate should approach the Bill introduced by my colleague from Roberval, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). This measure is good for all Canadians, a measure to welcome people who want to come to Canada on a permanent basis and who are prepared to show respect for our customs and our laws. The Bill ought to be adopted as soon as possible, in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers and of people who seek legal entry into this country.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Elon. Member said that those who oppose passage of this Bill are part of the Liberal-socialist coalition. Among the organizations that opposed the original Bill and still oppose the present Bill are the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Anglican Church, the United Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Salvation Army and the Mennonite Central Committee. Does he include the leaders of all these organizations as part of the Liberal-socialist coalition?
1 also have a comment with respect to the terrorist whose continued stay in Canada is being challenged. Does the Member not realize that when a person wishes to come to Canada as an immigrant or refugee he or she is asked a number of questions, including whether that person has ever been convicted of a crime and served a sentence for that crime? If so, they are almost automatically excluded from the right to come to Canada.
This terrorist who came to Canada lied about his situation. Lie did not give the security forces who examine applications the information that he had been involved in a terrorist activity, had been arrested, charged, tried and convicted.
While there must be a hearing, of course, he has obviously violated the law. Lie has lied and obviously cannot stay in Canada. I do not know any responsible politician from any Party who would argue that he should be permitted to stay in Canada. Why is the Member critical of the fact that our Members, along with Members from every Party have said that this man should be deported as rapidly as possible?


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, the Lion. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) asked two questions. The first one had to do with representations from various Canadian church federations. 1 was here on Parliament Hill last summer to listen to the representations made by a number of Canadian churches. We realized that there was a powerful Liberal-socialist coalition lobby, a powerful lobby with a lot of misleading information about our bill. After the spokesmen for the various churches had a chance to listen to Conservative Members they changed their position and now they understand the purpose of this measure. The only people who are still raising objections-other than the odd exception-are those who belong to the Liberal-socialist coalition here in the House.
Immigration Act, 1976
As to the second point, you mentioned a refugee named Mohammad. He is not a refugee, he is an immigrant who made false statements.
The fact that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North referred to this immigrant prompts me to ask the question again: Where does his leader stand, where does his Party stand, suggesting as they do that the man be given the right to claim refugee status even though he was a terrorist when he came to this country? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North did not respond to this question, but that is what we wanted to have, a clear answer and a definite position on the part of his leader, the comrade from Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question and comment period has expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, any Bill which deals with immigration or refugees, brought in by any Government whatsoever, would have to lead to very vigorous debate and discussion because the people of Canada are as divided on these questions as they are on any question. It is not surprising when we have over a million Canadians unemployed that many Canadians believe we have permitted too many immigrants to come into this country. They believe this has resulted to a large extent in this unemployment problem. Those people who believe that will not listen or pay attention to any study-and many have been done-which indicates that immigrants bring more benefits to the country than difficulties and that immigration has not been a factor with respect to the large number of unemployed in Canada. There are people, such as the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and a former senior official in the Department of Immigration, who opposed the legislation we passed in the 1960s and the present legislation because, under the provisions of the legislation, under the regulations, a substantial number of people have come to Canada as immigrants or refugees who are non-white and these people believe, and I completely reject their belief, that we ought to maintain our white civilization, as they call it.
I am not surprised we have a great deal of debate, some of it pretty emotional, any time we talk about changing our immigration laws. Let us get the record clear. The Bill brought forward by this Government months ago has been thoroughly analysed, discussed and debated by thousands of Canadians. The fact is that many organizations representing millions of Canadians expressed their opposition to the provisions of this Bill and to its objectives when the Bill was first introduced, and they expressed those same objections when the Bill was being discussed and debated in the Senate. They approved in the main the amendments moved in the Senate which were rejected almost entirely by the Government. As I said on an earlier occasion, I have never in my 25 years as a Member of

January 28, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Parliament seen such a unanimous reaction and opposition to this Bill as we have seen in the last year. Let me put on the record the names of some of the organizations which have expressed their opposition to this Bill.
The organizations include the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, which represents most of the ethnic groups and peoples in this country, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Labour Council, and the Canadian Council of Churches, which takes in the major non-Catholic churches. Included among these are the Anglican church, the United church, the Presbyterian church, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Salvation Army, the Quakers and the Baptists. We have the World Relief Canada which acts on behalf of 23 of the evangelical Protestant denominations. Last but not least, and I wish the Hon. Member who spoke a few moments ago were still here, we have the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. To suggest that these organizations-which are almost all, if not all, nonpolitical-are part of some kind of Liberal-socialist coalition, and participating, therefore, for partisan political reasons, is, of course, so ludicrous that one wonders why any Member would make such a suggestion.
It is not that they want anyone to be permitted to come into this country as a refugee. They recognize, as everyone does, that there is no way in which any Government in Canada, regardless of its political persuasion, could permit all the people who want to come to Canada as immigrants or refugees to do so.
This is one of the best countries in the world in which to live. We have one of the highest standards of living. We are one of the most democratic countries in the world. Of course, people from nearly every country in the world would like to come to live in Canada. Of course, no Government could permit everyone who wants to come here to do so. We know, and these organizations which oppose this particular piece of legislation know, that there are many people who come to Canada claiming refugee status who are in fact not refugees but who come here for economic or other reasons.
We know that any Government would have to pass legislation which would permit sensible screening and inquiry with respect to the application. However, that is not what this Bill does. This Bill ignores the recommendations made by the organizations which I have listed. It ignores the recommendations made by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, who was appointed by the former Liberal Government to do a study of the whole question of refugees and how we should deal with their applications. He tabled his report after the Conservative Government took office. He made a number of very sound and sensible, humanitarian proposals. The Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration held a whole series of hearings. That committee, as every committee of this House, included a substantial majority of Conservatives. They made a number of very good recommendations. Those recommendations were almost entirely ignored by the Government in the drafting of the Bill.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has said that this Bill violates our agreement with the United Nations with respect to how we deal with refugees. The Government has demonstrated conclusively that it does not have a policy which is based on any kind of principles. The best illustration of that fact is how the Government dealt with two groups of people who claimed refugee status in very similar circumstances.
The first case involved the case of the Tamils who arrived by boat on the coast of Nova Scotia and who claimed refugee status. They were welcomed by the Government of Canada. They were assured by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that they would be treated in a friendly way. The assumption was made, very properly, that they would be granted refugee status.
One year later another similar group of over 100 Sikhs under similar circumstances arrived on the shores of Nova Scotia. This time they were given the cold shoulder. We were told that they were not genuine refugees and that they would not be granted refugee status quickly and easily. Why? They were in the same circumstance as was the earlier group. The Government listened to what it thought was the feelings of Canadians. It came to the conclusion that the Canadian people had had enough and that they wanted to get tough with so-called refugees. The Government felt that Canadians did not want to let these people in. Thus the Government changed its position and brought in this legislation.
Groups which have opposed this type of legislation have made it clear that they want the Government to deal with refugee claimants fairly, humanely, honestly and expeditiously. They have not said that every person who claims that he or she is a refugee should be permitted to stay in Canada. The Government has demonstrated its inability not only to adopt the policy based on any principle but to deal with cases which arise quickly, fairly and expeditiously.
I remind Hon. Members that several years ago there were hundreds of Portuguese flying into Canada claiming refugee status. They claimed that they were Jehovah's Witnesses and as such were being persecuted and prosecuted in Portugal. That was obviously and patently untrue. It took the Government months before it made a simple decision which would have stopped such nonsense. All it had to do was to put in place a regulation stating that people wishing to come from Portugal had to have a visa, one which they could obtain from the Canadian Embassy in Portugal. The Government did not do that.
A similar situation occurred when hundreds of people came to Canada from Turkey claiming that they were being prosecuted and persecuted. This occurred at a time when Turkey was moving to a more democratic system of Government. They did not appear in Canada when Turkey was under military rule, when people were being arrested, imprisoned and
January 28, 1988

worse. Again, the Government took forever before it insisted that people coming to Canada from Turkey had to have a visa.
The Government has demonstrated that it does not know what to do and how to deal with refugees. It has failed to do it and continues to fail to do it. As I indicated to my friend in the case of the terrorist, of course, he cannot be a genuine refugee. Of course he cannot be permitted to stay in Canada, because he was involved in a terrorist activity. He was arrested. He was charged. He was tried and convicted. He was sentenced. He served time in prison. He hid all of this from the Canadian authorities in the Department of Immigration and officers in the security service when he was asked to give information about his record. It is obvious that the Government in bringing forward this Bill has brought forward a Bill which is deficient in most of its major provisions.
What should there be in this Bill? What is wrong with it? There is no provision for any meaningful appeal process. Given the decision that the Supreme Court of Canada made today on the question of abortion, and although I am not a lawyer, I am certain that if and when this Bill passes there will be appeals to the courts by people who wish to be granted refugee status because there are provisions in the Bill which violate the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is now part of the Constitution. This is something with which the Canadian Bar Association agrees.
There is no provision in the Bill for humanitarian or compassionate cases, something that exists in the present Act. This Bill puts emphasis on whether the applicant for refugee status stopped in a safe third country. What that means is that we in this independent country of Canada will permit to an alarming extent the type of decisions we make was to be made by another country.
There are thousands of people who are in the United States as refugees who have come from Chile or some of the Central American countries such as El Salvador, Nicaragua or other countries with respect to which the American Government refuses to recognize refugees under its laws. Since those people have moved from the country where they used to live to the United States, which is a safe third country, when they come to our country under the provisions of this Bill they could be denied refugee status. This is so not because they are refugees coming from the countries which they have left because of political persecution or other reasons but because they were already in the United States, which is a safe third country.
I wish to tell Hon. Members that in the United States members of a number of churches, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Mennonites, who have been involved in helping these refugees whom the United States consider to be illegal have been charged with offences under American law as interpreted by the Reagan administration. They have been taken to court and found guilty of aiding people who are illegally in the country. If this Bill is passed, it will mean that Canada could be co-operating with that type of action which is
Immigration Act, 1976
being taken by the United States. I want to tell Hon. Members that I certainly intend to have no part in that kind of situation.
Let me conclude by saying what I indicated earlier. The Government has rejected many of the proposals of the parliamentary committee which dealt with this question. As I also indicated earlier, a majority of the members of the committee were Conservative Members. They proposed in their report that there should be a swift and fair system of refugee status determination. They also proposed that a refugee claimant should be sent directly to the refugee board without a lot of immigration procedures, and that the board could decide on that status having been trained and authorized to do so. The Immigration Department could take over from there and either admit the person on refugee grounds or, if there are no other humanitarian grounds, expel the person from the country. According to the committee, that would have required only four months, not the years it presently takes. The Government rejected that.
Members of the committee suggested that there should be an immigration adjudicator who would be a member of the refugee division, to examine the eligibility and credibility of the claimant. That person would not judge the merits of his or claim, but only whether he or she could be safe in another country through which he or she passed and should be removed to that country, or whether the country from which the claimant is fleeing is in fact one which does not produce refugees. That suggestion was rejected by the Government, as were almost all others.
When the Bill went to the Senate, hearings were held on it. With the exception of representatives of the Department and the Government, I understand that virtually all other submissions by witnesses as individuals or organizations pointed out the faults in the Bill and called for amendments, which were approved in the main by the Senate. Some of the most responsible organizations in the country, including the churches, the Labour Congress, and the Canadian Bar Association, have called for those amendments. As I have indicated, those suggestions embodied in the amendments have almost entirely been rejected by the Government.
I want to say again, as have other members of the New Democratic Party, that we opposed the original Bill and that we continue to oppose what is contained in the present motion.
Mir. Blaikie: I should like to make a comment, Mr. Speaker. One thing which amazed me about the Government's response to the criticism of this Bill has been its complete unwillingness to admit the unjustified nature of putting a great many church people in the situation in which it is going to put them by passing this legislation. It makes no distinction, as I understand it, between those who aid and abet or help someone, who they believe is a legitimate refugee but may not have the appropriate documents, and people who, for money or for other less justifiable reasons, knowingly bring people into the

January 28, 1988
Business of the House
country who do not have documents without any conviction that they are legitimate refugees. The Government has not made that kind of distinction. It did not make it when it first brought in the legislation.
It has, for reasons which are completely mysterious to me, resisted any attempts to clarify the legislation in a way which would make it possible for a great many otherwise law-abiding, decent Canadians, most of whom are active in one Canadian church or another, to work actively within a network that sometimes extends through the church all the way down to Central America, for instance, and to help people who are legitimate refugees get into the country. They do not smuggle in these people in that sense. They do not do anything clandestine. As soon as a person comes to this country, they take that person without documents directly to the nearest immigration office and say: "We have reason to believe that this person has a legitimate refugee claim". Everything is above board and everything is on the table, yet these people are to be classified as criminals under this legislation.
For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government will not make a distinction between those kinds of people and the people who everyone agrees should be curbed by the law, people who are organizing one scam or another for getting people into the country who do not have, and no one believes to have, a legitimate claim to being a refugee.
I do not know whether the Government is planning some kind of persecution of the churches in Canada. One starts to wonder after a while just what is coming down the road, the Minister says that that is not what they have in mind and that they would not do that sort of thing. If that is so, then why not clarify the legislation so that it would not be possible for them to do it? I just do not understand.
I think it is one of the more reprehensible aspects of this Bill alongside its reprehensibility in respect of the way it treats the human rights of refugees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I should just like to advise the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that I gave him an extra five minutes on debate, so I hope he will complete his answer and we can continue with debate.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) for his remarks. He has highlighted a very important point.
The Government does not seem to understand that there is a tremendous difference. The captains of the ships which brought the Tamils and the Sikhs to Canada did it for the money they made, and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There is a vast difference between them and the people about whom my colleague has just spoken.
In Winnipeg there is an interchurch committee on refugees. I know some of these people. They are prominent in the Anglican Church, the United Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. They help people who get into Canada to establish themselves. They provide them with clothing, if needed, and help them to find home and eventually jobs. There is a Mennonite living in the Town of Morden. There is no more a Tory area of Canada than that part of Manitoba. Although I never discussed it with him, I am 99 per cent certain that he voted Conservative in the last election. He spends a good deal of his time and effort in helping people who come to Canada as refugees. They come here, having been helped by other churches to get from Central America to Canada. He and the people in Winnipeg have made clear that, although under the provisions of the Bill they could be prosecuted and sent to jail for helping people without proper documentation who come here as refugees, they will continue to do the work they have done because they believe it is right and proper.
The present Minister says that the Government has no intention of prosecuting such people. I believe him when he says that. However, when he is no longer the Minister and another Government is in power, that legislation, if passed, will be on the books and a Government could prosecute and send to jail people who help refugees. It is for that kind of reason that we are so determined to oppose the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments have now terminated. Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), 1 should like to make an announcement.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that he is unable to move his motion during the hour provided for Private Members' Business on Friday, January 29, 1988. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 39. Accordingly, 1 am directing the Table to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since notice will be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be suspended and, pursuant to Standing Order 39, the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
January 28, 1988


IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 MEASURE TO AMEND-CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Marchi (p. 12340).
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in examining this issue, 1 am very happy that my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), is here. From the perspective of the Liberal Party he has been leading the fight.
In an analysis of what I have to say, even after the amendments that have been accepted by the Government, Bill C-84 is a very bad Bill. 1 think we have to look at the political context. If we recall last summer, some of us were working in Hamilton on a by-election and others were lounging on beaches across the country or enjoying their vacations with their families when we were called back to Parliament allegedly to deal with an emergency issue. It was an emergency issue that in my estimation the Government trumped up in response to a situation which saw a number of refugees coming to Canada by boat. Rather than following the recommendations of the refugee study that had been conducted by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, the Government chose to ignore the whole issue during the three first years of its mandate and then, all of a sudden, came forward with emergency legislation in late summer which was supposed to deal with an emergency situation. It was so urgent that the Bill dragged on and on and the Government did not move ahead as quickly as it said it would.
In the meantime, what we have seen is certainly a great degree of public concern about some of the policies that touch immigration in Canada. I think those are valid concerns. But unfortunately I believe the Conservative Government has been exploiting those legitimate concerns of Canadians about having a fair and equitable system. It has been mixing apples and oranges, if I can use the analogy. The Government has been mixing apples and oranges because it has been reaching out claiming somehow that the opposition Parties have been delaying passage of legislation which would improve the situation.


Mr. Horner:: Haven't they?


Sheila Maureen Copps: In fact, what we have been trying to do is to continue the long tradition that we have in Canada of reasonable laws to deal with immigration in an open way and to deal with refugees in a sympathetic way and in a manner which has been historical in our country.
You will recall that Canada is the only country that as a nation has been recognized internationally for its contribution to those people who fled from Vietnam by boat, the so-called boat people. We were recognized internationally because, among all other nations, we reached out from our pocket books, as church groups and from our hearts as individuals and
Immigration Act, 1976
decided to mount a massive campaign assisted by the Government to permit legitimate refugees to settle in Canada. We have had a long and proud tradition of accepting not only immigrants who come to Canada through the normal application process, applying from their native countries, but we have also had a long and cherished tradition of accepting the stateless, the homeless and people who have nowhere else to do. I think this is a tradition we want to continue. That is why we cannot support the Bill currently before the House in the terms of Bill C-84.
There are two major flaws to Bill C-84. I think it is important we discuss them. At first blush I do not think the public, not even the politicians, always understand the nuances of the difference between an immigration policy and a refugee policy. In my own riding I spent a lot of time trying to assist people who would like to bring relatives from other countries. They look at people who come by boat and say, "Hey, this person is somehow getting ahead of me. He is jumping the queue. He should wait, stand in line and take his turn". But we know quite clearly that there are two streams for entry into Canada. One is the immigration process. Every year, through the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), a number is established for immigrants who want to come to Canada from other countries. I personally believe that the number we establish generally is far too low. My friend the critic from the riding of York West may correct me but I believe on average we usually accept somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 200,000 people who emigrate from other countries. In my own case I was privileged to be able to sponsor a spouse from another country. That is the process that we have in place for general immigration and for family reunification. These are objectives that should be lauded.
On the other hand we have always recognized as a people that there are difficult political situations and different kinds of immigration solutions. Hence we have established a process to permit refugees to come to Canada in a way that is different from the way in which we assist the normal immigration process. For example, if you are required to flee your country with only the shirt on your back to save your life you cannot always apply with the proper documentation. I have friends in Hamilton who fled from Vietnam and I was involved with a group who sponsored them. They came to Canada with only the shirts on their backs. They literally left Vietnam in the dead of night, escaping a rule that was not acceptable to them, and they came to Canada and were accepted as refugees. They did move ahead of the normal immigration process because they did not have a homeland. They were stateless people, floating around in a boat.
While, on the one hand, you could argue that we should assist the Government in its objective to make sure that people who come to Canada and claim refugee status are legitimate refugees, but, on the other hand, how can we allow that process to be established if we pass a law which says we will turn the boat away?

January 28, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
Let us examine that for a moment, Mr. Speaker. You will remember this very sad story in the Second World War of the boat full of Jewish refugees that went from port to port and country to country getting turned away at every place. Hopefully, as Canadians, when we turned that boatload of Jewish refugees away, we learned a lesson. We said that in the future if a person or a group of people come to our shores and wanted to claim refugee status, we owed them the responsibility of due process.
If we turn a boat away, which is the intention of the Government's amendment, in violation of U.N. conventions, not only are we denying due process but we are assisting the very people whom, we claim, we want to put out of business. If I were the captain of a boat, a mercenary, and I wanted to drop a boatload of refugees or alleged refugees off the shores of Canada and I knew Canadians would turn the boat away, I would drop the people off farther offshore so that I was not in Canadian waters and I would get away with it. Captains of boats are receiving cash on demand, payable in advance. The boat owner is often running, probably having skimmed millions of dollars from refugees or would-be refugees who have sought passage on the boat, and is scot-free in another country merely because he drops refugees outside the 200 mile limit. The refugees or would-be refugees may drown, they may reach our shores and they may be dealt with in the due process at that time.
We are suggesting what we think is a more reasonable amendment, that would be, to throw the owner in jail, seize the boat and dispose of its assets for the Crown. That will make the boat owner realize that he cannot rip off would-be refugees and exploit the poor and homeless. That is why we are proposing these amendments.
I realize that my time is up so I will resume tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have 10 minutes left in debate plus 10 minutes in questions and comments.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Robert Nesbitt Horner: that Bill C-264, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (instruments and literature for illicit drug use) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am here this afternoon to begin debate on second reading of what I feel is a very important Bill which I introduced for first reading on September 14, 1987. I do not have to tell you about the problem that exists in Canada, Mr. Speaker. I know that you as a long time Member of the House know that there is a very, very serious drug abuse problem in Canada, a problem which affects all Canadians but mainly young Canadians. It is the young Canadians I am trying to protect by bringing in this Bill.
This problem has been discussed many times in the House in recent months. I do not think that any one of the 282 Members of the House would refute its importance. We all know the social and economic cost of drug abuse. 1 could quote reams and reams of statistics showing that drug use is on the rise. Drug seizures by police forces in Canada measured in kilograms show that in 1981, 38.528 kilograms of cocaine were seized. In 1986, that figure was 102.686. In 1981, 7.154 kilograms of heroin were seized, and in 1986, the figure was 44.482. It is on the rise and we know that. We are facing a very, very serious problem.
Many people have studied this problem. The Health and Welfare Committee studied it at length and came to certain conclusions and recommendations. I think it is time some action was taken on them.
As a Member of Parliament, and I think 1 am fairly typical, 1 have commiserated with parents of young people who were in foreign jails for attempting to smuggle cocaine. I have talked with them and tried to console them. I have tried to arrange consular visits. Recently I was with the Justice Committee in Kingston and spoke with a young woman in the women's penitentiary there. She was 35 years of age and told me that she started on drugs when she was 15 and had been an addict since. It had led her to the women's penitentiary. She cried when she spoke to me.
I do not think there is anyone in the House who does not know of a family in his or her community who has been touched by drug abuse. I think that this is the most serious situation we face. How can we expect to be a country that can compete with all other industrialized countries in the world on a free trade basis when our youth are subjected to drugs?
Most of these drugs are cultivated elsewhere and are brought into Canada. There is a constant supply of them. If there is no demand for them, the supply will cease. Sometimes it is very difficult, but if we could educate our children to say no to the supply that constantly exists, brought in by unscrupulous people, the supply would dry up because the demand would not be there. Sometimes, though, adolescents do not have the self-assurance or self-confidence to say no to things like this and therefore become involved.
I would like to tell the House where the inconsistency arises. Everyone knows that cocaine and heroin are illegal substances. At the same time, there are stores across Canada that sell drug paraphernalia. Believe me, there are not just one or two of them but hundreds of them. In Ontario, there are 300 and in
January 28, 1988

Alberta there are 100, There are some in the Yukon and they are moving into the smaller communities as well.
Flow can it be that a substance like cocaine is illegal while at the same time it is perfectly legal to sell drug paraphernalia anywhere in Canada, down on Rideau Street, on Yonge Street in Toronto and in Mississauga, I am sure, although I have not looked? These shops are called head shops by the youth. This comes from the word "pothead". In the 1960s, drug addicts were called potheads.
There are head shops where one can buy all of the drug paraphernalia one needs. We know that cocaine is illegal and that crack is made by mixing cocaine with caustic soda and water and boiling it. I do not know exactly how it is done, but it is a very dangerous drug. It has to be smoked in a pyrex pipe with a screen. These pipes can be purchased in these stores. There are many things including dispensers for cocaine and razor blades that do not fit any razors that are used to line up and mix cocaine. These can be bought anywhere.
Parents Against Drugs was the organization which so effective impressed me with the seriousness of the problem of drug paraphernalia in Canada, and that is what we are here today to debate. This Bill is a very small, concise Bill. It calls for an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada to prohibit the sale of drug paraphernalia. I believe it is a good Bill.
1 believe that there are shopkeepers who have drug paraphernalia on their shelves who, if they come to realize the heartbreak and misery these paraphernalia bring to the youth of Canada and their parents, will take them off their shelves and will replace them with something else. However, 1 also believe that there are unscrupulous people who do not care if they leave a trail of heartbreak behind them. They are in it for the money. They set up these shops next to video arcades where young people happen to be and they glamorize drug use. They sell products which tell the youth of our nation that drugs are the greatest thing that ever happened and that without drugs they cannot get along. These shops must be closed.
If I may, I would like to refer to the testimony of Assistant Commissioner Heaton of the RCMP before a Standing Committee of this House. He said:
1 think if we are really serious about the drug problem, there is probably no better place to start than to look at the drug paraphernalia. At a time when we put forth preventive education of our young people as a priority, there is an industry that thrives in this country delivering a completely contradictory message. We permit retail outlets that are called "head shops" to operate, and they distribute literature, equipment, and material to facilitate and enhance the use of illicit drugs. The paradox of such an industry is all too obvious. It relies on the message of drugs and their glamour for youth, and it delivers a message that really is directly opposite to what needs to be taught.
I do not think anyone in this House objects to closing these shops. Every one of the 282 Members must know that if we are going to combat drug abuse effectively we must get on with it.
Illicit Drugs Promotion
We have had calls for the banning of head shops by witnesses from the RCMP, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, Alcohol and Drug Concerns Inc., Parents Against Drug Abuse, the Ontario Secondary School Principals Council, the Ontario Association of Home and School Associations, Youth Alcohol and Drug Community Action, and many others. I believe this is something the Government must do during this mandate.
I would like to pay special tribute to Mrs. Joan Gitterman of Parents Against Drugs who wrote me a letter asking me to become involved. I have spoken at banquets and meetings of that organization and, believe me, I think every Member of this House should vote in favour of this amendment to the Criminal Code.
The Bill is only two pages and I will read the explanatory note:
The purpose of this Bill is to prohibit commerce in illicit drug paraphernalia.
At present, although narcotics and certain drugs are outlawed, literature
glamorizing their use and devices and kits facilitating it are freely available in
so-called "head shops" and elsewhere.
If an addict came to a town and did not know where to get a drug supply, where would be the obvious place to go? I think he would go to a head shop where he would be directed to where he could get a supply of the drugs he needs.
We have in Canada today an outrageous number of addicts. In Alberta, the province you represent, Mr. Speaker, there are over 2,000 heroin addicts alone. There are over 2,000 in Metropolitan Toronto. These lives are being wasted. These are people Canada needs and I would hate to see any more of our youth brought to the use and abuse of drugs because of these head shops. I call on every Member of this House to stand in his or her place and vote with me to bring about the abolition of the sale of drug paraphernalia and thereby cut down on drug abuse in this country.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-264, introduced by my friend the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner), addresses an issue which is both important and delicate. The purpose of this bill is to prohibit commerce in illicite drugs paraphernalia. At present, although narcotics and certain drugs are outlawed, literature glamorizing their use and devices and kits facilitating it are freely available in so-called "head shops" and elsewhere. 1 intend to deal quickly with the problem of drug abuse in Canada as well as those connected with the sale of drug paraphernalia. First of all, I want to congragulate the Hon. Member for his interest in this matter. All those presents realize the importance of the drug abuse problem in Canada.
I certainly feel very strongly about the drug abuse problem in Canada. Such recent events as the announcement by the Government of a national strategy against drugs have caused me and many Canadian people to ponder the general issue of drug abuse.

January 28, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
We are aware that the drug abuse problem in Canada is both complex and old; it includes the use of illicit drugs as well as the uncontrolled consumption of alcohol and prescription drugs. The social cost of drug abuse on individuals is enormous. The detrimental effects of drug abuse on individuals, families and communities through highway accidents causing injuries and death, and threaten the security of the work place.
I will emphasize that over the past years, the most monstrous and frightening crimes were commited following the use of drugs.
Concerning illicit drugs, we know that a great many Canadians are using them socially. This habit has taken such proportions, especially among the young people of high school and college age, that the use of some of these drugs, especially marijuana, is almost part of the social mores.
The number of users has increased in spite of two decades of severe penalties, a strict enforcement of the legislation and increased police powers. This has brought many people to conclude that current legislation have been unable to discourage the use of drugs. The present penal system, as established under the Narcotic Control Act as well as the Food and Drug Act, prohibits the use, distribution and production of narcotics, controlled drugs and restricted drugs.
All offences created by those statutes are indictable offences or hybrid offences, that is offences that could be prosecuted by way of indictment or by way of summary conviction.
The penalties are very serious and include a maximum seven-year imprisonment for drug possession, life imprisonment for drug trafficking and possession for trafficking purposes and a maximum seven-year imprisonment for growing common opium poppy or marijuana, that is cannabis.
Aware of the problem, the federal Government announced in May last year a five-year action plan against drug abuse that involves $210 million. The federal plan will bring new resources to fund initiatives in the area of public information, treatment and rehabilitation, law enforcement and research at the international, national, provincial and community levels.
The work of police forces and federal and provincial government agencies has not been in vain. We see the trends in illicit drugs usage change. For instance, young people seem to use fewer and fewer illicit drugs. A recent study by the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario looked at alcohol and drug usage by Ontario teenagers in 1987 and the trends observed in that area since 1977. It considered the consumption habits of 4,267 students of the seventh, ninth, eleventh and thirteenth grades. Researchers have found that consumption had gone down between 1985 and 1987, which confirms the trend first noted in 1979.
The amendments to the Criminal Code proposed by my hon. colleague for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) are well-intentioned. However, this anti-drug paraphernalia Bill is very vague. It refers to the devices generally, but without describing them or giving a complete list. Such lack of precision would
only cause serious problems to the police officers responsible for enforcing the proposed amendments. I recognize that the battle has not yet been won although there seems to be a downward trend in drug use. We have to remain vigilant as concerns the problem of drug abuse and continue the fight against illicit drugs in accordance with the guidelines of the federal action plan against drug abuse. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has announced a review of the whole issue of illicit drug paraphernalia. The results of this review should be known later this year. This is why I believe that consideration of the Bill introduced by my hon. colleague should be delayed until the results of the review being carried out by the Minister of Justice are known.


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) for presenting this Bill. We all realize, from his speech and from his past interest in this subject, the seriousness with which he presents it. The Member speaks with some authority. He represents one of the biggest urban ridings in Canada and I am sure he has come in contact with many people experiencing this problem which we have, especially in our urban areas. The Member also speaks with authority as a former law enforcement officer. He had a distinguished career with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
With all of that in mind, we must take this Bill very seriously. It is not a trivial matter as some people may perceive it. At one time or another we all come in contact with the problems which drug abuse has created in our society. We often perceive it to be a teenage problem, but that is not the case because it is not only teenagers who are involved with drugs today. There are people who are not yet teenagers who get involved with drugs.
As the Hon. Member for Mississauga North pointed out, while head shops do not sell drugs, they certainly give the indication that that is what that paraphernalia will be used for. As he pointed out additionally, while they do not sell drugs, 1 am sure that if you wanted to find out where drugs were sold they would be among the better places to find out. I am not saying that all head shops perform that service, but they are in the business of selling paraphernalia which will be used in the selling and glamorization of drugs.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga North has introduced this Bill to amend the Criminal Code. The purpose of the Bill is to prohibit commerce in illicit drugs paraphernalia. As we all know, although narcotics and certain drugs are prohibited, books and other literature glamorizing the use of these drugs and devices and kits facilitating the use of these drugs are presently freely available in what we call head shops in many of our major urban areas.
January 28, 1988

The introduction of this Bill is very timely. As you know, the issue of drug abuse is a very serious one on which the Government has recently taken a great deal of action. You may recall that not long ago the Government announced its national drug strategy whereby it indicated its very real intent to come to terms with the drug abuse problem in the country. The issue of drug paraphernalia is closely related to the whole problem of drug abuse.
Many of us are aware that several states in the United States have adopted anti-drug paraphernalia legislation. Accordingly, for the next few moments I would like to outline some of the actions that U.S. authorities have taken.
Accessories for drug use include pipes, water-pipes, rolling papers, clips, mirrors, razor blades, and a host of gadgets to aid in the preparation, storage, and consumption of controlled substances. These items first became commercially available on a relatively small scale in the mid-1960s in boutiques and record stores. As the popularity of paraphernalia grew, so did the number of stores that sold them. Some shops began to appear that carried nothing else. These stores in particular came to be known as head shops. There were several thousand of them in the United States in the early 1970s.
While the paraphernalia industry grew, opposition began to be voiced by concerned parents, religious leaders, and government officials. Initially the resistance was weak and much of it disorganized. As long as shops were small and relatively inconspicuous they attracted little attention, but by the 1970s head shops could be found in suburban malls and in respectable neighbourhoods.
The first organized group to oppose the paraphernalia industry emerged in Georgia in 1977 under the name of Dekalb Families in Action. They argued that the entire industry was in conflict with the government policy of controlling drugs and that head shops give young people the impression that drug use is socially acceptable. Similar groups organized in other parts of the country and pressed local Governments for ordinances prohibiting the sale of drug accouterments.
Between 1977 and 1979 many municipalities and three states passed laws prohibiting the possession and distribution of paraphernalia. These first statutes were inevitably struck down as being unconstitutional. In May, 1979, the White House requested that the Department of Justice's Drug Enforcement Agency attempt to develop a constitutionally permissible approach to the control of paraphernalia.
The DEA's response to the White House request was to develop a model drug paraphernalia Act. Hearings were held before the House Select Committee on Narcotics and Drug Abuse control in November, 1979, to review the model Act. The committee concluded its review by finding that the paraphernalia industry contributed to the flagrant and harmful use of drugs and found that the model Act was necessary to eradicate the paraphernalia industry.
Illicit Drugs Promotion
However, it was suggested that the problem of drug paraphernalia would be better addressed by state and local government initiatives. Because many state and local antiparaphernalia laws had been struck down as unconstitutional, the DEA developed the model Act which could then be adopted into the state anti-drug statutes.
I would like to go over some of the basic provisions of the American model Act. First, it provides a comprehensive definition of the term "drug paraphernalia" with specific descriptions of the most common forms of paraphernalia. It outlines the relevant factors a court or other authority should consider in determining whether an object comes within that definition. It makes the manufacturer, advertisement, delivery, or use of drug paraphernalia a criminal offence. It makes the delivery of drug paraphernalia to a minor-that being a person under the age of 18 years-a special offence.
The Act it defines clearly what conduct is prohibited regarding the manufacture, advertisement, delivery, or use of drug paraphernalia and specifies what criminal state of mind must accompany such conduct. It also provides for the civil seizure and forfeiture of drug paraphernalia.
In addition, local Governments in the United States have also taken the initiative by adopting zoning and licensing regulations that bar sales of drug paraphernalia to minors, limiting the type of advertising and display of drug paraphernalia items, and controlling where head shops can be located. Such regulations are similar to those governing pornography shops and adult theatres.
1 will cite some examples of the municipal exercise of this jurisdiction. A Philadelphia ordinance requires zoning board approval to open a head shop within 1,000 feet of a school, church, or library. In Massachusetts there is an ordinance which requires current paraphernalia merchants to be licensed and prevents new stores from offering the merchandise. In Illinois there is an ordinance which makes it unlawful to sell or display paraphernalia in premises in close proximity-that being 1,500 feet-to any public or private school, daycare centre, nursery, church, synagogue or any place of worship, park, or liquor licence seeker.
Alternatively, municipalities in Florida and New Jersey adopted anti-paraphernalia ordinances that include bans against the promotion or advertisement of drug paraphernalia. Given the wide-ranging initiatives that have developed at the local government level in the United States, it is encouraging to note that the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled as constitutional a provincial prohibition of nude dancing that was a condition of issuance of a liquor licence. This case would appear to endorse local government initiatives to regulate illicit activities without falling into constitutionally prohibited areas.
1 hope that municipalities across Canada have taken a good look at this decision to assess their competence to deal with the problem of drug paraphernalia merchants. I am sure that the study group that is being created by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will also be looking at this new development.

January 28, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
At the same time as U.S. legislative initiatives were developed, the industry that was involved in the manufacture and distribution of so-called neutral products that could be adopted for use in the ingestion or storage of controlled drugs adopted a responsible position of self regulation. The Suggested Paraphernalia Industry Guidelines stated that smoking-related products and other novelty items should not be advertised or merchandised with any reference or illustration involving: the possible illegal use of the products; any illegal drugs or substances; or claims that the product can increase the strength or effectiveness of illegal drugs or substances.
The retail seller of smoking-related products and other novelty items should: post signs prominently indicating "smoking-related items not sold to minors"; require proper identification if a customer's age is in question; instruct sales personnel that customer requests for specific illegal products such as hash pipes, marijuana rolling papers, cocaine spoons, should be courteously turned aside while indicating that pipes, rolling papers and other novelty items are available.
This is a short review of the experience that our neighbours to the south have had. It is clear that the road to creation of legislative responses to the problem of drug paraphernalia has not been smooth. Given the extent to which American constitutional jurisprudence is being accepted in Canadian courts, it is appropriate to review their initiatives and judicial responses.
1 want to compliment the Member for Mississauga North for bringing this to our attention in the Chamber. 1 hope the Government takes his initiatives seriously. All of us realize that there is a problem and I emphasize again that these head shops are there for only one purpose. We know why they exist and, as far as I am concerned, it is time the Government took a serious look at the Hon. Member's Bill, and, if not pass it, do something in this particular area.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed due to the work of a thoughtful and concerned Member that this Private Members' Bill is introduced dealing with the paraphernalia used in the consumption of illicit drugs. I want to congratulate him for his foresight.
1 am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) who has introduced this amendment to the Criminal Code. The purpose of this Bill is to prohibit the sale of drug-related paraphernalia.
Presently, the sale of such material is not prohibited by any specific provision of the Criminal Code, Food and Drugs Act or Narcotic Control Act even though the sale, possession and use of illicit drugs is clearly prohibited.
This obviously leads to a perceived contradiction relating to the federal Government's approach to the drug problem. On the one hand, illicit drugs are rigorously controlled by law, while on the other hand, the accessories used to consume or
otherwise ingest these drugs are being allowed to be openly marketed in stores across Canada. 1 believe that is a frightening situation and, accordingly, I am very sympathetic with the underlying motives of my colleague in introducing this Bill.
1 want to take a few moments to discuss the broad problem of drug paraphernalia and the drug problem on the whole.
During the past 50 years public pressure to control drug abuse has waxed and waned. In the 1960s and 1970s, marijuana use appeared to receive a degree of acceptance in some quarters. Later, cocaine took on an unprecedented fashionabil-ity, again in some quarters. While heroin continued to be feared and loathed, attitudes were still sufficiently permissive that the controlled distribution of synthetic opiates such as methadone to confirmed addicts became acceptable.
Head shops, purveying intriguing and attractive paraphernalia for the storage, preparation and ingestion of drugs, emerged as symbols of the apparent acceptance of drug use. Therein lies the danger.
Thus, the paraphernalia industry is a merchandising outgrowth of the phenomena of the expansion of so-called recreational drug use in the United States and Canada over the last 25 years. The industry's history really begins in the counter culture movement of the United States during the mid 1960's, which most Members will recall. Its development parallels the emergence of "alternative lifestyles" which were reflected in the credo developed by the "guru" of the sixties, Dr. Timothy Leary who encouraged the youth of North America to "tune in, turn on and drop out". 1 wonder how many lives were destroyed with that simple misguided philosophy.
Much of this counter-prevailing attitude was fostered by a substantial degree of disfavour with the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam conflict. Anyone old enough will remember the spill-over effect of this conflict into Canada. Clearly 1 recall it because much of the spill-over effect was felt in Kootenay West. The occupation and destruction of equipment at the computer centre of Sir George Williams University in Montreal in 1969 is a classic example which comes to mind. It was a time of considerable malaise in North America. It was a time of social confusion and absence of direction.
Extensive use of marijuana, cocaine and other drugs has created enormous social, health and legal problems. There are factions that proclaim the dangerous consequences of all nonmedical drug use as well as those that advocate the legalization and availability of all substances. I would certainly oppose the use of these dangerous drugs.
Other lobby groups for the reform of marijuana laws have been active. In certain American states, civil fines have been substituted for criminal penalties resulting from possession of small amounts of marijuana. There are persuasive studies to show that the use of marijuana may be more harmful than thought 10 or 20 years ago. Yet it continues to be a cash crop in my riding, referred to as "Kootenay Green".
January 28, 1988

One of the more visible repercussions of the drug revolution has been the multimillion dollar industry that has developed to supply the equipment used to grow, process, store, conceal and use illicit drugs and to profit from the demands of their customers. The manufacturers, most of whom are in the United States, and retailers of these implements associated with so-called recreational drug use are new entrepreneurs who acknowledge, thankfully, the precarious nature of their prosperity and unfortunately capitalize on their connection with illegal activities of the illicit drug industry.
"Paraphernalia" is not a precise term. Even when limited to drugs, paraphernalia can refer to equipment for legal or illegal administration of legal or illegal substances. For example, hypodermic needles can be used to inject medically approved drugs as well as illicit substances such as heroin. Alligator clips that have a legitimate use in the electronic and hobby industry are also perfectly suited as a "roach clip" in the smoking of marijuana cigarettes. A kitchen spoon becomes drug paraphernalia when used to snort cocaine and cook heroin. There is a great deal of difficulty, therefore, in defining exactly what is drug paraphernalia.
The industry that manufactures, distributes and sells the drug paraphernalia has limited itself to the creation of an enormous and varied number of products primarily related to the two most frequently used drugs, marijuana and cocaine. A minor interest has been shown in equipment to grow psychedelic mushrooms and to cultivate opium and various herbs, spices and teas. Generally, the paraphernalia industry does not involve itself in the selling, displaying, advertising or in any way glamorizing implements for making, storing, or administering so-called hard drugs. This includes syringes, "cookers", needles, gear for making veins more prominent and thus more easily injectable, powder-like substances for diluting narcotics, purifying equipment, and the like. However, there are complaints of products such as free-base kits for use in cocaine consumption that demonstrate a willingness on the part of these enterprises to enter the hard-drug field.
In any event, we must consider what to do in relation to any use of paraphernalia associated with all illicit drugs. What has not been mentioned so far in this debate is that the use of these syringes and needles for the injection of drugs often means, in the drug addict community, a sharing of the needle or syringe. It is in that fashion that the deadly virus, commonly referred to as AIDS, is transmitted. So, apart from the application of some of this paraphernalia for the sole purpose of taking drugs, there is, as a consequence, in some parts of our society, a very terrible risk of the continued escalation of the virus AIDS.
The Drug Paraphernalia Model Act which was developed by the American Department of Justice, which was expected to deal with the broad problem of drug paraphernalia, has been subjected to a considerable number of court challenges. The rationale behind these court challenges is really quite simple. The description or definition of "paraphernalia" is excessively
Illicit Drugs Promotion
vague and imprecise, thus, the model Act runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The problem is clearly stated in the judgment of the United States Court of Appeal, Seventh Circuit, in 1982: He reads:
The difficulty that has plagued draftsmen of drug paraphernalia ordinances is how to control traffic in drug-related equipment without also proscribing wholly innocent conduct. Mirrors, spoons, pipes and cigarette papers are all multiple-purpose items. A statute that has no ambiguities will reach only the most obvious items of drug paraphernalia, while a statute that casts a broader net may be too vague.
While the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a similar definition of paraphernalia in a regulatory scheme requiring the registration of paraphernalia sales, the court has not ruled on the model Act's attempt to prohibit and criminalize the paraphernalia trade. The national drug strategy announced by this Government in May of last year, 1 hope will resolve the problem. It is a multi-faceted attack on the drug problem in Canada. The development and funding of innovative approaches to the demanding side of the problem by means of education programs, including media communication, are now operating for all to see. In addition, I am hopeful that the specific use of drug paraphernalia which is now being addressed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) will add further enlightenment to the process.
Drug paraphernalia availability is a matter that concerns all the citizens of Canada. It concerns this Government, and this Government, in my view, will act upon it in a responsible way to the satisfaction of responsible Canadian citizens.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to praise the concern expressed in this Bill by its proponent. I think it can be said that most Canadians share his concern about the issue of drug abuse in Canada.
I would just like to say that it is important to recognize that quite recently a report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare entitled Booze, Pills and Dope was released, which dealt with the issue before us today. Given what has been said in reference to this Bill, 1 think it is important to refer to the report because a good deal of what is said reflects a stereotyping of drug abuse. In oral testimony and in briefs presented to the standing committee, witnesses expressed special concern about the extent and severity of the abuse of alcohol which, it became clear from those representations, is the most widely abused drug in Canada, to the extent of around 95 per cent. Perhaps there is an error in focus here. In fact, we seem inclined to ignore the real problems, and those problems, in addition to alcohol, would include the over-the-counter sale of legal drugs that are abused far more than marijuana or cocaine.
I would like to point out that a great many recommendations were made in our report which, by the way, had the unanimous agreement of representatives from all Parties with no one dissenting. 1 would just like to say that there are a number of recommendations one might have hoped would have

January 28, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
become the subject of a Private Member's Bill. If we are to refer to the issue of drug paraphernalia, I think we should take note of the recommendation and commentary which was made with respect to drug paraphernalia in this report. The development of legislation aimed at banning drug paraphernalia is a difficult task as in most cases items of drug paraphernalia also have legitimate and non-drug applications. It was therefore recommended that instead of attempting to outlaw the ordinary items used in connection with drug use, some legislative attempt be made at dealing with the issue of head shops.
The standing committee recommended that the Minister of Justice, in co-operative efforts with his provincial counterparts, develop legislation to close head shops, commercial enterprises whose principal business is the sale of drug paraphernalia and items which describe their use and which advocate the use of illicit drugs. With respect to Bill C-264, I have to say that its drafting is almost bizarre. It is so poorly drafted that if it were to pass, I would have to suggest it would call Parliament into disrepute. It would outlaw as an instrument for illicit drug use:
-anything designed primarily or intended under the circumstances for
consuming or to facilitate the consumption of an illicit drug;
Literature for illicit drug use would also be outlawed. That means any printed matter describing or depicting and designed primarily or intended under the circumstances to promote or glamorize the production, preparation or consumption of illicit drugs. According to this suggested legislation the following items would perforce be outlawed; cigarette papers, razor blades, pipes, water pipes or otherwise, syringes, hypodermics, electrical clips, bobby pins, cigarette holders, glass tubing, rubber tubing, cigarette machines, mortars and pestles, and I am told by some, even twenty dollar bills, brand new, of course.
Let us also consider the history of literature with respect to drug use. Under some circumstances as described in this Bill, we would outlaw the following literature; A Rebours by Joris-Karl Huysman, Kubla Khan, A Vision in a Dream by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Ulalume by Edgar Allen Poe, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Alice in Wonderland, by Louis Carroll, Tropic of Capricorn by Henry Miller, Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs, On the Road by Jack Kerouac, Howl and Other Poems by Allen Ginsberg, Beneath the Underdog by Charles Mingus and The Collected Works of Billy the Kid by Michael Ondaatje, winner of the Governor General's Award for Poetry in 1971.
This legislation is a sloppy bit of draftsmanship. It should not be accepted as such. However, that does not mean that we reject the notion that an effort should be made to ban head shops. There is a possibility that that approach would have some merit. But, of course, it is outside the jurisdiction of the federal Government. It resides at the provincial level and at the municipal level.
I would commend to the Minister of Justice that, in lieu of this Bill being enacted, means be explored, with the other levels of Government, to bring about a practical attack on the matter of drug paraphernalia as it can only be done through legislation aimed at head shops.
I would like to make one more plea. If we are going to deal with the issue of drug abuse, then let us be conscious of the fact that, although it conjures up all kinds of fears and visions of kids smoking dope on the street, the real issue in Canada is not the abuse of marijuana or of cocaine, however dangerous it may be, but the abuse of alcohol by all too many without full cognizance of the dangers involved in its use and the tragedy that has been costing so many lives. If we want to do some good, then we should read the report entitled, Booze, Pills and Dope. Let us act on that. If we follow the recommendations in this report which reflect the knowledge of those who have been involved in the issue of drug abuse then we might indeed make some material progress.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to participate in this debate. I want to begin by saying that I agree with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), that there is a lot wrong with this Bill. That is to say that it could be extended to a degree which, as we have seen from American experience with similar Bills, would make it totally unworkable. Such items as hairpins, safety pins, books and ashtrays, as well as many other products which are innocently used in one character can be not so innocent when used in another. There will always be a problem to ensure that the subject matter is covered precisely in a Bill so that our criminal law is as clear as possible.
While it is possible to draft the Bill in a better fashion I think there is a good idea contained in it. It would be constructive to see this Bill move forward, perhaps with similar Bills which are on the Order Paper. In this way a committee could look at the issue to see whether it is possible to define with some precision a class of products whose identification with drug use is so close that it would be fair to criminalize their sale.
I would like to achieve that result because I believe that a very peculiar signal is being given by the existence and character of head shops to people across the country. We were told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about one year ago that there was a drug epidemic in Canada. Perhaps that was an exaggeration. Perhaps it was a bit of grandstanding by the Prime Minister. However, when we look at it we ought to be prepared as a society to do what we can to deter drug use.
Head shops are hard to explain to young people when trying to tell them that the use of hard and soft drugs is undesirable and that they ought to try to avoid their use. I want to use the criminal law not only to deter harmful conduct but to a certain extent send a signal about our views as a community on drug use.
January 28, 1988

At the present time we are looking at Bill C-51 which deals with the smoking of tobacco which is also a harmful drug. It is not a mood-altering or mind-bending type of drug but it is harmful and a killer. While considering this Bill we are also entitled to look at the use of drugs, hard and soft, and the type of paraphernalia that is associated with their use. I am not sure whether such a goal is attainable. The burden is on the mover of the Bill, on those who favour it and witnesses who come forward to convince us that we would not be launching a witch- hunt and criminalizing the use of innocent products. If a means could be found, I think it would be desirable to stop sending such a signal out and to take steps to see that we stop tolerating the use of hard and soft drugs by permitting easy access to products uniquely associated with their consumption in one form or another.
I would like to remind the House, and perhaps it has already been done, that a parliamentary committee looked at drug abuse. It made a unanimous report. That report included support for legislation of this type. It was a very general recommendation and I do not like general amendments to the Criminal Code. I want specific amendments to the Criminal Code. However, I have in mind as a goal the improvement of the signal that we are sending to young people about drug use.
I would like to conclude by saying that if one wanted to challenge me I know that making these products illegal will not stop drug use and perhaps not even reduce the access to drugs or to associated products by those who are looking for them. One cannot reduce the amount of smoking that goes on in society just by banning ashtrays or matches. That is something which no sensible person would suggest. But in this case I think there is a signal being sent out at a time when young people make their minds up about whether they want to try these products before they are addicted to them. Before they become the socially in-thing for them and their set to do I would like them to get a proper signal from the community that we oppose them.
This is a Private Member's Bill. I am only speaking for myself. However, I know that a great many of my colleagues in the Liberal Party share these concerns. We would welcome further study of the Bill in an attempt to try to find a proper descriptive formula for classifying products which could be banned, something which we are trying to do in the area of tobacco smoking.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When this Bill is next debated, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) will have the floor.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Member's Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing
Adjournment Debate
Order 36(2) the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it was on October 1 of last year that Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union, made a very major speech in Murmansk in the far northwest of the Soviet Union on the Kola Peninsula, a town which is familiar to certain Canadians. It is evident that a great deal of thought and preparation went into that presentation. There were a number of new policy initiatives contained therein.
What Mr. Gorbachev was trying to do on that occasion was to take a polar view of the world rather than the view which is more familiar. He was trying to look down on the world from the polar region so to speak. He made six major points in his presentation.
The first two dealt with defence issues and contained a lot of the normal rhetoric which one expects. It is quite clear that the people in the Soviet bloc do not trust us in the western bloc any more than we really trust them. We would both like to work toward disarmament and a lessening of tensions, but at the same time we both want to keep our defences up. He made reference to a northern nuclear free zone at some point in time. He realized that it could not happen overnight, and he suggested methods by which this might be achieved over a number of years, or how we might start discussions toward that end. It is somewhat ironic that this proposal came from the Kola Peninsula, one of the most heavily armed parts of the world, which is literally bristling with arms. His ideas might carry a little more weight were the Soviet Union to cease and desist from sending their Bear H. bombers over to my riding.
Also he proposed in the defence field possible restrictions on naval activity in certain northern waters, or at least mechanisms leading toward that end, such as agreements on notification of naval manoeuvres and the possibility of having observers when those manoeuvres take place.
What I really want to talk about is the other four proposals in the non-military field. There was a proposal concerning cooperation in developing the natural resources of the North- oil, gas, and minerals in particular. There were offers made of possible joint business projects which might take place in the northern part of the Soviet Union. There was a proposal for a

January 28, 1988
Adjournment Debate
joint Arctic Scientific Council. The Soviet Union, Canada, the United States, Finland, Sweden, and Norway would be the logical participants, together with Greenland and Denmark, of course.
There was a suggestion that social sciences might be discussed as well as the physical sciences. Usually scientific cooperation with the Soviet Union has dealt with the physical sciences and engineering. They have been extremely reluctant to discuss the social sciences, history, ethnology, or that type of thing because they have their Own views on those particular subjects. It does not seem that they want those views contaminated by some of the views which we have in the West. It is a new initiative to talk about co-operation, especially in the field of the social sciences.
Another point was co-operation on environmental protection, which is important in the North-both water or marine protection and the necessity for having clean air in the North. A lot of contaminants seem to gravitate toward northern areas.
He proposed an extension of the system which is in place in the Baltic Sea where I understand there is a commission comprised of the seven states that border the Baltic Sea and where they co-operate to reduce environmental pollution in that particular body of water.
He suggested the possible opening up of northern sea routes with lots of ice-breaker protection, et cetera. He suggested the possible opening up of the Northeast Passage along the northern coast of the Soviet Union, which would go hand in hand with what we have in mind with the opening up of the Northwest Passage at some point in time. On January 11 we concluded an agreement with the United States of America toward that end, co-operation on navigation in arctic waters. These were important proposals that were made in Murmansk.
1 know, because I was in the Soviet Union with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) some years ago, that there are existing agreements dealing with scientific and cultural exchanges. These are good and are working reasonably well. There is no reason that we cannot improve upon them, extend and invite more countries to get involved, the other northern countries, Scandinavia, the United States, et cetera.
[DOT] <1805)
There has been a fair amount of diplomatic follow-up on this speech by Soviet diplomatic staff here in Ottawa. Shortly after the speech had been made, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Minister Counsellor from the U.S.S.R., Mr. Alexei Makarov. He impressed upon me the importance of this speech. I think that a formal response should be forthcoming from the Government of Canada to address some of these points that have been raised. I hope that can take place in the not-too-distant future.
[ Translation)


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the proposals
contained in the speech made on October 1, 1987, in Murmansk by Secretary General Gorbachev were recently developed further in a speech given by Soviet Premier Ryzhkov in Oslo on January 14. However, in our opinion, the Soviet Premier added but a few new elements to the speech of Mr. Gorbachev.
As indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in his speech of December 9 at the Norway-Canada Conference on Circumpolar Issues, we wish for the development of a pacific cooperation between the countries of the Arctic Basin, and we are therefore heartened by the statement made by Secretary General Gorbachev in Murmansk on October 1. We have especially noted his suggestion of co-operation in the areas of energy, science and environment."
We are pleased to learn that the Soviet Union is interested in the establishment of an Arctic Scientific Council, a project in which Canada, Norway and other countries are involved.
He also added this: We have especially noted his interest in the development of cultural ties among Northern people. We hope that the Soviet Union will accept for the first time to participate in the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in 1989, as well as the Inuit Youth Camp in 1988, which will be hosted by Canada.
However, we have asked for more detailed information about what the Soviet's interest means for all practical purposes. Moreover, we shall continue to pursue our own objectives and defend our interest in the Arctic.
Our military capabilities in the North are all defensive and will remain so. The nuclear submarines which we are buying will help identify and oppose all ennemy naval activities in the Arctic, especially under the ice cap. However, the comments made by Mr. Gorbatchev and Mr. Ryzhkov do not reflect the actions of their Government. Contrary to Canada and other Northern countries, the Soviet Union has an enormous concentration of military power and weapons in the Arctic. Especially in the Kola Peninsula region where is stationned a large part of its fleet of submarines equiped with strategic missiles. The denuclearized northern zone proposed by the Soviets would not effect these forces. We believe that negotiations first and foremost offer the best hopes of a reduction, to an acceptable level, of nuclear arms and a better balance of conventional forces.


CANADA LANDS COMPANY-ALLEGED FAILURE TO FILE ANNUAL FINANCIAL RETURN-REQUEST THAT ANNUAl REPORT BE PRESENTED BY NEXT MONDAY AT LATEST
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise with regard to a question I asked on December 9, 1987 about the Government's mismanagement, incompetence and possible corruption relating to the disposition of lands in the Mirabel Airport area. This is in connection with resales of land to former farmers, former tenants, the farmers being the original
January 28, 1988

owners and to land speculators, many of whom as events have unfolded are Tory Party organizers or Tory Party supporters.
1 asked a tough question not only because of the allegations which have come out, some of which are already the subject of lawsuits relating to the company, but because the Mirabel Land Corporation had failed to file its financial statements. According to the Auditor General, it was the only Crown corporation which had failed to file its corporate statements during the time and on time as provided.
The Canadian people have seen a lot of scandals associated with this Government. Some of them are before the criminal courts, some of them have been dealt with by special inquiries. This one is in part already before the courts in a civil suit.
1 would like to remind the House what this civil suit is about. A farmer whose land was expropriated claims that he was offered his land back provided he would flip it to a Tory organizer who operated a quarry. When he agreed to flip the land at a small mark-up which was settled in an agreement he was asked to keep secret, he consulted his Member of Parliament, and the media tell us that his Member of Parliament told him to keep his mouth shut and not complain or he would not get the land. When the land was transferred, not only did he get the 80 hectares of which he had originally been expropriated but he got 320 hectares, I believe, and so it went throughout the entire scandalous disposition of this land.
I want to give the Government more opportunity than the ordinary Question Period provides to explain itself. 1 do not think the explanations that government Members have been giving so far are washing. The explanations they are giving involve alleged improper sales or improper conduct on the part of the Liberal Government, the preceding Government, in the way this project was put together. One can see that that is not a logical defence.
There is no reason for what was done before this Government took office in connection with land deals to excuse the type of conduct and behaviour we are criticizing in the House of Commons. However, government Members have not even gone so far as to explain why they consider the conduct of the former Government scandalous.
When we were the Government, one thing we did have was a pretty vigilant operation. The people who are now in Government were the Opposition. In that entire period, I cannot recall, with all the efforts they made to damage the Government of the day, to find scandals and to force Ministers to resign, anything arising from this that at the time was used to successfully or otherwise damage us.
I suggest that the kinds of defences and explanations government Members have been using-


Dave Nickerson: How can you say that with a straight face?
Adjournment Debate


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Hon. Member will have a chance to answer, and I am looking forward to hearing the kind of answer that will condone or excuse the type of behaviour that we on this side of the House have been criticizing. I do not think that the Canadian people care to hear government Members defend their reprehensible behaviour in the Mirabel Land Corporation by making allegations about the former Government. Government Members are big boys and girls. They owe it to the Canadian people to have ethical standards in their own Government, and I would like to give them the opportunity to try to explain or defend the reprehensible conduct that is now a matter of public record.
Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, the question the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) asked in the House on December 9, 1987 contained two items: one, the filing of the annual report, and two, the so-called dismissal of the board at that time. The Hon. Member stated that the Canada Lands Company had broken the law by failing to file its Annual Financial Return statement by last June. The Minister explained previously that discussions with the Auditor General were being concluded and that he would have the information tabled at the first opportunity. The Minister tabled the Financial statements on December 14, immediately following his receipt of the required Auditor General's accompanying letter. The entire annual report of the corporation was then tabled on January 18, 1988, when the House reconvened.
It is obvious that you cannot close a corporation's books for the year while the auditors are there and you cannot have the financial statements finalized until the auditor's report is complete. So to say that the company broke the law is rather misleading. Perhaps the timing requirements of the Financial Administration Act in this regard are a bit too rigid and should be looked at. The point is that the Minister provided the House with all information and fulfilled all of his statutory obligations in this regard at the earliest possible opportunity. That is fact.
The Member might want to note that under the previous Liberal Government, which he said administered the country so well, the financial statements for the years ending 1982 and 1983 were not tabled until mid-1984, unbelievably late by today's standards. They were not considered late by the Liberals then because they had not bothered to have any such legal requirements. It is clear that the Opposition's record on these matters is poor.
What is of more importance is that the board of directors was not "fired by the Government" and replaced last summer, as alleged by the Hon. Member for York Centre. It has been well established over past weeks that the Minister made several improvements over the past months in certain administrative practices of the corporation. Various audits and reviews did identify minor deficiencies, but basically the corporation's record is a very good one. The corporation has done extremely

January 28, 1988
Adjournment Debate
well since 1984 in bringing a just and equitable solution to a terrible Liberal legacy.
One of the actions the Minister took was to make three new board appointments in July, 1987. This was in response to the observation of the Auditor General that all the members of the board consisted of officers of the corporation. The new appointments were made to broaden the board's representation to include the federal Public Service and the private sector. The appointments were not made in criticism of the then board members, but to eliminate any possible perception of a conflict of interest.
The direction of the company was not changed in August, 1987, as the Hon. Member suggested. Unlike the previous Government, which only got itself deeper and deeper into trouble, never resolving anything, the corporation under this Government was well along in implementing real solutions. Real progress had been made and justice delivered. A difficult concept for the Hon. Members to understand, it would seem, but true nonetheless.
SHIPBUILDING-INQUIRY WHEN SIX FRIGATES WILL BE BUILT/REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 I asked questions in the House relating to the Canadian shipbuilding industry. I asked about the awarding of a second contract for the construction of six patrol frigates for the Canadian Navy. I also pursued removal of the exemption from duty of large fishing boats, a policy of the previous Liberal Government which has been continued by the present Government. The answers were quite unsatisfactory and reflected the failure of the Conservative Government to develop policy for the shipbuilding industry. In my few minutes this evening I want to address the importance of proper and open planning to the shipbuilding industry in Canada, a need which the Government has failed so lamentably to recognize, it seems.
The plight of the industry of course needs little elaboration. There is very little commercial work to be done other than repair of vessels. There is a great deal of unemployment in every community where a shipyard or a related facility has long been in existence. The only possibility that exists under the present Government's inactive policy is that government work may, as was true in the last days of the Trudeau Government, provide some opportunity for employment in a variety of shipyards. The question is: How many yards will be able to use government contracts in order to keep men at work and keep those companies in operation?
In this context, I want to express my astonishment at the Government's decision just days before Christmas past to award the second half dozen patrol frigates entirely to the Saint John shipyard. That was truly an incredible decision which went against all the expectations aroused in Quebec and which betrayed, I assert, the assurances given to the people of Quebec. It created an enormous amount of ill feeling up and
down the St. Lawrence Valley against the present Conservative Government. In response to the Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on November 4, 1987, in specific relation to the matter of the frigate contracts, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Cote) said:
We will continue to defend the interests not only of Quebecers but of all
Canadians as well.
That is one of those famous statements which deserves to be carved in stone up and down the St. Lawrence Valley with regard to that particular contract.
It is particularly repugnant to Quebecers to see one particular enterprise, the Irving interests in Saint John, receiving this very large contract to the detriment of the provincially owned Marine Industries Limited with yards up and down the St. Lawrence.
The other point that I was determined to make had to do with the refusal of the Government to consider a removal of the exemption of large fishing boats from the payment of duty. That exemption is now justified to be removed. The fishing industry is in good shape and there is a possibility that construction of large vessels for the fishery could be carried on in Canada in Atlantic yards for which the Government seems to have such tender feelings.
The refusal of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) even to meet with Marine Industries early in 1987, when planning was going forward on the Budget that he brought forward last February, is simply incredible. It indicates the blindness of the Government in one particular area where commercial work might be developed for Canadian yards. In the Minister's absence again, unfortunately, I want to make the point again that that is one of the items which the Government should be looking at as it considers the Budget for 1988.
In this context, although undeclared, we have seen a policy of rationalization which means closure of yards. It has been most obvious in Ontario where the Admirable Yard, a century old in Collingwood, had to be closed. As a result, ship building and ship repair operations in the Province of Ontario are now entirely controlled by one company. I note again that when the Minister was responding to my question, he spoke of the need to provide healthy competition in order to encourage regional development. There is no healthy competition left in the Province of Ontario.
Rationalization along the St. Lawrence became obvious to us first in the spring of 1986 when a letter came to the attention of the public which made it clear that there was to be a rationalization which is now being carried through under the compulsion which the Government, by its lack of policy, has imposed on the industry. As a result of that, building will be carried on only at Lauzon. Sorel may be involved in the construction of modules for vessels. Vickers is completely out of the maritime industry under this policy. That is the
January 28, 1988

consequence of the lack of policy which the Government has had.
The possibility that there will be naval work of sorts is still an entirely open question. The Government's determination to build a certain number of nuclear submarines will soak up incredible amounts of public funds. Will we see the patrol vessels and minesweepers built which could provide work in other yards? Surely it would be far better to have conventional submarines at less cost and other vessels including perhaps another half dozen patrol frigates.
In conclusion, we need a process of open dealings with the industry and consultation with the public, workers, and management in order to establish the policies which could put shipbuilding on a sound basis and continue it with prosperity into the 1990s.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the concerns raised by my colleague from Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). The Government's strategy regarding shipbuilding and repair is clear and precise. We have two primary objectives which guide our policy, the rationalization of our shipbuilding industry and regional development. The awarding of the frigate contract to Saint John Shipbuilding proves the Government's commitment to these objectives.
We are all aware of the considerations that led to the announcement that took place in late December. In reaching this decision, our Government took into account that in 1983, Saint John Shipbuilding Limited had obtained the prime contract through the competitive bidding process. Thus the Government did not have to draw up a new contract, it simply added a modification to the old one.
Over the course of the past four years a great deal of time, energy and money has been invested in order to develop installations and expertise and to improve the over-all administrative structures necessary to execute the work. During a period of fiscal constraint, we have endeavoured to avoid repeating unnecessary expenditures and to take advantage of
Adjournment Debate
what we already possess. It is evident that these reasons of economy, efficiency and expertise helped determine the Government's decision.
Similarly, the design, construction and integration of the weapons-control systems-work amounting to approximately $800 million-will be carried out, as in the case of the first six frigates, by Paramax Electronics of Montreal.
The award of the frigate contract again demonstrates the Government's firm commitment to making procurement work for the economic development of Canada as a whole. For example, the sub contracts that will go to other companies will bring industrial benefits to many regions of Canada. Part of that contract will be handled by a firm in Hamilton adjacent to my riding in Ontario. It is estimated that in the second phase of this project 50 per cent of the benefits will go to Atlantic Canada; 24 per cent to Quebec; and 26 per cent to Ontario and western Canada.
Calculated over the entire life of the 12-ship project, the breakdown is slightly different: 37 per cent to Atlantic Canada; 33 per cent to Quebec; and 30 per cent to Ontario and western Canada. Over the course of the next nine years, the construction of the six patrol frigates will represent the equivalent of 14,000 person-years of employment, with more than half of the jobs going to workers in the Atlantic region alone where employment opportunities are most welcome.
Our Government is pleased that the Atlantic region will benefit so much. At the same time, we are pleased with the benefits in which all Canadians will share.
In closing, the announcement of the patrol frigate contract to Saint John Shipbuilding confirms their status as a centre of excellence for Canadian shipbuilding.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, January 29, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers
Mr. Speaker:: 1 should like to advise the House that I will be giving a ruling at the conclusion of Routine Proceedings.