1988-01-26

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour today to table in the House three tariff remission orders each of which remits over $20 million during a five-year period.
While the Government made a commitment to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in respect of income tax remissions, I am tabling these tariff remission orders in the spirit of openness and transparency and because of the similarity between the two types of remissions.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from a number of constituents who point out that the Conservative Government does not have a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
They believe that the trade agreement negotiated by the federal Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership and to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize the opportunities between the regions of the country.
They also point out that the proposed deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future which thereby undermines our ability as a country to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
Since this denies Canadians the secure access to the U.S. market that was the key objective in these trade negotiations
from the outset, and since it also threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, they are asking Parliament now to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement in a general election.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present four petitions to the House.
Your petitioners humbly declare that the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return, whereas Canadian industries are still not protected from U.S. trade laws, whereas the United States obtained everything it wanted in all key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, auto trade, financial services and investment, whereas thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Mulro-ney-Reagan trade agreement.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have the duty and the honour to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians who are expressing their concern about the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.
They are concerned about the impact on our sovereignty, about losing effective control of our foreign ownership, development of Canadian energy resources, and on and on.
In conclusion, the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, again I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who express their concern with the trade agreement that has been negotiated by the Conservative Government. They believe that it threatens the very fabric of the Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to


[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Order Paper Questions
develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade arrangement during a general election.
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour to present eight petitions signed by 201 Canadians. These petitions are in addition to the others, 31,646 all told.
The petitions originate from Theodore in Saskatchewan, Quebec, Montreal, London in Ontario, Saint-Felicien, Kingston, Sussex in New Brunswick, Magdalen Islands, North Batt-leford, Vancouver, Ruddell in Saskatchewan, the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe, Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean regions.
The petitioners are aware that since 1974 the federal road safety regulations authorize the installation of inflatable airbags for passenger car drivers and that this device would reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries.
Therefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to make compulsory the installation of airbags for the protection of front seat passengers and adjustable shoulder-waist safety belts for back seat passengers.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, the petition of a number of Canadians has been approved and certified correct as to form and content.
The petitioners state that the very fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, and that the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal will reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social, and cultural programs that Canadians need.
For this, and a number of other reasons expressed here, the petitioners ask Parliament to ensure that a national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, and that this debate result in a national general election before such an agreement is signed.


Mr. Ray Skeily (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I too have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of a large number of Canadians who feel that the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal will destroy Canadian sovereignty.
They ask that this matter be the subject of a general election in order that the will of the people can be expressed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Before we give the Parliamentary Secretary permission for this, I would like to ask him how much he gets paid a year for not answering questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this legislation. Our caucus has taken the position that we support the legislation, although we have many concerns with it and with the Government's action in this particular area. It is not a new concern. This is something that we have been concerned about not only with this Government but also with the previous Government.
I know you were not a Member of Parliament, Madam Speaker, when the Liberals formed the Government in the years between 1980 and 1984, but you will recall that in those years the Liberals talked about a western development fund of some $4 billion. A certain percentage of that money was supposed to go to the native people in western Canada. That became a phantom fund. It was promised and repromised. Certainly Ministers of the Liberal Government, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and others went to western Canada and talked about how valuable that fund would be for developing western Canada, and how important that fund would be for the native people of western Canada. Yet that money was never received.
That is one of the concerns that we have when we look at this legislation. I know that we are not alone. This legislation which is centred in Atlantic Canada has created many questions for people in that region. They are wondering if there will be new money, or is it merely the situation, which we believe to be true, that this is money that has already been taken from the region as a result of cut-backs and other programs. We are in a situation now where some of that money is being promised back to Atlantic Canada as if it was new money. That is an unfortunate situation. Of all the regions in this country that need more funding and deserve more funding, there is not one that deserves and needs it more than Atlantic Canada.
January 26, 1988


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
As a Member of the New Democratic Party caucus I have travelled throughout Atlantic Canada and gone through all the provinces there. I have gone to Labrador. I recognize how great that need is. It is disappointing to see a Government which has actually taken money from regional development over the last three and a half years now promising that it will do something new.
As I stated, we support the legislation because we recognize the need to do something in Atlantic Canada. But we have some legitimate concerns. I am sure when this legislation gets to committee, which I suspect it will do either some time today or tomorrow, through our caucus spokesperson, the Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris), we will have an opportunity to explain what type of changes must be made to this legislation.
We believe that the only way any region of this country can be developed, whether it is the west, or a northern riding like mine in Churchill, Manitoba, or whether it is Atlantic Canada, is by having the people in the region make the final decisions. If we are in a situation, which this legislation allows for yet again, where recommendations come from the region but the decisions are made on a political basis in Ottawa whenever the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) can spare the time to go to Atlantic Canada and make an announcement, then we are not achieving anything new. That is the problem. [DOT]
I understand that Mr. Rino Volpe, who is a member of the Atlantic Advisory Committee, told a class of business students at the University of Moncton just yesterday that he is frustrated by the set-up of the agency because it does not adequately take business interests into consideration. He is already considering resigning from the board. He shares the concerns expressed earlier by the President of the Atlantic Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Rick DesBrisay, who called the Atlantic Advisory Committee a toothless tiger.
Here we are with a member of the advisory committee already considering resignation and with the President of the Atlantic Chamber of Commerce calling the committee a toothless tiger. Why are they saying these things? It is because they believe that it has no decision-making power.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Volpe was also speaking as the President of the Conseil Economique du Nouveau Brunswick. He was not only expressing his individual concerns but the concerns of the group which he represents. Also in his speech yesterday he explained that the advisory committee would have no say over the selection of public servants in the agency. His primary concern is that decisions will not be made in the region.
I have gone through this kind of system before. The Government is just setting up a new form of regional decision making. Since 1977, before I was a Member of Parliament, in one form or another we have had a northern development agreement in
Government Organization Act. Atlantic Canada, 1987
my riding. We have had an agency in the North of federal government people working with provincial government people, and we have an advisory committee which reports to a federal Minister and to a provincial Minister. The concept is good, that we would have representation from the native people and from the various groups which composed northern Manitoba. They are an advisory council, just like this piece of legislation calls for. However, the problem is that in the regulations and in the way it is set up, all they do is give advice. They do not make decisions. Therefore we in northern Manitoba are in the situation which Mr. Volpe and Mr. DesBrisay have already expressed concern about. They are concerned that they will be in the same position, that decisions will not be made in the region, and that decisions will be made for political purposes. I know how badly that works.
As the Hon. Member for St. John's East expressed so eloquently in the House, if one is to sit on the committee and work with the people making representations, and if one has some understanding of the people of Moncton, of Saint John, of St. John's, of Charlottetown, or of any other community whether it be Halifax or Cape Breton, one must realize that the business people who will be making presentations have talked with the local mayor and council and with the local labour council. They understand what is needed and what can work in the region. Surely to God we should be in a situation where the people who serve on these advisory committees have the ability to make decisions.
1 recognize that the final dollars are federal dollars and that the federal Government and Cabinet should have ultimate control as they have ultimate responsibility for what is happening in any of their programs. However, that does not mean that we cannot have decision making taking place in the regions. The regions of the country are developed by co-operative community development.
1 can understand the federal Government, through its Ministers and the cabinet decision-making process, wanting and needing the right to say yes or no. However, it should not be saying yes or no to each and every project. It should be saying yes or no to the framework of the legislation, what kinds of programs are acceptable, and what kind of guidelines are necessary. That should be the function of the Government, and that is all the Government should be responsible for. 1 believe that the Government is responsible for its programs and that it should be in a position of setting the guidelines. I know that you realize, Madam Speaker, that the people in your region are capable of making decisions which are necessary for the region. It does not make sense to me that we should set up a structure where we bring in very talented people who know their regions only let them give advice. I support Mr. Volpe and Mr. DesBrisay when they say that it is a toothless tiger. Unfortunately this is happening yet again.

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
As I said earlier, since 1977 we in northern Manitoba have had a very similar program. We have gone through the growing pains. At present we have had an extension of our third agreement. We know that we will be renegotiating a new agreement over the next two years, and we know how necessary it is to take the decision-making process from Ottawa and put it within the province or, even better, within the region involved. Obviously, with regard to Atlantic Canada, that is the situation which needs to be developed.
1 am afraid that we will be in the situation which I expressed earlier of having decisions made on a political basis only. I am afraid that, because there is pressure at a certain time, the money will be used to help Cape Breton one year or Moncton the next year, and that all sorts of announcements will be made just prior to the upcoming election on the basis of the best information available, not on the basis of information that would be there had the power to make decisions been given to the people of Atlantic Canada.
One problem which all of us face as Members of Parliament is that decisions are not made in the House of Commons. Decisions are often made not only by senior federal government employees but quite often by federal government employees. The reason for this is that we pass legislation such as the measure before us. We are setting up an advisory committee which can give advice. We have a federal Government which is dissatisfied with its situation in the political polls at this time and is obviously very concerned about its ability to be re-elected. Real decision making is not made by Members of Parliament or by people in the regions. They end up being made by people working in the departments.
1 have no problem with federal government employees giving advice on which programs are good, which programs are not good, what kind of changes should be made to programs, or whether there should be training components in programs. All these things make sense, and we are hiring people to give us good advice. However, the problem is that federal government employees are working within their own regime. They are not necessarily emotionally involved in the development of a region. They are very often concerned about what they believe their Minister may or may not want. They are also concerned about what are their opportunities for advancement. [DOT]
[DOT] (M30)
I have seen the situation within my own riding. 1 am sure people from Atlantic Canada, the Member for St. John's East, for instance, can give other examples of people making decisions which might make sense in Toronto, Ottawa or Winnipeg but do not make sense in the regions which they actually affect. We are often in a situation where programs do not make sense for a region. I can give all sorts of examples.
Let me talk about Canada Mortgage and Housing. We have the same rules with regard to the percentage of income that
must be given to the Government if people are in federal government sponsored housing-it may be a provincial government program as well-whether they live in Toronto or northern Manitoba. I will explain that a little further. The federal Government requires that if you are living in a subsidized house, a house the Government has helped build, 25 per cent of one's gross income must be used to pay the mortgage. This makes sense in some areas where there is competition and other housing people can go into. But what if you make a large income and you are paying 25 per cent of it to live in a house, but your income goes up and up and up. All of a sudden you do not want to pay 25 per cent of your income to live in a CMHC sponsored house? What if you decide to move elsewhere?
This is a lovely principle, and it makes sense to some degree in the Torontos, Montreals and Ottawas of this world. But when you get into a northern community, whether northern Saskatchewan, as my friend from Prince Albert would talk about, northern Quebec or in some of the remote areas of Atlantic Canada, and the only housing available is federal Government sponsored housing where there is no land available, or serviced lots available, what then? You are stuck with this rule that makes sense in Toronto and Ottawa where options are available for people to move out.
In my riding there are houses with no water, no sewers, no municipal services. Because of the 25 per cent rule people are paying more for what could basically be called a cardboard shack. They are paying $500, $600 or $700 a month for a house without water, without sewers, without any of the services that we take for granted, a house which may have only 15-amp power. We say «You can build your own house.* But there are no lots available. You can have your own water and sewer but that is impossible because of the nature of the land.
The federal Government's rule-I do not want to pick on the Conservatives although they deserve all the picking on they can get-is a rule the Liberals brought in and it is the rule which the Tories have not yet had the political courage to change. The rule is that one pays 25 per cent of one's gross income for a federal government sponsored house regardless of where one lives in this country and regardless of whether there are other options available.
I was at a housing conference in northern Manitoba just a week and a half ago. People complained up and down about the problems. They complained that they cannot build log houses under the federal government program. They complained about the houses which might look nice in a southern suburb, a suburb of Toronto, a suburb of Calgary or any of the other communities I have mentioned earlier, but which make absolutely no sense in the communities in which they are being built. CMHC is a national program. The rules make sense in some parts of the country but they do not make sense right across the nation.
January 26, 1988

[Stage Direction]
We are again setting up a new agency. We have very talented people in the Atlantic region who are willing to serve on the advisory committee and who understand how development should take place in their own regions. But we are denying them the real decision-making power. Why are Conservatives, who in 1979 talked about a community of communities, doing exactly as the previous Government did? Why are the Conservatives following exactly the same structures as the federal Liberals did in the programs which they developed for northern Manitoba?
I can go back to my speeches of 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 and feel like I am making almost the same speech again.
I really wonder if there was an election in 1984. It is so typical, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) makes his big promise during his Atlantic swing. When we finally get the details and we look at them-thanks to our new Member for St. John's East who has given us very good advice-I do not see any differences whatever from what the Liberals did in my riding through the Northern Development Agreement during the middle part of the 1970s and the early part of the 1980s.
I remember a Liberal Cabinet Minister, Pierre De Bane, who is now in the Senate, saying that the Liberals needed more political credit for what they were doing in northern Manitoba. Therefore they set up an office and a program. I looked at what he did and I look at what the Government is doing now and it is exactly the same.
I hope when this legislation gets to committee-we support the concept and principle of money going into Atlantic Canada because it is so necessary-that the Government and government Members who will be serving on that committee will allow the amendments necessary to make sure that the decisions are made in Atlantic Canada, that the community and co-operative development which the people in that region want can proceed and we do not have yet another political exercise.
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, would the Hon. Member elaborate on some of the very fine points he has made so that the Government could have the benefit of his experience and insight into these matters?
The Member touched on the very important matter of political patronage being a major feature of this type of development where a board or political appointee winds up advising the Minister to do the patronage thing. He talked about the problem of having new money available for these programs. Often the Government announces spending that is already in place basically in an attempt to deceive people. The Member from Churchill (Mr. Murphy) mentioned that this program has little support from the Atlantic Chamber of Commerce and a number of others.
Will the Member develop these points so the Government could have the benefit of his knowledge and experience of the Manitoba situation?
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). He always asks some good questions. Unfortunately he never tells his caucus Whip what questions he is going to ask before he does so. Obviously this is not the situation of a planted question and a planted answer. Let me express some of my concerns.
There is an estimation that in Atlantic Canada as a result of the federal government cut-backs over $1.5 billion annually has been cut from various federal government programs going into Atlantic Canada. The amount of money here, although as usual the federal government likes to talk about $1 billion for this program and a billion for that program, is a billion dollars over five years. I have quoted the Chamber of Commerce and others. I have not been quoting those groups that are normally considered to be New Democratic supporters. The Government has taken away $1.5 billion from the various programs that used to benefit Atlantic Canada and has replaced that with a program which will give Atlantic Canadians at best $200 million a year. The net effect is that money is being lost.
I see that the Minister in charge of the western diversification office has entered the House. He understands that the same thing applies in western Canada. He now has a grand political machine and he is in a position of making decisions, but the people in the west know that they have suffered as a result of government cut-backs. They also object to the fact that the decision making will be done in Ottawa.
That is not just my perception or the perception of the Chamber of Commerce. According to The Globe and Mail of June 27, 1987, Senator Lowell Murray, the Minister in charge of this agency, said that the final decisions will be made by him in Ottawa. Those were his words.
I do not understand why there is a political need to have all decisions made in Ottawa. It seems to me that since the Government appoints the advisory board, it already has control through its ability to say who will be on the board and what groups will be represented. That advisory board is accountable to a Minister. The Government already has control.
I also recognize that the Government is in a position to set regulations and pass legislation. It has the ultimate control over the purse, as it should. Why not let people in the regions make the decisions? That is what we are asking for and that is what we believe is so fundamental to the entire process.


Mr. Young:: Makes sense.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), a Member from the community of Toronto which I have been attacking for the last little while, has said that it makes sense.



[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
If the Government wants real political credit in Atlantic Canada, western Canada or the North-
Raymond John Skelly: How about the Pacific coast?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Even the Pacific coast. The Hon. Member is from the Pacific coast and his riding spans the waters. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River understands what I am trying to say.
If the Government wants political credit, then it should make the change. It should not be like the Liberals. It should not be afraid to let the people in the regions make decisions. It should not want political credit for every grant that is given, and grants are not given unless a cabinet Minister is travelling through the area or the Prime Minister attends an opening of winter games or something of that nature. The Government should trust the people in Atlantic Canada, western Canada and even the City of Toronto to make the decisions which make sense for the regions.
I challenge the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. McKnight), who is also in charge of the western diversification office, to let that happen. Do not make sure that the Prime Minister is travelling through western Canada before making promises. As we know, the Prime Minister has actually stopped in Manitoba twice since 1984. We believe he came in the middle of the night because he has not had the courage to come to Manitoba in the daytime.
The people in the regions know their regions and they know what programs will work. If they make the decision, we will not get stuck with a bunch of political patronage and opportunism, all those things which create so much havoc in the House of Commons. We are saying to the Government that it should let the people who know the regions make the decisions.


Mr. Robichaud:: 
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I am actually very glad the Hon. Member brought this up. Without telling secrets about our caucus executive meeting this morning, I can say that this issue was discussed. I will not go into the details of it, but the gist of the decision that was made-


Mr. McKnight:: Why not?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Minister who is in charge of the western diversification office, who is also the Minister of Indian Affairs when he has the time, has asked why not. If he is willing to tell us what happens in Cabinet, I am willing to tell him what happens in caucus, but I do not think that that was the gist of the question.
We are very concerned with how decisions are made. People like me who are from Manitoba are very concerned about the way the decision on the CF-18 was made. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) said in the House that it would cost only S3.5 million or $4 million more to build in Quebec, and on technical advice he said that both groups were pretty well equal. As we know, the information that came out over Christmas as a result of the access to information law indicated that it cost a heck of a lot more for the contract to go to Quebec. One estimate was that it cost $65 million more, but that was denied by the Conservatives. The Chairman of the Conservative caucus, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay), said that it did not cost $65 million more for the contract to go to Quebec, it cost a lot less. He said that he actually knew the information but no one had ever asked him. Someone finally got around to asking him. He said that it would only cost $26 million more for the contract to go to Quebec.
We have said in the House and will say to members of our caucus when they step out of line that these decisions should not be made on a political basis. They should be done after an open and honest tendering system, regardless of where you live. Whether it is Saint John, and I have toured the dry docks there and I know they are very good facilities, or Montreal or Winnipeg, you have to know that you are playing on, to use an expression of the Prime Minister, a level playing field. You must know what is going on. Not like the poor people of Manitoba who bid on a contract they did not have a hope in hell of getting. Let us make the system fair, that is what we are saying.
January 26, 1988



[Stage Direction]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I must interrupt the Hon. Member because the time for questions and comments has now expired.
As we are resuming debate, I must advise the House that from now on, according to our rules, the speeches will be subject to a 10-minute limitation.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Madam Speaker, 10 minutes is certainly enough time in which to talk about this Bill, I can tell you that. After reading the Bill and after looking at some of the promises made by the Government in introducing it, one would have to come to the conclusion that it is perhaps not even worth 10 minutes. The organization itself is nothing more than a political structure or political announcement to try and give the people of Atlantic Canada the impression that the Government is really interested in the problems of Atlantic Canada. That is all it is.
As the Bill itself says, all it will do is co-ordinate matters related to the federal Government in Atlantic Canada. In other words, all of the announcements being made regarding this agency are being made with funding which is already in place through an existing agency such as DR1E which we all know about. This $1.05 billion is really nothing to shout about at all.
A good indication of the importance of this agency is that the person in charge of the agency, the most senior person, the ultimate boss, should have been a cabinet Minister but is not. Perhaps we have lost sight of that. He is not even a cabinet Minister in the House of Commons. This glorious new Bill is not sponsored in the House of Commons by a cabinet Minister. The person responsible is a Senator.
The Senator the Government chose to head the agency-the Minister said he is the Hon. Member for-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: He is a member of the Cabinet of the Parliament of Canada.


George Baker: The only real attribute of the Senator that I can see is that he is from New Waterford, Nova Scotia.
I believe you have to direct your questions in the House about this agency to the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He is answerable in the House on behalf of Senator Murray who has been put in charge of this Bill. That is an indication of how important this agency is to the Government of Canada.
If you look at the opinions expressed by some reputable people in Atlantic Canada on the CBC radio this morning, they quote a Mr. Volpe, President of the Economic Council of New Brunswick, past President of the New Brunswick branch of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce of Edmundston, and member of the Board of Directors for the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. He sits on the New Brunswick Forestry Products Commission as well. He is quoted this morning as saying that
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
the agency is not working. It is really not doing what the Government of Canada said it was going to do. It is really not originating the ideas from Atlantic Canada and funding those ideas. In other words, it is not working, according to Mr. Volpe.
I forgot to mention that Mr. Volpe is a government appointee to the board in charge of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. He is on the board appointed by the Government. When you have a member of the advisory board appointed by the Government saying the agency is not working, then obviously something is seriously wrong with the agency.
That is all there is to say about the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. They should call it the Atlantic Canada overblown agency. All we have heard about it is rhetoric from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Ministers from Atlantic Canada, and there is nothing there. There is absolutely nothing at all in the Bill that is going to help Atlantic Canada. Not one single thing is there, not one thing. In every program that you see there has been a reduction in the amount of money going into Atlantic Canada.
If the Government of Canada is really interested in doing something for Atlantic Canada, it would address the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland who are up here today trying to get a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), trying to find out why the Government of Canada increased the quota of northern cod. In other words, it is robbing the industries around Newfoundland of fish. It is bowing down to the Government of France.
Yesterday or the day before when France announced that it was going to catch 26,000 tonnes of codfish, the Government just bent over backwards and said it can't do anything about this because it is the Government of France and the French are over here catching Canadian fish. Oh, we cannot send out a boat to try and arrest them. Oh, no. That is the Government of France. However, if that were a Nova Scotian or New Bruns-wicker or Prince Edward Islander or Newfoundlander or Quebecer, oh, yes, drag them into court and charge them.
The whole direction of the Government of Canada is off. It walks in here with this Bill and says the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, what we call the Atlantic Canada overblown agency, is the new future of Atlantic Canada. We are saying that the Government is fouling up everything else. The future is sitting out there right now. All it has to do is address the problems it has created.
I know my 10 minutes are about up and I thank the House for its indulgence. As I say, there is nothing to this Bill. It will go down in history as being a nothing Bill with 300 employees and no budget. The Government is underspending for this year, according to the Prime Minister, because the Government does not want to give the agency the authority to spend any money.



[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I must commend the Eton. Member for that eloquent and hard-hitting speech. I think he really elucidated the shallowness of the present Government in its dealings with Atlantic Canadians.
Certainly the Bill before us today can only be described as disappointing. When the Elon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) spoke, he spent some time outlining the whole purpose of these kinds of things from the Government's point of view. It is a mechanism to try and obtain political credit.
It is interesting that one of the things which was not included in that discussion is that the Government has to do something significant before it can expect any political credit. Certainly the Bill before us today, proposing to set up an Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, is not doing anything constructive.
People in this House have spoken of the shortcomings, the fact that the board itself has no decision-making power, that Atlantic Canadians will not have an opportunity to determine which projects are appropriate for their region and which are not. In fact, many of those projects will be decided on the basis of political patronage. The Government has had a litany of patronage arrangements which have done irreparable harm to the Government. 1 cast my mind back to the tuna fish scam and the clam scam. Today we have what is being labelled as the lobster scam. Essentially it is more important for the Government to fill the pockets of its friends than to take care of the needs of Canadians. With some well-known pork-barrel-lers sitting on the board of this agency, political patronage once again looms its ugly head in the distribution of Government benefits. Therefore, it is an element of very serious concern raised by many people in this House.
There is talk of funding in the order of S200 million a year over a five-year period, something in the order of $1 billion. We have seen this operate in other areas before. In order to obtain political credit for doing nothing the Government simply reannounces existing spending programs or chops a program and then uses the funding for an equivalent kind of program under the guise of creating something new, of indicating an interest in the area and acknowledging its need, while only reshuffling existing dollars into the area. There is a great deal of concern that the new agency and the projects it recommends will not be receiving new dollars, that existing dollars which are allocated to meet certain needs in the region will be spent from a political patronage point of view.
Previous speakers mentioned that there is really no base of support for this organization, that it was created out of smoke and mirrors by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Organizations such as the Atlantic Canada Chamber of Commerce and various chambers of commerce in the region are criticizing it. There was no consultation in setting it up, there is no real decision-making power in the board and, as I said, there is no constituency for it. It has been termed a toothless tiger. The suggestion put forward by the Whip of the New Democratic Party
in his speech was that if the Government had any guts, any real demonstrated concern for Atlantic Canadians, the board would have the decision-making authority to determine projects which are relevant for the region.
The whole thrust of the Government in removing regional development programs is interesting. It brings to mind the difficulties that will be experienced under the Mulroney-Rea-gan trade deal. Under that trade arrangement with the United States opportunities for regional development subsidization to get certain industries in deprived or problem areas in the country operating will disappear. That arrangement will probably do serious harm, in many cases, to attempts to get industry going in Atlantic Canada under regional development.
There is a great deal of concern that where profitable opportunities do exist, rather than seeing them fall into the control of Canadians we may see American firms taking them over and operating them for, in many cases, benefits across the border. The Mulroney-Reagan trade arrangement will certainly be a major problem in this area.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Hon. Member has been told constantly, as have many other Members in the House, that the name of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should not be used in the House of Commons. I know that the Hon. Member is referring to a trade agreement between Canada and the United States and he should refer to it as such.
The Chair has shown a lot of patience, but I think I must tell the Hon Member once more at this time that, according to our rules, the name of the Right Hon. Prime Minister should not be used in the House and the Chair would appreciate the Hon. Member paying heed. The Hon. Member has another three minutes available to him.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I would just point out that across the nation this agreement is now known and quoted in many documents as the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement. Unfortunately we have a situation which indicates-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The rules of this House are different than what is being done outside, and the Hon. Member knows that.
Furthermore, as has been indicated earlier this week or late last week, if an Hon. Member is quoting from a newspaper which uses such an expression, the Hon. Member should make the necessary changes while quoting from the newspaper. I would appreciate the Hon. Member paying attention to that and referring to the trade deal as what it is, a commercial agreement between Canada and the United States.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I appreciate your intervention because I think the traditions of the House and respect for them are something from which we deviate with considerable risk.
January 26, 1988



[Stage Direction]
However, having brought it to the attention of the House at this time, 1 wonder whether the Member might also remind his caucus and the Official Opposition caucus that rather consistently today during the presentation of petitions, either by reading from the petitions directly or in the summary comments, they were violating the rules of the Chamber. I hope that by tomorrow they will have had a chance to reflect on the wisdom of that rather than continuing to violate the rules of the House so blatantly.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) in a moment. If the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary had a problem with the use of names while petitions were being presented he should have brought it to the attention of the Chair at that time. The Hon. Member cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly or vice versa. I think the Hon. Member understands exactly what the Chair is trying to get Hon. Members to understand.
The problem arose last week during the presentation of petitions. Some Hon. Members said that they were reading what was on the petitions. Hon. Members were told at that time that while reading petitions, just as when quoting from a newspaper, they should make the changes. I must admit that the Chair was quite lenient earlier today. However, during his intervention the Hon. Member was obviously and repeatedly doing this, which is why I brought it to his attention. I hope all Hon. Members will follow the rules. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who had been seeking the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, just briefly, in response to the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I think the rules are clear, and certainly the precedents are clear, that petitions should not be read but that there should be a short statement summarizing the petition. Therefore, I do not think the difficulty is as it reflects petitions. I agree with my hon. friend that the petition itself should be presented in the form in which the petitioners present it to the Member. However, in the presentation in the Chamber, I think the rules are clear that it should be a brief summary.
We were on a point of order on this matter yesterday and I do not think the difficulty is in dealing with the trade agreement by its official title. It would facilitate the Chamber if Members did that rather than not using the correct title of the agreement, which is really what I think the Chair has been bringing to our attention.
It is not our tradition to name Members in the Chamber, to use their names. We can refer to their ridings. I agree with my hon. friend that it is our tradition to use correct titles. You have brought to our attention, Madam Speaker, that we are not using correct titles and I thank you for doing so.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I get the message clearly and I think we of the Opposition have not in the last while abused the time of the House. We have not read the petitions in full, which normally go on for quite some time. What we have all attempted to do is make a concise statement as to what a petition pertains to.
Coming back to the original point made by the Chair, which I want to address, because petitions are not the point under discussion right now, when Members refer to a document, to a Bill or to any official papers, must we now refer to the full title? For example, taking the first Bill on this Order Paper, Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Commonwealth Canada, the short title of that Bill, is the Teleglobe Reorganization Bill. That is the way we have referred for many years to many of the Bills and documents. When referring to the Meech Lake Accord, if we have to refer every time to a Bill amending the Constitution of Canada, 1867 and 1982 thereof and so on, we will not be able to finish making our speeches. 1 would have to take 10 minutes just to explain what I am talking about.



[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The article to which I was referring is Citation 319 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which states:
It is the custom in the House that no Member should refer to another by
name.
Referring to the Elon. Prime Minister by name is not allowed, any more than it would be for any other Member, which is the only problem I had with the Hon. Member's statement. I brought it to his attention and to the attention of all Hon. Members.
As the Hon. Member may recall, 1 was not the one who first brought up the problem which arose or did not arise during the presentation of petitions. I am simply reminding the Hon. Member of Citation 319 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which states that it is the custom in the House that no Member should refer to another by name. This has been a long-standing rule, and I am sure all Hon. Members will want to abide by it.


Raymond John Skelly: 
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair cannot really see how the Hon. Member would want the Chair to allow an Hon. Member to do indirectly what he cannot do directly, even if he or she is quoting from a document. If the Hon. Member cannot directly call another Member by name, how can he or she do it while he or she is quoting? I think the substitution of the Hon. Member's riding or his title as a Minister or Prime Minister can then be made.
This is something that was talked about, I know, before the Christmas holidays. I know it was brought to the Speaker's attention late last week. After listening very closely and intently to what the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) was saying in his intervention, it seemed that it was not really a slip of the tongue but something which he seemed to be doing purposely and repeatedly throughout his intervention, which is why the Chair decided to intervene.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder if I might make a suggestion? Your interpretation of the rules, of course, is accurate, that we are not to refer to one another in this House by their proper name, but the name of their constituency or the title they have been given. However, it seems to me we are now talking about an important related matter. It is something quite different when we are referring to a title of a document or, as the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has just indicated, when we are asked to quote from a document, newspaper article or something of that nature. My suggestion is that before we paint ourselves into a corner on this issue, it might be just as well to set it aside and reflect on it together and see if there is not a clear direction we want to follow as opposed to making, if you like, a statement that
would be a precedent then for future discussions. Might 1 recommend to the Chair that we give ourselves time to think about this matter before the Chair rules?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would like to thank all Hon. Members who participated in this-
[ Translation]
The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), on the same point of order.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, I followed the discussion in the foyer, on T.V. I understand the Chair will reflect on the present situation and is seeking Opinions. I think there is some danger of creating a precedent here, especially since in future the Chair may decide to judge terms used by Members to describe Bills or actions or initiatives. We all know there are dozens of ways to describe a government initiative, an administrative measure or a public matter. I think it would be dangerous if there were to be any censorship of these various ways of expressing ourselves.
I realize that strictly speaking, it is not appropriate for a Member to rise in the House and address another Member by name. A Member is to be addressed by the name of his riding. However, occasionally a person's name may be used to describe an initiative originated by that person, so there is a fine line here, and perhaps when the matter is discussed, as I imagine it will be, by the various Members who take the Chair from time to time, perhaps that is a point that should be considered, because it has never been customary in this House for the Chair to intervene and correct language used by Members unless that language is clearly abusive and contrary to the Standing Orders or to established custom.
Those are my comments, and perhaps they will be useful in helping the Chair reach a final decision in this particular matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) for his comments which are indeed useful, both to the Chair and to all Members of this House. Being in the Chair, what I tried to do today is simply to enforce a regulation that has been part of our Standing Orders and parliamentary procedure for quite some time. I believe all Hon. Members will want to give this matter some serious thought before they decide to put a label on a document in which all Canadians are involved and in which all Canadians are interested at this time.
January 26, 1988



[Stage Direction]
I will now give the floor to the Hon. Member for Comox- Powell River (Mr. Skelly), and I am sure he might wish to think about the discussion we have just had when he finishes his speech.
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, since I set off the slight bush fire in here might I have one second to deal with the point of order and then return to the topic of debate?
1 feel that to prohibit me from using a description that is commonly known in the country and often quoted in articles would in fact violate my privileges as a Member of Parliament. It would prohibit me from using an exact quotation as opposed to conjuring up something in my own mind. I hope that there will be an opportunity in the House to explore the very difficult application of this rule. I feel very sensitive about it, having moved farther than I think Members of the House intended it to go.
I certainly accept the proposition that one cannot refer directly in discourse in the House to another Hon. Member by name. However, if it is a matter of quoting or referring to articles then we should be allowed to use those names in ways which are understood by the people.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The second that the Hon. Member asked to have to talk about the problem has now expired. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member on debate.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I also think that enough time has transpired with respect to the matter of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Obviously, the Canada-U.S. trade agreement will prohibit certain kinds of regional development activity. The point I was making is that it is ironic that an area of Canada in which this House has had such tremendous interest and would like to see development move ahead in terms of Atlantic Canadians sharing benefits with the rest of the country is that we may in fact be prohibited from putting those in place because of the Government's negotiation of a particular trade treaty with the United States.
I would like to conclude on those remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the motion of Mr. Mulroney, seconded by Mr. Cote (Lange-lier), that Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions with the critics of the opposition Parties with respect to commencing the consideration of Bill C-84 at three o'clock when the Minister is present. Given the fact that we are rapidly approaching the hour for the lunch adjournment, 1 would call it one o'clock.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: One o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 12.29 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, only this Government is surprised by the unwillingness of the Americans to negotiate a treaty to stop acid rain coming across our border. The fact is that President Reagan only agreed to consider the possibility of a treaty, not to sign one. The U.S. State Department officials made this distinction clear on several occasions. Yet the Government tries to maintain the illusion of progress.



DEBATS DES COMMUNES

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
In 1985 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed an acid rain envoy to reinvent the wheel, in 1986 accepted the U.S. five-year research and demonstration program, and now discovers the true intent of the U.S. administration is not to cut transboundary air pollution, but to continue with research and development.
In 1985 the Government made the mistake of abandoning the multilateral, global policy approach to acid rain which served us well because it led to 21 nations signing the Helsinki Accord on Acid Rain.
We urge the Government to resume the global policy, and at the same time prepare a Bill to be presented to President Reagan at the next summit for compensation for damage caused each year to lakes, fisheries, agriculture, maple syrup producers, forestry, tourism, health, structures and buildings by acid rain pollution coming from the United States into Canada every day.


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to recognize the thirty-eighth anniversary of India's Republic Day. In 1950 India became a republic. Like our Canada Day, India's Republic Day is its biggest national holiday.
Sharing similar aspirations of accommodating various ethnic and linguistic groups, India has tried to achieve a better democratic system and standard of living for its people. Canada, for its part, has made its contribution to India through various development efforts down through the years. In the international arena, Canada and India have shared values, particularly the desire to bring justice and peace to the world.
Canada has been made richer by having amongst its cultural mosiac Canadian citizens of Indian origin. I, for one, would vouch that they have made a tremendous contribution to our country and our Canadian society as a whole. I am proud to have citizens of all cultural origins in my riding of Etobicoke North, and today I am pleased to be able to pay a special tribute to those Canadians of Indian origin.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) leaves for a conference in Lusaka. Before he goes, once again I would like to urge upon him that the Canadian Government take a stronger position with respect to U.S. funding of the
Contras. In recent days we have seen that President Reagan has made this a priority for his political agenda. I would urge upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada finally come out and be explicitly critical of this particular preoccupation of President Reagan.
When I raised this matter in the House last week, the Secretary of State said that I was suggesting he attack the United States. I suggest no such thing. However, I do suggest that he be critical of the United States.
He states that it is not Canadian policy to offer advice to other Governments. We do offer advice to other Governments. In recent weeks we have offered advice to the Israeli Government. The Secretary of State is going to Africa, presumably to offer advice, along with others, to the South African Government. We offer advice and criticism, constructive we hope, to many countries.
I see no reason why the United States of America should be exempt from criticism, and why we should make an exception when it comes to American foreign policy and feel that we cannot be critical of that particular country.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have often been critical in the House and in committees of the RCMP's role in terms of the promotion and advancement of female members of the force, and rightly so, but I am pleased today to give credit where credit is due in terms of a new initiative that the RCMP is taking to ensure equality for women within the force.
As I am sure Hon. Members know, the RCMP only started to hire women recruits in 1974, and it has been difficult for many of them to achieve the status of corporal. That has meant that of the 94 corporal level positions at the Training Academy in Regina there are no women. With the increasing number of women coming into the force, it is obvious that there is a need for women to be teaching in that instructional academy.
Thus I am pleased that the RCMP is instituting a special program provided for under Section 15(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the effect of which will be to place female members as instructors at the corporal rank at the RCMP Training Academy in Regina.
The RCMP is conducting an internal competition to fill these posts, so I would like to offer my congratulations and of
January 26, 1988



DEBATS DES COMMUNES

[Stage Direction]
course my very best wishes to the women who win these posts and who, I am sure, will be very successful in their future endeavours.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 

MINES AND MINING


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, since the crash, the small gold-fields are having a hard time, as can be seen in the article by Michel Girard published in the daily La Presse of January 25, 1988, under the title Periode difficile pour les auriferes juniors.
Despite an average drop of 40 per cent in the stock prices compared to before the stock exchange crisis and an increase in the price of gold, small gold-fields cannot seem to be able to take off again. And as we are sailing in a downward cycle, there is little chance of seeing small gold-fields come back in the medium-term to the peak they reached before the crash.
According to the mining analyst, David Charles, who is a researcher for the firm Tasse et Associes, investors would then
be well advised to bank on quality stock because of the difficult situation in the stock market.
On the other hand, we expect a seasonal recovery of small mining operations for February or March. Traditionally, there is such a recovery around that time, but nothing guarantees it will happen again this year. This period also coincides with the delivery of many flow-through shares bought in 1987.
I would like to bring this to the attention of the Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson) and of the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr Stanley Hartt, so that they watch very closely that period and revise the tax reform accordingly.



POTATO EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-NON-TARIFF BARRIER

Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian potatoes are world renowned for their quality and taste. Too bad American inspectors don't agree.
When Maritime potatoes which have already been thoroughly inspected by Agriculture Canada cross the border into Maine, inspectors pick over them trying to find fault. Since the destination inspection is the final one, these first-line inspectors cannot stop the spuds from continuing on to New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and other eastern seaboard destinations.
However, they are harassing the industry by saying that they have to phone the end receiver and warn him of poor quality. Since many loads come through at night when receivers are not available, truck drivers must either wait or head back to Canada. There are some who persevere, however. Up to January 22, 20 out of 29 loads which were declared to be poor at the border passed reinspection at the end.
Maine is using this non-tariff barrier to keep New Brunswick potatoes out since its anti-dumping suit was not successful. The Government assured us that the trade agreement would prevent this type of action. It was wrong again.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the state visit of the Governor General of Canada in France is the concrete result of the extension abroad of the national reconciliation policy carried out without respite by our government. In addition to having permitted two long expected francophone summits, the second of which was held in Quebec City September last, the action of the Government, especially the Prime Minister's, has contributed to improve greatly our political dialogue with France.



DEBATS DES COMMUNES

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Good relations between two privileged partners such as Canada and France do not exclude the emergence of bilateral problems such as the one which we face in our relations in the area of fisheries. We should consider them realistically and maturely. I can assure the Government that 1 fully support the firm attitude it has maintained to uphold the interests of the Atlantic area in that issue and no doubt that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), who is accompanying Mrs. Sauve, will assert the Canadian position.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we all acknowledge that the visit of the Governor General in France is an historic event and provides an opportunity to extol the unique relations existing between Canada and France.

O)


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, Tobias House is a church-sponsored group with excellent experience in the case of disabled adults. The group's proposal for funding was favourably received by the Ministry of Housing but had to be turned down because Tobias House was unable to obtain land in the central part of Toronto. Its nonprofit project of 80 to 100 units reflects its interest to serve low-income households of a variety of types including families, seniors, and the disabled.
Tobias House is facing a major problem. There is no affordable land on which to build in central Toronto. We all know that the federal, provincial and municipal Governments have parcels of land which could be made available for projects such as this one. The federal Government must show its leadership now by releasing some of its own land in and around Metropolitan Toronto where the housing shortage is most acute in order to help house the most unfortunate in our society.
I urge the Minister of Housing to act now.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to note the historic visit to France of the Governor General, the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauve.
This first ever state visit to France by a Canadian Governor General confirms the new spirit of co-operation and confidence which permeates the relations between France and Canada and which results from the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) policies of national reconciliation, his strong support for the Francophonie and his important efforts to improve the climate of France-Canada relations.
1 commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for the enlightened efforts of his Government. The participation in the visit by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) reflects the priority accorded by the Prime Minister to both the visit and the bilateral relationship.
There are disagreements, Mr. Speaker, notably the fishing and maritime boundary dispute, but I am confident that with mutual goodwill a solution will be found.



FINANCE


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the most difficult aspect of the legislation to ban tobacco advertising is the impact that it will have on funding for sports and cultural organizations.
Today the Cancer Society, along with other groups concerned with public health, proposed a solution. What these groups want is a substantial increase in tobacco taxes. This would raise some $800 million in additional revenue for the Government each year. With additional revenue, the Government would be in a position to replace the lost corporate funding and perhaps to increase it, as well as providing funds to aid tobacco farmers and finance public health education and medical research.
According to a Gallup poll released today, some 78 per cent of Canadians agree with such an approach, including a two to one margin of smokers. This proposal has merit and deserves much more serious consideration than the Minister's attempts yesterday to water down his legislation to appease Bill Neville and the tobacco lobby.
Clearly, Canadians are prepared to help sports and cultural groups break their addiction to tobacco. Is the Government prepared to help?
January 26, 1988



DEBATS DES COMMUNES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, what have I done? The Leader of the New Democrats (Mr. Broadbent) thinks 1 am a socialist. I am insulted, hurt, humiliated, pained, mortified, grieved, distressed, troubled, worried, offended, disparaged, belittled, discredited and wounded.
The socialist leader sent me a letter asking for money, money to help take Canada out of NATO, money to help him fight free trade so the poor people of Canada won't be able to buy cheaper food, money to bring pornography into Canada.
These policies are outrageous, contemptible, vile, disdainful, wicked, disgusting, appalling, frightful and terrifying. And he wants me to help pay for them? It makes me ill, sick at heart, perturbed, weary, queasy, squeamish, fastidious and nauseated. Mr. Speaker, will you tell the socialist leader that I will not be sending him any money, because I am a free enterpriser and a Tory.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, now for a voice of reason to follow that rather unusual plea. The Government claims that it is interested in equality of the sexes. Yet when it has an opportunity to change a piece of discriminatory legislation dealing with the issue of parental leave, which will not cost a penny, it refuses to do so.
No less than two government committees and an extra parliamentary committee have suggested that it is sexist to allow people to claim maternity leave without offering the same benefits for paternity leave. In the Province of Ontario there are two cases of individuals whose spouses have fallen ill not being able to look after their children because the legislation refuses parental leave for fathers.
Is it the belief of this Government that only women should be involved in the rearing of children? Is it the belief of this Government that the father does not have a role to play in parenting? If the Government really believes in equality, it will support my Private Member's Bill to ensure that parental leave is available to the father or mother, depending upon who chooses to seek leave for assisting the child. Parenting is not simply a mother's responsibility.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the election expenses of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister two questions which he refused to answer. The first question was whether the Prime Minister had read the letter, dated November 28, that was sent to his Minister by Mr. Gorman at the very moment the Prime Minister decided to bring the Minister back to Cabinet. No answer. The second question was whether the Minister had told the Prime Minister about the contents of the letter and whether they had discussed the contents at the time the decision was made to call the Minister back to Cabinet. No answer.
When will the Prime Minister come out of hiding to answer these two questions? Unless of course the Prime Minister claims that keeping this a mystery as long as possible is in the public interest.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if there is a mystery about this matter, it is why the Official Opposition has, for three days now, along with the New Democratic Party, been repeating in the House and directing toward the Government questions that would be more properly directed toward the official of Parliament whose report is in question.


ALLEGED ELASTICITY OF ETHICS STANDARDS
Jacques Guilbault: 
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have some acquaintance with the difficulties of Oppositions in desperate situations, but members of the Official Opposition will not make very much progress directing these questions at the wrong target. If they are


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Oral Questions
serious about this matter, they know the procedures that have to be open to them.

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in light of those responses and in the absence of the Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the former Prime Minister and now Acting Prime Minister.
This is not just a question of criminal guilt or innocence. It is a question of ethical standards. It cannot be delegated to anyone else but the Government and particularly the Prime Minister for whom the right hon. gentleman is speaking. That is the issue.
The former Industry Minister got in trouble not because of a criminal charge but because he mixed his public and private interests. A former Minister of National Defence got into trouble not because of a criminal charge but because of conduct unbecoming a holder of high office.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order! That is before the courts.


John Napier Turner: A former Minister of the Environment got into trouble for excessive and free wheeling spending in Europe. The former Minister of Public Works got into trouble for questionable fund-raising techniques. The former Solicitor General got into trouble for a cosy little private meeting with a former Premier. The former Minister of Youth got into trouble because she used government funds to recruit young people to the Conservative Party. Each time the Prime Minister missed the point, and once again the Acting Prime Minister misses the point.
Either the Prime Minister and his Minister together hid the whole truth from the country for a whole two years, or the Minister kept the truth from the Prime Minister for those two years. I ask the Acting Prime Minister, which is it? Did the Prime Minister hide all the facts from the public, or did his Minister hide the facts from the Prime Minister?


Charles Joseph Clark: 
QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER KNEW MEMBER FOR FRONTENAC PARTICIPATED IN INFRACTION OF CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Acting Prime Minister underestimates the importance of this question, but that is his problem. The Minister does not seem to understand that what is at issue
today is the Prime Minister's judgment, because only the Prime Minister appoints members of Cabinet.
When the Prime Minister reappointed the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to Cabinet in November 1985, did he know that the Commissioner of Elections was of the opinion that the Minister had been party, to use the Commissioner's own words, to a violation of the Canada Elections Act? Or did the Minister hide the full contents of the Commissioner's letter from the Prime Minister? If that is the case, isn't this sufficient reason to expel the Minister from the Prime Minister's Cabinet?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question was whether the facts of a letter were hidden. I gave my answer.


PRIME MINISTER S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Secretary of State not wanting to carry the can today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: However, I would have expected him to treat the questions a little more seriously in view of his experience in this place.
If the Prime Minister had faced up to this issue, or his Minister had faced up to this issue, depending on when the Prime Minister knew, these questions would not have been placed to the Minister today.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was reappointed to the Cabinet, the Prime Minister declared him to be a hero. He went into the Minister's riding, celebrations were held everywhere. However, the letter should have been made public. The country should have been told the whole truth.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister to take this question seriously. What standards does the Prime Minister expect of his Ministers? What degree of truth does he expect his Ministers to convey? Does he think that a Minister who would conveniently hide an important, relevant fact from him is worthy to remain in his Cabinet, or is it the Prime Minister's view that anything goes as long as you do not get caught?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on the record, that is not the Prime Minister's view. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition can speak for himself.
January 26, 1988


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mrs. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
In view of the fact that a major reduction in acid rain emissions is essential to the survival of our waters and forests, especially in Quebec, what concrete strategy will the Government be using to convince the Americans of the need for specific reductions, especially in the midwest, within the shortest possible time frame? What strategy is this Government using now, since the Americans refused to take any concrete action?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know and the House will know as well, the Canadian Government has been seeking from the U.S. administration agreement on a proposal from our Government to slash American acid rain-causing emissions by 50 per cent by 1994 based on 1980 figures. That program would parallel exactly the program we have imposed on ourselves.
The Canadian negotiators went to Washington yesterday for a major meeting at which the American administration, through its negotiators, was to respond to our call. The initial response to our call for a bilateral accord was deeply disappointing. We are now discussing within the Cabinet, particularly among the Prime Minister, myself, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, our options and we will keep the House informed as the issue progresses.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must know that the answer is more than deeply disappointing, it is a disaster for Canada.
Plan A was the envoy process. Plan B was the very meager promise written into the script of President Reagan's address here in Canada last year. Plan C was a propaganda program which was withdrawn because it was offending the wrong people. Does the Government have a Plan D now?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should correct an essential facet of the premise of the Hon. Member's question. We have not withdrawn our communications program, to be aimed largely at Americans travelling into Canada as tourists. It includes as well major visitations by cabinet Ministers, not only myself, to the United States to influence American public opinion.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention that when we took office in September of 1984, Lou Harris polls indicated that only 63 per cent of Americans were aware of the acid rain problem. A recent Lou Harris poll shows that 95 per cent of Americans are now not only aware of the problem but
Oral Questions
also cognizant that it is a serious transboundary problem. That increase is attributable in very large measure to the efforts of the Canadian Government to raise the profile of this serious pollution problem in the United States.


REQUEST THAT CANADA BREAK OFF NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Lynn McDonald: Will the Minister now respond to environmentalists in Canada and at the very least break off negotiations with the Americans, sending a clear message to the United States, to our friends in Congress and to environmentalists in the United States, that this constant playing along with the refusal to take concrete action by way of timetables and targets is unacceptable? Will the negotiations be broken off so we can start with a clean slate when we have a new President to deal with, one who might take our concerns seriously?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has some mistaken impression that the Canadian effort and that of Canada as a whole is aimed exclusively at the American President and his administration. It is not. We have had numerous meetings with prominent political leaders in the United States, in the Senate and in the House of Representatives alike. I, for example, have met most recently with Congressman Gerry Sikorski, with Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, with Senator George Mitchell, and other names which could be mentioned.
We have had a very extensive round of meetings with editorial boards, for example, Time magazine, Sports Illustrated, the U.S. National Public Press, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune. Our efforts at convincing the Americans that this is a serious environmental problem on both sides of the border are aimed at American public opinion, at both Houses of Congress, in addition to the U.S. administration, and our total efforts should be judged by that standard.


REQUEST THAT CANADA PRESENT BILL FOR DAMAGES TO UNITED STATES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, I am sure, is not impressed by these exhortations and incantations on the part of the Minister of the Environment. The Secretary of State for External Affairs knows that if the Government continues to pretend that there is hope for negotiation on acid rain with the United States in the near future, it is fooling itself. It has been for some time abundantly clear that the Government made a mistake in endorsing the five-year U.S. clean coal technology program.
Will the Prime Minister on behalf of Canadians present at the next summit a bill for damages to our resources, human


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Oral Questions
health, buildings and structures, as a result of the transboundary pollution coming from the United States into Canada daily? Will he do that?
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport keeps coming into the House with these grand ideas which he did not act upon when he was Minister of the Environment-


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -which were not even proposed much less acted upon when he was a member of the Government. Nor were they acted upon by any Minister of the Environment during the entire period when the Liberals were in office. Indeed, I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Party of Canada was in office during most of the time that Ronald Reagan has been President to date. In fact, it was in office for 1,335 days, compared to 1,229 days of our administration.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Why did the Hon. Member for Davenport not act upon his ideas when he had a chance to act upon them?


Mr. Caccia:: The Minister of the Environment forgets that his Government has been around for almost four years. His memory is pretty short. He should know that at least the Liberal Government initiated a global initiative which paid good dividends for Canada, bringing 21 nations to sign the Helsinki Accord in 1985. That was a result of Liberal initiative, and he should know that if he reads his own papers.


GLOBAL INITIATIVE-CANADIAN POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Since this Government abandoned Canada's initiative to bring the acid rain issue to the table as a global concern, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs again put that initiative on the table and resume that global initiative to bring the United States to an agreement, as we wanted the Government to do since 1984?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is fundamentally flawed. The Hon. Member suggests that the Canadian Government has dropped the Helsinki initiative, the 30 per cent club. It is not true. The Hon. Member was in the audience when 1 raised that very issue on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly. He knows I have met with every single Environment Minister from Europe. He knows, for example, that I travelled to London to meet with the two Ministers of the Environment in the United Kingdom to raise the same subject. He knows as well as anyone, and if he does not, he should, that the matter is one of the top priorities in our total global initiative on acid rain.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The Acting Prime Minister, as well as everyone, is now aware of the secret letter of the former Commissioner of Elections, where it is explained that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Hon. Member for Frontenac, violated the Elections Act, that he broke the law. The question is not what Mr. Gorman recommended. According to Mr. Gorman the Minister had violated the Act. My question has nothing to do with Mr. Gorman's recommendations. When was the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources violated the Elections Act? When was he aware of that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, repeating falsehoods doesn't make them accurate. The Hon. Member is asking a question based upon a version of events which did not occur.


TIMING OF NOTIFICATION OF PRIME MINISTER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let me be very specific, then, in my question to the Acting Prime Minister. When was the Prime Minister made aware of the fact that the then Commissioner of Elections found that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had violated the Elections Act? When was the Prime Minister made aware of that fact?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will have to verify when the Prime Minister became precisely aware of the decision by the responsible officer, established by this Parliament, that no action should be taken with respect to the allegations made against my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Ms. Mitchell:: That is not good enough.


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and it concerns the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us today what the Prime Minister refused to tell us here in this House yesterday? When and why did the Prime Minister authorize the former Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Member for Joliette, to overrule established practices of the Department of Public Works and the Treasury Board, which were to sell government properties at fair market value?
January 26, 1988


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
Will the Government now come clean with the people of Canada and tell us why the Prime Minister authorized the looting of taxpayers' coffers to reward Tories?
Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, let me understand the complaint of the Hon. Member. Is it that this Government brought stability and harmony to an area where there was economic and social chaos? Or is it that we gave Gervais Desrochers one contract for $25,000 and the Hon. Member's Government gave Gervais Desrochers three contracts for $68,000? Or is it that $1 million of investment by this Government produced private sector initiatives of over $21 million and 225 jobs? Or is it that we were cutting short the life of this corporation which the former Government had planned to extend to the year 2000? We are terminating it in a very few months with a saving of $10 million a year.
What is the complaint of the Hon. Member? Tell the people of Mirabel. Tell the people of Quebec.


Don Boudria: I will tell the Minister what my complaint is. It is that people have been treated unfairly and Tories have been rewarded.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF ALLEGED MISSPENDING OF $20,000
Don Boudria: My
supplementary is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Canadians know that the mandate of Canada Lands Company in Mirabel is the resale of Mirabel lands to Mirabel residents, a mandate that has not even been honored. In view of that mandate, how can the Minister explain the $20,000 wasted on trips to Africa and Israel by the cousin of the Hon. Member for Joliette, Mr. Pierre Hardy and his group? Did he try to sell Mirabel lands in Tel Aviv?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, it might be useful for the Hon. Member to know about those trips to which he has referred, which were taken by employees of the corporation. First, the trip to Togo resulted in sales of agriculture machinery, tractors, and the largest export contract of mineral water in Canadian history. All of these products came from the Mirabel area. There was a trip to Israel which resulted in a $13 million Canadian services contract for the development of the Israeli dairy industry.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Come on!


Stewart Donald McInnes: This resulted in benefits of $2.5 million to the people of Mirabel.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister received yesterday a proposal from New Democrat Members for the establishment of a three-party delegation that would go to Haiti to find a Canadian answer to problems in that country. Since the Minister is about to leave, can he give an answer before his trip to Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a letter from the Hon. Member stressing the need for a non-partisan approach to the matter of Canada-Haiti relations and suggesting the establishment of a parliamentary delegation that could be fully involved. That in my view is a good idea, and it is my intention to put in place such a parliamentary delegation. I had an opportunity to hold preliminary discussions with spokesmen from all three Parties in this House, and I hope to be in a position before I leave for Africa to establish such a delegation.
I must stress that in my view it is in the best tradition of this Parliament to have suggestions put forward in good faith by Hon. Members, as the Hon. Member did yesterday.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. In August, Parliament passed back-to-work legislation with regard to the railway unions, giving an arbitrator 60 days to make a final decision. Since then the Minister of Labour has extended the arbitrator's role until March 1.
Without any permission whatsoever the arbitrator himself has now set up meetings for March 7, March 28, April 5, April 18, and May 2. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if the Minister of Labour has authorized the arbitrator to go beyond his time limit, therefore holding back any benefits to those workers whom the Government ordered back to work in August of last year?


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that to date there has not been a request from the arbitrator to extend the time allowed for the proceedings under arbitration. However, I should point out that under the


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Oral Questions
arbitrator's guidance the parties have been endeavouring to resolve some of the outstanding issues with respect to this dispute and meetings extended into the weekend as late as midday Saturday and were suspended at the request of the union. At this point in time the arbitrator is awaiting a response from the union before he can resume negotiations, if indeed that is possible.

Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This afternoon in Question Period the Minister mentioned that he is going to Africa. What are the Minister's expectations and what continued Commonwealth role does he see as he goes to Lusaka to chair the Commonwealth Special Committee of Foreign Ministers on South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will be beginning on Monday of next week the first meeting of the Special Committee of the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers on South Africa. The agenda will involve a review of the areas set out for action by the Commonwealth Conference at Vancouver, including means by which we can look at ways of making sanctions that are in place more effective. Ways of encouraging greater dialogue between opponents of apartheid who live inside and outside South Africa will also be included. We will also be looking at ways in which we can encourage more productive dialogue within the region itself.
This is the first meeting in a process. It is designed not only to continue pressure upon the Government of South Africa to change the apartheid system but also to expand the capacities of those of us who are, as are all in this House, committed to an end to apartheid, to find ways in which real change might be encouraged.


INSTITUTION OF DEMOCRACY IN HAITI-MARIGAT REGIME- CANADIAN POSITION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: 
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not changed my mind. The Canadian Government wants to reach two objectives with regard to the Haitian people. The first is to encourage democracy in Haiti, and the second is to continue to help the most deprived people in our hemisphere. To help the poor, there must exist state-to-state relations, and this is clear for every realistic person who looks at the issue. We have reviewed and will continue to review our relations with Haiti. We have decided to set aside the planification of our bilateral assistance program to Haiti.
As I have just said to my friend the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, I am prepared to agree to and work with a Parliamentary delegation which could approach the issue in a non partisan fashion to achieve the goal of all Canadians which is to help the Haitian people.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF POSSIBILITY OF PARLIAMENTARIANS VISITING HAITI WITHOUT DANGER
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. If the Minister wants to help the Haitian people, he can certainly count on the support of the Liberal Official Opposition.
The Minister seems to agree with the idea of a delegation of parliamentarians, so I would like to know whether he has already consulted the Haitian authorities about this, especially since a few months ago, a number of Canadians went to Haiti to take part in an operation that was supposed to be a democratic election. We know what happened then. Canadians risked their lives and got little or no thanks for their efforts from the military junta. What guarantees does the Secretary of State for External Affairs have today that parliamentarians can safely go to Haiti and will be welcomed by the Haitian authorities? Has he spoken to Mr. Marigat?


Charles Joseph Clark: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I received a proposal from the New Democratic Party. As the Hon. Member pointed out, I am leaving today on a trip to Africa. I have had some brief preliminary discussions with the Hon. Member and his colleagues of the New Democratic Party. He has raised an important point. We must be sure we will be able to have useful contacts with the citizens and the authorities of Haiti. I hope it will be possible to make certain arrangements that will lead to effective consultation. That is our objective, and I am confident all Members of this House will agree.
January 26, 1988


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and in his absence I direct the question to the Acting Prime Minister.
I have a copy of a report made to the Prime Minister's Office and presented in May, 1987, by Donald Savoie, who was asked by the Government to design this new Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which was announced more than 15 months ago.
The Government has failed to follow the recommendations contained in this report in many important ways, particularly regarding the decentralization of delivery of the programs to the Atlantic Provinces and the provincial Governments.
Why has the Government, specifically the Prime Minister's Office, refused to make this study public? Why has this report been kept from the House which is called upon to examine this agency's formation?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to reply to my colleague's question, I think the Hon. Member knows, having participated in the debate and knowing the legislation, that this Government has created an agency which is particularly suited to meet the needs of Atlantic Canada, which has decision-making flexibility, and access to resources which is absolutely unprecedented in regional development policy up to this point.
Dr. Savoie, as well as other eminent persons, have had the benefit of consultations. They chose the particular instrument of ACOA after considering many other alternatives.


DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, this report expresses concern that the agency could become one big slush fund, and recommended insulating it from political control and staying away from the delivery of programs directly.
Instead, the Government has appointed numerous well-known Tories to the board. Senator Murray has publicly stated that the decisions on projects will be made here in Ottawa by him and six Atlantic cabinet Ministers.
Has the Government not assured that this agency will become a political slush fund?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: No, Mr. Speaker. The Government has done no such thing. At a meeting of the board of directors which I and colleagues attended last night, the vast majority of the board of directors were very satisfied that they have a unique advisory capacity,
Oral Questions
that they have the flexibility, and they have a perfectly understandable role, as does the President, Donald McPhail, and the Minister.
This instrument is a far better entree into Government on behalf of Atlantic Canada than any other scheme that has been put forward up to this point.


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: 
Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member that every transaction has received Treasury Board approval-


Don Boudria: No.


Stewart Donald McInnes: 
REQUEST THAT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY BE APPOINTED
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The facts in this case are painfully clear. We have all heard the former Minister of Public Works proclaim loudly and with great pride that the Prime Minister personally

January 26, 1988
Oral Questions
overruled established practices by Public Works in divesting public property, and personally approved of the nature of the operations of Canada Lands Corporation at Mirabel.
Canadians have a right to know why the Prime Minister personally approved a raid on the public Treasury. Given the facts and given the scandal that has been played in the newspapers, television, and across the floor of the House of Commons over the last week, why will the Government not announce a full, open public commission of inquiry into this raid of the taxpayer's purse conducted at Mirabel by Canada Lands Corporation, and approved by the Prime Minister of this nation?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Do I
understand from the Hon. Member that he is disappointed that those who have made inquiries have been able to identify only three Tories out of 1,500 people who bought property from the corporation?
The reason that the Prime Minister intervened and gave very specific directions to the former Minister of Public Works was because of the anarchy and the social injustice that had been perpetuated on the people of this particular area. I ask the Hon. Member to ask anyone in the Mirabel region, anybody in Quebec, if they do not find full favour with the procedures adopted by this Government.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister has had a policy of presenting his Budget in February of every year. I wonder if today he is able to set a date for the presentation of the Budget for this year?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite taken aback by the perceptive nature of the Hon. Member's question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As it happens, in the Priorities and Planning Committee meeting this morning we did discuss the timing of the Budget. I will be presenting it to the House on February 10.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON WOMEN IN SERVICE SECTOR
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for women. Most women in Canada work in the service sector. Yet a credit risk analysis by the Bank of Nova Scotia states that the service sector will be hurt hardest by the Prime Minister's deal.
Rather than defending this deal so vigorously, why is the Minister not fighting the deal since women will be hurt so badly by it?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the study that was done by the Bank of Nova Scotia was done some five months before the deal was signed. After the Bank of Nova Scotia people had a chance to look at this particular deal, their chief economist came out in favour of it.
The services sector is one of the fastest growing sectors in Canada. We are among the leading industries in the world. Based on this particular deal, there are real opportunities for women that will come about as a result, because they are the experts.
As a Government we want to ensure that they are not only employed in the services sector, but that they are upgrading their skills and creating new opportunities for themselves by taking things like management courses, and so on, in order that they are not just in the services sector. They are participating in a stronger way and a non-traditional way, and they will do that in a growing services industry.


Steven W. Langdon: In fact this study by the Bank of Nova Scotia indicated that the services sector should be left out of the trade deal because of the benefits that we would get as a country.


GOVERNMENT POLICY-REQUEST FOR JUSTIFICATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. This study also indicates some serious problems with respect to small businesses.
Why has this Government set up a policy that supports the multinationals and not small businesses?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. 1 can't believe what I am hearing from over there. This study from the Bank of Nova Scotia was done last June*- June, read my lips!
January 26, 1988


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
The deal was initialled in October, and it was signed in December. The report about which the Elon. Member is talking has nothing to do with the deal which was signed.
The people who are going to do well out of this deal are people like women and people like small and medium sized businesses, who incidentally are supporting the free trade deal in large numbers. I cannot understand why they cannot face up to the fact that this is a good deal for Canada and therefore a bad deal for the NDP.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AWARDING OF ALL-NEWS TELEVISION CHANNEL LICENCE TO CBC
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: 
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member dwells in a fantasy land from which she emerges from time to time. 1 would ask her to consider seriously the announcement that has been made by the CRTC and indeed the consideration that is being given to it by Cabinet.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, a number of appeals and petitions have been presented to Cabinet. Others may still be forthcoming, and because of that I have no comment to make at present on the decisions which have been announced by the CRTC.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a very short supplementary.


Sheila Finestone: If we are talking about fantasy land, the film policy is still in fantasy land and has not appeared on the scene as yet.
Immigration Act, 1976 MINISTER'S POSITION


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, there is a question of policy and natural justice about the issuing of a licence by the CRTC to the CBC for a specialty television news service, for neither the Minister, nor the standing committee, nor the special task force on broadcasting, has said that special permission was necessary, nor have they ever not known about the fact that since 1986-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put her question, given the time.


Sheila Finestone: My question is for the Minister of Communications. Is it not true that the Minister met with the CBC, had full knowledge of their intentions to make an application for an all-news channel, and that she did not dissuade or object to their proceeding?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you realize the CRTC does have the authority as an independent agency to call for applications whether they are for specialty services or for other services.
1 am equally sure, Mr. Speaker, that neither you nor the Hon. Member would want me to say to the CRTC that it should or should not do such and such a thing in calling for services. We have a process which is established in law, and 1 would think the Hon. Member would want to respect that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to move the adoption of the reply to the other place on Bill C-84. The Government proposes several amendments to the report before us.
Bill C-84 addresses an issue of grave concern to Canadians-the growing abuse of Canada's refugee claims process. The number of refugee claims received in Canada has grown from some 1,600 in 1980 to almost 30,000 in 1987. We have a backlog of more than 40,000 claims pending. The backlog is growing by 2,500 claims or more every month. Thousands of recent claimants have arrived with fraudulent documents or no documents at all. We cannot allow this situation to deteriorate even further.


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 are essential parts of this Government's strategy for restoring the integrity of Canada's immigration and refugee programs. The passage of Bill C-55 will establish a new refugee determination system in Canada.
Bill C-84 was introduced to send a message world-wide that Canada would no longer tolerate abuse and would deal with security risks.
[Stage Direction]
I met with the Senate committee on December 8 at the conclusion of more than three months of hearings on the Bill. 1 informed the Senators that I would not change the principles or objectives of the Bill, but that I was willing to consider changes about which lawyers would have less to argue. I was also willing to consider any proposals that would clarify the Bill and further the achievement of our objectives.
Let me restate the objectives of Bill C-84. The primary objective of the Bill, as is stated in its preamble, is to protect genuine refugees. The Bill seeks to deter the wholesale abuse of the refugee claims system that has taken place over the last 10 years and to create a scheme of penalties to ensure that abusers are properly punished.
These provisions do not affect thousands of genuine refugees whom we bring to Canada each year. In short, they do not make it more difficult for people who need our help to obtain it.
Bill C-84 deals, however, with sanctions and penalties for persons who encourage illegal immigration to Canada and who knowingly abet the abuse of the refugee claims process. The Bill closes a loophole through which people who are criminals or terrorists can use the refugee claims system to defer their removal from Canada for many years.
The Bill also deals with detention for those who are security risks to the Canadian public, or those who conceal or destroy their identity documents so that we cannot easily discover who they are or from where they came.
We know that some 14,000 people have arrived in Canada with forged documents or no documents at all over the last two years. Most of these persons were not using forged documents in order to escape from the country in which they faced persecution, but rather to conceal the fact that they already had a safe haven somewhere else or that they had no real claim to refugee status at all.
[Stage Direction]
This Bill, Madam Speaker, provides stiffer fines and jail terms for those who abuse Canada's immigration laws. Under existing legislation, for instance, the captain of the Amelie, the ship that arrived last year in Nova Scotia, could only be fined $5,000 and receive a maximum sentence of two years.
This is an insignificant penalty when 174 people are each prepared to pay several thousand dollars for an unauthorized voyage to Canada. When I spoke to the Senate committee in December, I addressed the issue that was most frequently
raised by the committee and its witnesses-the issue of Bill C-84's compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As 1 told the senators, during all of the months of the Government's consideration of solutions to abuse of the immigration program, Charter compliance was foremost in our minds. I rejected any suggestion that the Charter simply should not apply to persons who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada. The Charter applies equally to all people regardless of their status in Canada. That is the law and Bill C-84 is consistent with the law. This view was affirmed by the expert counsel I have received from the Department of Justice.
As I also told the Senators, I do not want any person to be able to escape the operation of our laws because of a technical deficiency. I told the senators that I would be happy to consider any amendment that would give lawyers less to argue about-provided such an amendment does not weaken the operation of the Bill.
The Senate has now reported and I have reviewed the Message from the Senate carefully; there are 20 amendments, under 1 3 headings. Nine of the Senate's proposals are acceptable to the Government, at least in principle, but minor amendments to some of these proposals are necessary in order to ensure that the Bill will achieve its purposes, and to ensure that the amendments will fit the technical scheme of the Bill.
The amendments 1 am prepared to accept are these. One, to substitute the term «illegal entry® for the word «smuggling* in the Bill's statement of objectives. This will ensure consistency between the English and French text. Two, to amend the English version of Subsection 103.02(1), changing, for issuing a search warrant, from «evidence may be found® to «evidence will be found®. This amendment corrects a technical flaw in the English version of the Bill; to permit the judge to review the reasonableness of the security certificate. This change clarifies what had been intended from the outset, and makes it clear that the review will be made on the basis of all the information available. Three, to provide discretion to the Federal Court judge with regard to the persons of the person concerned at hearings involving alleged security risks. This is a change which emphasizes considerations of fundamental justice in a system of security review that is stronger than that which currently exists.
[ Translation]
To require the personal, written consent of the Attorney General of Canada or the Deputy Attorney General for the prosecution of those who organize illegal migration. This amendment adds further substance to the Government's undertaking that a person who violates the Act in the cause of rendering needed humanitarian assistance to refugees will not be prosecuted.
January 26, 1988

[Stage Direction]
To provide for a weekly review of the detention of unidentified arrivals and suspected security risks by an adjudicator. This change maintains the additional powers for detention, but ensures compliance with the Canadian law that every person detained by the government has their detention reviewed by independent tribunal.
Other amendments which would alter the principles and objectives of Bill C-84,1 cannot accept.
First, security risks-right to claim. The Senate wants us to grant the right to make a refugee claim to persons who have committed a serious crime or who pose a risk to the security of Canada. It also wants us, Madam Speaker, to provide special detention review hearings for those held on ministerial certificates endorsed by the Solicitor General and myself.
[Stage Direction]
This makes no sense whatsoever. No country has an obligation to protect a person who is a serious criminal or who constitutes a threat to its security. The Senate has already accepted this principle in the case of war criminals and, in any event, the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees specifically excludes such persons from the benefits of the conventions. Even if we give such people access to the refugee board for a hearing on the merits of their claims-and even if they are found to be refugees-we are not obligated to let them stay in Canada. They should and will be removed whether or not they are refugees. The Senate proposals guarantee that such persons will claim, because they will be able to litigate against removal for months if not years, and the Canadian public will bear the risk and the expense. All this will do is ensure that those security risks who do not wish to leave will be able to retain a foothold in Canada. For this reason, Madam Speaker, I cannot accept the Senate's proposal.
Let me turn now to the matter of power to turn ships away. The Senate wants to rescind any power by which I could turn ships away. It is important to note that this provision provides the power to turn ships away. It does not stipulate that such measures must be used in all cases. It is very important to understand that this power must be retained to send a clear message world-wide that Canada will no longer tolerate abuse of our refugee determination system.
It is true that some genuine refugees must use boats to flee their country of origin and to find asylum in a neighboring country. The Vietnamese boat people provide an example with which everyone is familiar. That is not the kind of situation in which we would consider turning ships away. Our concern is with ships that bring illegal immigrants to Canada from safe countries, those which are signatories to the refugee convention and which have good records of compliance with their obligations toward refugees.
Let us remember that people who use ships to come to Canada illegally from safe countries are not fleeing for their lives. They are not escaping from oppression or inhumane
Immigration Act, 1976
conditions. They are simply seeking to improve their economic circumstances. They have all the characteristics of those who want to immigrate to Canada, but who are not willing to submit to the legal processes in order to do so.
[Stage Direction]
It as been argued, Madam Speaker, that the most effective deterrent would be to bring the ship into port and to confiscate it. I cannot agree. Such a «half-measure* would still permit large numbers of persons to enter Canada illegally.
By retaining the power to turn ships around-even if that power is used only on rare occasions-we will be depriving the racketeers who promote such schemes of their main selling point: guaranteed entry to Canada.
By casting doubt on the success of these ventures, we will reduce the incentive for people to pay the high price which the racketeers demand, and we will diminish the appeal of such schemes.
For this reason, I cannot accept any changes to this provision. In order to provide yet another safeguard, however, I am proposing an amendment which will insure that the decision to use this power will be taken personally by the responsible Minister.
Because this amendment is not within the scope of the Senate's message to the House, I must seek unanimous consent from the House to incorporate it into my message to the Senate. I urge all Members to support this amendment.
I will also be seeking unanimous consent for an amendment that will make the definition of «exigent circumstances# more precise by substituting the word «means* for «includes* in Clause 11 of the Bill.
Other provisions which the Senate wants to change are equally important.
The Senate wants to limit prosecution for misrepresentation only in those cases where the claims are manifestly unfounded. I think this proposal is simply unworkable. We need to be able to curb misrepresentation as soon as it is detected. The restrictions proposed by the Senate mean that we would not be able to do so. Prosecution would only take place after the Government proves that a claim is unfounded, which may be weeks or months after the offence is detected.
The Senate also wants to limit the powers of search and seizure to daytime hours and to confine warrantless search to instances where lives are at risk. If we accept the amendment, we will seriously hamper the ability of our officers to apprehend and prosecute those who organize groups of illegal migrants. Transborder schemes would be conducted mainly at night so the perpetrators could escape Canadian jurisdiction if something went wrong.

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
This proposal means that in winter months when darkness comes early, the time of day during which effective action could be taken would be greatly reduced. What could we say about the North where sometimes there is one hour of daylight a day?
Finally, the Senate wants to restrict the penalties for organizing illegal migration to those events carried out in a clandestine manner. If we adopt this proposal, we would see ships steam right into Halifax next summer with unauthorized passengers and we would not have the power to do anything about it. The practices we are trying to deter are not always clandestine. We want to deter all forms of illegal entry. Therefore, we cannot accept this Senate amendment.
I have, however, accepted the Senate's proposal that all prosecutions under this provision should receive the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada. This measure, as stated earlier, adds further substance to the Government's undertaking that a person who violates the Act in the cause of rendering needed humanitarian assistance to refugees will not be prosecuted.
[ Translation]
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I will not accept any amendments to Bill C-84 that change the principles or objectives of the Bill. The amendments I am ready to accept will meet the basic concerns raised in the Senate's report.
I do not believe that we need to go further. Indeed, we cannot go further.
[Stage Direction]
Canada's refugee determination system is strained to the breaking point. Bill C-84 aims to solve a clearly understood problem of abuse and to do so through the full application of the Charter. Parliament was recalled in August to deal with the urgent problem of a refugee determination system under siege. That urgency remains. We cannot permit further delay of our efforts to deal with it.
[ Translation]
I would therefore call upon the House to deal quickly with the motions that I am introducing. I urge this House to accept those amendments that are in accordance with our objectives and to reject those that would impair the effectiveness of Bill C-84.
Madam Speaker, I move the following amendments:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House agrees with amendments 8 and 13(e) made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, but disagrees with amendments 4, 5(a), (b) and (c), 6(a) and
(b), 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13(a), because this House believes they contradict the principles of the Bill for the following reasons:
Amendment 4 would exclude only criminals and war criminals from the refugee determination process, but would allow terrorists, spies and subversives to pursue a claim to refugee status, notwithstanding the fact that Article 33 the UN Convention would permit the removal of these latter individuals to
their countries of nationality or permanent residence, even if they were determined to be Convention refugees.
Amendment 5(a) would eliminate the authority of the Minister to direct a ship to leave or not to enter Canadian waters. This amendment would reopen a significant gap in Canada's ability to control its borders.
Amendments 5(b) and (c) arise out of Senate amendment 5(a), which is not acceptable, and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendments 6(a) and (b) would reverse the policy on which the Immigration Act, 1976 was based, which policy was not changed in the Bill as passed by this House. The amendments jeopardize the possibility of successfully prosecuting persons who profit from organizing illegal migration and from counselling fraud among refugee claimants.
Amendments 9 and 10 would restrict the ability of peace officers and immigration officers to act quickly to search for evidence of major offences under the Immigration Act, 1976, in exigent circumstances, where lives are at risk or where evidence with respect to those offences may be lost or destroyed.
Amendments 11 and 12 would restrict the ability of peace officers and immigration officers to execute search warrants which have been duly authorized by a Justice of the Peace, by denying explicit autority to break open containers where it is reasonably believed evidence will be found and by limiting the authority to execute these warrants at night.
Amendment 13(a) would reduce the initial period of detention without review from seven days to forty-eight hours, which would allow insufficient time for the gathering of information to substantiate allegations or to identify the individual, particularly when large groups of undocumented persons arrive at one time.
And, that this House agrees with the principles set out in amendments I, 2(a), 3, 7, and 13(b), (c) and (d), but would propose the following amendments:
Amendment 1 be amended to read as follows: ^Strike out lines 22 to 23 on page 1, and substitute the following:
(c)	to deter those who assist in the illegal entry of persons into Canada and thereby minimize the*
Amendment 2(a) be amended to read as follows: "Strike out lines 29 to 39, on page 4, and substitute the following:
(a) examine within seven days, in camera, the security or criminal intelligence reports considered by the Minister and the Solicitor General and hear any other evidence or information that may be presented by or on behalf of those Ministers and may, on the request of the Minister or the Solicitor General, hear all or part of such evidence or information in the absence of the person named in the certificate and any counsel representing the person where, in the opinion of the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, the evidence or information should not be disclosed on the grounds that such disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of person;*
Amendment 3 be amended to read as follows: «Strike out lines 7 to 12, on page 5, and substitute the following:
(d)	determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information available to the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and. if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate; and*
Amendment 7 be amended to read as follows: «Add, immediately after lines 6, on page 10, the following:
95.21 No proceedings for an offence under section 95.1 or section 95.2 shall be instituted except by or with the personal consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada or Deputy Attorney General of Canada.*
Amendment 13(b) be amended to read as follows: "Strike out lines 1 to 22, on page 21, and substitute the following:
(2)	Where, with respect to a person detained under subsection (1), the Minister certifies in writing
(a) that
(i) the person's identity has not been established, or
[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988

[Stage Direction]
(ii) the Minister has reason to suspect that the person may be a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraphed 19( 1 )(e), (0 or (g), and
(b) that an additional period of detention is required to investigate the matter referred to in subparagraph (a) (i) or (ii), the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith and at least once during every seven day period thereafter, at which times the adjudicator shall review the reasons for the person's continued detention.#
Amendment 13(c) be amended to read as follows: "Strike out lines 23 to 47, on page 21, and substitute the following:
(2.1)	Where the Minister has issued a certificate under subsection (2), the Minister may amend the certificate to which the detention relates to include any matter referred to in subparagraph (2) (a) (i) or (ii), following which the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith and at least once during every seven period thereafter, at which times the adjudicator shall review the reasons for the person's continued detention.
(3)	Where a person is detained under subsection (1) and the Minister has not issued a certificate under subsection (2), the person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith after the expiration of the period during which the person is being detained and that person shall be brought before an adjudicator at least once during every seven day period thereafter, at which times the reasons for continued detention shall be reviewed.#
Amendment 13(d) be amended to read as follows: "Strike out lines 48 to 50, on page 21, and lines 1 to 18, on page 22, and substitute the following:
(4)	Where an adjudicator who conducts a review under subsection (2) or
(2.1)	is satisfied that reasonable efforts are being made by the Minister to investigate the matter referred to in subparagraph (2) (a) (i) or (ii), the adjudicator shall continue the person's detention.
(4.1)	Every review under subsection (2) or (2.1) of the detention of a person suspected of being a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(1 )(e), (f), or (g) shall be conducted in camera.
(4.2)	Where (a) the Minister is of the opinion that any evidence or information to be presented by or on behalf of the Minister at any review under subsection (2) or (2.1) of the detention of a person referred to in subsection (4.1) should not be disclosed on the grounds that its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons, and (b) a request therefore is made by the Minister, the adjudicator shall order that the review or any part thereof be conducted in the absence of the person and any counsel representing the person.
(4.3)	Any person excluded by an order under subsection (4.2) from the whole or any part of the review under subsection (2) or (2.1) may apply to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or to a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice for the purposes of this subsection to have the order quashed and sections 36.1 and 36.2 of the Canada Evidence Act shall apply, with such modifications as the circumstances may require, to such applications.
(4.4)	Unless quashed, an order under subsection (4.2) shall, with respect to the person to whom the order relates, apply to every review under subsection (2) or (2.1), or part thereof, at which the Minister is of the opinion that any evidence or information to be presented by or on behalf of the Minister at the review, or part thereof, should not be disclosed on the grounds that its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons.
(5)	Where the adjudicator who conducts a review under subsection (2) or (2.1) does not continue a person's detention under subsection (4), the adjudicator shall make the appropriate order under subsection 104(3).
(6)	An adjudicator who conducts a review under subsection (3) shall make the appropriate order under subsection 104(3).#
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party I am pleased to respond to the motion just put before the House of Commons by the Minister. I would like to begin my remarks with a commendation for the
Immigration Act, 1976
work done by the Senate. It should be noted that Liberal Members of the Senate have not moved amendments to the Bill in order to delay or as a tactic to frustrate the will of the House of Commons. Rather, this is a position adopted unanimously by all Senators on the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, including Conservative Members of the Senate. That speaks volumes about the kinds of amendments that have been moved. On this issue the Senators were not moved by any partisan feelings on Bill C-84, but were genuinely moved to improve a piece of legislation which was flawed seriously.
I would also like to congratulate the Senate for paying attention to the many deputations, representations, and witnesses which came before the Senate committee. There were many groups, individuals, and representations which were denied an opportunity for input because in the summer months the Government rushed the Bill through committee and through the House of Commons. At the very least the Senate deliberations provided a forum for those, particularly from the regions of the country, who were unable, on such short notice, to change their schedules, come to Ottawa, and make their views known.
I would like to pay special tribute to the Chairman of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Senator Joan Neiman, who was a pivotal and very sensitive factor throughout the deliberations of the Senate. In short, democracy was well served by the report of the Senators in the other place.
There are a number of clauses in Bill C-84 which have no business being there. There have been a number of changes adopted by the Minister, although those changes are less of a priority when compared to some of the bigger ticket items which the Government refused to move on. However, it is still a sign that the Government was prepared to show more flexibility than it did during the summer months when this debate came to the fore with great passion and emotion.
There was a trickle of understanding and warmth which was completely absent during the debate in the summer. That recognition emanated since the summer debate and is a by-product of a Government which has reflected upon what it did. The Government has seen that the piece of legislation introduced in the House in the summer was overkill. It went far beyond the necessity to update legislation. When discussing this issue with Canadians last month they gave a different view than they did in the heat of the moment. I believe that Members, if not Ministers, of the Government have recognized that they went too far with that piece of legislation.
Therefore, even though the changes are few and of less priority than some of the other items in the legislation, there is still a recognition that the Government erred in its approach, in its contact, and in communicating to the Canadian public what we were dealing with. I believe the Government feels a certain amount of remorse for having fabricated that crisis, remorse



[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
for having brought Parliament together. The Minister says that we are still in an urgent or emergency situation. Yet in discussions with the Senate committee and with the Senators we find there was absolutely no pressure, no signals from the Government of the day that it wanted that legislation quickly. There was no order from the Government to the Senators on that committee to rush through that committee as Bill C-84 was rushed through the legislative committee of the House of Commons. I believe that when the Government stepped back it began to realize that the crisis was a figment of its public relations imagination this past summer when its poll ratings were at 22 per cent at best. That was the impetus for the fabrication of the so-called crisis.
That brings into play the question of the role of Government if it is not to educate, to inform and to mobilize a progressive, understandable and calm public relation opinion towards very sensitive issues of the day, of which the immigration and refugee policy is an important part. Instead there is no leadership offered. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked about queue jumpers and illegal aliens. We had the situation in the last number of years where family immigration is down and entrepreneur immigration with the $250,000 capital investment is doubled. We are in a mess with respect to the backlog in refugee applications, and we have seen the spectacle of three or four high profile individuals who were clearly undesirable and who had come into this country notwithstanding. Therefore, we had a confusion of priorities, a lack of direction and a bankruptcy of leadership. That has bled the public confidence. That is really where the haemorrhaging is.
When we look at this piece of legislation, we must compare it with other issues. We must put into perspective the 330 individuals who came in by boat and asked for refugee asylum. I will admit that perhaps a few of those individuals, who knows, might not have been legitimate. A few might not have been true refugees, and a few perhaps should not have received the compassion of this country. Time will tell which of those individuals, if any, fall into that category. But we must compare the reaction of this Government to the reaction of the Government headed by the then Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), in 1979, followed by the Government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1980. What was their reaction when the world was asking its countries to come in and collectively help out with the Vietnamese boat refugee crisis? What was the reaction of our country then? We accepted over a two-year period, be it under the former Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead, or former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, 106,000 Vietnamese refugees. That was above and beyond every other aspect of the program. There were 50,000 sponsored by the two Governments, and the other 50,000 were sponsored by communities.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, was it not a challenge of the Governments of that day to educate the Canadian public as to why we should try to help out in this world crisis? Should we not have educated the public as to why communities should
open up their doors and their hearts to these individuals? These communities did that, and these are the same Canadians who live in our communities across the country today. These
106,000	refugees were allowed into the country with understanding and a sense of compassion and pride, and they are now integrated into Canadian society. They hold good jobs. Many of them own their own homes. Many of them have businesses, and their children, by and large, are doing extremely well. That is a successful and proud example of a people complemented by the best political leadership.
I ask myself where that leadership was when this Government was faced with a response to 300 people over two summers. The Senate began its deliberations and when it presented its recommendations, which represented the views of both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, I think the recommendations had two things in mind. The first was to try to maintain and keep the traditions that have made us a world leader in terms of assisting the plight of refugees. Therefore, the Senate wanted to instil some modifications in the Bill in order to try to have a piece of legislation which was moderate and in keeping with the progressive attitude that has shaped our policies over the long course.
1 recall the words of Rabbi Gunther Plaut who came before our committee during the summer and gave a very moving testimony before the committee. He said: «1 think the Bill was drawn in undue haste. This is why I think we need just a little more leisure to write legislation that makes sense®. He said: «1 think Draconian and emergency legislation gives the wrong signal not only to the world but to our own people in Canada®. He asked the members of the committee to look carefully at some of the amendments suggested. He said: «Do not follow the worst instincts of people, but follow their best instincts®. 1 think those words really provided guidance to members of the Senate committee who took those words to heart and made the changes that would allow that legislation to be in keeping with those traditions.
I believe the second impetus was to ensure that we would not be getting into any constitutional crisis vis-a-vis our Charter and laws. There was the fear that upon proclamation of this Bill into law, lawyers across this country would challenge this piece of legislation in the courts as a violation of certain aspects and sections of our Charter. What would happen then if one of those courts agreed with those arguments? It would cripple and paralyze the refugee policy yet once again. What would Canadians say then after being told by the Government that their concerns were taken care of? It would bleed confidence all the more. It would make the haemorrhaging problem even greater.
Therefore, we must recognize as parliamentarians that when adding up all the things we do, from constituency case files to speaking up on the floor of the House of Commons and in committee, we have two responsibilities that really dominate our work in this place. First, we must collect tax dollars and spend them wisely. Second, we must create and draw up good
January 26, 1988

[Stage Direction]
legislation in keeping with our Constitution and Charter to govern Canadian citizens. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, with all due respect, that it is simply unacceptable for the Government to bring forward a Bill, in the full knowledge that there are serious legal and constitutional flaws in that piece of legislation. Rather than racing through this legislation only to be sorry later, the message from the Senate, and, indeed, the message we departed with in the summer, was to take care of those legal flaws now in order to avoid complications later on.
I would also like to take a moment to discuss some of the amendments and recommendations for changes that were not approved by the Minister in his statement only moments ago. He mentioned that he did not agree with some of the statements since they were against the principles of the Bill. I question what the principles of the Bill actually are in light of the fact that some of the recommendations made by the Senate are sensible and in keeping with the very premise and objective of the Bill.
The first recommendation he rejected was with respect to the clause put in by his Government that would enable a Minister or the Government to turn back a boat. In the summer we felt, and we feel now, as the Senators do, that this is the wrong clause to have in any legislation. It offers no due process to those people who may be on board a boat. The Minister talked about the fact that people on these boats are largely economic refugees. How does the Minister know this? How will he know how many are on board? How will he know who is on board? How will he know from where they are coming? How will he know what are their ages? How will he know what their health is on board the boat? The whole question of the unknown is a big variable that the Government simply cannot dismiss.
We cannot have the Minister woken up one morning by a call from his Deputy Minister saying to him, «Turn the boat back*. There is human cargo on these boats. Their cargo is not wheat or some raw material. They are not carrying shipments of steel. There are human beings on board who may in fact be legitimate refugees. We cannot afford to be flippant about this type of human cargo.
If the Minister is allowed to turn back a boat, then clearly the operative words become «mode of transportation®. If a relative of mine were to flee his country as a refugee and come by air to land at Pearson International then he would be processed once he said, «I am a refugee®. If another relative of mine from the other side of the world, who also may be a refugee, were to take a boat, that person would not receive the time of day. How can we allow the mode of transportation to dictate how the system will process such a person? Such a thing cannot be allowed. There is but one system and one law. There is but one category and one class of refugee. There are not two classes dependent upon whether one arrives by boat, plane, bus, or whether one arrives riding a bicycle across the border from Buffalo. The fact of the matter is that there should be
Immigration Act, 1976
one response by the system to a person, irrespective of how he or she come into the country.
The last aspect of this whole matter is the most curious. My contention is that turning back a boat does not discourage the manipulators or the traffickers of human flesh about whom the Minister spoke. According to his statements today he stated in his press release that some amendments, including turning back a boat, attempt to change the principles of the Bill, and that some do not support its over-all intent. He said therefore that he could not accept these amendments.
My question to the Minister is this. How will this turning back of a boat discourage smugglers and traffickers from trying the whole process again? As the legislation is written now the Minister can turn back a boat. He seems to think that that will discourage another boat from arriving. I ask Hon. Members to put themselves in the place of a smuggler, the captain of a boat. All he has to lose is the fact that he might be turned away. Thus there is a 50 per cent chance that he will dump his human cargo in Canada and a 50 per cent chance that he will be turned away.
If he is turned away, then perhaps he will dump his cargo a little further out, or else he will dump it on another part of the coastline, or even take his cargo to another country. The captain, the smuggler, does not care because he has received cash on delivery. By this point in time he has already pocketed the $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 fee. He really does not give a hoot as long as he has the dollars in his pocket. If there were a second captain about to leave from another port, would he be discouraged from leaving with a new shipment of refugees? I think not.
What does the Senate suggest? It articulated the recommendation that rather than turning back a boat it be escorted into port. If we want to punish these smugglers of human misery then we should bring the boat in, confiscate it and sell it, and punish the captain by imposing a fine upon him or by placing him in prison. If we were to do that with a boat which arrived today and the message went back to all ports that the captain had lost his boat and is in prison, do Hon. Members think that another captain would leave harbour risking imprisonment and losing his livelihood? I think not.
The discouragement is greater if we bring the boat in and then punish the culprits. We will also be more wise since we will be able to question the captains. We can even try to break down the rings and the networks that are operating throughout the world. How wise would we be just to turn back a boat? It would not discourage anyone. We would only find the next morning another boat in another harbour.
When the Minister says that these recommendations do not fulfil the principles of the Bill he is wrong. In part, one of the principles was to discourage human smugglers. Turning back a boat does not discourage human smugglers at all. What it does is to offer a public relations gimmick to the Government to try to communicate the message that somehow it is doing something about the so-called problem.

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Our suggestion is that the Government accept the recommendation to take in the boat and to punish those who need to be punished, allowing those who are on board the due process of law. We are not suggesting that, because someone is on a boat, that person is automatically a refugee. No one has suggested that, not the Senators, not myself, nor members of my Party. It will have to be established through due process whether or not these people deserve to stay in the country.
In this Bill the Government has created a new offence, a new fine and a new prison term for those who help refugees who might not have a valid visa. In addition to the question of turning back a boat, the recommendation in this regard probably summarizes the frustration that Canadians have with this piece of legislation. I would be embarrassed if my Party forced me as the Minister to put such measures in the legislation. What will be done through the implementation of such measures is to create civil disobedience for those such as priests, nuns, or the average layman who helps a refugee come into the country without the proper documentation.
Does the Government realize the impact of such a measure? Does it know the reality of the true refugee? I think that after a period of time in his position the Minister should know that sometimes the true refugees do not have the time to line up to obtain a visa document. Sometimes they have to forge such documents in order to get through the Customs of the country they are fleeing. Sometimes they do not even have the time to do that as they are being pursued. They simply get on the first plane or boat and get out of that country. Therefore they come to Canada without the proper documents that Members of Parliament, our families and other Canadians have six months to validate.
This measure puts the operative word on the document. It goes beyond that and states that if a priest were to help someone to come into the country who did not have a legitimate visa, he or she would face a possible fine or prison term. That runs counter to the life of the true refugee. It is offensive. It is offensive to those organizations and religious institutions that have made it a career and interest to help those refugees.
When one thinks about other issues, it has been the churches together with many organizations that have been at the forefront of the social issues. It has not been the Government, regardless of its stripe, but the churches that have attempted to feed the hungry and started the phenomenon of food banks in order to help. It is the churches and other organizations that have given shelter to the homeless. It is the churches and others who have helped the aged, the lonely, and the depressed. Now they are also helping those who do not have a country, not because of choice, but because of pressure, torture, assassinations, and threats.
They are now going to be punished if those individuals do not have the proper documentation. I find that offensive and
embarrassing, even as a member of the Opposition. It will go down in the history of Canada that it was this Parliament that passed such a regressive piece of legislation with such an offensive clause to make it civil disobedience if a priest or nun helps an individual come through without the proper visa.
We suggested wording changes. As did the Senate, we suggested that it should be illegal for any church or other member of Canadian society to counsel individuals on fraudulent claims, or to advise individuals on fraudulent applications, or to establish, forge, or write the wrong visa documents.
They told us before both committees of the House and of the Senate that they would accept that. They do not want to be above the law. I have heard the Minister of Immigration on numerous occasions suggesting that somehow they want to be above the law. They want to be within the law. But we want to create a law that is respectable and a reflection of Canada in 1987-88 and not some sense of a society as it was back in the days when anything went.
This clause should not be looked at in a flippant manner. Many of those organizations will in fact be breaking the law. They have told us so themselves. I recall the words of Nancy Pocock from the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees who stated:
If my Government tells me it is a crime to help these people. I will have to
say I am obeying a higher law and I am going to continue to help them when
they need me.
Therefore, there are citizens who have been forced to say that they are prepared to break the law. They are prepared to break the law not because they do not want to preserve a sense of order and fair play in this country, but because they do not respect the law. They do not respect the impetus behind the creation of this law, and they do not believe that it is just and fair and that it should be part of our system.
1 was taken aback that, on those two primary recommendations about escorting the ship into port as opposed to sending it back, and not to create a new offence for those aiding and abetting legitimately, the Government did not move on those two aspects to bring it into line with the Charter, with the Constitution, and with the premise of the Bill.
Another area of contention was the search and seizure. The Minister mentioned that he did not want simply to use a warrant during the day, he wanted it in the evenings. He suggested that the Senators were saying that once it hits four o'clock in the afternoon they are not allowed to get a warrant because it is part of the evening. The Senate said no such thing. The Senate was suggesting that it would be more in keeping with trying to get the warrants during the day. But if the situation merited it, if the ship was getting away and it was eight o'clock at night, there was nothing in their recommendations that stopped the Minister or the Government from executing such a search and seizure.
January 26, 1988

[Stage Direction]
There too the clauses went far beyond the need and the necessity of this legislation. It was almost suggesting that they wished to make immigration officials into Rambo-like people rampaging the country, opening and breaking at their leisure. Is this the type of country that Canadians want? Are those the type of laws that we have developed and nurtured over the years? Of course, they are not. The laws and regulations that we as a society have nurtured have been far more moderate, tolerant, and intelligent than simply providing wide powers that one day may be abused by some Minister or Government, regardless of political stripe.
Therefore, we thought that some of the recommendations proposed by the Senate with respect to the search and seizure powers would be taken back somewhat. Not for one moment do we want to take away the tools of any Government to ensure the security of our country. There are tools presently in place to look after our country. After all, I think that we have been doing a pretty good job all these years. There must be something in place that has allowed us to protect our borders. The tools are there now. We should improve those tools, yes, changing with the times to meet the new challenges, but certainly not galloping ahead into regulations that leave open the serious possible abuse of rights of Canadians citizens and noncitizens alike.
Another similar aspect of the Bill was the detainment provisions. This summer Senators, including government Senators and Members of Parliament, pleaded for some moderation in terms of the tools that they wanted in place. The existing regulations provide that anyone can be detained for good reasons for up to 48 hours without any questions asked. In order to continue to detain the person following 48 hours, the law requests that the Government must get approval from an adjudicator. That approval will be granted for one week, at which time that approval needs to be re-established.
Therefore, if there are good grounds for detainment, for example, if the identity papers have not come in from some other country, or if there has been a delay or questions, the adjudicator will provide an extension. No adjudicator in this country will abandon the security considerations of Canada because it is also their country. Any adjudicator worth his or her salt will obviously have to balance the interests of the country from a security viewpoint and the variables of individual rights. He or she will weigh them.
But let us remove and depoliticize that decision-making. Let us have a politically disinterested person, that is, an adjudicator making the decision as opposed to a politically motivated individual, for example, a cabinet Minister or a deputy minister.
Our system would be far healthier if that were the course taken, rather than giving great powers vested in a Minister who can basically detain at whim, simply with a rubber stamp. The proceedings are that seven days would be automatically granted, following which a 21-day period must be granted if
Immigration Act, 1976
they so desire because there is no discretion offered to the adjudicator to change that.
The Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) is present in the House. During the lifetime of this debate in the House I ask him to reconsider perhaps the moderation aspect with respect to both search and seizure and detainment.
Another aspect was the whole question of security. To start with, it is a very sensitive issue. It is even more sensitive following on the experience with which the country has had to live in the last year in respect of the granting of immigrant status to a convicted terrorist. It is an extremely sensitive and emotional issue.
The Government suggested that anyone suspected of a security flaw should not have access to the refugee process or the refugee system. The Senate came back and said: «We believe that that should be the case for those who are convicted of a serious crime, for terrorism, and for convicted war criminals®. It indicated that those people should not have access to our refugee system to buy more time or to abuse the compassion of our country. I would agree with that. However, the Government wanted to go beyond that and talk about people it may suspect of some wrongdoing. Currently it wants to incorporate under Subsections 19(1 )(c), (e), (f), and (g) of the Immigration Act people suspected of undermining security or people suspected of having done so in the past. It is all based on suspicion. As the Prime Minister mentioned a number of times this week, we have in our system the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Our point is that we cannot simply detain or order people out of the country based upon suspicions. It must be much more valid than that. We must also define what we mean by «subversive*.
Is Nelson Mandela a terrorist because he has tried to obtain freedom for himself and his people in South Africa? According to the definition, Nelson Mandela would be one of those individuals who would be seen to be undermining a Government of another land. He would be seen as going against the system. Currently Nelson Mandela is in prison and has been convicted of what South Africa thinks is a crime and what we would reward with a medal, namely, the seeking of one's democracy and freedom. Therefore we must try to define what constitutes subversive activities.
Our position has been that we need more than simply suspicion, and at the end of my remarks I will be moving an amendment which plays to that fact. On the one hand people convicted of serious crime have no business being in our country, let alone applying for refugee status. That is one extreme. The Government is going to the other extreme and saying: «Look, give us the power so that if we suspect somebody we can get rid of him rather than having them apply for refugee status®. That is the other extreme, and it is too much of an extreme because it can be abused. My amendment, which I will read into the record at the end of my speech, would do the following.

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
If the Government had a suspicion about someone in Canada undermining the security of our country or having done so and not having been convicted in another country, the Government would have to begin deportation proceedings and allow for due process. If the deportation proceedings were upheld, that is to say, if it can be proven that the suspicions are true, I would agree that thereafter the door could be closed and that they should not be given a second opportunity to buy more time for a second merry-go-round by saying: «I am a refugee®.
If the Government had suspicions about people who have not yet been convicted but are undermining security, we are mandating the Government to begin deportation proceedings immediately, which would trigger due process and a hearing. If the hearing concludes that they are a threat to Canadian security, following that judgment they should not be able to make a refugee claim. I think we are prepared to support that amendment.
We are also putting it forward in the spirit that I believe the country has learned something about our security system in the last two weeks about which I wish we did not have to learn. It is a balanced compromise which says that those who are convicted must leave the country and certainly have should not been allowed to apply for refugee status. Second, those who are suspected must have the due process of deportation proceedings, at the end of which they must leave or have their refugee application treated accordingly.
In conclusion, we wish to say that in part the objective is to curb abuse of the system. We have never said that everyone who has applied for refugee status is a legitimate refugee. We have never said that there has been no abuse. I wish we could have said that. We cannot afford to say that realistically about any aspect of Government. If we look at the unemployment insurance program we find abuse. If we look at the Canada Pension Plan disability provision, we find that there is abuse if people collect even though their backs or knees really do not hurt. We also know that there is abuse in terms of workers' compensation cases. Government tries to eliminate abuse without making disparaging remarks about the majority of cases which are legitimate ones. Therefore, if we have not turfed out the workers' compensation program, or the UIC program, or the CPP disability program, why should we turn the refugee program upside down because a number of individuals may have abused the system?
We are saying that no one should welcome, support, or reward those people who wish to abuse refugee procedures. At the same time we are asking the Government not to undermine what has taken many years to build up-a system of which Canadians are proud, a system which needs reform but, in the world context, is looked at with awe and envy in all corners of the globe.
During this debate we wish to submit a second conclusion to the Government. It should not get lost with the short term and
think that this is a temporary piece of legislation. It has a larger long-term perspective. The Government should be educating the Canadian public, not trying to undermine or decrease public confidence in the system. Immigration and refugee policy is a very important area which can help to make Canada a better, bigger, and more prosperous country. The Government should not ruin in the short term what is there for the long term.
It should also discuss with Canadians in a mature way the following facts. We have a dwindling birth rate, an aging population, 50,000 people leave the country every year, rates of immigration are higher in terms of targets than the actual number of people coming into the country, and we need individuals because our educational system is still not producing a sufficient number. For example, we still go to Great Britain to import tool and die-makers.
When we add together all these variables, we see that we cannot sacrifice educating Canadians on those needs. They can see the merits of immigration, that it has an important role to play in coming years. They know that Canada will continue to search, to promote, and to invite people to its shores to join in the building of the country, which never stops because we are always building and always have an eye to the future.
Let the Government not deny that future, that potential which is there for immigration to add to Canada, by inciting and fabricating a crisis which does not exist. Let us be more positive. Let us be more statesmanlike. Let us be more outward looking. That is our second message to the Government today.
[DOT] <1620)
Our third message is that policy is not only a domestic policy; but it is also a window to the world. It has international implications. We must recognize that as Canadians sometimes we do not promote ourselves or our policies as aggressively or as actively as we should, as Americans do, for example. We should recognize that here is an example of international diplomacy, a recognition of international leadership in trying to combat what is a world problem. This is not a problem only akin to Canada; this is a world-wide problem in need of a world-wide solution. Let us not again be followers as opposed to leaders. Let us continue to lead. Bill C-84 is not leadership. It is a message to the world that we are loosening the resolve of trying to combat this terrible problem of where people have to go when they are on the run. This is a message to Great Britain, to the United States and to Europe that they too can become lax. If Canada is being lax it must be right.
I ask you with all due respect, Madam Speaker, where is the international solution if all those countries take away what is there now? What will we have if we have that long corridor of internationally locked doors? Will it make the problem go away, or will it make the problem greater? Will it lessen the frustration of the refugees who see those locked doors, or will they become more desperate and will more of them run to underworld manipulators?
January 26, 1988

[Stage Direction]
Therefore, the international message is rather than loosening the resolve, rather than softening the political international will, we should be putting out a strong message. If there was ever a time to strengthen that resolve, it is now. Canada cannot accept 10 to 15 million refugees. No one is saying that. It would be impossible physically and politically. We know that. The world together must solve the problem, but this type of legislation begins to undo that resolve.
Rather than creating Bill C-84s we should be calling for an international conference. We should be bringing together the Ministers of Immigration and the Foreign Affairs Ministers who should be looking each other in the eye and saying. «Are we still as resolved?* Does the Geneva Convention really mean a damn at the end of the road? Is the Geneva Convention simply becoming an empty piece of paper that is manipulated by every Government or opposition Party which points to the Geneva Convention? Everyone mentions the Geneva Convention in his or her argument to justify the argument. That to me makes it meaningless because it does not have a significant, realistic impact at the end. If we want to restore the Geneva Convention to its proper stature, we need that political resolve internationally. We cannot do it alone, and we know that. Canadians do know that. Canadians are proud of past Governments of whatever stripe which have had the courage and the conviction to stand up and be counted in trying to get an increasingly stubborn world dealing with this human dilemma before us all.
Those are the three messages we would like to deposit into the records of the House of Commons for the benefit of the Ministers and the Government to try to convince them that there are other recommendations, a major one in the Senate report, that will preserve our traditions, keep intact our leadership and promote the pride that Canadians feel about our policies. Reform the system, yes. Improve it, yes. Cut out abuse, yes. But devastate the policy, no. The message from Ottawa to the country and to the world must be an unequivocal, resounding no. We are staying our ground and leading the world in the right direction.
History is created by monumental decisions that we look back to. If Bill C-84 is allowed to stand as it is now, people will not look back to this Parliament in 30 or 50 years in any good way; just as we looked back to the Parliament which turned back a boatload of Jews many years ago. That action might have been popular then, but it is disgusting now. We have the ability to learn from our experience and to ensure that future Members of Parliament and Ministers will look back upon this legislation as a building block as opposed to a stumbling block.
Pursuant to my earlier discussion in moving an amendment to clarify the security aspect of the Senate amendments, I
Immigration Act, 1976
move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi):
That the message of the House of Commons to the Senate be amended by:
a)	deleting, in paragraph one, the reference to Senate amendment 4;
b)	deleting paragraph two;
c)	adding to paragraph nine a reference to Senate amendment 4; and
d)	adding after amendment 3 the following:
«That amendment 4 of the Senate be amended by deleting the said amendment and by striking out line 16 on page 7 of the Bill and substituting the following therefor:
«(2)(c) and against whom a deportation order has been upheld by the Board; or"*
With those words, Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks and I look forward to discussing this amendment with the Government. I look forward to further changes and further flexibility exhibited thus far on some of the more minor amendments. We also need movement and change on the basic tenets of this legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will allow the Chair to look at the amendment and reserve as to the admissibility of the amendment until later on this afternoon.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)- Immigration-Admittance of convicted terrorist-Newspaper report / Service of deportation papers; the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-The census-Alleged release of confidential medical information / Request for amendment of census forms-Right to refuse in-depth interviews; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Refugees-Cost of welfare for refugee claimants in Toronto.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, and the motion of Mr. Bouchard (p. 12300).

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: 

[Stage Direction]
I want to comment on the handling of the recommendations in this Bill. The first recommendation of the committee was to replace the word ((smuggling# with ((clandestine entry#. The Government claims to accept that in principle, but in fact it does not. By replacing it with ((illegal entry#, what they do in fact is to continue the same policy as was put forward by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to the legislative committee last summer in which he said that the phrase ((illegal entry# will mean that anybody who helps a refugee, a real refugee who lacks a visa, is committing a crime. In other words, the Government has not changed its policy by pretending to accept, with the weasel phrase «in principle#, the first amendment of the Senate.
The second amendment on security certificates, yes, the Government has accepted that amendment. That means that the Government will revert to the standard practice of justice in this country and let the court decide rather than some ministerial official, on the question of security certificates, that a person who is the subject of a security certificate should have the chance to be present during the presentation of the Government's case to the judge except where the judge, not the Minister, decides there are compelling reasons for exclusion. I am glad that the Government has accepted that amendment.
That was amendment 2(a). The second part of 2(a), however, the Government rejects. That really negates the value of the first amendment which they have accepted. That is, they will let the judge hear the case but they will not let him make a decision which he is qualified to make. They are saying that the amendment of the Senate would provide for a review of detention on the sole grounds of danger to the public. They say that that is too narrow and they will not let the court, the impartial court, override the decision of the Minister.
On Amendment no. 3, in the matter of security certificates, they have a rewording which may be adequate. They do not want to give us time to do a careful study of this. It may be that I will find, when I have had opportunity for further study on this during the next day or two, that there are problems there, but for the time being it looks adequate to say that this amendment would confirm that the judge is to assess the reasonableness of the certificate on the basis of all the evidence available to the judge.
Now we come to Amendment no. 4 which would allow people who are found to be security risks to make a refugee claim. Contrary to what the Minister and people on his side keep repeating, that is required of us by the treaty we signed 20 years ago with 100 other nations of the United Nations. Article 32 on expulsion reads as follows:
1.	The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.
Immigration Act, 1976
2.	The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law.
There is no due process of law there, Mr. Speaker.
Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.
Section 3 of Article 32 is the one where the Government fails in its international obligation by treaty. It says:
3.	The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country.
That is the reason for letting him make a refugee claim and have it decided whether or not he is a refugee, because if he is found to be a refugee he has a right under international law, by the treaty we have signed, to a reasonable time to find another country that will accept him. It goes on to say:
The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.
That could include detention if they are worried about what he might do while they are finding another country.
It is very ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) a few weeks ago, when he was in Central America, suggested that Canada might take in some of the Contras. Some of the people who have killed, burned, and carried on war against the Government and the people of Nicaragua might be accepted as refugees in Canada, according to a statement by the Secretary of State. He later qualified the statement, but it is very interesting that it depends upon whose ox is gored. In other words, when he is in Central America as an ally of the United States he is willing to bend the rules and allow people in who should be excluded by this Bill.
I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs ought to talk to his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and point out that Canada should amend this Bill as the Senate asked in order not to violate our international obligations under the United Nations Convention regarding the status of refugees which we signed 20 years ago.
We then come to the matter of turning the ships around. We find that even a good Tory newspaper, The Globe and Mail, agrees with the Senate and not with the Minister. In their editorial on January 5 they say:
Bill C-84 would, for instance, let the Minister turn ships away from Canadian waters if he thought they might be smuggling passengers-a response more dangerous to those passengers, and less intimidating to the captain, than seizing the ship and arresting the crew when the boat landed.
They go on to object, likewise, to further clauses of the Bill. They point out that what we should be doing is to bring the ship to shore, charge the captain with any offence that we believe he has committed, and deal with the passengers accordingly. That would have the effect of drying up the illegal traffic.

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Immigration Act, 1976
However, the principle of turning the ships away is part of Erik Nielsen's principle of hot flight only. In other words, the Government wishes to turn refugees away because they come from the wrong countries and they have the wrong colour of skin and perhaps the wrong politics. So the ship turning amendments, (a) and (b), have been rejected by the Minister and likewise amendment (c).
We now come to the infamous amendment on aiding and abetting. This says, in effect, that anybody who helps a refugee can be prosecuted for doing so if the refugee did not have a visa to enter Canada. Madam Speaker, it has been said time and again by everyone who knows about refugees that refugees most often cannot get visas, certainly not valid visas. This means to try to intimidate ordinary Canadians from doing what thousands of them have been doing and what thousands of them continue to do to this day, to intimidate them with the threat of a jail sentence.
The Minister claims that he has to do that, that he will not apply it to everybody but he has to do that to catch the guilty ones. In other words, the Minister is saying that our Department of Justice is so incompetent that it cannot define a crime. He has no confidence in the legal experts of our Department of Justice. There are 35,000 lawyers in the land who attack that clause through the Bar Association. 1 am sure they could easily provide the legal expertise, and I believe some of them would do it for free on a matter of conscience. The Minister is so contemptuous of the legal expertise of our Department of Justice that he says they cannot write a law that describes the illegal actions that violate our immigration security without attacking thousands of people whom he says he would not prosecute.
In Section 7 again the Minister weasels. He says he accepts in principle the amendment that would require the personal written consent of the Attorney General of Canada before a prosecution could be launched. That is what he actually proposed, so I understand, when he spoke to the Senate. But then, of course, he backed off from that and decided that that was not good enough, that it has to be the Attorney General and his deputy. He now has it that the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General can initiate the charge. In other words, he does not deal straight, even with his Conservative colleagues in the Senate.
Amendment no. 8 is accepted, and I am glad of that. They probably could not do any less since the Supreme Court, in the Hunter versus Southam case, made it quite clear that a search warrant should only be issued where there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be found. In other words, the Government knows that it is prohibited from going on a fishing trip, from searching and seizing, in the hope that it might find some evidence. That is illegal and I am glad the Government has admitted it.
With regard to Amendment no. 9 on search and seizure, it is very interesting that in his message to the Senate the Minister misrepresents the nature of that amendment. That is very interesting, Madam Speaker. In speaking of Amendments nos. 9 and 10 he says they would restrict the ability of peace officers and immigration officers to act quickly to search for evidence of major offences under the Immigration Act in exigent circumstances where lives are at risk or where evidence with respect to those offences may be lost or destroyed. The amendment expressly says that where lives are at risk it may be done. They expressly allow for that, and the Minister has misrepresented them in order to justify his refusal.
I see you are signalling to me, Madam Speaker, that my time is nearly finished. I am very sorry that such a large subject as this is presented in such a hurry. I will have to rely on my colleagues to bring out some of the further faults. I wish merely to summarize by saying that this motion of the Minister must be rejected because it is contrary to our Charter of Rights as the Senate has explained in page after page of its explanations.
It is contrary to our treaty with the United Nations and a hundred other members of the United Nations with respect to the protection of refugees. It is a shameful and unacknowledged application of the policy of restricting refugees to people in «hot flight®, that is only from a very few countries, or to people chosen as immigrants for their economic value. It has a bias against racial equality in the selection of refugees thereby, and makes use of hysteria and fear to try to get public support for passing it. Public support for this Bill has been waning for many months. The Government would be very lucky if it could find a way out of this mess it has gotten itself into and not have to pass this resolution.
Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), who is the critic for the New Democratic Party on immigration. I also want to take a moment to say he worked very diligently during the summer months in terms of trying to come to grips with Bill C-84.
I know it is a bit unfair because I have not had time to bring him a copy of my amendment, but I wonder, since he only had 20 minutes to speak on the Bill, whether it might afford him a few more minutes to discuss the amendment I moved in the sense that the essence of the amendment is to try to reach a compromise between the Government's position that a person who is convicted of a criminal offence or of war crimes is ineligible to access a refugee claim, and the Government saying that if we suspect anyone of any security breach or uprising, however it may wish to define it, those people will not be able to access the refugee claim.
January 26, 1988



[Stage Direction]
The intent of my amendment was simply to put in place that if there are legitimate suspicions of individuals, at least they be given the chance to defend themselves through a deportation inquiry hearing, at which time their side of the story will be brought to bear. If in fact the deportation inquiry confirms and upholds the order for deportation, at that stage I believe those individuals should not be able to access the refugee system or buy more time, but in fact should be asked to leave the country. From that viewpoint, and I will not go into it any further, will the Hon. Member tell us what his initial position would be toward that amendment?
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I respect the work the Hon. Member has done and the many points he made during his address. However, I will not give a final opinion on his amendment for two reasons. First, it appears to me to violate Article 32 of the Convention, and this is a treaty that Canada has signed. It appears to violated the Convention because it would deny a person a chance to make a refugee claim. The United Nations is quite firm on that.
This is pioneering legislation on individual human rights. As a democratic socialist, 1 find it very illuminating that it is a Tory Government that attacks individual human rights internationally. This follows the Declaration on Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948, Article 13. It follows the Convention on the Status of Refugees of 1951, and the Protocol of 1967 signed by us in 1968. What that says is that a person has a right to seek asylum and protection from his own Government if it is persecuting him or allowing persecution. He has a right in law. We agreed with that law. Therefore, we should not deny it even though it is a little inconvenient or expensive.
We can keep him in detention if we are afraid of him or her, but we should not deny their right because it can make a difference to what happens after, and this brings me to my second point. He has to have a chance to choose another country, not necessarily to be sent back to, say, the Pinochet regime, which could declare him to be a terrorist or criminal on grounds that would not hold in Canada.


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, I once had a colleague who said that those who preached tolerance many times are the most intolerant, and members of the New Democratic Party want to be the champions of tolerance. Very often, we find the only ones they want to be tolerant of are those people who happen to agree with them, and if they do not agree with them, they quickly resort to name calling and epithets. Witness, for example, the provincial election campaign in British Columbia about 18 months ago. Practically on the day the writ was dropped, the now Premier of British Columbia was called names. There were racist slurs against him by the then Leader of the New Democratic Party.
Immigration Act, 1976


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we are discussing Bill C-84 and not the Premier of British Columbia. I would ask that the Hon. Member stick to the subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member will very quickly make a link between his comments and the Bill that is being studied right now.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) in his speech again made accusations against the Government which had the nature of racism wrapped around them when he said this Bill included provisions that were designed to keep non-whites out of Canada. That is reprehensible on the part of a Member who has worked well in this House on this legislation. It is a reprehensible remark. There is nothing in the legislation that deals with this. There is nothing in the record of the Government that would indicate that. It is an unconscionable slur on the part of that Member against the Government.
I want to give the Hon. Member an opportunity to retract the statements he made in his speech regarding racism in this legislation. He has done that in his speech today. He has done it during Question Period. I invite him to look at the record. It is this Government that introduced a policy that allowed at least 50,000 Vietnamese to come to Canada in 1979 and 1980. It is this Government that has kept the policy of immigration open for people from Southeast Asia and Africa to come to Canada under its immigration policies. I would invite the Hon. Member to withdraw the statements regarding racism which he has levelled against this Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on a very short comment.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, my reference in the Question Period of last week was a reference to the slanderous remark of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) attributing to refugees something that the RCMP had not been able to find. My reference to racism was a reference to the legislation first proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in the Nielsen report and which is now being implemented in Bill C-55 and Bill C-84. The facts speak for themselves. The effect of those two Bills is to prevent refugees from coming from the kind of countries to which the Hon. Member has just referred. They would no longer be able to come because they could not come directly from those countries.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
National Anthem Act

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: 
DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
The matter was debated in the House of Commons, as it is being debated today as a Private Members' matter. At that point the Secretary of State indicated that if the Bill were withdrawn and the subject matter presented to a committee he would undertake to give government support to the measure and to produce an alternative Bill in the very near future.
In fact, he did that. In June of 1980, Bill C-36, which is the Bill that enacted the current National Anthem Act, was introduced and passed. As I have said, it is more than a historic note with respect to the procedure that took place in June of 1980 because that Bill was passed with the consent and concurrence of all the Parties in the House of Commons. However, it was on the particular understanding that the words provided for in Bill C-36 were not to be written in stone. Further changes were to be considered.
In fact, it was on the record of the House of Commons that it was anticipated that Private Members, through the medium of Private Members' Bills, would introduce changes in the House of Commons. Thus I want to use that to deal with this point. Some people say, «Do not change the national anthem. It is part of our history. It is changing our traditions*. That is not so. Anyone who knows the history of O Canada and the national anthem simply does not accept that as either factual or proper in theory or in terms of heritage. The O Canada was not adopted by the House of Commons until 1980. There was no official version until the National Anthem Act was passed in that year. It was clearly on the understanding that there would be changes from time to time, and particularly on the understanding that those changes would be brought to the House of Commons by way of a Private Members' Bill. We are exactly on course. There are changes in the National Anthem Act that I think are required with the evolution of our society. I believe they should be made. I believe the change removing the reference to «thy sons* is one of those changes that was contemplated when the National Anthem Act was adopted.
I wish to refer briefly to the constitutional process that has taken place in Canada over the last decade. I wish to remind Members that we all agreed to the Constitution Act of 1982. Some did not, some voted against it, but the great majority agreed with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Section 28 it enacted the assurance that there would be equal rights for men and women, that there would be no discrimination based on sex.
I ask Members of the House of Commons how, on the one hand, they can see fit to enact Section 28 as part of our constitutional record, and reject the amendment that I proposed? It is not consistent. I have looked at the matter and I have come to that conclusion. I do not believe there is any justification for any other conclusion.
That brings me to my personal involvement with this issue. It was not a matter that I discovered. I did not go looking for
National Anthem Act
reasons to change the national anthem. I was approached by representatives of Mount Saint Vincent. It is an institution in the federal constituency of Halifax West that contains the mother house of the Sisters of Charity and a university of higher education dedicated to the interests of women. It accepts men as students, but everyone knows that Mount Saint Vincent University is the leading women's institution in Canada. It was suggested to me that this reference in O Canada was not consistent with our pattern of evolution in terms of equality rights for men and women. On examination I agreed that that statement was correct.
As a result, on June 14, 1984, I introduced Bill C-247 in the House of Commons, which is exactly the same as the Bill now before us. On the prorogation of that particular session 1 reintroduced the Bill in 1985, one year later. The whole matter has a history that did not start yesterday, but this is the opportunity to pursue and act upon the contents and substance of this Bill amending the National Anthem Act.
It is important that I cover the legislative process that might apply to Bill C-232 and its action before the House of Commons. As everybody knows, the motion is for second reading of the Bill and reference to a legislative committee.
Quite often when Private Members' measures gain acceptance in the House of Commons, the Member is asked to withdraw the Bill and consent to a reference of the subject matter to a standing committee of the House of Commons. I have had that happen in the past. It happened with respect to missing children's legislation that I introduced. It happened with respect to victims of crime legislation that I introduced by way of a Private Members' Bill.
That process is not appropriate to this Bill. I cannot help but think that anyone suggesting that the subject matter be referred to a standing committee of the House of Commons rather than reference of the Bill itself to a legislative committee, is really trying to assist in the process that would bring about this legislative change. I wish to tell you why, Madam Speaker.
Under the new rules standing committees that have an interest or jurisdiction over an area can deal with any matter they want. They do not need a reference from the House of Commons. If the committee responsible for the Secretary of State is interested in this change, it can go ahead and pursue it. It does not need a reference from the House of Commons.
I come here asking the House of Commons and my colleagues in this Chamber to refer this matter, this request for a change in the wording of our national anthem, O Canada, to a legislative committee. I do not think anything less than that reference to a legislative committee is acceptable. I do not think any Member will do any favour to the women of Canada who are interested in this issue, and all other persons who believe the issue should be acted upon, by suggesting any other course of action.

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
National Anthem Act
1 ask Members to take this matter in a serious vein, allow it today to go to the legislative committee. 1 am not wedded to the words that constitute the change. I simply believe that the change must be made. It is the only conclusion consistent with our endorsement of equality for the sexes. If we do any other action we will be called into ridicule by those interested outside.
We do not change the national anthem recklessly or without regard to the heritage of Canada and Canadians. We adopted the National Anthem Act in the House of Commons in 1980. We said it would be changed. That was part of the agreement by which it was enacted. Now it is time to give effect to those changes.
There may be other changes, but I present to the House one that I think is necessary and desirable. For those who would say, «Don't change it. Let it go. Do it another day. It is now part of our history#, I say that it is not yet part of our history. It will become part of our history, but it will only become an essential and honoured part of our history if we get the words right. Therefore, if we get the words right in 1988, O Canada will be sung for years, decades, and centuries to come by our sons and by our daughters with pride in the words and pride in the meaning. We will not be faced with these ludicrous distinctions.
I suggest to any Member of this House who wants to challenge me on this subject, who wants to pooh-pooh it, who says it is not necessary, it doesn't mean anything, my mother-in-law likes it, or my sister likes it that that is not the point. I say to Members and I say to everybody that, if you do not understand this point, if you do not take this point to heart, you do not understand equality.
I have found it to be the case, most unfortunately, that those people who denigrate a change like this are not in the forefront when it comes to equal pay for work of equal value. I find they are not there when it comes to positive action, employment opportunities for women, or any of those issues which are vital to the women of Canada. I do not want to suggest that this is an issue that is vital to the women of Canada, but it is a demonstration of the will of Parliament to give real meaning to equality, to give a meaning to equality, in this case to the sexes, but in another case to the equality of all Canadians.
Members of Parliament and colleagues in the House of Commons do not number yourself with those who stand against equality. Count yourself with those who stand for equality. Let this amendment go to the legislative committee, and we can all be proud of our national anthem.
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: 

Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 
An Hon. Member:: What about the polls?


Pierre H. Vincent: 

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
National Anthem Act
Still I am not at all sure that we are on the right track when we try to correct the past as we see it today. On the basis of that principle, just how far should we go?
Our national anthem is the product of popular tradition, it is part and parcel of our common heritage. Of course we must do our best to ensure that our society and our country continues to prosper, and to a certain extent we must plan the future on the basis of today's values and ideals. Yet at the same time, Madam Speaker, I would suggest that we have to show respect for the integrity of such symbols as time and tradition may have left us. As it happens, they are among the better sources of enlightenment because they enable us to identify with our own times and steer our future course.
Madam Speaker, I conclude with this question: What would our children and our descendants think if they came to realize that we were so pretentious and bold as to disguise our ancestral heritage in the hope of making it better?
William Lesick: 

[Stage Direction]
For nearly four decades success at federal Governments have affirmed a commitment, both nationally and internationally to advancing the equality of women. Many initiatives, too numerous for me to go into here, have been undertaken by the federal Government to promote sexual equality. As the Hon. Minister responsible for the status of women has stated:
We intend to provide women with a full range of choices and opportunities to use their talents and to benefit from their use, whether in the home, the workplace, the community or the world at large.
1 want to assure the Member for Halifax West that I, too, am committed to the goal of equality. But the issue here, I believe, is a recognition that our national anthem is part of our collective heritage, our identity as Canadians. It is that heritage that we all, as Canadians, should be proud to pass on to our children to be protected, respected and cherished.
Margaret Anne Mitchell: 

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
National Anthem Act
This constituent wrote to the Hon. Member objecting to the phrase «native land* in the opening lines of our national anthem which reads: «0 Canada, our home and native land®. He objected because the word «native* refers to the land of a person's birth and excludes immigrants to Canada who cannot refer to Canada as their native land.
I believe this appeal, which was made on behalf of all immigrants who have chosen to come to Canada and have become Canadian citizens, is completely justified. I would like to point out that the The Oxford Dictionary defines the adjective «native* as meaning: «of one's birth, where one was born, belonging to one by right of birth or indigenous®. I think it is quite clear that when we are talking about our native land, we are referring to people who were born in Canada, not to people who chose to become Canadians but were born in other lands.
In view of this inaccuracy, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Halifax West if he would include an additional proposed change in wording when this Bill is referred to committee. I propose that the word «native* be changed to «cheris-hed® so that our national anthem would then read: «0 Canada, our home and cherished land®, a simple change which would include a significant number of immigrant Canadians.
This second change in wording would, I think, be a significant gesture just as the Hon. Member's word change is to women. It would assure Canadians who were born in other lands that they indeed are first-class citizens in Canada and are not excluded from our national anthem or from anything else.
In conclusion, I thank the Hon. Member for proposing this Bill. Certainly we do support it and hope that it will go to committee and will include the second change I mentioned.
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: 
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: What are you doing about it?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What are you doing about it?


Felix Holtmann: That should certainly take priority over changing our national anthem, because changing the national anthem will not take them off the street. We must consider that.
I can understand the Member for Halifax West wanting to make a change. It gives him some prestige and he could probably even run his next election campaign on it. However, I do not think women will vote for the Government because we made this change.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Do you think they're going to vote for you?

January 26, 1988



Felix Holtmann: 
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, at the time of Confederation the country was preoccupied with the mechanics of unification and asserting a unique identity among the family members of world nations.
After Confederation Canada grew steadily, but in an orderly fashion. It was not until 1917, 50 years after Confederation, that we finally established our true independence in the eyes of the rest of the world. During that year, at the Battle of Vimy Ridge, Canadians served for the first time as a wholly Canadian force, emerging with distinction as victors. Other nations at that point came to regard us as an autonomous nation with our own strengths, Government and national character.
At that time the red ensign graced flagpoles around our nation, side by side with the Union Jack. As the years passed the Parliament and people of Canada expressed the desire that we have a new flag that would be readily identified as a symbol of Canada throughout the world. Some people today are sorry that there is not a bit of blue in that flag because it is my understanding that blue stands for integrity, white stands for peace, and red stands for sacrifice.
Adjournment Debate
Our own red and white banner of freedom and equality, with the distinctive Canadian maple leaf, was adopted by Parliament in 1964 and officially proclaimed on February 15, 1965, by the Queen. There are Members here today who were serving in Parliament at that time and I am certain each one of them remembers that day with fondness and pride.
Again, a fair amount of time passed before we obtained our own Constitution in 1982, but with the careful planning that went into that completely Canadian document we ended up with the finest and fairest declaration of self-identity in the world. We do things gradually, but we do get them right.
Madam Speaker, the story of our national anthem as well parallels such timely growth. Its inception dates back to 1880 when the French Canadian composer Calixa Lavallee wrote the music to a French text by Mr. Justice Routhier at the request of the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec. For a while English Canadians would still sing God Save the Queen or The Maple Leaf Forever.
In 1908 the Hon. Robert Stanley Weir penned the English version which, over the years, was given recognition by federal and provincial Governments for ceremonial occasions. Forty years later this became the official anthem of the Canadian Armed Forces by way of Order in Council.
Finally, in 1980, the 100th anniversary year of the music, our House of Commons adopted a Bill proclaiming O Canada as our legal, official national anthem. We have fondness for centennials in Canada, Madam Speaker.
These inspiring lines still make our hearts swell with pride when we see our flag wave, when our athletes excel in international competition, and when we travel to foreign lands and hear people speak with such respect for this nation we call home.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with deep regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member.

Perhaps I might be allowed to make a very brief observation. It was with great pleasure that several times during the debate I heard the name Calixa Lavallee, a great Canadian, an outstanding former resident of the Saint-Hyacinthe region.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Adjournment Debate
IMMIGRATION-ADMITTANCE OF CONVICTED TERRORIST- NEWSPAPER REPORT/SERVICE OF DEPORTATION PAPERS
Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I rise in my place during this late show opportunity to raise a further question pursuant to a question I raised in the House of Commons on January 21. My question was directed to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) and concerned an incident to which Canadians have been treated for the last 10 days or so, namely, the incredible bungling of extreme proportions involving the convicted terrorist who was allowed to come into this country and then granted landed immigrant status.
As you know, Madam Speaker, from your knowledge of the regulations, such an individual would be clearly inadmissable according to our Act, yet not only did he find himself in this country but the Government actually approved his landed immigrant papers.
The Government was negligent in three areas; first, it did not find out about the true background of this individual in Spain from CSIS, which has the responsibility in our immigration proceedings, of making sure all applicants are security cleared. There are two essential tests with respect to individuals who want to come into this country. First there is a health check and, second, a security check. Enough resources are allocated to this area that cases such as this should be discovered.
The second mistake was that despite a telex alerting Pearson International Airport that this gentleman was arriving, this individual was able to walk right past immigration and Customs officials at the airport in Toronto without any questions being asked. That was the second time he got past our officials.
The third mistake, in our submission, would be that he was allowed to live in a Canadian community without any questions asked. He is a convicted terrorist who, in the words of the Government, did not pose a security threat, something I find somewhat odd given the individual's background.
Another question we raised is what happened in Spain? At what point did the Government commit this serious error. The Government and its Ministers have been defending the situation, saying it was the individual who misled Canadian authorities and it was on those grounds he was approved. We asked the question that was raised by the Toronto Star which suggested in its January 20th edition that the American intelligence service and the Israeli secret service had advised our Canadian officials in Spain about the individual's true identity and about his terrorist record. Despite those warnings, it is alleged by the Toronto Star that those officials somehow, for some reason, still saw fit to give this individual a security approval.
Our question was very specific. At any time did the secret service or officials from the Israelis ever make representations to Canadian officials? We asked the Minister to confirm or deny. He chose to do neither, which I think is significant
because if it clearly was a situation where there was no recommendation by these other two security forces, 1 think, politically and logically, the Minister would have taken the opportunity to deny the story. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary who will be responding tonight will inform us as to whether or not Canadian officials were advised and, in fact, requested by the other two security forces to not allow this person to get on board the plane. The Toronto Star states, according to its sources, that the officials knew of these recommendations even before the person boarded the plane.
The second part of the question was, if we give the benefit of the doubt to the Minister that the officials were misled, or ignored the individual's background, on what immigration criteria was this person allowed to come into the country? There are 12 factors including job, education, language, training, family, age, dependants and a number of other issues, which criteria must be met by all prospective immigrants.
Therefore, when one looks at this individual's unemployment situation in Canada, the fact that he is involved in a Manpower training program, and the fact that there are literally thousands of applicants with impeccable qualifications who get turned down every year with the story that they were misled, surely there must be some criteria by which this person was able to come into the country. We would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what that criteria was.
I look forward to the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to both these very important questions.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: 

[Stage Direction]
As a deportation hearing in this case is now going on, 1 want to ensure that Mr. Mohammad receives a fair hearing. For this reason I do not wish to comment further on this matter.
THE CENSUS-ALLEGED RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL INFORMATION/REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF CENSUS FORMS- RIGHT TO REFUSE IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the issue 1 would like to raise resulted from a question I asked on November 3, 1987, concerning the operation of the Canada census and, in particular, the interviews that stemmed from the health care section of it.
In the Young case in Powell River, two members of the Young family have chronic illnesses of a very different nature. They require very specific treatment and very specific medications that are, again, very different. The family members use different physicians in different communities. They purchase medication from different sources.
They went through the health care interview very carefully with the interviewer. After that time they received calls from a drug company, which had been given the information, offering to sell medication to both individuals. This matter was raised with the Minister. There has been a refusal to investigate adequately the matter.
This matter should very definitely be turned over to the RCMP. It should be thoroughly investigated to determine from where that information leaked out of the system and whether or not there are additional problems with it.
In the same community another family experienced some serious unacceptable harassment from the same interviewers. The harassment went on after the parents refused to co-operate in a discussion of a family member's medical problem. The health care interviewers contacted the children and attempted to interview them on the same matter. The parents were absolutely irate and to this date no action on the matter has been taken by the Minister responsible for the Canada census.
If in fact Canadians are going to have confidence in this program of gathering information about the population there will very definitely have to be co-operation from the Government to ensure that absolute confidentiality is in place. When people with a legitimate reason refuse to involve themselves in additional and supplemental material that is not necessary to the main census, there must be a respecting of the wishes of those citizens and certainly not attempts by the employees of Statistics Canada to circumvent what would be proper procedure. Those procedures are laid out very carefully.
There must be a referral of the one case to the RCMP, and basically there must be an apology to the individuals who have complained, and an assurance that this will not happen again.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, on behalf of Supply and
Adjournment Debate
Services I would like to address the allegations made by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) that Statistics Canada staff passed confidential medical information about census respondents to drug company sales representatives. More specifically, that information about the Young family of Powell River was passed to a firm called Bridgewater Marketing Research.
These allegations are very serious. Upon being informed of them, Statistics Canada and the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada immediately launched a full-scale investigation.
Statistics Canada officials in Vancouver and in Ottawa searched federal, provincial, and municipal sources in an effort to locate the business enterprise identified by the Young family. An exhaustive search by Statistics Canada failed to locate a company operating under the name Bridgewater Marketing Research, or a variation thereof. When contacted again, the Young family was unable to provide additional information about this firm.
A thorough investigation into the procedures and conduct of the Statistics Canada interviewer was also undertaken. This investigation confirmed that the interviewer from Statistics Canada had adhered to proper procedures and had taken every measure to ensure that confidentiality was safeguarded. Furthermore, no other complaint was received from the other 95 households covered by this interviewer.
I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada is completely satisfied with both the manner in which the Young family's questionnaire was handled by Statistics Canada and with the results of the investigation that were conducted by officials. The only way to obtain additional information would be to trace Bridgewater Marketing Research, the company which contacted the Young family. Until this can be done, it is completely unfair to accuse Statistics Canada of a breach of confidentiality. No evidence can be found linking a Statistics Canada employee to Bridgewater Marketing. In fact, no firm with such a name could be found.
The Minister and Statistics Canada recognize the Young's distress and can assure them that no violation of the information they entrusted to Statistics Canada has occurred. Should the Hon. Member have any additional information that would enable us to trace this company, we would appreciate receiving it.


REFUGEES-COST OF WELFARE FOR REFUGEE CLAIMANTS IN TORONTO
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Madam Speaker, do you get home to your riding every weekend? I suspect that you try to get home. I certainly try to get home to my riding every weekend. When I do, one of the first things that I always do when I get home is to start to go through the massive amount of mail that has accumulated while I have been away.


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1988
Adjournment Debate
I am sure you, Madam Speaker, receive a lot of mail. 1 receive a lot of mail at my constituency office, and I receive a lot here in Ottawa, but the mail I receive at home is of a certain variety. I suspect you know what I am referring to, Madam Speaker, that is bills! I suspect as well, Madam Speaker, that you may get a few bills in the mail, and you may have to write out some cheques when you get home to your constituency every weekend. I have that problem.
Last weekend when I went home and started opening my mail I found in those bills my real estate property tax bill for the first half of 1988. Not a very pleasant thought when I looked at the size of that bill and realized how that had escalated over the year. It disturbed me somewhat. In fact, it disturbed me a great deal. When I receive my property tax bill and look at it and think of what I am paying for in that bill, I think of policing. I am paying for the local police force. I think of the fire department. I am paying for the fire department. I am also paying for the garbage to be collected. I think of the local roads and sewers, and perhaps some of the recreation facilities and activities. These are the sorts of things for which I expect to be paying in my local property tax bill. I do not expect to pay for the cost of processing welfare payments to refugee claimants.
I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but to me that seems to be something which really does not belong in the property tax. It does not seem as if when I pay my local taxes to the municipalities that I should have to pay for the cost of processing welfare payments to refugee claimants. It seems to me that some other level of Government should have that responsibility and, to my mind, it is the federal Government.
Before you say, Madam Speaker, that it is impossible that I should be paying for the processing of these welfare payments, let me tell you that the Metropolitan Toronto Community Services Department conducted a study on welfare claimants, in particular refugee claimants, back in July of 1987. It examined refugee claimants who were receiving welfare and found, in the month of July, that there were some 3,310 active cases of refugee claimants receiving welfare payments in Metropolitan Toronto. Just reflect on that number for a minute or two, Madam Speaker; 3,310 is the size of a good many communities and towns across the country.
Included in the costs of processing the payments for these cases were things like salaries and fringe benefits for employees, office space rental, and all that sort of thing. These 3,310 cases amounted in one month to $252,000 for the processing cost alone. I am not referring to the payments to the recipients, but just to the administrative costs of processing them-$252,000 for one month. That is over a quarter of a million dollars for one month and amounts to $3 million in one year.
As you may know, Madam Speaker, in the Province of Ontario the administrative costs of processing welfare payments are divided 50-50. The province and the federal Government pay 50 per cent of the cost and the local taxpayer pays the other 50 per cent. In this case the 50 per cent of the cost paid by local taxpayers through their property taxes for refugee claimants amounts to $1.5 million per year.
I want to stress that I am not talking about actual welfare payments to refugees, because there is some confusion in the department's mind on that, but I am talking about processing costs. The payments themselves are very substantially over that and are paid 100 per cent in the first year by the province and the federal Government. When we get to the processing costs, in fact only 50 per cent is paid by the province and the federal Government. I do not think that is a fair way of handling the processing of welfare payments to refugee claimants who are not, after all, the responsibility of municipalities but really fall within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the federal Government.
I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but if you had to pay in Saint-Hyacinthe the processing costs of welfare payments for 3,300 refugee claimants, would you in fact think that it was fair? No, sirree, Madam Speaker, you would not think that that was fair. No, sirree, the Parliamentary Secretary who has a big smile on his face over there would not think it was fair if that were going on in Surrey, White Rock, or wherever.
I am expecting tonight that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the federal Government will live up to its responsibilities in respect of refugees and ensure us that it will cover all the processing costs for the administration of welfare payments to refugee claimants and that it will relieve me and other property taxpayers of having to pay these costs through our real estate taxes.
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, first I want to say that while all Members in the House have the right and the responsibility to raise questions that cover subjects of concern to them, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has earned the right over and above the normal rights that we have in that he comes from local government activity and therefore understands how federal activities can impinge on local governments. He has also consistently in the House asked questions about subjects such as this one. While every Member has the right to ask questions which they may choose, the Member from York East has displayed a pattern about showing concern for fiscal responsibility, particularly as those burdens could shift to the local Government if the other two levels of Government do not do their share of the work or carry their fair share.
I have noted the Hon. Member's question. Unfortunately the question focuses more intently on the $1.5 million cost sharing program between the federal and provincial Governments. It is easy to lose sight in the question that there is also the ingredient of the cost of processing that $1.5 million. The Member stated that Metropolitan Toronto had asked the federal Government to pay at least a portion of the $1.5 million. I understand that the issue of refugee claimants and their impact on municipal services in Metropolitan Toronto was first brought to the attention of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) last June. A report prepared by the Commissioner of Community Services called for a tri-level government committee to deal with the influx of refugee claimants. This resolution was supported by the Minister of State for Immigration.
January 26, 1988



[Stage Direction]
The Minister wrote to the clerk of the municipality of Metro Toronto offering the services of Canada Employment and immigration officials in the Ontario region and welcoming the establishment of an intergovernmental committee to co-ordinate the planning of services to newcomers in Toronto. I understand that an introductory meeting has taken place which has set out parameters for the mandate of the committee and to establish membership.
As the Hon. Member is aware, the Canada Assistance Plan requires that provinces and the federal Government share the cost of income assistance on a 50-50 basis. As the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) pointed out in his reply to the Hon. Member's question, agreements between the provincial level and the municipal level are decided by these two parties. Having paid its 50 per cent of the cost, the federal Government does not interfere in the provincial-municipal cost sharing arrangements.
Might 1 add, and 1 think the Member understands this, that if the other place will do its duty to Canadians and make
Adjournment Debate
certain that it accepts the motion put forward by the Minister of Immigration today on Bill C-84 and passes Bill C-55 speedily, most of the questions which the Hon. Member has raised regarding this subject could be solved. The refugee claimants could then move from positions of being claimants to being landed immigrants or being asked to leave the country. That would relieve the burden from cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal and would resolve from those refugee claimants what is at present a life of tension for them. If the Senate would do its job, we could get the job done.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, January 27, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers