1988-06-10

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Resumption of debate on motion of Mr. Lewis
The House resumed from Thursday, June 9, consideration of Order No. 26 for the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House, from the day of adoption of this motion and until no later than Friday, September 9, 1988, the House will meet on the days and at the times specified in Standing Order 3, but not on August 1;
That, during such period, the Speaker shall adjourn the House on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10.00 o'clock p.m., and on Wednesdays at 6.00 o'clock p.m., and on Fridays at 3.00 o'clock p.m., and that the provisions of Standing Order 66 relating to the adjournment proceedings shall be suspended;
That, during such period, the Standing Order respecting the daily mid-day interruption of business on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays shall not be suspended;
That, at 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, or at the conclusion of Private Members' Business, the House shall proceed to "Government Orders" pursuant to Standing Order 22;
That, following the adoption of this motion, no motion under Standing Order 10(1) shall be receivable; and
That, this special order shall not apply on any allotted days designated in the supply period ending June 30, 1988.
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to give you, with respect, my views on the procedural problem Your Honour will have to deal with in ruling whether the motion presented by the Government is in order.
First of all, I would like to answer the question put to Hon. Members yesterday when you asked us, Mr. Speaker, for our thoughts on section 49 of the British North American Act and how that section might affect the ruling the Chair will have to make very shortly on whether the Government's motion aimed at speeding up the passage of the free trade bill and dealing with the rest of the Government's agenda is in order.
Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what was said by the Hon. Member for Otatwa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who submitted our view that section 49 of the British North America Act referred exclusively to substantive matters that must be decided on, and which only can be decided on, according to our Constitution, by the elected Members of this House. My hon. colleague submitted that, in procedural matters, only the Speaker of the House is competent to decide.

Section 49 of the BNA Act says that questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the voices are equal but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a vote. The interpretation of my Party on this is a twofold one. First, all questions are decided by a vote of whatever kind. Sometimes it is a voice vote, Sometimes it is a recorded vote, sometimes a few voices say d'accord or agreed. However, there is only one way to dispose of an item before the House, and that is by a vote. Second, we say that this means the Speaker is not involved in the voting process unless there is a tie. When there is a tie, the Speaker casts a vote.
That being said, let me place this in context. On the question before us, if one wants to look at the effect of Section 49 of the BNA on the Speaker when he has to make a decision, I would like to say we would have to wait until a later stage to see the effect of Section 49. That section is obviously applicable at a certain stage, the voting stage, when a subject has to be finally decided upon by the House. We are not yet there. I submit that before we come to a vote on the motion submitted by the Government, there has to be a debate. However, before there is a debate something else has to take place, that is, the Speaker and only the Speaker, has to determine whether or not the motion on the Order Paper is in order. I humbly submit to Your Honour that we can come back to Section 49 once we have gone through the stage of having the Chair determine whether this can be discussed.
Third, after a debate has taken place and we get to a vote, I think the question Your Honour has asked us to react to would be better entertained at that stage. In other words, I am saying that there is no way that the question as to whether or not the motion is allowable can be decided by anyone but the Speaker.
Standing Order 1 reads as follows:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the

June 10, 1988
Extension of Sittings
House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and
other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
I submit that if there is one question that can be thought of, to go back to the Standing Order I just read, as being a case not provided for by the rules, the one before us, or which may come before us if you so decide, is such a question. The motion introduced by the Government starts with the words "Notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House". That certainly falls outside our rules. I submit that in a case like this, because of Standing Order 1 and because of our past practices, only the Speaker can determine whether this motion is allowable.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it is obvious that under Standing Order 1, only the Speaker can decide, in this case, whether the question before the House is in order.
However, to help Your Honour in reaching a decision, I would like to submit my position and that of my Party. I maintain that the beginning of the motion, which starts with the word:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House ...
... renders the motion inadmissible for the purposes of debate. I say inadmissible, because the Chair cannot allow suspension of the Standing Orders. There is a basic principle in our parliamentary system which has come down to us from the Mother of Parliaments, the Parliament at Westminster, and it is that all democratic debate in these precincts is governed by certain rules.
The motion the Government is trying to present in the House starts with the premise that the Standing Orders must be suspended.
I submit that, because of that fact alone, the motion the Government wishes to present is inadmissible, not only because it requests suspension of the Standing Orders but because it also requests a suspension of the practices of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I also maintain that besides being unacceptable, the motion is even out of order, because, in my opinion, it is undemocratic. The whole set of Standing Orders before us, which has been accepted over the years, usually by all Members and all political parties unanimously, is based on the following principle: that debates in the House take place in accordance with established rules known to every Member.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the first right of an elected Member is to be able to enter and sit in this House. But probably his most important privilege is to be assured at all times that the debates that take place here comply with known and established rules that cannot be changed unless the Standing Orders themselves are changed or unless unanimous consent to override them is given by those who sit in the House at a particular time.
I maintain that in the present case, even discussing a motion that begins with the words "That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House..." is in itself undemocratic because this way of proceeding holds independent Members and minorities in this House in contempt. For the first time, this would sanction the possibility for a Government to use its majority, an overwhelming majority in the House, to operate completely outside the established rules and to impose its will.
Mr. Speaker, within this motion-and I do not want to get into the specific contents, but only mention them in passing- there are already things that are hard for an Opposition party to accept. But the most important one is that the motion begins by suggesting that the Standing Orders will not apply.
And I would like to suggest, perhaps on a jocular note, Mr. Speaker, that were I to draw a parallel between the House of Commons and a court of justice, if this were a court, the Minister of State (Treasury Board) who put the motion would have to answer for his actions. He would have to sit in the box in the House of Commons to account for his illegal act, and illegal it is in the light of our Standing Orders because this is something that goes against the Standing Orders.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make another point, because the argument will be made that on occasions the House strayed procedurally from its Standing Orders. This indeed has happened, but I would remind Your Honour that usually, or rather at all times when some Members, for reasons of convenience, request to be exempted from the rules, this is granted admittedly, but with unanimous consent.
For instance, we have seen on many occasions, in order to accommodate one or all Members sitting here, that it is agreed not to see the clock, for instance in order for a colleague to complete his comments. Also, we have seen Hon. Members unanimously agree to revert for instance to Motions or to Tabling of Bills, where a Minister would have entered the House after the time provided for doing so had elapsed. On a number of occasions we have seen Hon. Members grant unanimous consent for the Chair to be exempted from reading a motion that is often very long. We even have seen Hon. Members give unanimous consent for the Chair to do away with the ringing of the bells for calling in the Members for a vote. Is there a more sacred right than that of a Member in this House to know when a vote will be held and to have his attention called by the bells? Points of order have been raised previously on that, in this House. However, it happens quite regularly that we give unanimous consent for the Chair to be exempted from ringing the bells, when everyone agrees that a vote was held earlier an Hon. Members who are supposed to be here already are in their places.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, you will note that whenever the Chair is authorized to set aside our Standing Orders, to use a procedure or a way of doing things which is contrary to that provided for
June 10, 1988

in our Standing Orders, in each and every case which I submitted to you, all Hon. Members were in agreement and willing to give what is properly called the unanimous consent of the House, meaning that everybody agreed to set aside our Standing Orders.
Well, I submit that in this case, it is clear that the Chair could not obtain the unanimous consent of the House to set aside our Standing Orders and make it possible for the Government to have its motion debated in the House.
For that matter, I suggest that Your Honour in his wisdom would not even attempt to ask for the unanimous consent of the House.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention on a basic element of our Standing Orders which is its permanent nature.
Whoever opens our Standing Orders and starts reading it- there might be some of our colleagues who have never done so-if a stranger were to come here to read our Standing Orders, what would he find first? Even before the Table of Contents, even before Standing Order 1, he will read the Foreword. Even before getting to our Standing Orders, he will read this:
The Standing Orders were amended on Wednesday, June 3, 1987, and came
into effect, permanently-
I call the attention of the Chair on the word "permanently".
-on Monday, June 8, 1987. In addition, an amendment to Standing Order
89(2) adding a new paragraph (e), was adopted by the House on Tuesday,
June 30, 1987.
Why do I call the attention of the Chair on the word "permanently"? Simply because I want everybody in the House to be aware of it, since I know that Your Honour understands the meaning of the word "permanent". It is to emphasize the real meaning of this word. The word "permanent" is used here as the opposite of "provisional".
Before we were provided with these permanent Standing Orders which we use everyday, our debates were governed by provisional Standing Orders which we used for a while on an experimental basis. However, since June 8, 1967 those Standing Orders have become permanent. As I said, they are not temporary nor transitional. It means that they are here to stay and I wonder if the Minister who tabled the motion which appears on the Order Paper has taken into account the fact that the Standing Orders are here to stay and to be implemented daily and not be set aside to allow the Government to come in this House and say:
... notwithstanding any Standing Order.
The opening sentence I just mentioned is also quite interesting because it provides a specific example of how the Government or any other hon. Member whether on the Opposition side or on the Government side, should proceed to obtain the consent of the House to alter the Standing Orders.
Extension of Sittings
Moreover, an amendment adding a new paragraph (e) to Standing Order 89(2) was passed in this House on Tuesday, June 30, 1987. All those who were sitting here remember that even when the Standing Orders had become permanent and the Government saw fit to amend them, it did not resort to an exceptional measure, it did not use the back-door approach or underhanded tricks, rather it presented an amendment in the House and such an amendment was in that case unanimously passed.
Therefore Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders are permanent and are meant to stay. They are used to rule on all cases before the House of Commons. They are not provisional. The Standing Orders cannot be implemented at someone's pleasure, whether it is the Government, a backbencher on the government side or in the opposition.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I remind you that in our opinion, in the opinion of the Liberal Party of Canada, it will be up to Your Honour to make a decision, to determine if the motion standing in the name of the Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) in the Order Paper is acceptable and may be discussed here. As I said, we object to this motion because it is mainly proposing to override the rules. And I maintain that if Your Honour was to approve it, sooner or later the House could end up in a complete chaos. In fact, it would create a precedent to the effect that the rules are left to the good will of the Governement and that they can be overridden any time to make decisions.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks I wanted to convey to you to help you make an important decision which will have historical consequences.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to add a few short remarks to the procedural discussion that is before the House at the moment with regard to whether or not we should be setting aside the Standing Orders to facilitate the Government's ineptitude and incompetence and allow it to sit extra hours and into the summer in order to carry out the mandate it received from the people of Canada since, unfortunately, it has not been able to carry that out in the normal time allotted for government business.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) as I have clearly indicated I would. I want to hear him. However, given the hour and given the fact that we had a great deal of discussion on this yesterday, I want to give a bit of a signal to all Hon. Members that I hope we can wrap up this discussion between now and eleven o'clock. I hope that that is possible. I have heard extensive discussion, all of which is helpful, and I am just giving a bit of a signal, not to the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, but to other Hon. Members, that I am looking to eleven o'clock to close off this argument.
June 10, 1988

Extension of Sittings


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your interest in getting on with the business of the House, but I think we find ourselves at a crossroads today.
My thesis is that the Government is using its huge majority in the House of Commons to usurp the Chair. It is you who is also being challenged today.
As my friend, the Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guil-bault) has indicated, the Standing Orders point out two very relevant areas. The first relevant area is in the beginning of the Standing Orders that all of us memorize and learn to use to make this a productive and positive place. It indicates that these Standing Orders, which came into effect and which we use in the House at this moment, are permanent. I do not know what you or other Members think "permanent" means, but to me it means permanent. It means we do not deviate from them unless there is unanimous consent to do so.
When we adopted these Standing Orders, it was done unanimously. There were discussions and consultations day after day, week after week, until there was unanimous consent in the House that these are the rules and regulations we wish to follow as parliamentarians.
Standing Order 4 lays out the calendar year. We agreed for the first time, on what I thought was one of the more sensible decisions taken by the House, to establish a parliamentary calendar year so that we knew with some precision when the House would sit and when it would not, when we would conduct the business of the people of Canada and when we would not.
It allowed for parliamentarians from all across Canada to make arrangements in their own constituencies and to be there to serve their constituents at a time when the House would be recessed or adjourned, as the case may be. This was in the Standing Order and was something that we agreed to.
Standing Order 5 states:
Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that being so satisfied the House shall meet, and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
We saw this last summer. We were adjourned for the summer recess and the Government approached you and made it clear that it felt it was necessary to recall Parliament. You did that, Mr. Speaker. That is your obligation, your responsibility, and your right.
The House of Commons has given you that right in Standing Order 5. We felt that it was appropriate that you recall parliamentarians, not the Government but you in your position of representing all Members of the House. You are in a very exalted position, Mr. Speaker, because you are the first elected Speaker of the House. Every Member elected you to represent their interests and, similarly, to protect their privileges.
Now, the Government has decided to go past you, to ignore the Speaker's Chair and say that it is not prepared to go to the Speaker to request his decision to recall Parliament to do the business of Canada. It is saying that it does not have to go to the Speaker because it knows best. It has decided that it will extend the hours and, if necessary, will sit into July, August and the early part of September without asking the Speaker to decide, in spite of the fact that the Speaker represents all Members and all Parties in the House. The Government has decided to set aside the rules of the House of Commons. It has thrown them out. It has indicated on a number of occasions that it is prepared to abandon the rules.
But something more sinister is happening. It wants to abandon you and your Chair and the responsibilities and traditions of that Chair as well. That is exactly what this motion does. It sets aside your right to recall Parliament. It is called the dictatorship of the majority. It has decided to ignore the rules of the House of Commons, ignore the Speaker's Chair and do whatever it wants because it has the muscle to do it. The parliamentary bully boys.
We put our faith in the Speaker. That is what we did unanimously when we adopted the rules of the House of Commons.
We are at a very critical crossroads. If you permit this motion to stand in its present form, we are saying that we are setting aside the rights of the Speaker to decide how this place is run and giving that right to whomever is in the majority on the government benches, to do whatever they decide is in the best interests of the House of Commons. That is not what we were elected to do.
I submit with all humility that that is not what we expect the Chair to do as well. In conclusion, I do not think there is any way to justify proceeding with this motion in its present form. We will be awaiting your decision with some trepidation.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker. You pointed out a few moments ago that you intended-you gave us a hint. You didn't say it was your final decision but you hinted that you might end this procedural debate at around eleven this morning. Mr. Speaker,
I hope that was only a hint. When we say "Standing Orders", why do we have Standing Orders? Their purpose is to allow us to conduct our business in a matter that is harmonious, intelligent and civilized. In a family there are rules for conducting the family's affairs in an intelligent way. Companies have rules. Wherever people get together, there are rules. And we in the House of Commons, that court of last resort as Mr. Diefenbaker liked to call us on many occasions, and it is, in fact, just that. Because this is so important, we decided to have rules that would help us conduct the affairs of this country, of this nation of ours, of Canada, in a more intelligent, harmonious and less acrimonious fashion.
June 10, 1988

We all remember that regrettable, unfortunate and in my view intolerable incident when the bells were allowed to ring, and it got to the point where the whole electrical system was overloaded and became a fire hazard. I sat several nights here in the House to relieve Madam Speaker or whoever was in the Chair at the time. I sat during the night while the bells were ringing. I was alone, and I thought about the situation in the Middle East. I was thinking about the world's problems. It was all very unusual because there was no Standing Order to deal with the situation, so a group of parliamentarians was given the task to improve our Standing Orders. But that takes a long time, Mr. Speaker!

It is a long process when you want to change the rules of the House of Commons.
I know that Your Honour wants to render a judgment sooner than later. Therefore, I will not read what I had prepared last night and this morning.
However, we had a report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons. I wanted to quote from Chapter 3: "Evolution de la Chambre des communes". It was a slow process to get where we are today because when we deal with the House of Commons rules it must be a slow process. Some people want more and some want less. We came to a good agreement under which we would not have any more stupid incidents like the famous bell incident, and Your Honour was given a lot of responsibility. We have all had the honour of recognizing you, Mr. Speaker, as the ultimate referee of this House of Commons. You are the ultimate person to decide what is right and what is wrong, and because we do respect you, we abide by your rulings most of the time, if not always. Very clearly in the new rules of the House of Commons, which we wanted to be very orderly, it is written that the House will adjourn at a certain time and will sit at a certain time.
Canadians may like to see the calendar of the House of Commons for 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. We already know how to manage our affairs in an orderly fashion until December, 1993. It is in the rules. As they say in good English, it is in the book.
On top of that, Your Honour was given a greater responsibility. Your Honour exercised his judgment last summer. You first did not see fit to recall us during the recess. I may have disagreed with Your Honour when you recalled us last summer urgently to deal with an immigration and refugee problem. But we came back in August because Your Honour decided there should be an urgent debate, and now it is June 10. By the way, on June 10, 1957, Mr. Louis St. Laurent was re-elected Prime Minister of Canada. I have no notes, but I remember. You recalled us to discuss an urgent matter. It was unbelievably urgent. It was a scandalous situation because there were some people who were dumped by a ship on our coast. Even today,
Extension of Sittings
we are still under the special order because the urgent matter for which we were called back is not yet resolved. Whoever is at fault, we have not yet seen the end of that debate. But Your Honour decided to recall Parliament at the request of the Government because Your Honour saw fit to see there was an urgency. I want Canadians to understand that it is in the rules, it is in the book. Standing Order 5 states:
Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that being so satisfied the House shall meet, and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
In the case of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, who is present here today, a remarkably fine gentleman from Quebec, has the opportunity to do so. It continues according to the good British parliamentary system. We have a good line of authority in our parliamentary system. At times I feel I defend the British parliamentary system with more passion than any Anglophone in this country. It is a good system. There is a line of authority. If Your Honour cannot act, the Deputy Speaker can. If the Deputy Speaker cannot act, the Acting Speakers under him can act accordingly. We did that in order to proceed and discuss our affairs in an orderly fashion. That is the reason we have rules. Otherwise, what is the use of having rules?
I see your signal, but that also could be debated because your decision is so important. Your Honour may be put on the spot by the Government and I do not want to see my Speaker put on the spot by the Government. Mr. Speaker is above Government. He is the servant of all the House, of all Members, the Opposition as well as the Government. He is the first servant. He is not the master. He is the servant and he has to use his intelligence and judgment to ensure that we conduct our affairs in an orderly fashion. That is why he was elected. That is why he became the Speaker. That is why, a year or two later he still has the full confidence of the House. He is above us all as our servant.
I do not understand why the Government decided on this course of action at this time. It could have waited. It could have terminated its sittings on June 30, as the rules say, and convinced Your Honour that it was in the best interests of Canada, not of the Government, that this House should be recalled to discuss a very important Bill, and there are important Bills to be discussed. The Government may have succeeded in convincing Your Honour to recall us next summer and, therefore, keep the peace of the House. Otherwise, what is the use of having worked out all these rules? What is the use of having this big book? Why should we have rules? Why should we have had a parliamentary committee which worked on these rules? There were people who year after year after year sat with each other and others to arrive at a gentleman's and ladies' agreement on the way in which we would conduct our affairs in a more orderly fashion without having to go back to the silliness being brought upon this House by those who are now the Government while they were in opposition when the bells rang for days and days. Canadians

June 10, 1988
Extension of Sittings
thought we were a bunch of nuts, and they were absolutely right. They said: "What the hell is going on in that House of Commons, letting the bells go on and on for 10 days?" So we made an end to it by agreement, and it serves the Government very well today that we cannot use that tactic, and I would not join in using that kind of tactic. If it were still in the rules, we could use it, so I am glad it is not in the rules any longer.
I do not understand the rationale of the Government. What does it really want? Does it want this kind debate, so therefore I am helping it in its electoral strategy? It knows this resolution is offensive. It knows we are bound to fight. Therefore, it will say: "Look at the Opposition. It is delaying the important affairs of the state. Therefore, there is nothing else we can do but to call an election". It seems to me that this is linked with the Government's electoral strategy. But you, Mr. Speaker, do not need to join in, not you, Your Honour, because you are above all of this. Your are above the Government.
I know that my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East wishes to participate in the debate. Faithful to what Your Honour has said, I will try not to be upset at 11 a.m. You have given us a signal that you want to render a decision, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure that you should. I am not sure that you should not.
Remember, you are the servant of the House and you have your authority and our confidence.


Mr. Speaker:: I want the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) to know that I may have given a signal. It might have been some indication that there is an appropriate time to conclude the argument. I want the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis to know this. As long as the Hon. Member has something to say to me I will continue to listen. I do not in any way wish to interrupt the Hon. Member.


Marcel Prud'homme: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before my colleague takes the floor I want to say that that is the beauty of this Parliament. I respect Your Honour. I have a lot more to add. As I said, I would have liked to quote extensively from the report of Mr. McGrath, who is today the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, but I will not abuse your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I will sit down.
I will try to put to the Chair that the Government has acted too urgently. The Government is embarrassing our Speaker. I would like to speak for hours because I feel I am a friend of the court, as is said. As a friend of the court-a friend of the institution-it is my duty to say, Mr. Speaker, you have a tough decision to render. I hope that if this debate terminates at eleven o'clock, between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. the Government will come to its senses and not pursue this unfortunate debate any further with respect to what it wants by a zap to change the rules of the House. Thank you for your kind patience, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to make it absolutely clear that no one in the Opposition is opposed to sitting during the summer to pass important legislation which will benefit the Canadian people, and that legislation must be passed during the summer. No one in the Opposition is opposed to doing that. But the issue here is whether every time the Government cannot operate within the permanent rules it can then go and changes the rules.
The reason in this case that it cannot operate within the permanent rules is that it was negligent in putting before this House certain legislation that it should have put before the House a long time ago.
With respect to the free trade legislation, the free trade deal was signed on January 2, 1988, yet it took the Government four and a half months, almost five, to put the legislation to the House, despite the fact that the free trade deal was being negotiated for the two previous years. Here we have a situation in which the Government, because it could not live within the rules due to its own negligence, tries to change the rules. That is like the Toronto Maple Leafs, because they cannot win at hockey with the ordinary rules set down for the game, cannot beat Edmonton, Montreal or Calgary, they want to change the rules so that they can win the game.
We have a set of rules. This set of rules was agreed to unanimously by the House a few years ago after long study, two long studies, one in the last Parliament carried out by Tom Lefebvre, who was Chairman of a committee on parliamentary reform. It made a report recommending certain changes to the rules to improve them. Then there was the committee under the chairmanship of the present Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, James McGrath.
After these reports were put to the House we adopted a new set of rules. Here we have the Government, because it cannot operate under the rules decided upon by this House, wanting to suspend them. The worst part about this, as Hon. Members have said, is that the present rules provide that if it is necessary to sit during the summer, the Government can make an application to the Speaker and the Speaker will judge whether or not it is in the public interest that we sit.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Opposition accept that. We accepted those rules. We believe that the Speaker should have the right to accept a motion from the Government that we sit during the summer when it is in the public interest to do so. But we do not agree, and we think it is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to reject a motion such as this, simply to suspend the rules of the House because the Government cannot do what it wants to do under the present rules. I submit that is against all our democratic traditions.
I also want to read into the record again a statement by Sir John Bourinot, the great commentator on parliamentary practice, who said:
June 10, 1988

The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, have
always been kept steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament; these are: To
protect a minority and restrain the improvidence of tyranny of a majority;
In other words, the rules of the House are there to make sure that even a small minority in Parliament will have the right and the opportunity to raise questions with respect to legislation, with respect to the business of the country. If the Government can suspend those rules by using a large majority, and does that every time the rules do not suit it, then we are in for serious trouble. This could lead to a very dangerous precedent. The next thing we know the Government because it does not like three readings on a Bill, may decide that we will have only one reading on a Bill; or because the Government does not like an extended debate, we will have a short debate.
That is the implication of this precedent when there is a Government with 210 Members and the biggest majority in Canadian history and it cannot live within the rules of Parliament that were unanimously agreed to after two long reports of parliamentary committees.
What it is saying is that Jim McGrath and his committee were wrong. What it is saying is that Tom Lefebvre and his committee were wrong. It has had conflicts within its own caucus, it could not agree what to do with respect to abortion. The Supreme Court ruled on abortion in February, yet it took the Government until the middle of May to come forward with a motion-not a piece of legislation but a multiple choice motion, not a solution to the problem.
The reason we have delays is that the government Party cannot manage the business. It cannot decide within its own caucus what it should put before Parliament. We are now left to the last moment when it wants to rush all this legislation through against the interests of the country.
I submit that one of the reasons that we have debate in this Parliament is not simply to decide the vote in this Parliament. We know who will win the vote in this Parliament. The Government with its large majority will do that. One of the principles of the House is that by debating in this House we influence public opinion outside the House and the media outside the House. That can only be done sometimes by extended debate.
If we look at the Government's attempt to deindex old age pensions, we see that if that had come to a vote immediately after the Government proposed it, it would have gone ahead and done it. It would have deindexed old age pensions. But by extended debate in the House we were able to bring to the attention of the Canadian population what the Government was doing. That takes some time. The media picked it up and private interest groups picked it up. Finally, the Government backed down because the Canadian population was able to tell it that it was wrong.


Mr. Lewis:: Warren wants 10 weeks' holiday.


Mr. Allmand:: I am ready to sit here all summer if it is to get important things done for the Canadian people, but I am not
willing to sit here to bail out a negligent and improvident Government.
I remind you once again, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude on this point, that Standing Order 1 states;
In ail cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions-
I submit the jurisdiction in the U.K. and other Commonwealth countries. It is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to reject this tyrannical motion to suppress the rights of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his comments and I will, of course, give them very careful consideration.
It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 19(4), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, James Keegstra's 1985 conviction under our hate literature law was overturned this week by the Alberta Court of Appeal. The court said that this law was inconsistent with the freedom of expression assured by our Charter of Rights.
Let us remember, therefore, that this decision was founded on the court's interpretation of this law as written, it was not a vindication of Mr. Keegstra's views.
Seventeen years after the hate literature section of the Criminal Code was passed we are revisiting a basic tenet of our democratic nationhood-standing steadfast in our support for freedom of speech, while preventing wrongful public attack of identifiable groups.
Where do we go from here?
The Justice Minister says the Government is now reviewing the hate literature law, but we also need a commitment from Government that it will ask the Supreme Court to examine this very important issue, should the Alberta Attorney General not do so. This is the kind of commitment we need today.
In moving forward, we must search for a solution that strikes a careful balance between protecting all members of our multicultural society from unjust attack, while remaining true to the freedom of expression guaranteed in our Charter of Rights.

June 10, 1988
AGRICULTURE	FREEDOM OF INFORMATION



SITUATION OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND POTATO FARMERS

Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of Members of the House, and particularly to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the urgent need of Prince Edward Island potato farmers for financial assistance.
Due to the drought last summer, most potatoes did not reach full size. These potatoes are in storage and there is no market for them. I wish to point out that my riding, the western part of Prince Edward Island, was especially hard hit, and potato producers in this area have suffered the greatest losses.
This is a crisis situation. How discouraging it is for these farmers to plant their 1988 crop when they still have not received one penny for their 1987 crop. These farmers are in dire financial straits.
The P.E.I. Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Tim Carroll, has written to the Minister on behalf of potato producers adversely affected, most of whom reside in the western part of Prince Edward Island. He wrote to request financial assistance under those federal programs designed to aid farmers who suffer losses specifically from drought. I urge the Minister to act on this request immediately and provide this much needed financial assistance to the P.E.I. potato industry.



FAMILY VIOLENCE


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the sad effects that family violence can have on the peace and stability of the family, and especially so when children are involved. The announcement by the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) of a four-year $40 million program to address this tragic and complex problem is welcomed by all Canadians and with much satisfaction by those professionals and volunteers who work with the victims and the individuals who inflict the damage.
Family violence is indeed a serious, although somewhat hidden problem in Canada. The challenge now facing the CMHC, the Departments of Health and Welfare, Justice, the Solicitor General, Indian and Northern Affairs, and the Secretary of State is a formidable one and will demand the very best effort and resources.
I know I speak for all Canadians in wishing them success, because family violence must stop.



DENIALS OF ACCESS REQUESTS

Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, during the 1984 election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told Canadians that "secrecy and stonewalling have become a habit with the Government and we will never break the habit until we change the Government".
Well, it is clear that for this Prime Minister a vice in opposition becomes a virtue in government.
Stonewalling and secrecy are apt adjectives to describe the Tories' attitude toward sharing information with Canadians.
I say this because I have filed many access to information requests seeking information concerning the nature of Canada's involvement in chemical and biological warfare research as well as a former Conservative Defence Minister's effort to pull Canada out of NATO. I was denied access to either of these pieces of information.
In the case of the NATO request the current Defence Minister (Mr. Beatty) invoked a rarely used section of the Access to Information Act which permits him not even to acknowledge the existence of the material requested. He refused even to acknowledge the existence of the material.
That, Mr. Speaker, should give us all pause. The Tories' obsession with secrecy is a habit that, to quote the Prime Minister, "we will never break until we change the Government". This is firm proof of the need for a New Democratic Party Government.



FAMILY VIOLENCE


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, we were certainly pleased earlier this week when the federal Government announced a $40 million initiative to address the problem of family violence. In addition to the $22 million allocated to acquisition or construction of additional emergency housing for abused women and their children, the remainder of the funds will be used for programs of prevention, education, and support for those who are victims of family violence. These may include spouses, children, youth or, sadly, the emergence of a new social problem, abuse of the elderly.
This problem cuts across social, economic, and cultural boundaries and touches on responsibilities of individuals, communities, government and non-government organizations.
Seven federal Departments will be involved in this welcome federal initiative, but there must be support from all of us if we as a society are to be effective in dealing with this shocking problem, to break the cycle of abuse in order that future
June 10, 1988

generations will not either perpetrate or suffer from the deep physical and psychological harm of family violence.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have received word from Mrs. Clare Seow-Looi of Merritt, British Columbia, that her brother, Francis Seow of Singapore, was arrested by that Government on May 6, 1988, and since that time has been held incommunicado and without trial.
Francis Seow is the former Solicitor General of Singapore and maintains a well respected position in its legal community. Mr. Seow has also spoken out in opposition to the present regime. On the day of his arrest, he had sought a writ of habeas corpus for two political prisoners who alleged torture during previous interrogations.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Seow's baseless arrest have been receiving world-wide attention. Amnesty International considers this case so serious that it has been classified as one requiring "urgent action".
On June 6, 1988, The Globe and Mail stated that Mr. Seow was held by police for attempting to "lead a group of lawyers and professors into opposition politics".
I am sure all Hon. Members of the House will join with me in expressing our grave concern over the reasons for Francis Seow's arrest, and that Mr. Seow, as is his right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, should receive due process under the law.



CANADIAN HYDROGEN AUTHORITY


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada faces important decisions on the establishment, organization, and location of the Canadian Hydrogen Authority. At stake is the outcome of Canada's national mission to be first into the hydrogen age and a world leader in hydrogen technologies.
If the authority is to be successful in leading the national mission it must have a national mandate and not represent regional interests or the interests of specific industry groups.
In establishing the authority it must be recognized that there will be stages in the development, for example, for
hydrogen technologies from the immediate and near term opportunities in fossil fuel upgrading and resource integration to the medium and longer-term opportunities in technologies for hydrogen fueled products and production of hydrogen from sustainable sources.
The authority should be organized and located to facilitate an initial focus on those technologies offering the greatest promise for an early return on investment.
The Canadian Hydrogen Authority should initially be located in Alberta close to major sources of funding for development of those hydrogen technologies offering the greatest promise for early return on investment.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if there is positive movement to control acid rain pollution this year in Washington, it is because of the work of like-minded U.S. Senators and Congressmen, not because of President Reagan's agreement to consider an acid rain agreement with Canada. The tide, we are told, may be turning.
A Bill by Democratic Senator George Mitchell of Maine proposing to reduce sulphur dioxide pollution by 12 million tonnes by the year 2000 is gaining momentum. The question is whether such a Bill can become law with less than 40 business days left in the current session of Congress. Today, 48 of the 100 Senators are prepared to support Mitchell's Bill. Right now efforts are being intensified to produce the necessary majority in the Senate.
We in the Canadian Parliament should pass a resolution wishing success to like-minded American legislators and supporting their move to stop acid rain jointly with us once and for all.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a historic agreement, in fact one of the most important Canada-Quebec agreements on regional economic development, signed yesterday by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premier of Quebec.

June 10, 1988
The purpose of this agreement will be to remedy interregional imbalances in Canada and it will provide many benefits for my riding.
After the dictatorial and arrogant regime of the previous Liberal Government, the Progressive Conservatives have embarked on an era of reconciliation and confidence in the future. By promoting regional development, the Government intends to stimulate the economy and provide a favourable climate for investment and industrial development.
This agreement marks an unprecedented step forward for regional development in Quebec and provides a framework for co-operation and for harmonizing federal and provincial development programs, while reflecting the spirit of reconciliation and national co-operation to which this Government subscribes.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-ELECTION CALL

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: On June 12, this Sunday, thousands of Canadians right across the country will be out to force the Government to hold an election before the U.S. Trade Bill is implemented.
Across this nation, Canadians will be marching on Legislatures, protesting at six border crossings, and holding afternoon meetings to suggest that free trade is unfair. They will also be making the point which these 350,000 cards from concerned Canadians make to the Government of Canada, that they "want to keep Canada and our economic political and cultural sovereignty intact". All these will be jeopardized by a free trade agreement with the United States.
The Government must call an election. That is the message of Sunday's protest. I hope it is heard.

[ Translation]



THE OPPOSITION


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, for several weeks we have been witnessing out and out guerilla warfare in this House against all the Government's bills. Neither the
Liberals nor the socialists are contributing any substantial criticism of our proposed legislation.
The Opposition keeps repeating it wants more time, but their speeches are becoming increasingly meaningless. The Liberals are conspiring, as always, with the non-elected Senate to block our legislation.
The socialists have so little discipline and so few principles that yesterday they twice voted against one of their own motions.
The Opposition is irresponsible. We are giving them hours and days and even the whole summer to debate the legislation Canadians need, but they refuse.
In these days, Mr. Speaker, candidates running for the Liberal Party get up to any number of dirty tricks to be elected, but once they are elected, they don't have time to come and sit in the House of Commons. That is the Liberal way, Mr. Speaker!



CHILDREN


Mrs. Therese Kiilens (Saint-Michell-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, according to a recent press release from the United Nations in Geneva, one than 100 million children on this planet start working at the age of eight, doing physically demanding work for a pittance. This information was taken from a study by the International Labour Organization.
These children, both boys and girls, work long hours for minimal wages, without any of the usual social benefits. This shameless exploitation takes place in brick factories in Colombia, tanneries in Egypt, mines in Peru and in the underwater fisheries in the Philippines.
Their tasks, which are very demanding, both physically and psychologically, are often highly mechanized and require the use of sharp and dangerous tools and toxic substances, in extreme heat, dust and noise.
Mr. Speaker, in the mines in Peru, the medication used by these children and any days of work lost are deducted from their wages, and it is not unusual for the children to owe money to the company that employs them.
This is an intolerable situation, Mr. Speaker, and I want to ask the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to draw the attention of the heads of state who will be taking part in the economic summit in Toronto next week to this very serious international problem.
June 10, 1988



MEMBERS' DUTY

Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenu):: Mr. Speaker, we want to sit during the summer, and I shall be pleased to do so.
During the last election, I made a commitment, along with my party, to bring about a change in our public life. Three major principles have been developed to accomplish these necessary changes: national reconciliation; sounder public finances; and enhanced international relations.
The bills which have been held up by the Liberal Senate and still are by the Senate as well as this House, by this irresponsible Opposition, are essential to the advancement of Quebec and of my region, the Outaouais. I am speaking of the Meech Lake Accord, of Bill C-22 on pharmaceutical products which was held up so long in the Senate and which, today, is already creating jobs in Quebec. I am speaking of Free Trade and of Bill C-72. These measures ought to be adopted. The Opposition and the Liberal Senate who are blocking them should be ashamed!
We will sacrifice our summer, Mr. Speaker, in order to fulfill our duty towards our fellow citizens of Quebec and Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
two countries on the issue of subsidies and on the dispute settlement mechanism? Why is Parliament being asked to debate this legislation when the key items between the two countries have still obviously not been resolved?
["Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday in the House on the debate on a Member's motion and the two votes that if I was mistaken, I would not hesitate to apologize today. I just wanted to tell you that I do not have to apologize because I was not mistaken. It is true that Raoul Wallenberg is already an honorary Canadian citizen.\nSo, Mr. Speaker, you know that the Speaker did me the honour of appointing me chairman of the legislative committee on the Bill to amend the Bretton Woods and related agreements. I have the honour to report to the House, to show that cooperation still exists and that there is no boycott and everything proceeds normally when people want to cooperate. If only the spirit of the legislative committee that studied the Bretton Woods and related agreements prevailed in this House, we would not have had this morning's unnecessary debate."]
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, first the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should not try to mislead Canadians by suggesting that all we are going to have is a five-day debate on the trade legislation.
He knows very well that on second reading debate we have offered five days and asked for the Opposition to consider other alternatives. Discussions have been going on. There has been no other alternative proposal advanced of which I am aware. But the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that there will be extensive committee study and he knows, as a distinguished parliamentarian, that it is in the committee study where one gets into clause by clause analysis and examination. Surely he would be interested in facilitating that process. We also would be very interested in hearing what he has to say in his contribution to the debate at second reading.
In so far as the discussions taking place between Canadian officials and the American officials are concerned, as has been pointed out before, it is important to ensure that the spirit of the free trade agreement is upheld. There were some concerns expressed by our Government in some particular areas. Those concerns are being addressed. In so far as the difficulties in the United States are concerned, there are obviously some internal legislative problems that are occurring, but we are confident that that will be ironed out.



Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Minister for Trade, I will put a question or two to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today marks the nine hundred and eighty-eighth day of negotiation between Canada and the United States on the Prime Minister's trade deal. Yet next week the House of Commons is being asked to debate whether or not this deal should be approved in principle. We as Members of Parliament are being allowed the sum total of five days to pronounce upon this very important closed arrangement with the United States, five days proposed by an anti-democratic Government.
Since the Prime Minister is still negotiating, since nobody has yet seen the American legislation, since there are obvious disagreements between the United States and Canada still at this point, will the Deputy Prime Minister have the common decency to tell Canadians what is going on?
What happened at the meetings conducted by the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff in Washington or aren't Canadians allowed to know that? What are the difficulties between our


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have had 988 days of negotiation on a deal which we object to because it changes the fundamental political and economic direction of this country and impinges on our sovereignty. Yet, as my House Leader and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party confirm, we are being allowed five days to decide in principle whether the representatives of the people in the House of Commons approve the deal.


CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Americans .. .


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


John Napier Turner: The Conservative
Members are a bit excited, Mr. Speaker, and rightly so, because the Americans are again discussing the constitutional validity of the dispute settlement mechanism.

June 10, 1988
Oral Questions
Did the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff confirm in Washington that this mechanism provided for in the Agreement is unconstitutional under American law? Did the Americans propose that this mechanism now come under the President? Is this situation not worse than not having the Trade Agreement would be? Why is the Government of Canada asking us to approve the Agreement immediately, within a five-day period, while negotiations are still going on in Washington?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the House knows and all Canadians know what the position of the Leader of the Opposition is. The Opposition is opposed to it and will be opposed to it whether we debate it for five days, six days, 10 days, or 20 days.
May I simply point out what the Deputy House Leader has offered opposition Parties. It is five long days, which will be the equivalent of 27 hours or nine normal days. If opposition Members want more than that, then they should tell us what they want and we will certainly take it under consideration. Do they want six, seven, or eight days? Let us sit down and negotiate that. We would be prepared to do that.
In so far as the other point the Hon. Member has made, he knows that the administration signed off on this deal. They support it, they believe it. It is subject to ratification by Congress. That is the process that we are going through right now, and we are confident that it will be approved in due course.


DEFINITION OF SUBSIDY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has a firm position for the deal, we have a firm position against the deal.


Mr. Darling:: Okay, then let's get going.


John Napier Turner: Let's get going, says the Member from Parry Sound. I want to tell him, and through him, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, that the purpose of debate is to air the views of this House of Commons to allow the people of Canada to form a judgment, and we encourage that debate and we are anxious for that debate.
The Deputy Prime Minister says that the Americans have signed off on this deal. They haven't.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The administration has.


John Napier Turner: They have not. They are still arguing and they still have an opportunity to negotiate for a five to seven-year period the definition of subsidy. That definition of subsidy is still being negotiated by the Congress and the President for the purpose of the American legislation.
I want to cite to the Deputy Prime Minister the words of one key American Senator, Max Baucus, who said, "We are going to hold Canada's feet to the fire". The agreement between the
President and the Congress to implement the Prime Minister's trade deal with the United States does not save Canada from hostile unilateral American action on subsidies; it singles out Canada for hostile action. The Prime Minister is now on the verge of delivering the exact opposite he promised Canadians, not secure access to the American market but more vulnerability to American unilateral action on subsidies.
Why, in these circumstances, when the deal is still being negotiated between the two countries, when the President and the Congress are still arguing about it, when we still have not seen the American legislation, this headlong rush by Parliament when the deal has not been closed?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about the duration of the negotiations which have been taking place between our two countries and the debate that has been going on in this House and throughout the country with respect to the free trade agreement. If he is so interested in getting on with the debate, let's get on with it. Stop the filibustering, stop the cheap procedural tactics, stop tying Parliament up. We want to get on with the work.
I know the Right Hon. Member may not want to work this summer. We are prepared to work. We want to work because there is important legislation that has to be done.


John Napier Turner: It's because you can't handle the business of the House, that's why.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is at issue here is the assurance that the principles of the agreement will be upheld by both-


John Napier Turner: Where is this hardworking Government this morning?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, don't let the Leader of the Opposition start talking about attendance. Let's not start talking about attendance, because we can do the same thing.
What we are interested in is the assurance that the principles of the deal that have been negotiated will be upheld. The binational disputes panel is certainly a very important element to that. We have expressed some concerns about certain areas. Those concerns are being taken into consideration and we have every confidence that they will be rectified in a satisfactory manner for Canadians in the interest of all Canadians.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the administration of the Department of Public
June 10, 1988

Works. Yesterday an article appeared in Le Devoir alleging that the former Minister of Public Works requested a $5,000 bribe from Mr. Glen Kealey, a PC organizer and riding association director in Hull and promoter of the $ 157-million MICOT project, in return for support for this project.
On May 2, 1988, Mr. Kealey wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, a copy of which I have in hand, in which he said:
We also have had to deal with numerous conflicts of interest, involving the
political interests of well known individuals.
Why was it that no RCMP investigation was commenced, and to this day there is still not an RCMP investigation concerning this very important set of allegations?
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to tell the Hon. Member that the RCMP are looking into this matter and it would not be appropriate to make any further comments at this time.


QUERY WHETHER RCMP INQUIRY HAS BEEN OR WILL BE INSTITUTED
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister. Earlier this week, I asked the Prime Minister when he was informed of this matter and whether there had been an RCMP investigation into it. First, the Prime Minister did not answer and second, two Ministers and today a Parliamentary Secretary stated that there was an RCMP investigation. Since this is not the case, can the Deputy Prime Minister finally enlighten and inform this House and tell us the truth? Is there an investigation? Will there be one and when?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this question has been raised in the House on previous occasions. The Parliamentary Secretary has responded. The answer is very clear. He indicated that the RCMP are indeed looking into this matter and it would be inappropriate to comment on the issue at this particular time in light of that inquiry.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-ACCESS TO U.S. MARKET
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested that it is crucial to maintain the spirit of the free trade agreement with the United States. Yet the United States itself, through its Congressional recommendations, has suggested attacks which will affect
Oral Questions
Canadian fish processors, potato producers, and the harmonization of plywood standards, attacks which will affect duty remissions, electricity, and cultural industries. One could list virtually every single sector of our economy and see attacks which are part of the recommendations of the United States Congress.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister persist, given these attacks, in telling the Canadian people that he and his Government have somehow achieved a significant improvement in access for Canadian business to the U.S. market when in fact this access has been made much worse and is likely to be made even worse by this set of recommendations from Congress?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member's question. First he suggested that the proposals put forth by Congress were suggestions. Then, in another part of his question, he said they were recommendations, and then he went on to say that they were attacks.
This is part and parcel of the congressional-administration dialogue that is going on. We have expressed certain concerns about the approaches that Congress might want to take, and what is important is the end result. We are satisfied that the end result will be satisfactory to Canadians, all Canadians in all regions of this country, and the Hon. Member should get on board and start supporting it.


PARLIAMENTARY CONSIDERATION OF BILL C-130
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that the spirit of this agreement has to be maintained. Given that, and in light of these suggestions or recommendations which are also attacks on producers right across the country, how can he possibly justify this Parliament continuing to consider Bill C-130?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed incumbent upon both parties to maintain the spirit of the free trade agreement. Of course there have been suggestions from various sectors on both sides of the border regarding certain relevant parts of the agreement. Nonetheless, the spirit of the deal has to be maintained and we are monitoring the situation very closely and making representations to ensure that indeed is the case.


MONITORING OF CANADIAN EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think there is appreciation for this last minute attempt to defend what Canadians want to see defended about this country. However, given that news reports this morning suggest that the extra monitoring of Canadian exports to the U.S. is not going to be dropped but instead extended to all

June 10, 1988
Oral Questions
countries, how can the Government go on claiming that it has improved access to the U.S. market for Canadian producers when the result has been an increase in monitoring which will hit Canadian companies coast to coast?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is not a last minute attempt. The negotiations have been going on for quite some time. There have been many bilaterals and there will be further bilaterals. I can assure the Hon. Member that the rights of Canada and Canadians have always been maintained and upheld during the course of these negotiations.
The telling point here is the fact that Americans and certain sectors of the American economy are taking issue with certain aspects of the very good bargain we achieved on behalf of Canadians. That should be a clear indication to the Hon. Member that we have made a good deal for Canada.

[ Translation]


AIR CANADA
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for privatization and has to do with the Bill to privatize Air Canada. As you know, the Official Opposition is against this privatization of Air Canada, for several reasons. For example, there is no guarantee of what will happen to employees and their pension fund. Indeed, there is no guarantee on the services provided by the privatized company, much less on those provided by its subsidiaries, the regional carriers.
Today, we see in the media that Air Canada executives are very concerned about the application of Bill C-72 on official languages that they say would impose an unfair burden on them compared to their competitors. My question for the Minister is this: Before going ahead with the privatization of Air Canada, did the Government have a study done on the impact of Bill C-129 on the company or did it do one itself? Or did it rather decide to fly by the seat of its pants, even if it means destroying one of the national symbols that Canadians are proud of, if we believe Air Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. Indeed, Air Canada has expressed some concern about compliance with the Official Languages Act and how that might affect its competitive position. I think we all recognize that Air Canada completely agrees with and has practised fully the principles of bilingualism. We want to ensure that is maintained, and we felt incorporating it in the legislation, which I believe is supported by all Hon. Members, was the appropriate way to go.
I think I am right in saying as well that Air Canada officials have indeed talked to the Hon. Member about this particular issue. He made reference to it in his speech expressing some concern about certain elements. It would seem to me that, as the Bill proceeds to committee, that is the place where this issue might be discussed more fully. If there are appropriate amendments which would uphold the principle of bilingualism and clarify certain aspects, perhaps with the help of the Hon. Member we might be able to achieve that.


IMPACT STUDIES QUERY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know if the Government had done or had someone do a feasibility study of the privatization and the impact of the Official Languages Act on the new privatized company. That was essentially the question I put to the Minister. If a study was done, then I take it that Air Canada was involved and now I am kind of concerned and worried, like many other Canadians, that all of a sudden the company is asking for amendments which it refused to give us when we were in committee looking at Bill C-72.
We invited them to come and they did not. I took it that they were satisfied. I now understand from what the company tell me that they are not able to compete on what they call a level playing field.
If there were studies can we have access to them? Will the Minister give them to us so we can tell who is telling us the truth here?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we firmly believe that privatization will indeed strengthen the airline, allow it to build for the future, expand, and at the same time provide opportunities for individual Canadians, particularly the employees, to participate in the ownership of a very well established national and international airline.
With regard to whether there are any studies, Air Canada has lived within the spirit of the Official Languages Act to date and has carried out the principles of bilingualism in a manner consistent with that spirit. All we are asking it is to do likewise in the future.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He knows that his high interest rate policies, which have driven up the central bank rate to 9.49 per cent, a 3 per cent differential over the American central rate, and resulted in near record real interest rates, are primarily responsible for the Canadian dollar hitting 82 cents. Since there is almost unanimous opposition to the
June 10, 1988

dollar being at that level on the part of manufacturers, the Exporters Association, and every province west of New Brunswick, will the Minister of Finance tell us why his Government does not take some measures to reduce the real interest rates that Canadians have to pay?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a high interest rate policy. I want to remind him that interest rates are lower today than they were in October of last year. They are lower today than they were when we came into office three and a half years ago. We are following a balanced economic policy.
If I may, I refer him to the Ottawa Citizen headline, "Canada's Economy Second Best in the World". The OECD is projecting that our economy is going to be second only to and just slightly below Japan for 1988 and 1989. That is because we have followed a balanced economic policy designed to ensure that we have non-inflationary growth, and that creates the jobs that are so important to us right across the country.
I should also call his attention to the fact that this morning we had further indications of the health of our economy. Some 68,000 jobs were created last month, and that brings us to a total of a little over 1,300,000 jobs created since September of 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
M. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this: In view of the fact that yesterday, while the Prime Minister was announcing his assistance package as a way to secure a by-election victory in Quebec, the Quebec Premier was again blaming the Bank of Canada for its policy, why does the Government not take the necessary steps to make sure that interest rates are decreasing and that the economic development is shared fairly throughout this country and not just in the Toronto area?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the logic which the Hon. Member has just put before the House of Commons. First he complains about the interest rate policy which we have been following in order to achieve the non-inflationary growth to which I referred. He does not like that. He does not like the results because the results are very bad for his political Party.
The second thing he complains about is the fact that we are addressing the concerns of regional development in the Province of Quebec. That is precisely the balance which Governments are trying to achieve and must achieve. You can be very focused in the direction of fiscal policy to direct funds to address regional disparities, which is what the announcement yesterday in Quebec was designed to do, and at the same
Oral Questions
time address a broad economic policy to deal with the inflationary pressures we are seeing in the country today.
That is the balance we have achieved. That is the reason why we have been able to get the successful economic performance about which the OECD is talking and projecting into 1988 and 1989.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Canadians are alarmed to learn that the levels of dioxins along the Niagara River have gone up 10 times over the past two years. At the same time we learn, with dismay, that the Government has decided to cut by 42 people the number of scientists, technicians, and support people working in the conservation and protection service of Environment Canada.
How can the Government keep up its commitment to the Americans to clean the Canadian side of the Niagara of PCBs, dioxin, mercury, phenols, and other toxic substances, with a reduced staff?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to remind the Hon. Member once again, because he has been reminded by the Minister of the Environment, of the dismal record of the previous Government compared to what we have done as a Government. Particularly when it was under the Member's leadership there was very little done.
I could go on and talk about the list of achievements which have been instituted by the Minister of the Environment. They include the Niagara River Toxic Management, the '87 Protocol on Great Lakes Water Quality, the action with respect to the international protocol on the ozone layer, the clean-up of the St. Lawrence, the clean-up of the Windermere Basin, the establishment of a new Environmental Protection Act, a new National Parks Act, and establishment of four new national parks.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I find it rather picayune for him to suggest one minute detail to which he takes exception.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, at the next election the people of the Niagara Peninsula will not judge how the Liberal Government performed before 1984, they will judge how this Government is performing or not performing during this term. This is not a picayune matter to millions of Canadians in the Niagara Peninsula who are represented by at least six or seven MPs in this House.

June 10, 1988
Oral Questions


STAFF REDUCTION-FULFILLMENT OF CANADIAN OBLIGATIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this matter is damned serious and the Deputy Prime Minister had better address it. How can Canada live up to its side of the agreement with the U.S. if it is reducing its staff in Environment Canada which is responsible for keeping up the Canadian side of the agreement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing that the Hon. Member is not blaming the Americans for everything. He usually does when we deal with the acid rain abatement program. It is interesting to note the tremendous progress that has been made there in terms of a new awareness and the actions by the States of Ohio and New York. That is due to the persistent efforts of the Prime Minister and the Minister in charge of the environment.
Of course the undertakings and policies that we have provided will be fulfilled, along with many others. I could go on and mention the new federal water policy. I could talk about the Great Lakes Water Level Forecasting and Communications Program, the National Hydrology Research Centre, the $1 million three-year P.E.I. work sharing agreement. Every one of these things is a priority and will be carried out.


BANKS AND BANKING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, I am sure, like the rest of us, was shocked and horrified when he learned that the Bank of Nova Scotia got caught in the ecstasy of imposing service charges on its customers. As the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt indicated, Mrs. de Gruchy was charged $2 to get change for a $20 bill.
I think he was probably further shocked when the Bank of Nova Scotia spokesmen, Clyde Nunn, said yesterday that such a charge does exist for people who are not customers of that particular branch. The branch manager, Mr. John Cusson, went on to say yesterday that a person coming into his bank to make change for a $20 bill would probably be charged a service fee.
Is it not time that the Minister of Finance and his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, start standing up for consumers, stop being spokespersons for Bob Macintosh and the Canadian Bankers' Association, and do something about this?
I suggest that one of the first things he could do would be to meet with the presidents of at least the major banks in Canada
and instruct them to back off from imposing these punitive service charges on their customers.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to tune in to Question Period on Sunday he will see that I comment on that very issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am trying to get my ratings up, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows how important ratings are.
I said on that program that I thought that that action on the part of the Bank of Nova Scotia was outrageous and that, if that happened to me, I would certainly have my money out of that bank the next day.
These are things that we are looking at. A report was tabled in the House of Commons some three or four days ago.


John Napier Turner: You had better be better than that on the program or we're not going to watch it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition does not want to pay attention to this important issue. I can assure you that Canadians do understand that this is an important issue and do not like the way the Leader of the Opposition gets frivolous about this type of issue.


John Napier Turner: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are reviewing this particular report. When we are ready to make a response to the House of Commons we will be doing so.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs suggested yesterday that they should put up a sign in the banks indicating that these charges are being made, or that consumers should boycott the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Minister of Finance now says that he is outraged at this, that he commented on television about it, and that he is going to look into and review the situation.
What is there to review? When the banks are imposing services charges on children to maintain or close out their small accounts, when they are charging senior citizens $2 to obtain change for a $20 bill, what is there to review, what is there to study? Why does the Minister of Finance not take some action, call up his friends who are presidents of the major banks in Canada, and tell them to stop this nonsense immediately?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member enjoys grandstanding in the House of Commons the way he has just done.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's called doing something about it rather than reviewing it.
June 10, 1988


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Government received a report from the parliamentary committee four days ago. We are going to act on that report. We have to review the recommendations of the committee. The committee took some time to put together the report that was tabled. Surely the Hon. Member would be upset if we had acted immediately following that without having given a report of that significance the consideration it deserves.


THE ECONOMY
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question to the fine Minister of Finance could have been raised by the Leader of the Liberal Opposition, because newspapers articles help him a lot in his research more so than his research services. This morning, The Globe and Mail, The Citizen, The Financial Post and the Toronto Star reported the fact that the OECD, namely the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development had indicated that among 24 countries, Canada was second only to Japan for its economic growth in 1987.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: In view of our phenomenal rate of growth, is there any danger of inflation? I should like the Minister of Finance to tell Canadians whether he intends to prevent any repetition of the high inflation rates which existed at the time of the improvident Liberals.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the OECD presented a good report which demonstrates the success of the economic policy implemented these past few years by the Government of Canada, and I think the OECD feels that our future looks quite good. The organization foresees a growth of 4 per cent this year and 3 or 4 per cent next year.
I suggest there is a problem in the opinion of the OECD as far as inflation is concerned. As a Government, it is very important for us to understand the inflation problem and set up policies to fight inflation here in Canada, in order to avoid a repetition of the problems which existed in the 1970s, the 1981-82 recession and the major unemployment problem during those years.
It is the reason behind our policies.
Oral Questions


RAILWAYS
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, a former Minister of Transport who is familiar with the plans to close down the Newfoundland Railway.
The news reports in Newfoundland are saying that a deal is imminent and involves a compensation package for 500 workers, the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway across the island, and $200 million to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway.
Is this deal imminent? Can he confirm that the elements include the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway and the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway? What is taking so long to decide the fate of 500 workers who work for that railway?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have been discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland, along with other interested parties, to see whether a satisfactory arrangement might be completed with respect to this very important issue. I can assure the Hon. Member that the interests of the workers will be paramount in any decision that might be taken. They have been very much involved in the discussions.
I cannot indicate to the Hon. Member at this time whether an announcement will be made or when, but the discussions are proceeding and progress is being made. I hope it will be a satisfactory one for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and will signify the federal Government's on-going commitments to the economic development and economic development infrastructure for Newfoundland and Labrador.


ROAD CONSTRUCTION-NATIONAL STANDARDS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, if the Trans-Canada is twinned and the road is completed across Labrador, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Government of Canada has a constitutional obligation under the terms of union with Newfoundland to maintain a national transportation system in the province up to national standards? Will he confirm that if those roads are built they will not only be built but maintained by the Government of Canada up to a national transportation standard?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of "ifs" in the preamble of the Hon. Member's question. I can assure him that obviously one of the major components of the

June 10, 1988
Oral Questions
discussion in this deal centres around the constitutional obligations of Canada toward the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, as part of the Terms of Union that will be taken into consideration. That will obviously be upheld.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Special Committee on Acid Rain went to Washington this week to discuss the bills now before Congress with Senators and members of Congress. There are four bills to reduce the emissions that cause acid rain.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the Government will continue to urge the U.S. Congress to pass a law this year, instead of waiting for a new Administration and a new Congress, so that some action is taken this year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course the Prime Minister and many Members of Parliament, particularly the Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka who was Chairman of the committee, have provided distinguished leadership in that particular area. In spite of what the New Democratic Party and Liberal Members across the way suggest, progress is being made and awareness is at a much higher rate today than it was three or four years ago.
Our Government, with the support of Members of Parliament, can take a great deal of credit, particularly with recent pronouncements in the States of New York and Ohio.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT PRESSURE
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, indeed there has been progress. There is an opening now. That is precisely why I am putting my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Will there be pressure for legislative action in the Congress this year? It seems there are more Senators than Congressmen willing to push for a law this year and no hope that we will get a better deal if we wait another year. Yet our Government seems to be stalling. Our Ambassador was prepared to wait.
Why is our Government not doing as much as American Senators and Congressmen to get a law through this year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we will pursue this very important initiative with the very same vigour in the future as we have in the past.


PENITENTIARIES
William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed the the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. It relates to the mailing privileges of inmates incarcerated in federal institutions.
I have received reports recently from parents of some of mass murderer Clifford Olsen's victims who have received from him obscene letters which visibly detail and describe the terrible and senseless brutality which he committed against their children. This is an outrage.
One letter I received described Clifford Olsen's letter as: "a sick perverted document directing hate toward myself and my family".
Will the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House if the Solicitor General is aware of this and what he will do to prevent its continued occurrence?
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly unfortunate that these letters have gone out to families of victims. The situation is bad enough, and having to relive it makes it that much worse.
The Solicitor General is certainly aware of the situation, as are the wardens of our institutions. As a result of this, the warden has instructed that henceforth all of Olsen's correspondence, except with his lawyer and other privileged correspondence such as with Members of Parliament, will be scrutinized.
As a matter of routine, inmates' correspondence is not read unless directed by the warden. However, if persons receive a letter from an inmate and do not wish to receive further letters, they can correspond with the correctional offices and indicate that they wish no further correspondence from that particular inmate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There will be two questions by the Member for Notre Dame de Grace-Lachine East and one by the Member for Vancouver East. That will end Question Period.
June 10, 1988



William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday three dangerous convicts escaped from the Laval maximum security penitentiary near Montreal, that is, the old St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary. They escaped by using a forklift and garden hose which somehow were left unsecured, and by taking a female guard hostage and by using her machinegun and revolver.
I know the penitentiary service has announced an internal inquiry, but I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would assure the House and the Canadian population that at this inquiry all parties will have an opportunity to be heard, particularly the union of guards at that penitentiary, and that the results of the inquiry will be made public? Would he also tell us what steps are being taken to audit and upgrade the security at this and all maximum security penitentiaries?
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada: Mr. Speaker, I think we should all be relieved that the correctional officer and the other woman hostage who were taken are both safe. We are very thankful for that. I think both of them should be commended for their bravery with respect to the actions that took place yesterday in the hostage taking incident.
As the Member has already indicated, a general investigation is being opened and convened to examine all the circumstances of the escape. I am sure all Members, and anyone who has input into that escape, will have the opportunity to make their views known to that investigation. There will also be an outside member appointed to that review committee.


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, according to certain guards and union officials, the catwalk at the penitentiary, and the control centre, were unsafe and understaffed. It was said it was impossible for the presently authorized staff to survey the situation properly from a security point of view. Therefore, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister, or some Minister who has the authority, if he will immediately take steps with the Treasury Board to get additional resources, not only for perimeter security at these institutions but also for programs which will reduce the tension within the penitentiaries and help prevent this sort of incident.
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that with the
Oral Questions
general investigation, recommendations will be made, and if recommendations of that nature are made I am sure they will be taken care of.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East on one question, please.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who is also a transportation expert. The Minister will be aware of the continuing concern of Vancouver City Council and the B.C. cruise ship industry that the application of Bill C-52, the Coastal Trade Act, seriously threatens the cruise ship industry which brings S70 million in annual revenues to British Columbia.
In view of the fact that this Bill is now in the other place, will the Deputy Prime Minister personally undertake to secure a government review of the Bill in light of west coast concerns? And will he specifically guarantee that any government regulations that are passed to implement this Bill will not adversely affect this vital west coast industry? Will he particularly ensure a revision of the waiver system from the annual application to a longer term system that will allow more adequate corporate planning?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad my friend opposite could not get on the Question Period earlier, like about last week, because all aspects of this problem have been resolved as of last week.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is a different question. You didn't listen.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Minister of State for Transport handled all the customs part of it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: No, they have not. You haven't been listening.


Blaine Allen Thacker: At absolutely no time has Bill C-52 impacted upon the cruise industry on the west coast.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You go to the committee hearing next week and you will find out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River.
Privilege-Mr. Parry PRIVILEGE


ALLEGED INCORRECT ANSWER DURING ADJOURNMENT MOTION PROCEEDINGS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of a statement made last night during the adjournment debate proceedings by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker). I feel that my privileges may in some way have been infringed upon by letting stand on the record of Hansard a statement which is in fact untrue. More to the point, I believe that when a statement that is false is allowed to remain on the parliamentary record, the privileges of all Members of this honourable House are in fact impaired.
Hansard is used as a journal of record, and while obviously it records the partisan interpretations, the invective, the differing analysis of the three Parties, nevertheless I believe that where a statement is presented as fact, it should really be fact. The specific statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport is found on page 16317 of Hansard. In talking of documentary evidence he stated:
Despite persistent efforts by my officials to get a copy of this document, a
copy has not been forthcoming.
The Parliamentary Secretary was talking about an export permit related document, in fact, a packing slip, and this document, which had been requested from my office by Mr. David Ryan, the Director of Export Control, on May 12, after my question, was unfortunately not sent to Mr. Ryan until May 17 because of a problem in identifying which part of the documentation was required and because of the intervention of a long weekend.
Nevertheless, this document was indeed, contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary said, sent to Mr. David Ryan, the director of Export Control, and, indeed, the Government already had possession of a copy of that document, or should have had, if the export control process was working because right on the packing slip it says that a copy is to go to the Department of National Defence as part of the export permit process.
Therefore, should you, Mr. Speaker, find there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege involved in that statement, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion. Should you not find such a prima facie breach of privilege, I would nevertheless request that you refer this question, not as a specific instance but as a matter of general practice, to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure in order to determine what measures could or should be taken to ensure the veracity of the parliamentary record.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this does not constitute a question of privilege. However, notwithstanding that, my colleague opposite has raised a problem and I am more than happy to refer it back to the officials and try to get
June 10, 1988
the correct chronology. We will get to the bottom of it one way or the other.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that assurance and I should have pointed out in presenting the question of privilege that there was absolutely no reflection intended on his veracity or sincerity, since he was merely presenting the notes the departmental officials had given him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair thanks both Members for their comments and their graciousness.

[ Translation]


POINT OF ORDER
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday in the House on the debate on a Member's motion and the two votes that if I was mistaken, I would not hesitate to apologize today. I just wanted to tell you that I do not have to apologize because I was not mistaken. It is true that Raoul Wallenberg is already an honorary Canadian citizen.
So, Mr. Speaker, you know that the Speaker did me the honour of appointing me chairman of the legislative committee on the Bill to amend the Bretton Woods and related agreements. I have the honour to report to the House, to show that cooperation still exists and that there is no boycott and everything proceeds normally when people want to cooperate. If only the spirit of the legislative committee that studied the Bretton Woods and related agreements prevailed in this House, we would not have had this morning's unnecessary debate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of reporting to the House that the report of the committee I have the honour to chair, on the subject of Bill C-126, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, will be tabled and that pursuant to order of

June 10, 1988

Petitions
reference of Friday, May 27, 1988, your legislative committee has examined Bill C-126 and agreed to report, without amendments, Mr. Speaker, and of course a copy of the proceedings and testimony relating to this Bill is tabled and respectfully submitted.


GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report, in both official languages, of the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
The report deals with the "loony" coin and its application. Briefly, we recommend that the Government of Canada and the Royal Mint speed up the use of the coin by the withdrawal of the Canadian dollar bill.


PETITIONS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions from constituents of mine living in Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, as well as people living in Vancouver, Langley, and points throughout the Fraser Valley.
They state that whereas the distinguished Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, in striking down Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada, have left Canadians without any law restricting abortions; and whereas nothing in the Supreme Court decision has established abortion as a right; and whereas all human life is a continuum from the moment of conception to the moment of death, there is no point in time between conception and the birth of the infant at which point we can say that this is not a human life; wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, ever pray and call upon Parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception, and at all stages of development, with the exception of the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother.
I have a second petition similar to the first. The wording is slightly different. It states that whereas on January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion law and Parliament has now the duty to pass new legislation; and whereas the unborn citizens of Canada are now devoid of any legislation protecting their basic right to life; wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass immediately legislation that will protect the unborn child from the moment of conception.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to present a petition with about 900 signatures, most of which designate the names of people in my riding. There are some from Hull and some from Ottawa as well. This is a petition that was circulated by the movement Coalition pour la vie, and it states the following concerns: It says that the unborn child is a human being, that consequently it has a right to life and to the protection of that life, that the Supreme Court of Canada, in ruling that the federal legislation on abortion is unconstitutional, has left the unborn child without legal protection, and that the Supreme Court has nevertheless indicated that Parliament has the authority to pass legislation to protect the life of the unborn child.
I am therefore tabling these petitions on behalf of the undersigned to express their concerns regarding the vacuum left by the Supreme Court's decision.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions today. The first is similar to the petitions that I have been presenting every day since January 1. It is signed by a number of constituents who represent the communities of Salmon Arm, Pritchard, Vernon and Kamloops, British Columbia. They are concerned that the present federal Government has no mandate from the people of Canada by which to conclude a trade deal. They believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) compromised Canadian sovereignty when he negotiated this deal.
They believe that the negotiated deal threatens the very fabric of our political and economic sovereignty, since it removes the power of the federal Government to control effectively foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, as well as to equalize opportunities between the regions of Canada.
I could go on and on. It is quite a lengthy petition. But I will not go on.
The basic thrust of the petition is that the petitioners think that Canada got a bad deal. They are asking Parliament to dissolve now to enable the people of Canada to have an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the residents of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, which points out that when Bill C-23 was passed, back in December of 1986, it substantially changed the rules relating to tax treatment on housing. The petitioners state that Yellowknife was designated as having a developed rental market and housing benefits that were valued at the fair market value.

June 10, 1988
Petitions
They point out that to establish a fair market value there must be a willing seller and a willing buyer operating in a position of equality. In Yellowknife there is virtually a zero vacancy rate. The majority of housing in the rental market is controlled by employers. There is really no viable, fair market existing in that community.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to treat Yellowknife the same as the remainder of the Northwest Territories for the purposes of the tax treatment of housing benefits, or in prescribed areas.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions containing 58 signatures, which call upon Parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception and at all stages of development, the exception being the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. They bring to the attention of the House the serious concerns of people in greater Montreal.
The petition speaks for itself. It states that a 40 per cent cut in the budget of the Challenge '88 program in the Montreal region has a negative impact which goes beyond mere numbers of unemployed students and disappointed community organizers and organizations. It is a well known fact that almost the totality of cultural communities, visible or otherwise, live in this area. The increase in available grants to other Quebec regions can therefore bring cultural communities very little comfort. They are thus being discriminated against in a way that is unacceptable from a Government wishing to appear committed to a multicultural policy.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament and the Government in particular to reconsider this ill-conceived cut in funds available to the aforementioned groups who are found in all parts of Montreal, and Ville St. Laurent, Dollard des Ormeaux, Laval, Cote St. Luc, Beaconsfield, Town of Mount Royal, Brossard and Saint-Leonard. I hope the Government will take their plea into consideration.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, today I again have the privilege of tabling two petitions signed by residents of Rouyn-Noranda, sent to me by the Regional Health and Social Services Council of Abitibi- Temiscamingue.
Mr. Speaker, our highway safety campaign continues, because the undersigned are aware of the fact that since 1974, federal motor vehicle safety regulations allow the installation
of airbags by drivers of private vehicles, and they believe that these devices would greatly reduce the number of fatal and serious injuries.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to make the installation of airbags on the front seat and the installation of adjustable shoulder-seat belts for rear seat passengers compulsory.
This campaign is wearing me out, Mr. Speaker!


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present three petitions today. The first petition is signed by approximately 25 residents of Balmertown and Red Lake areas. The second petition is signed by approximately 50 residents of those same areas.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child, except in those cases where an abortion is necessary to protect the life of the mother.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by approximately 75 residents of Kenora, Keewatin and surrounding areas. They call upon Parliament to designate all communities in tier three ridings as eligible for the northern residents tax allowance.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions from residents of Spadina and nearby constituencies.
The first petition concerns immigration. It points out that the Government has promised to admit as members of the family class for immigration purposes unmarried sons and daughters of all ages. Two years ago, through the then Minister of Justice, the Government also promised to remove the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and residents of three years' standing in regard to their rights to sponsor parents of any age.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government will fulfil its promises now.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from people who are concerned that the Conservative Government, without a mandate from the people, has undertaken to negotiate a trade deal with the United States which, in the opinion of these petitioners, threatens Canadian sovereignty. In particular, it would reduce the ability of the Government to develop the regions of Canada and to develop
June 10, 1988

Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians. Furthermore, it fails to secure access to the United States market, which was a key objective of the negotiations.
Therefore, the petitioners request Parliament dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions. One is from residents of Westlock, Vimy, Clyde, Jarvie, and Edmonton, Alberta. This duly certified petition calls upon Parliament to enact legislation to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of the Cities of Edmonton, St. Albert, Fort Saskatchewan, the hamlet of Sherwood Park, and a number of surrounding communities. It contains some 1,800 signatures. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to stay its desire to allow the Park 'n Ride lease at the Edmonton International Airport to expire and instead negotiate a new lease with the present tenant.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, question No. 335 will be answered today.


Mr. Boudria: Since September 4, 1984, has Alta Nova Associates Inc. received any money from the Government and, if so, on what dates and, in each case (a) in what amount (b) were contracts involved and, if so, in each case (i) what was the nature of the services contracted for (ti) what was the amount involved (in) were such contracts put to public tender and, if so, which ones?


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: No.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Immigration Act, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 8, consideration of second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments by the Senate to Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Danis):: On Wednesday, June 8, when Bill C-55 was under discussion, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) proposed two amendments to the House which the Chair took under advisement. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) proposed a subamendment to one of the amendments, and the Chair also took it under advisement.
I have now had an opportunity to look at the amendments and the subamendment and I find that they are procedurally acceptable. I will therefore propose them to the House.
However, before doing so I wish to inform Hon. Members that since the Minister's motion is an all-encompassing motion as one message to the Senate, after consultation with the Hon. Member for York West he has agreed to combine his two amendments into one, and that is the form in which I shall propose them to the House.
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West) moves:
That the motion be amended:
(a)	in the proposed amendment to Senate amendment numbered 3 by deleting all the words after the word "be" in subparagraph (II) and substituting the following therefor:
"admitted to that country, if removed from Canada, and would have the right to have the merits of their claim determined in that country;".
(b)	in the proposed amendment to Senate amendment numbered 11 by adding the following words at the end thereof:
"and in regard to an advisory list of safe countries as drafted and defined by the convention refugee determination division;".
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina) moves:
That the amendment be amended in paragraph (a) by adding the following words at the end thereof:
"according to the principles of fundamental justice;".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When we concluded the debate on Wednesday, at that time the Speaker indicated that there would be 10 minutes remaining for questions and comments following my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Fine, we will do that. On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Lynn McDonald: I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) to elaborate on the subamendment he has proposed. The wording is very clear: "according to the

Immigration Act, 1976
principles of fundamental justice". I wonder if he could explain to the House how this would improve the amendment of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I thank the Hon. Member for the question. I wish to make two brief background points and then address the particular words of the amendment.
Since 1951 when the UN Convention regarding the Status of Refugees was adopted, which was subsequently amended in a protocol in 1967 and signed by Canada and 100 other countries, the focus of refugee legislation has been on the individual. I could quote from the United Nations handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status, but while there is much in there that is relevant, I will simply point out that the most familiar sentence: "No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers or territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion." There is more that defines that, Mr. Speaker, but the practice has been to distinguish this from previous statutory definitions of refugee which would say that all people of a certain class, all people from a certain country, et cetera, are refugees.
In this case the emphasis is on the individual and the individual's story. Why does this individual claim a well-founded fear of persecution upon returning home for race, religion, political opinion, membership in a particular group or nationality? Second, the practice throughout the years since 1951 has consistently been that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has urged that each case be examined individually. In fact, this was confirmed resoundingly by the Supreme Court of Canada for three years when it declared in the Singh case that because this is a matter where life and liberty are at risk, each person must have an oral hearing. That is to say, each person must have a chance to state his case and show his credibility, if he is credible, before the very people who will make the decision yes or no.
That is the background in this matter. What is at stake here in these amendments is that the amendment as proposed by the Government is faulty. The original amendment proposed by the Senate was that the claimant might be sent back to a country, not the country he was fleeing, but a so-called safe third country, if that country were willing to receive the claimant if removed from Canada or in which the claimant has the right to have the merits of his claim determined. The Government, unfortunately, has changed that back to say, "the country to which the claimant can be returned". To return the claimant does not mean the claimant would have any right to stay in that country. It might simply be to arrive at the airport and be bounced on the next plane out after his arrival to God knows where.
The word used in Canadian immigration law to reflect the entry of a person to a country with the right to remain there is
June 10, 1988
that he shall be admitted, and not have the right to return. "Admitted" would be a stronger word, I believe, than "received". That is why I support the amendment of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
Furthermore, in both the Senate amendment and the government amendment there is a weakness around the word "or" where it says "the claimant would be admitted or in which the claimant has a right to have the merits of the claim determined". That can break in half. I believe there are no countries willing to accept a claimant who has left that country and willing to give that claimant the right to have his claim determined there. Once he is out, the door is shut. The second half, the right to have the merits of the claim determined, looks good but it means nothing in present reality.
Therefore, the amendment by the Hon. Member for York West which would change "or" to "and" is vital. A claimant must be allowed to return to be admitted and to have his claim determined. What I wish to add are the principles of fundamental justice as indicated by the Canadian courts. This means not only whether he will have his claim examined on its merits, nor the circumstances of the country he passed through or the general laws of his country, but the actual merits and history of his claim. The Canadian courts have determined that that must be an oral hearing and there must also be the right of appeal. Therefore, the phrase "the principles of fundamental justice" sums up what went before in the motion of the Member for York West but also adds the oral hearing on the merits and the appeal. That is my reason for moving the motion.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would have loved to have had a copy of the two amendments that have been fused by the Table, then I could better support the debate around the word "or" which my hon. colleague so movingly moved. While we are locating the "or", let's row this boat, which is a big problem anyway.
As the Minister said, this is a companion piece. In that companion piece of legislation is that infamous Bill C-84 in which we are planning to row the boat, and the "oars" would come in very handy along with Noah's Ark from where that Bill must have emanated. To continue the pun on words, Mr, Speaker, if I may, as the "or" hit the fan, what is sad is that this Bill does take us back in time. We really are back in Noah's Ark with people going two by two into unsafe boats. Lord knows what might happen to them in terms of their physical safety, never mind the mental anguish or the problem they had to get to the boats.
I think it is an archaic response. I am sad to note that the Minister, in her maiden entrance, I guess, into debate on Bills C-55 and C-84, put them together and linked them so closely. She makes it very clear that she finds these two Bills companion Bills. When she stood to move the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, she started her remarks in
June 10, 1988

responding to the Message from the Senate with respect to Bill C-55 with, "I want to stress the degree of scrutiny to which this Bill and Bill C-84 have been subjected". These two vital Bills, which I consider a complementary package, have been considered from every possible angle. The only angle which the Minister missed was that the matter was being discussed and examined by her departmental staff who continue to mislead her with respect to what is in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.
Although I am pleased to stand to respond once again-it seems to me that this must be about the third time I have talked to this Bill-I stand to talk to it in the full knowledge that the Bill has been before this House for 11 months. During that time an incredible amount of discussion has taken place around the Bill and its clauses. We have had expressions of concern from all kinds of groups. We have heard from churches, non-governmental organizations, individual Canadians and Canadians who have relatives waiting. We heard from Canadians who have come from where human rights are not respected who told us that friends and families are subjected to serious harassment if not the potential for even more serious consequences.
There are three major problems facing Bill C-55. The first, to which a lot of these groups are referring, is the prescreening. The second is the safe third country concept, and the third is the whole principle of the appeal process.
Before I deal with that, I thought it might be interesting to think about how we arrived at a state in the world in which we are looking at supposed abuse-I should not say "supposed" because there is obviously abuse-of the refugee system in Canada. Such abuse was noted back in the early 1980s when the Liberal Government named Rabbi Gunther Plaut to take a good look at the changes in the world that were leading to this upheaval in the system and to the new masses of poor souls looking for safe harbour. Rabbi Plaut came up with some very solid, sound suggestions. The principles of those suggestions flowed from the fact that we already had an Immigration Act that had been updated to reflect what had happened after the Second World War.
The United Nations had put together a handbook on refugees and had a convention relating to the status of refugees which we all signed over 20 years ago. That refugee convention stated that no contracting state shall expel or return-and the French word, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, is refoulement, and that is a very key word, much more expressive in the fullness of its concept than the simplicity of the word in our own English language. No one knows how to use that language more effectively than you, Sir. I know how you love to play with the fullness of words. Refouler would be one you would appreciate for its fullness.
The convention goes on to say that no contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the
Immigration Act, 1976
frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. That is why one would want to examine carefully each person, case by case, who came to these shores, whether by land, by sea or by air. That is why one would want to examine the justice of a refugee's cause and the reasonableness of his request.
There was one kind of refugee who sought harbour at our shores prior to enduring the Second World War, and a different kind is now coming to our shores. This started in the late 1960s and the mid-1970s with the boat people from Vietnam. We all recall the waves of people coming from other lands, people to whom we were not quite accustomed. Look how they have added to the beauty of this country.
The disaster of the St. Louis and the loss of life as a result of our insensitivity to the needs of over 900 young Jews on that boat which was returned without really giving much thought is a very black blemish on the history of Canada. We would certainly not want to repeat that. That is why I was saddened when the new Minister linked the two Bills, Bill C-55 and the other Bill.
I see another colleague at the back who asked me how I would put those two Bills together. I think it is an unfortunate reality that they were joined in matrimony, not, I hope, forever, but I hope at least they will be joined with some new amendments that will be forthcoming from the Minister.
The sadness is that this Minister gave us hope. She met with the Senate and seemingly indicated that she was prepared to bring about some reasonable amendments. What did the Minister do after she made those wonderful, glowing statements? She moved the adoption of amendments by saying that they represent the best possible changes to the Bill and include a number of government and Senate recommendations reflecting Canadians' concerns for the protection of genuine refugees without impairing our ability to control abuse.
Of course, that is the goal of all parliamentarians. That is the goal of the groups that have been speaking to the Government, the groups that came before the legislative committee. It has been the ongoing wish and hope that we would find the true, just, safe, secure and fair measures that are typical of Canadian approaches to refugees, to immigrants and to people in need in any sphere of concern, whether on the national or the international level.
It is sad that this Minister did not address in substance any parts of the Bill through her amendments. She closed her eyes and obviously blocked her ears. I might say that she is like those three monkeys, see not, hear not, speak not. She played with the legislation. She used the legislative magic wand. She tinkered about with this Bill but brought in no substantive amendments. She did not bring amendments that would have given heart to the people who have worked so very hard and who want to co-operate with this Minister, people who look to her for guidance and hope.

June 10, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
What did we get? The clauses that were of main concern remain as they were. There is a denial of the right of oral hearings as required. There is a denial of a clear definition of safe countries and of who would define a safe country. For Tamils, is Britain a safe country? Tamils who are living in my riding can tell us that it is not a safe country for many of them. My hon. colleague across the way, the Parliamentary Secretary, knows well of what I speak. We have heard from those groups internationally.
The so-called safe country concept remains, as does the problem with the oral hearings which do not touch on the issues in depth. There is the question of the right to counsel, and the question of a fair chance for refugees to state their cases or make their declarations at the beginning. All of these concerns, if met, would have humanized this piece of legislation. The Minister turned a deaf ear to these changes. Now we are supposed to stand up and applaud the new look of this lovely, young Minister who did not hear a thing or whose ears were blocked by the functionaries and bureaucrats in that Department who do not want to be dictated to.
I believe that Canadians, as people of goodwill, want these changes. The Canadian Council of Churches and the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops have all made it very clear that the flaws and errors of the Bill have remained.
There was a case that occurred about three years ago which was so poorly handled and so unfair that the special committee set up by the Elouse, the committee that wrote the Equality for All report, stated that dramatic changes were needed in our refugee procedure and in our immigration legislation. That is pretty sad. That report, consisting of more than 400 pages and over 85 recommendations, carefully considered, is just gathering dust instead of being examined and re-examined as an excellent guideline reflecting the true values and thinking of Canadians across Canada.
The first issue that is of great concern is the question of prescreening. How can we have a good determination system when we have barely had an opportunity to go deeply into the facts of a case? I do not think it is a fair process. Recommendations were made suggesting that there be a change in the prescreening which would involve a refugee board member and an immigration adjudicator. There is a sense that the immigration adjudicator should know his immigration law well and should be well informed as to the evolution of immigration.
The key is in allowing access to a refugee board with a very competent and clearly trained staff who can examine cases and relate them to the individual countries involved. This is a fundamental and important aspect of this Bill.
What does the Canadian Council for Refugees say? It is an organization made up of 96 different groups and at its annual convention over the weekend of June 8 it urged municipalities to aid refugees whose lives will otherwise be jeopardized by this legislation. That group is particularly concerned about a
clause that would allow authorities to deport claimants to a safe third country picked by the Cabinet. I do not know why cabinet Ministers would want to put their necks on the line over this kind of definition. It is totally ridiculous as far as I can see. They are also getting pressure, as we know, from countries who want to do business with us. Then you get the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) sticking his nose into cases where he had no business in the first place. He would not have been caught and he certainly should not be caught if we made sure that members of the Cabinet did not get their fingers stuck in this kind of pot.


Benno Friesen: I agree.


Sheila Finestone: Good, so you support the amendment that it be tightened up? Thank you.


Benno Friesen: Who said that?


Sheila Finestone: Another group expressing grave concern was B'nai Brith. They denounced the legislation and appealed to the Minister to make further amendments. The lawyer with that group's Institute for International Affairs said the Government could not have come up with a Bill more open to legal challenges than if it had tried. What is wrong with the Government? It must have a lot of lawyer friends. It does not matter what Bill I stand up here to speak to, it is like someone saying, "Open Sesame" to the lawyers to go to court. They are all going to be so busy we are going to have to produce many more lawyers just to deal with the holes and gaps in the Government's legislation.


Mr. Dick:: What happened to the ones your previous Government hired?


Sheila Finestone: I suggest you look in your own backyard first.
This legislation will be ensnarled in legal challenges for years to come under everything from the Charter of Rights, the Bill of Rights, Canadian law and international agreements. The Minister got up and said very clearly that she made sure this legislation was in agreement with all our international accords. Obviously she made a few mistakes. I am sure she knows how to read. They just gave her the wrong books to read.
The Coalition for a Just Refugee and Immigration Policy condemned the five amendments as politicization of the refugee problem. Amnesty International's Canadian refugee section said it will not sit on any consultative committee on refugees that the Minister may have in mind. The Canadian Bar Association, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women-


Benno Friesen: Oh, now, there is a winner.


Sheila Finestone: Don't sneer. You may not like some of the things they do but many of the things they do are in the interests of Canadian men and women.
June 10, 1988


Mr. Dantzer:: So there, Benno!


Sheila Finestone: You and I share this beautiful, privileged Canada, and we ought to listen to what all these groups have to say. Maybe we would learn. That is why we are here, to have our finger on the pulse of society. They do not like what the Government is saying. They do not like the way it is proceeding on the refugee Bill. They want changes to the prescreening. They want changes to the access to hearings. They certainly want a change in the way we define safe third countries. We should be doing our own work instead of allowing others to pick up the cudgel for us.
I would like to conclude by thanking my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), our immigration critic, my friend, the NDP critic, and all the groups out there who, as they plead a little bit louder, might get the Minister to look at the Senate amendments, take another look at her own amendment, and realize she has made a serious mistake.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to re-emphasize an observation I made several years ago about the previous Member for Mount Royal. I think the current Member is a lot easier to work with than her predecessor in our work here. However, I just wonder to what extent she enjoys being locked in a time warp. What she was talking about today is certainly not the message we received from the Senate. She is still debating the messages she got from special interest groups across Canada who appeared both before our committee and the Senate committee. Undoubtedly their views have not changed, but she certainly was not taking into account the views of her own colleagues in the other place.
On page 5, Part II, under the heading "Observations", in the third paragraph, the last sentence of the Senate report says:
We have concluded that the over-all structure chosen by the Government
should be left intact.
The Hon. Member says we have to change what has been called the prescreening process. That is part of the over-all structure, and yet the Senate concluded that the structure is okay. They may have some criticism on fine points, but they want to leave the structure as it is. There is no doubt that the special interest groups across Canada are going to criticize that because they want to string out the structure. They want to make it a system that will produce five or six years of appeals. We have designed a system that will reduce that process to a maximum of about 18 weeks. That system will work.
In addition, the prescreening process includes a quality oral hearing right at the outset. I hope the Hon. Member recognizes that. The claimant is allowed legal counsel at that hearing. If they cannot find legal counsel, the Government will provide it. Counsel can coach the claimant to say, "I want to be declared a refugee". Nothing could be fairer than that.
Immigration Act, 1976 On page 7 of the Senate report it says:
The committee has concluded that the safe country provisions as they appeared in the first reading version of the Bill contained the minimum protections essential for compliance with the Charter and our international obligations under the Convention.
I hope my friend from Mount Royal reads that and reads it again. That is what her colleagues in the Senate said. There is no doubt that they quarrel with some other aspects of the Bill, otherwise they would not have recommended amendments. While we cannot accept all of their suggestions, our quarrel is not with the suggestions so much as it is that it took them nine months to make them. In the meantime, we have another 20,000 or 30,000 claimants in Canada. We have to take care of that backlog. Yet the Senate sat on the legislation, heard the same witnesses, read the same briefs presented to us, and it took them about nine months to do it. In the meantime, the system became warped and we were forced to deal with the backlog.
I hope my friend from Mount Royal will accept the fact that while the Senate does want to see some changes, and we have considered a few of them, they agree with the broad structure of the Bill.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I know that my hon. friend is fulfilling a mandate he has received and a gag order that directs how he should speak. I think that in his heart he does not believe what he has just said.
Think back to the emergency which brought us back to this House. We were all in a state of collapse over the arrival of a few-


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to keep the debate historically accurate, the emergency which brought us back to the House was Bill C-84, not this Bill.


Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much. We had a kangaroo court in this House which rushed that legislation through. It did not take heed of the amendments. It was sent to the other place and the Member said it took nine months for the Senate to sit on the legislation. No, it took nine months to hear what was being said. The Government held hearings but did not hear and did not take up any of the amendments. The Senate actually heard, and thank goodness it did. It sent the legislation back here. The Member spoke as though the Minister had taken into account all the things the Senate said which would have improved this Bill.
There is no question that this Party, and all Members of this House, want quicker solutions. They want a system which will eliminate the backlog and will be fair. They want to rid us of the unscrupulous behaviour which puts human lives in danger. However, we want to do it with fairness and justice from the Canadian point of view.
The government has not done that in this Bill. The Senate recommended 18 amendments and the Government accepted

June 10, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
only two, and those were housekeeping matters. I suggest that the Member reread the real story rather than what was said by the Minister.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member. I realize that she has some knowledge of the background of this matter, probably from her own city where there are many refugees from different countries.
What does she think of our Government prescribing the United States of America as a safe country to which to return a Salvadoran who is claiming refugee status in Canada? We must bear in mind that the United States' record is to find 85 per cent of Nicaraguan refugees claimants to be refugees, about 50 or 60 per cent of Polish claimants to be refugees, and 3 per cent of Salvadorans to be refugees.
Would it be reasonably safe, as prescribed by the Government's unamended clause-not the clause amended by the Hon. Member's colleague from York West or as amended by my subamendment-to send a Salvadoran back to the United States? Or, in the alternative, does the Member think that the Government should declare the United States as a country unsafe for Salvadorans?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that question. He is a very knowledgeable man. I am not an expert in this field. Needless to say, both he and my colleague in this political Party believe we need that amendment. I certainly agree that we need it. That is why I felt so strongly about removing the Cabinet's obligation, let alone responsibility, to name safe third countries.
The United States is in a political bind because it has determined a protection move. Whether we agree with it or do not agree with it is not the issue. It has determined that it wishes to do something with respect to people from Nicaragua and the Government of Nicaragua and has taken sides. Therefore, those are their friends and anyone from Nicaragua, depending upon which side of the aisle they sit, will receive safe harbour.
However, the United States is not so friendly with El Salvador. It does not have the same political, economic, or social interests in El Salvador. Therefore, El Salvadorans sent back to the United States are not safe. They are trans-shipped immediately into orbit. They are back in serious trouble.
I suggest very strongly that it is an error to put the Government in such a position. We do political and economic business and have strong social ties with many countries, the human rights records of which we do not like, and we have something to say.
I strongly support the amendments which have been put forward along with the subamendment. I hope that the Government will see fit to do the same thing.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope that my friend will withdraw the remark about a gag being placed on me because that is certainly not the case.


Sheila Finestone: I certainly withdraw. I know that could not take place. The Hon. Member is a most outspoken gentleman.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a sense that this House has heard a great deal on this Bill and has debated it and its companion legislation, Bill C-84, in considerable detail and at considerable length. I also have a sense that we have, occasionally, within the House of Commons, questions of morality which face us and on which we have to reflect our country.
They are often very difficult cases which, I am certain, are not popular. They are cases which, in the pre-election period, people may not want to confront. Yet, I think that in this case there is such a contradiction of everything which we as a country have stood for in terms of the protection of the individual under the due process of law, that this Bill simply becomes an unacceptable and, frankly, immoral imposition on the people of Canada.
I do not say that kind of thing about the trade legislation which I debate. That is an issue of economic and political choice. I disagree with the economic and political choice which is made. I think that the consequences of that choice are massive. I am prepared to debate it and we certainly have debated it in terms of questions, opposition days, and so forth.
The same is true with various of the privatizations which have come before this House. There have often, I think, been grievous mistakes for which future governments and future Canadians will end up having to pay. I think that is true, for instance, of the Air Canada legislation which was given second reading in this Parliament this week.
However, with this Bill we are dealing with something far more fundamental, something which cuts at the heart of our concept of the country much more than many of the other Bills which we have debated. I myself thought, frankly, that the Government, at some strategic point, would recognize that you cannot turn your back on hundreds of years of the building of due process of law within this country and within the countries from which many of us have come, whether Britain, France, or the hundreds of other countries from which we have come.
This is the final chance for the House of Commons to again consider again this legislation and pass judgment on what the Senate has suggested to us. This Bill still has as its fundamental purpose the effect of eliminating the potential for an independent hearing on the merits of the case of refugees who reach this country. Regardless of what the Senate may say, not only is it a negation of our traditional principles of fundamental justice, it is so un-Canadian that I cannot believe how the Government can continue along this path in spite of the opposition from so many groups to which we have looked for moral leadership in the past.
It is partly a personal consideration that I bring to bear when I look at a Bill like this. My grandparent's grandparents
June 10, 1988

came to Canada from Germany after the failed revolution of 1848. There was no question about admitting them to our country because they were not just refugees, they were refugees who had challenged an established regime. While they may not have been revolutionaries themselves, they certainly supported that democratic revolution and had to flee.
In 1988 or 1989, when the same kind of people come to this country, will they get the same kind of treatment that my grandparent's grandparents received? According to this Bill, there is absolutely no possibility that that will take place. I consider that a deeply unhappy blot on this Parliament, which was elected to try to bring change in our approach to the future.
Apart from my own family, I see this in my constituency where constituents have crossed from Eastern Europe, often at tremendous personal risk, and have been accepted here as refugees. I see others who have crossed from Central America, at great personal risk, and have had the right to a fair hearing in this country. That right is being eliminated by this Bill.
I say to the Minister who is shaking her head that the hearing which people will receive when they reach the border is not a hearing to consider the merits of their case. Because of that, it is not a full scale hearing before an independent body where they can put as much of a persuasive argument as possible that would allow some kind of assessment of their claim with justice and due process of justice being seen to have taken place.
I recognize the extreme pressures on the Government with respect to this issue. We are talking about a world in which there are millions of refugees whose dismal, difficult, dangerous position, whether it is in Thailand, Sudan or Latin America, is very much a blot on how the world community has operated.
I can see the pressures from the point of view of the Government to try to set up some kind of barriers that will somehow give us a handle on the great number of people in the world who want to be some place else because of the lack of democracy, lack of human rights, lack of equality within their own countries.
I understand as well the pressures brought to bear by the immigrant communities in my constituency who say that it is not right that someone claiming to be a refugee can stay here for five years before getting a hearing, go through various appeals and so on and ultimately be able stay in this country because of some sort of ministerial amnesty. They do not have as logical reason to be in this country as a relative of one of my constituents may have. There is a great sense of opposition and anger about that, which I must say that I share.
It is not right that governments in this country have so badly bungled the whole issue of refugees. The last two Governments in particular have simply been incapable of finding solutions that are both consistent with our traditions of natural law, of
Immigration Act, 1976
due process, of humanitarianism, and our tradition of fairness to existing immigrants in this country.
I think the particular amendments which have come before us are in fact amendments which improve the situation somewhat within a rather unfortunate Bill. The amendments from my colleague in the Liberal Party are amendments which make it much more of an independent process with respect to the determination of whether a refugee has a valid claim and makes absolutely certain that if a refugee is sent back to a third country, that third country admits the refugee and has a system in place which allows that refugee to have his or her claims determined fairly within that country.
The amendment which my Party colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), has added is, I think, crucial because it makes the point that our system has to include an assessment that recognizes the principles of fundamental justice. Chile may well have on its books, in print, a system in which the merits of refugee claims will be determined in Chile. We may well receive assurances that these people will be admitted to Chile, but all of us in this House, after some of our colleagues from all Parties have gone to Chile, surely know that we cannot trust that the principles of fundamental justice are in fact observed within that country. On that basis, it should not be possible, if the amendment from the Hon. Member for Spadina is accepted, to send a refugee back to Chile.
The same thing, I am certain, would be true in El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras, countries about which I know something, and which do not reflect in their justice systems the principles of fundamental justice which are reflected by and large, with the exception of this Bill if it goes through, in our country.
For reasons which, frankly, are deeply personal, and for reasons which reflect the concerns of my constituents, we want to see a fair system to assess refugees, we want to get rid of this nonsense of massive amnesties periodically which simply indicates our system is not working properly. In the context of those kinds of concerns, I urge this House very strongly to adopt the amendment which has been brought forward as a subamendment by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina, and to subsequently adopt the amendments which have been moved by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). I think we will at least come closer, then, to seeing to it that there is not a completely black blot on the future of this country as it is looked at from around the world in terms of the due process of law which should be reflected in our refugee legislation.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some attention to my colleague. As a former university professor, I would hope he would still hold to the maxim that when one debates a subject like this, one ought to go as much as possible to the primary sources and not rely on secondary or tertiary sources

June 10, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
for one's comments and evidence. I am confident the Member's remarks reflect very accurately the secondary and tertiary sources he has read, all the statements by the pressure groups, the lobbyists. He has faithfully recited their points of view. However, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that none of it, or very little of it, reflects anything in the primary source, which is the Bill itself.
The Member has hardly read the Bill. If he had read it analytically, carefully and critically, he would not have made the remarks he made today. He could not do it regardless of what would jade his outlook or from his ideological perspective.
The Member began, for example, by saying his forbear came here in 1848 as a result of the failed revolutions in Germany. I understand that since my grandparents and great grandparents came from much the same kind of background. However, he went on to say that the refugees today are the same as those in 1848, as if nothing has happened in the world since 1848 that would change the outlook or behavioural practices of people wanting to come to Canada.
Let me list just a few of the concepts which have now formed the behavioural patterns of people. For example, nihilism, which basically says it does not matter since nothing matters anyway. So you can do what you want. It is all a black future. There is no good consequence of anything, anyway, so go ahead and do what you want. There is existentialism, which makes everyone's individual outlook paramount. There is no uniform absolute. Nothing is clearly right or wrong. Therefore, the expression of your own particular authenticity is the most moral thing you can do. There is no absolute morality so it does not matter if you incite violence or peace in its own self. That is a very popular concept.
There is dialectical materialism. It began to be popular around 1848 but was not pervasive at that time. But for the last 150 years witness eastern Europe and the effect of dialectical materialism, where the state is supreme and individual rights are nothing. They have value only to the extent and to the degree they support the state. How about situational ethics, again where nothing is right or wrong except the situation in which you happen to be. It depends on the situation. Finally, the Marxist theology of Latin America which espouses violence for their cause. I want to remind the professor that when we have that cauldron of beliefs in the system, the thought forms of people coming to Canada have changed in the last 150 years, and Canada deserves some protection from people whose thoughts forms have changed, if they no longer hold to absolute rights and wrongs.
The Canadian people deserve the right to choose carefully on the basis of what is good for Canada as well as good for the refugee claimant in order that they can live in a sense of security and growing tolerance and understanding, but with the knowledge that the people who come here, come with some solid basis of understanding that there is a consensus in
Canada of what is right or wrong. We want them to share in that consensus.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this is fascinating. It actually brings out, perhaps for the first time, what really lies behind the Government's concern. We have here a suggestion that when it is all boiled down, thought police will sit at the borders and will look for traces of nihilism in refugees who come before us. They will look for traces of existentialism, particularly, for example, Christian existentialism because it is the most dangerous of all. They will look for dialectical materialism. If someone happens to have a belief in dialectical materialism, the thought police will get him at the border and save Canadians from those thoughts ever penetrating our country. They will be looking for traces of situational ethics. I can see that we will soon be getting to a position wherein the Parliamentary Secretary will have to resign from the House and take responsibility for running these thought police. He is the person who can clearly recognize these people.
The thought police will be looking out for those who believe in Marxist theology. This would include, of course, priests and bishops, to those Members who might not be aware, who believe that it is right to have a system of democracy and equality within the countries in which they live. If the Hon. Member, as I think he has, has visited a number of Latin American countries from Paraguay to Chile to El Salvador-


Benno Friesen: Nicaragua.


Steven W. Langdon: Perhaps the Hon. Member has been to Nicaragua and has noticed Marxist theologists there.
The point that I make is that in many countries of the world that push for change, which is coming from the church-and the Hon. Member is absolutely right-is a push for fairness. It is a push for democracy. It is a push which was led, supported and endorsed by the Pope as he travelled throughout Latin America on his recent trip,
I suggest as well that if the thought police are going to be active, perhaps there should be a few more topics which the Hon. Member has missed. Since 1848 there has been a minor phenomenon of Fascism. Surely the Hon. Member would add that to his list.


Benno Friesen: Got to get rid of them.


Steven W. Langdon: Then there are the Nazis, anyone who believes in Naziism. What about Islamic fundamentalism?


Benno Friesen: Terrible.


Steven W. Langdon: So the Hon. Member is against introducing people who could cut off hands, et cetera. What about Sikhs?


Benno Friesen: Well, I don't know.
June 10, 1988


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, frankly, the Hon. Member is showing just how ludicrous is the approach that he puts forward.
Refugees come to this country. They should have the right to be assessed on whether or not they face conditions in their country, as the Convention on Refugees states, a Convention which we signed, which would lead to their being seriously harmed or eliminated if they were returned to that country. That is the basis of refugee status. That is the basis on which we should be making our assessments. We should be doing it by our traditions which recognize due process of law and not this nonsense about thought police which was suggested by the Hon. Member.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker-


Benno Friesen: You have until 1.55 p.m.


David Berger: I was just making a note of the time because all I need is to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary for a few minutes to get me so fired up that I could go on for hours and hours. Thus I have to try carefully to take note of the time so that I can get in everything that I want to say in the course of the 20 minutes that are available to me.
We just had a demonstration from the Parliamentary Secretary of demagoguery at its best, as only he is capable of. It is the kind of demagoguery that has been practiced by the Government since it introduced its refugee legislation in May of 1987. It is the kind of demagoguery that we are accustomed to from the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mr. Bouchard). It is the kind of demagoguery that we are accustomed to from the former Minister of State for Immigration, the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner).
It is the kind of demagoguery that we are accustomed to from this Parliamentary Secretary who in previous debates on Bill C-55, and perhaps on Bill C-84, referred to numbers in the order of 5 billion people in the world who might come to Canada if we do not put up these walls around our borders that are represented by Bill C-55 and Bill C-84. I have already taken him to task on bandying about figures of that nature. I invite Hon. Members of the House to take a look at Hansard to see what the Parliamentary Secretary said.
Again, we are talking here about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen)-


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that my hon. friend would want to be accurate when he wants to poke me. If he will go back to Hansard of August or September last year, he will see that what I referred to was the open-endedness in Canada that the Singh decision brought to the system wherein everyone is entitled to an oral hearing. Anyone coming to Canada would be entitled to that oral hearing. Therefore, it does open it up to 5 billion people. That has nothing to do with Bill C-55 or Bill C-84.
______________________________________16349
Immigration Act, 1976


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member stands condemned by his own words. He has put his foot in it again. As I said, this is a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He is a person who, presumably, holds a position of some responsibility, and should put the facts before Canadians in a truthful fashion, to put the facts before Canadians in a manner so that they will not be mislead and that does not play to the fears that some people may have.
For him even to suggest it, to use a figure of that nature, to talk about the whole population of the world and to suggest that somehow if we had a full hearing on the merits that there is the potential that all the people in the world would come to Canada indicates to me the kind of irresponsibility and demagogic fashion with which the Government has treated Canadians over the past year and a half since this Bill was introduced.
It reminds me of a definition or a quip that I read a week or two ago which said that a demagogue is someone who rocks the boat and then tries to convince everybody that there is a storm out there. This is exactly what the Government has been doing for the past 15 or 16 months. They have been trying to convince Canadians that there is a storm out there, that we Canadians have to protect ourselves or we will be flooded, deluged, with hundreds of thousands of people who will sweep over our borders.
I am reminded of a comment by Rabbi Gunther Plaut to the Canadian Council of Refugees at the meeting one year ago in which he noted how the Government uses language of this nature relating to climate, a wave, a deluge, the type of language which is designed to cull up some sense of a natural disaster or of something that is beyond the control of human beings in order to inspire or build up feelings of fear in people's minds.
I condemn in the strongest language this attitude. The Parliamentary Secretary continued that in comments he made just after the intervention of the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon). He talked about Canadians deserving some protection from people who may incite violence. He talked about the changed circumstances since 1848. He talked about the kind of philosophies, dangerous philosophies presumably, that people hold these days. He said that Canadians deserve some protection and that we have the right to choose carefully, and the right to live with a sense of security. Again, Mr. Speaker, he was playing and pandering to the fears of Canadians in a fashion that can only be described as the height of irresponsibility.
Many things have changed since 1848. One of the things that has changed is the Geneva Convention of 1951, which is a significant deviation from the principle that existed before that convention, that a sovereign country had absolute control over who it permitted to enter its borders. The Geneva Convention

June 10, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
was implemented after the last world war. As we know, during that war hundreds of thousands of people became victims because they had nowhere to go. No country would accept them. It was felt necessary to provide individuals with the capacity to effect some salvation on their own, not to have to wait for the permission of a country, not to have to wait to be chosen by a consular official or an officer in an embassy, and not to have to stand in line in order to be patted on the head and told: "Yes, you can come to our country".
The idea and the fundamental revolution that was represented by the Geneva Convention was that somehow we were going to take away a little from the sovereignty of nations, that absolute sovereignty which said that a nation, a state alone controls its borders. We were going to allow people who regard themselves as refugees to move to a safe haven, to pack up and leave overnight, if necessary.
I gave the example in a letter to the papers, which I was fortunate to have published several weeks ago, of Billy Wilder, the famous film maker who received the Irving Thalberg Award at the Academy Awards this spring. He told the story of a consular official in a small Mexican border town where he had to go to apply for immigrant status and permanent residence after having been in the United States for six months. He talked about the trepidation that he felt when he went before this consular official. He came with very few documents. He came with perhaps his application form and one or two letters of reference. He presented this to the consular official who did not respond. There was what Wilder felt was an interminable period of silence. He decided to take his courage into his own hands and he explained that when he was told the Nazis were coming, he only had 15 minutes to pack a few things and leave. He did not have enough time to find his birth certificate, school records, or other documentation. These are the types of circumstances under which refugees have to leave.
The Geneva Convention was a significant change in international law in the sense that it provided individuals with the capacity to pack up and leave and to move to a safe haven without having to ask permission beforehand. The only obligation that states undertook under the Geneva Convention was not to refoule a refugee, not to turn back a person in need of protection, that is, states very jealously guard their sovereignty.
A state does not have to give a person permanent residence, citizenship, or a work permit. Under the Geneva Convention all the state obliges itself to do is not to send back a refugee. In order to implement that obligation, it is necessary for the state to have some procedure to determine whether the person is indeed a refugee, or is not a refugee, because refugees do not come with the word "refugee" stamped on their forehead. Yes, people make claims, some of which may be valid claims, and other claims may not be valid. A state has the obligation to examine the claim and have some procedure for determining whether indeed that person is or is not a refugee.
This whole debate is about refugee groups and people who work with refugees in this country and who have been arguing for a revision in our system for many years now. They have asked that there be a quick procedure, one that would deal with claims in the course of, say, five or six months.
In this Bill we are studying today, which has been before Parliament for the past year, the Government has not provided such a procedure. It has set up a screening procedure whereby only certain persons will be eligible for claims. Only persons who pass through what are known as safe third countries will not be eligible to have their claims determined in Canada. Therefore, we have had estimates over the course of the past few months which have been made public. We see that as many as 75 per cent, 80 per cent or even 90 per cent of claimants who come to Canada will not be eligible to have their claims determined under this legislation. The Government is really reneging on the only responsibility it has under the Geneva Convention of 1951, which is to determine on the merits the claims of people who claim to be refugees. Therefore, this Government risks and inevitably will send people who are refugees to persecution and even death because there is no procedure to permit the Government to determine who is or who is not a refugee.
I have another word or two about Canada's role, Mr. Speaker. I believe we have a special responsibility. We are a huge country with a small population. If not Canada, I put the question to the Parliamentary Secretary: "Which country will continue to provide a haven for refugees?" Which country will uphold the principles of the Geneva Convention?
If we in Canada cannot find it within ourselves to respect the rules of the Geneva Convention, will any other country in the world do so? Will other countries be justified in saying that if Canada will not respect the Geneva Convention, why should they? Costa Rica has a large number of refugees, as does West Germany and France, what will they say? I read about Italy the other day. There are perhaps one million refugee claimants who have flocked there from all parts of the world. What will the Italians say if Canada passes this legislation? Countries are going to refuse to let anybody enter because, if Canada cannot accept refugees with its wealth, its resources and small population, why should they?
I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary and Members of this House that our so-called refugee problem is very small in comparison to that which exists in many parts of the world. I come back to this because I believe the Member was engaging in a bit of fear-mongering when he referred to the billions of people. Over the past couple of years we have had perhaps 18,000, 19,000, or 20,000 claimants who have arrived on our shores. That might seem like a large number. But think about it, Mr. Speaker, you could fill one hockey arena with 19,000 or 20,000 claimants. It is not exactly an overwhelming number. Compare that to a tiny country like Costa Rica which has several hundred thousand claimants on
June 10, 1988

its territory, refugees who are seeking protection and who have sought safe haven there. Costa Rica has not sought to turn those refugees back. It has not closed its border to refugee claimants. What about Pakistan? There are 2 million or 3 million Afghans on Pakistan territory. Plow can Canada compare itself to a country like that?
I can only conclude by saying that this Government has not in its amendments dealt with the principal objections to this legislation. It has not dealt with its major flaws. This legislation is not worthy of our country. It not worthy to become the law of the land. If it does, unfortunately, at some point become the law of this land, I hope Canadians will turf out the Government so that a more responsible Government can amend it before any great damage is done.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, there were so many inaccuracies with respect to the legislation which the Hon. Member enumerated that it was difficult to keep up to him and certainly there is not enough time to correct them all.
Let me point out two things. The Member spoke about playing to the fears that people may have. That is exactly what we have been experiencing from opposition Members for most of the past year. They have been recycling the fears expressed by pressure groups and lobbyists that are totally inaccurate. If the Member had attended the committee hearings, he would have heard the question put to the Canadian representative to the UN Commissioner of Human Rights about whether or not this conformed to the UNCHR. His answer was yes, that they have played to the fears of refugee claimants going into orbit, being bounced from country to country, all of which is untrue-to put a better complexion on it, it is inaccurate. That in the context of parliamentary language is probably a little more acceptable.
I want to re-emphasize that if anyone has been playing to the fears of people, Members like that are the ones who have repeated the inaccuracies time and time again because of the communities they are playing to.
The Hon. Member criticizes me for saying Canada has a right to choose. Let the Member look at the 1976 Bill. His colleague from Labrador sat on the committee with me when we toured Canada and drafted the legislation. One of the underpinnings of that entire Bill was that Canada has a right to choose. We do have a right to choose. The fact is it ought to be fair, equitable, and unprejudiced, not based upon bias of any kind but according to Canadian law. That is exactly what we are debating.
In closing, I would like to ask the Hon. Member to name me one country in the world that has a more generous refugee policy than Canada, just one.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, balderdash is the only word to use to describe the comments of the Hon. Member. He referred to inaccuracies in my statement, so many of them that he said he
Immigration Act, 1976
could not identify them. I would ask him to identify one inaccuracy in what I said.
I am not going on what I picked up from listening to pressure groups, as the Hon. Member disdainfully calls them. I am not simply going on what pressure groups or lobby groups or church groups that work with refugees say about this, although I do take advice from these people and I do listen to them because I respect them. These are people who are committed and devoted, many of whom have spent their whole lives working with refugees.
There was a show on The Journal at Christmas time about Nancy Pocock of Toronto. When people leave Central America, they are given her name and telephone number. When they come to Canada, that is all they have when they get here. They go to her house and spend the first few days or weeks in Canada getting their bearings there.
Yes, I listen to people like that because those people have been exemplary citizens of Canada, a credit to Canada. They are great assets to this country and they make me damn proud of the work they have been involved in.
I do listen to those people, but I read the Bill and I read the 1951 UN Convention. I have attended seminars and conferences and I have read the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. I am capable of coming to my own conclusions about this Bill. I know, on the basis of my own judgment, that it does not uphold Canada's obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention.
I would like to answer the Hon. Member's question. He asked me to point to one country that has a more generous refugee policy. I referred in my remarks to Pakistan which has maybe three million or four million Afghan refugees on its soil today. Maybe that is one such country. However-


Benno Friesen: Who's looking after them?


David Berger: The Hon. Member asks who is looking after them. That is an irrelevant question. In many cases, the world community looks after refugees. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees, which has a mandate from the UN and the world community, looks after refugees, perhaps paid for by contributions of some of the wealthier countries in the world, including Canada.
The Hon. Member's question reminds me of a comment I heard at a conference on human rights and the protection of refugees under international law which was organized by the Canadian Human Rights Foundation in Montreal last December. I attended that conference, but I am not sure if the Parliamentary Secretary was there. A comment was made by one of the speakers at the conference that the standards of the countries of Europe or of any other country for that matter are not necessarily the standards by which we should judge our own practices. I think that is a significant statement, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to listen to it. I repeat, the standards of other countries or those of the countries of

June 10, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Europe are not necessarily the standards by which we should judge our own practices. That is why I reject the Hon. Member's question.
As I said earlier, I challenge the Hon. Member to show me any other country which is in a better position to be generous to refugees. Show me any other country in the world with a smaller population relative to the space we occupy. We have plenty of space in which people may settle. Show me one other country that is in a better position. Show me one other country in this world that has a greater responsibility to uphold the principles of the Geneva Convention, to show leadership.
I would remind the Hon. Member that it was Canada which received the Nansen Medal several years ago, it was not Germany or the United States. In fact, it was not even Canada, it was the people of Canada.


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


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been agreement among the Parties to end with the speaker who just spoke, but I also serve notice, both to the Table and to the opposition Parties, of my intention to table amendments that I have given to the Table and to the opposition Parties. I would like to table them now.
I have just been informed by the critic for the New Democratic Party that he wants to add a subamendment to one of the amendments. I would ask for advice from the Chair on how to proceed with this. I should table the amendments today, because I think a vote will be taken on this on Monday evening. I would take instruction form the Chair on how to deal with this.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the copy that was given to me was, of course, embargoed, and that has necessarily restricted my inquiry into the meaning or implication of the amendments proposed by the Government, and I wish to seek advice on at least one of them in connection with what I have in mind as a subamendment. It has not been possible for me to do that because they have not been tabled and it will not be possible for me to have that effectively until Tuesday.
My difficulty is that while I am prepared to see these amendments entered for debate, notwithstanding that they are an unusual procedure and therefore need unanimous consent. I am not prepared to see them entered if it means that they would be debated today or debated on Monday and voted on Monday night. If there is any way that we can arrive at an understanding that tables them today but defers debate on them until after Monday night, I would be prepared to proceed with that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the House let the Chair proceed with the vote on the subamendment? We appear to be taking for granted that we will be voting Monday night. If we do that first, then we will see.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I find this somewhat unusual because the Hon. Member, while he may have been at some disadvantage in that it has been embargoed and therefore not debated, was given notice by me the other day of my intention to do so. He has had a copy of these amendments for 10 days, I believe, certainly for a week, and could have studied them at length. He has just five minutes ago told me that he has a problem with one of them. Could we not come to an arrangement whereby we do a voice vote on all of them today and allow the Hon. Member, for example, to submit a subamendment to the one about which he has a question and then proceed with the vote on Monday night?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the House does not mind, the Chair would like to settle the question on the subamendment. Once we have done that, maybe we can move along.
May I dispense with the reading of the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I dispense with the reading of the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The vote on the subamendment will be deferred until Monday night at six o'clock.
Now that that is settled, we will go back to the Parliamentary Secretary.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the amendments we have given to the critics of the opposition Parties. I hope I do not have to read them all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary would like to introduce a series of amendments. In order to do that, we need unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
June 10, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are two ways to do this. One way would be for the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce the amendments. Unanimous consent can be given for that. Then, if the Parliamentary Secretary wishes those amendments to be debated today, the Chair would require unanimous consent again. I think we have unanimous consent for the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce the amendments today.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some confusion. In earlier discussions with the Deputy House Leader, it was our understanding that the only business to be conducted today was debate on the subamendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). We would then force a vote on the subamendment, which we have just done. As a result, we would then be voting on that subamendment at six o'clock Monday as the rules require. Any deviation goes against the spirit of what we negotiated with the Deputy House Leader earlier in the day. Unfortunately, if we allow the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce these amendments today, then debate would be possible on Monday on those amendments. That was not our understanding when we made our arrangement with the Government earlier today. That was done on the basis of what was convenient for the critics, and for us to change that now would go against the spirit of the agreement.
We do not want to keep the amendments from the floor, but we do not want to allow the Government to start the debate on Monday when we have had no assurances from the Government that it would not do so.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the NDP House Leader was in the Chamber the other day, as was the Liberal Party critic, when I gave notice of our intention to move these amendments. The NDP House Leader nodded assent and the Liberal Party critic certainly did not object. I did not see any great visible reaction. He was certainly aware of them because he had received copies.
I understand the agreement today dealt with all aspects of C-55. The Parties were aware that this is part of that Bill and I see no breach of the agreement if we deal with these amendments today.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion about the agreement reached by the parties. We all seem to have our own version. I will give you mine, since I was involved in the discussions with the two other parties.
It is my understanding that today we would get as far as the vote on the subamendment, that a vote would be called and that we would then call it three o'clock. This was quite straightforward. If I understood correctly, according to the agreement, since we have finished debating the sub-amendment and a vote was called a few minutes ago, we can now call it three o'clock. If anyone has a different interpretation ... It
Immigration Act, 1976
seems to me it is as simple as that. And it certainly has to be simple for me to understand it!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State will clear up the matter.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we want to avoid any understanding which was reached being misunderstood and disrupting things in that way. It was my understanding, and I may perhaps be in error here because I did not realize there was going to be debate on the amendments, that they were going to be accepted as read.
What we were trying to resolve was that there would be no more business other than C-55 before the House. Perhaps we can have the amendments introduced and then suspend the sitting today. If, upon reflection over the weekend, there is a necessity for more debate and discussion, we can discuss it. I think that might be in the best interests of this place. Simply have them introduced and call it three o'clock.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Deputy House Leader has resolved our problem. It was our understanding that these amendments now being introduced by the Government would not be debated on Monday. If the Government House Leader can assure us about the business of the House on Monday, then perhaps we can give unanimous consent.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the business of the House will be debate on item of business no. 26 on the Order Paper, the motion to extend the sitting, in the event there is a ruling from the Speaker and that ruling is that the motion is procedurally correct. Pending a favourable decision we would debate the Government's response to Senate amendments to Bill C-84.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, this information is quite useful. On the other hand, whatever the government menu is for Monday, my understanding is that we are not discussing C-55 because there is a deferred division at six o'clock. Until then the Bill cannot be debated.


Philip Derek Lewis: That is right.


Jacques Guilbault: That is the way I understand the rules. I do not know if this is clear. If we all operate according to the same rules, there should be unanimous consent to see the clock as three o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair understands that there is now unanimous consent to give the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary consent to introduce further amendments to Bill C-55 on the condition these not be debated on Monday.


Jacques Guilbault: Cannot be debated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know, but is there unanimous consent?

June 10, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can dispense with the reading of these amendments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary dispense with the reading of the amendments?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Can the Chair dispense with the reading of the amendments?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration) moves:
That clause 14 of Bill C-55 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 38 on page 18 and substituting the following:
"landing of that person and any member of that person's family who is in
Canada at the time of the application, unless the Convention refugee is"
(b)	by striking out lines 24 to 26 on page 19 and substituting the following: "cant and any member of the applicant's family for whom landing is sought
if the immigration officer is satisfied that neither the applicant nor any member of the applicant's family who is in Canada is a person"
(c)	by adding, immediately after line 8 on page 20, the following: Interpretation "(8) For the purposes of this section and section 48.05,
(a)	a person is a member of another person's family if the person is
(i)	the spouse of that other person, or
(ii)	the child of that other person, or
(b)	"child", with respect to a person, means
(i)	a person of whom that person is the natural parent, whether the person was born within or outside marriage, and who has not been legally adopted by any other person, and
(ii)	a person who was legally adopted by that person,
but does not include any person who is or has been married;
(c)	"spouse", with respect to a person, means a person of the opposite sex to that person who is married to that person by a marriage that is recognized by the law of the country in which it took place, other than a marriage occurring at a time when either person was already married."
(d)	by striking out line 17 on page 20 and substituting the following:
"mining eligibility to be grant-"
(e)	by striking out line 23 on page 20 and substituting the following:
"for a determination whether the person or any member of that person's family who is in Canada at the time of the application is,"
(f)	by striking out line 28 on page 20 and substituting the following:
"shall determine that the applicant and any member of the applicant's family for whom landing is sought is, but"
(g)	By striking out line 32 on page 20 and substituting the following: "member of the applicant's family who is in Canada is a"
(h)	by striking out lines 12 to 15 on page 21 and substituting the following: "(d) the person or any member of the person's family for whom landing is sought
was determined not to be eligible to be granted landing for a reason other than the removal order; or
(e) the person and each member of the person's family for whom landing is sought were determined to be,"
(i)	by striking out lines 25 to 29 on page 21 and substituting the following: "(a) grant landing to the person and each member of the person's family for whom landing is sought, where the person is a person described in paragraph (5)(d) or (e) and the adjudicator is satisfied that, but for the removal order, the person and each member are eligible to be grant-"
And
That clause 18 of Bill C-55 be amended by striking out line 37 on page 28 and substituting the following:
"hold office during good behaviour for a term not"
And
That clause 29 of Bill C-55 be amended by adding, immediately after line 46 on page 55, the following:
"(7) Section 115 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(5) The Minister may establish and appoint the members of a committee to advise the Minister with respect to the prescribing of countries under paragraph (l)(r).""
And
That Bill C-55 be amended by adding, immediately after line 31 on page 56, the following:
"32. Section 123 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Delegation "123. The Minister or the Deputy Minister, as the case may be, may of authority authorize such persons employed in the public service of Canada as the Minister or the Deputy Minister deems proper to exercise and perform any of the powers, duties and functions that may or are required to be exercised or performed by the Minister or the Deputy Minister, as the case may be, under this Act or the regulations, other than the powers, duties and functions referred to in paragraphs 19(1 )(e) and (2)(a), subsections 39(2) and 40(1), subparagraph 48.01(1) (e) (iii) and subsections 82.1(2) and
83(1), and any such power, duty or function performed or exercised by any person so authorized shall be deemed to have been performed or exercised by the Minister or Deputy Minister, as the case may be.""


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May the Chair call it three o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.20 p.m.

Advisory
committee
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 13, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers