1992-11-18

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support for the Port Greville shipbuilding museum. This project is being established in an area of high unemployment and will add greatly to the tourism potential of this beautiful part of Nova Scotia.
Located on the shores of the Bay of Fundy, the Port Greville coast was a prominent shipbuilding region in the days of wooden ships at the turn of the century. This museum will pay tribute to this important piece of our history.
The people of the community have come together and raised a substantial part of the costs, as well as donated a large amount of time and labour. Applications for cost sharing have also been made to the Department of Industry, Science and Technology and the Department of Communications. I will be meeting with the appropriate officials to press for approval of these requests.
The project is genuine, it is worth while, and it is very much needed. The groundwork has been done by the local people and now is the time for government to provide much needed assistance.


NUNAVUT
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Inuit of the eastern and central Arctic voted in favour of ratifying their land claim. Linked to that land claim is a process to create the new territory of Nunavut. The Inuit of Nunavut have expressed their desire to be more active partners in the Canadian federation. They have said they want more control over their lives.
The government must do its part by facilitating the transfer of control. Not only must the government ratify the land claim agreement, it must ensure that adequate resources are dedicated to implementing the agreement. Barely 12 hours after the vote results were announced, concerns were raised about inadequate federal implementation funding. Sufficient implementation funding is critical to the success of the land claim agreement.
I urge the government to be fair and generous in these financial negotiations. Do not deny the people of Nunavut the financial resources they need to fulfil the promise of Nunavut.


DRUG ABUSE AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, this week is a special week to promote public awareness of drug abuse. This provincial and local initiative is aimed at making us more aware of the impact of alcohol and other drugs on individuals.
Drug-related problems have an impact, either directly or indirectly, on all parts of our society. No single group or agency has the requisite resources to deal with these problems. Only by forming alliances and co-ordinating the efforts of individuals, groups, communities and all levels of government will we ever be able to limit the harm done by alcohol and other drugs.
The government supports this special drug awareness week, and I would encourage hon. members and all Canadians to take part in the activities and special events taking place this week in communities across Canada.

November 18, 1992


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee examining the North American free trade deal has no advertising budget and is not even an open process.
It is disturbing that the government managed to find $3 million to advertise the NAFTA deal but refused to approve even $15,000 to advertise where and when the subcommittee meetings were taking place.
I was surprised that when the New Democratic Party proposed that the committee hold hearings in every province and territory of this country the Liberals voted with the government that the committee should not travel to my home province of Saskatchewan, to New Brunswick, to Prince Edward Island, to Newfoundland, to Vancouver Island, to northern Ontario, or even to Toronto, Hamilton or Montreal. They also voted against allowing the committee to visit the various communities which have been devastated by the U.S.-Canada Free Tirade Agreement.
Why does the Liberal Party not want an open process? I can only guess it is because the Liberals and the Tories do not want Canadians to know that they both support anti-worker, anti-environment trade deals.


MIDDLE CLASS
Mr. Garth Thrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian middle class is at a crossroads. Thxes are high and confidence is low.
A poll this week highlighted a disturbing reality. More than half of the people polled believed their children would be worse off than they were. This must and can be changed for if the Canadian middle class dies, Canada dies.
How do we change things? The federal government alone cannot do it through fairer taxes and spending cuts, both of which we must accomplish. Others have a
role as well. Provincial governments can do the same and reduce the burden of government on middle class Canadians.
The private sector can take more risks with wealth and job creation. Unions can become partners in economic recovery. NDP governments can scrap pro-labour legislation and replace it with the right-to-work laws. Individual Canadians can accept more responsibility for their own lives, reducing the expectation of government hand-outs which this country can no longer afford.
It is time all of us did all we could to reaffirm the backbone of Canada, the diligent, industrious and disciplined middle class.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, the economic recession which has held Canada within its tight grip for over two years is a direct result of poor management of the Canadian economy by this government.
The government's mishandling of the Canadian economy has cost thousands of jobs and has increased the reliance of Canadians on food banks and other social services.
In my riding of Nipissing there has been a 30 per cent increase in the number of people who have filed new applications for unemployment insurance over the past three months. Hence 400 more Canadians are forced into the endless unemployment lines.
Accompanying this rise in UI claims is a 100 per cent increase in the number of families utilizing the food bank in North Bay since September. The government has done nothing to stimulate the economy and create jobs. The fact remains there are still 1.5 million Canadians who are out of work.
The time has come for the government to acknowledge that its economic policies have failed miserably and to implement job creation programs which will stimulate the economy and give Canadians hope for the future.
November 18, 1992


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, there is good news for farmers and there is good news for free traders from coast to coast in Canada.
A binational panel established under the free trade agreement rules recently ordered the United States to stop a countervailing action against Canadian hogs and to refund the duties already collected. The refund will total $10 million but is only a small part of the victory.
The major win comes with the decision that Americans had no right to say that Canada's national tripartite program gave Canadian farmers an unfair market advantage. As one Manitoba hog producer said: "With free trade we would have lost this last level of appeal".
The free trade agreement has doubled agricultural exports from Canada to the United States creating many new jobs. I rest my case.


POLITICAL SITUATION IN HAITI
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, recently, Mr. Marcel Gervais, Archbishop of Ottawa and president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to condemn the current political situation in Haiti.
Mr. Gervais wrote that on September 24, Mr. Willy Romelus, Bishop of Jeremie in Haiti, narrowly escaped an assassination attempt while spending the night in the rectory of the parish of Des Irois.
Because the situation in Haiti continues to deteriorate and the number of victims of repression is increasing, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has asked the Canadian government to maintain its position on nonrecognition of the de facto government in Haiti.
We must publicly condemn the harassment, threats and daily violations of human rights. We must condemn the present authorities who allow this to happen. Decisive action is necessary so that the Organization of American States can intervene actively and effectively.
We must ask the UN to support this exercise. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is also asking the government to tighten the embargo on military arms and equipment which the junta in Haiti is still able to buy.


ELIMINATION OF VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, a while ago, following a tragic incident that took her sister Marie-Eve's life, a young girl decided to do something positive for a non-violent society.
Virginie Lariviere decided that she had enough of seeing violence on television. She was not the only one who had had enough. Nearly a million and a half Canadians decided to support her efforts to eliminate violence on television.
Virginie Lariviere is a living example of what we can do to change things and improve our society. Instead of feeling sorry for her fate and turning inward or complaining, she decided to get involved and fight violence.
We often tell our young people to get involved and do something. Virginie did that admirably and we have no right to remain indifferent to her request and the wishes of the Canadian people.
We must now take concrete action and show Virginie as well as all young people in this country that she did a good thing, the right thing and that change is possible if we really want it.
Congratulations to all the Virginie Larivieres in Canada.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, everything indicates that the federal government intends to subsidize PWA and Canadian International.
Such a decision is contrary to the interests of Canadians and Quebecers. The president of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, Bernard Roy, said that the two carriers should be merged so we do not have to support two lame ducks.

The mayor of Montreal says that it is unthinkable to subsidize only one airline and the same, if not more, financial assistance would have to be given to Air Canada.
I agree. This bail-out is illogical and sheer waste. The federal government is not authorized to further indebt Canada and Quebec just to get votes.


ELIMINATION OF VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Virginie Lariviere is here in Ottawa today with her parents and the Conservative member for Terrebonne in order to table, in memory of her sister Marie-Eve, a petition signed by over a million people calling for the elimination of violence on television and in our society.
The people of the federal riding of Abitibi strongly supported Virginie's effort to have violent movies on television regulated by March 1993.
I met Virginie today and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker and all members of this House, that Virginie Lariviere's team will apply all the pressure needed to win this cause.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal trade critic said to Canadians last night on CBC that it was no big deal if the North American free trade agreement was approved.
It is a big deal to Canadian seniors and families. They will have to pay the higher drug prices that NAFTA dictates through Bill C-91. It is a big deal to provincial health ministers and taxpayers who will pay at least $800 million more in increased drug prices.
What has happened to the federal minister of health who promised he would take the concerns of provincial ministers of health about Bill C-91 to cabinet?
Even if the Liberal trade critic still thinks it is no big deal, the word NAFTA means all Canadians will pay more for drugs. Seniors, families and taxpayers all know
what the Liberals do not understand. More for drug prices is a big deal.


REFORM PARTY
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I bring you urgent and pressing news which I have learned from Calgary. I know that you are keenly interested in the future of the nation which is being plotted in the lavish Reform Party headquarters.
Last week the leader who flip-flopped said the federal government should not get involved in the Canadian Airlines issue. This week he says we should. What will he say next week?
Once he was against the GST, then he supported it and now he wants it both ways: Keep it and get rid of it. Once he supported Senate reform, then he campaigned to kill Senate reform.
Many Albertans are asking: What does the Reform Party stand for? We are quite well aware of what it is against.


PRIME MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, do you remember these immortal words?
There will be jobs for Liberals and NDPers too after I have been Prime Minister for 15 years and I cannot find a living, breathing Tory left to appoint.


An hon. member:: Who said that?


Don Boudria: It was the Prime Minister who said that.
Last week, he was seen scraping the bottom of the barrel or should I say the patronage trough when he appointed his former baby-sitter and chauffeur, Michael McSweeney, to a $100,000 a year job.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Don Boudria: He appointed his pal, Keith Morgan, to a 10-year appointment on the parole board. Keith got a life sentence to the parole board.
Now the Prime Minister has appointed a former separatist cabinet minister, Jocelyne Ouellette, to a $140,000 high-flying job at the space agency.
Canadians are wondering who will be next. Will it be the hairdresser to the court of appeals, or Clover the poodle to the board of Petro-Canada?
November 18, 1992

We are all waiting anxiously and Clover is salivating at the thought.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

["I think that the hon. member's remark is out of place.\nEven before the hon. member rose, I said that I thought it was time to end a debate that was not appropriate now, long before the hon. member decided to get up. Believe me, I would have had the same answer for anyone who rose in this House for the same reasons.\nWe now proceed to tabling of documents.", 'November 18, 1992\nRoutine Proceedings']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the new Clinton administration to be installed in two months holds the position of wanting to make some major changes to NAFTA.
Yesterday, the minister for trade said that this government wants to proceed very rapidly with ratification, even without knowing the position of the new administration. He is almost as irresponsible as the NDP members who want to tear up the agreement without knowing if there will be any changes at all.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will agree with us that it would be better for Canada and for everyone to wait until we know exactly what the position of the Clinton administration will be before asking Parliament to pass this bill in the House of Commons.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I thought when my friend was standing up to ask me a question on trade that he was going to comment on the very good news we had this morning, with exports to the United States up so far this year, a
10.5	per cent increase.
There is a 10.5 per cent increase in trade to a country that is having a slow economy. It clearly shows the benefits of the free trade agreement and it clearly shows the foresight of this government in entering into a free trade agreement. It also clearly demonstrates that Canadian companies are competing very effectively in taking advantage of the opportunities that the free trade agreement has presented to them.
Regarding the specific question of my hon. friend, he has not stated accurately what I said in committee last night. I said that we would be ready to proceed with legislation at the end of January or early in February, but before taking that final decision we would want to see exactly what the status of the process was in the United States and also to see precisely what Mr. Clinton might have in mind with these parallel agreements that he has talked about.
Oral Questions
That was the position that I stated on two occasions to his trade critic last night. It was not as he has just put it in the House today.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this question.
Would it not be more logical to wait until he knows exactly what the results of the negotiations will be with the new Clinton agreement before coming to this House? In doing what he is doing, he is playing his chips before negotiating. We are asking the minister to go back and negotiate. He should renegotiate not only environmental and labour standards, but he should renegotiate a clear independence for Canada on energy policy. He should negotiate what is a subsidy and what is dumping.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think if my friend took that position he would be playing right into the hands of the U.S. government. He would be saying that we are prepared to open up everything, that we are prepared to open up culture, health care and all these things that my hon. friend is concerned about.
We have said and what I said quite clearly at the committee last night is that the agreement that we agreed upon with the United States government and the Mexican government is an agreement among three sovereign governments. We expect that the Clinton administration will honour that agreement, and we are proceeding with NAFTA as it stands. What happens on the peripheral agreements, the supplementary agreements, are matters that can be discussed. We are already discussing them with the current administration. But the NAFTA stands.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the minister when he says that the U.S. administration will ask for changes and then claims that the agreement will remain the same. If any changes are accepted by the Americans and the Mexicans, this means a new agreement. My question for the minister is this: Why does he not wait and see what the final position of the new U.S. administration will be, before saying that we are entirely satisfied, because that is not the case. Canadians are not satisfied with the agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is saying be prepared to open up the NAFTA. We are not prepared to open up the NAFTA. The people who are affected by the NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement, people who are in the manufacturing sector, the forest products sector, the automotive sector, the cultural sector, have said that this is a good agreement. We are not prepared to open it up because we could stand the possibility of weakening that agreement.
If that is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada- He says he wants to negotiate. I am waiting to hear from his trade critic what areas the Liberal Party would like to renegotiate, and how it would like to renegotiate it. I think he will find that it is not possible to negotiate a better deal than we have already.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in September I asked the Minister for International Trade to table the government's impact studies on the North American free trade agreement. Instead, the minister tabled a series of promotional papers.
Having now initialled the agreement, and knowing that free trade inevitably does bring dislocation, why is the government unwilling to table today, to share with Canadians, the real impact studies which indicate where jobs will be lost and what specific adjustment assistance will be provided to help those workers and businesses adversely affected?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, so that the House is fully aware of this, last night I tabled about eight or nine studies that had already been made available, which my friend in the New Democratic Party had forgotten that we had done for the House.
In addition to that, I was prepared to discuss the Finance Department report on this, which covers extensively the benefits that will flow from the North American free trade agreement.
In addition, I tabled a bibliography, a listing of some 200 or 300 publications that have been done as to the
effect of the North American free trade agreement on the three countries. Surely my hon. friend could have a very effective and very productive time in reviewing all of those.
My hon. friend talks about the impacts. The best way that we could understand the impacts of the free trade agreement was to discuss with the companies and the industries affected as we went through the negotiations just precisely how the various elements of the agreement were going to affect them. This is exactly what we did through the broadest possible consultation process that any government has ever conducted on the negotiations of a trade agreement.
On the question of adjustment-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should move ahead.


Roy MacLaren: The minister knows very well that there are impact studies that analyse the real impact, not a promotional impact but the real impact, of the free trade agreement on Canadian workers and on Canadian business.
One aspect has been brought forward today by the Conference Board of Canada which has stated, and I quote: "As a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, many Canadian firms are facing fewer barriers to trade with the United States than they face within Canada".
The minister wants to speak about reports. The Macdonald commission, the de Grandpre report, the working group on prosperity have all asked the same question: If free trade with the United States and Mexico is good for Canada, why is free trade not good within Canada?
When will this government commit to a specific timetable and to specific measures to dismantle these harmful barriers within our country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend keeps talking about wanting to know the real impact of free trade. The real impact of free trade was announced this morning with the announcement that Canadian exports to the United States in the first nine months of this year were up 10.5 per cent compared to the first nine months last year. That is the real impact.

My hon. friend talks about interprovincial trade barriers. I am sure that he read this morning the very good news that the federal and provincial agriculture ministers have taken the very important first step in dealing with the trade barriers between the provinces in the area of agricultural policy.
We agree with the hon. member that it is important that we eliminate these. This was a primary objective that we had in the discussions on the constitutional reform proposals. We were not successful there, but I have a meeting, I believe it is the first week of-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask that ministers try to speed up their answers.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It is clear since the House came back that this government has no new ideas on the economy, no new ideas to get Canadians back working. By the way, the real impact studies that we have seen are the impact that the Canada-U.S. trade deal has had with the loss of 350,000 manufacturing jobs and the high unemployment in this country. We have seen the impact of the Canada-U.S. trade deal.
I am very surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about having the opinions of Mr. Clinton taken into consideration when the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party on the subcommittee on trade have refused to have hearings on NAFTA in every province and every territory so that Canadians can have their say on the NAFTA deal.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this. It is now in the government's hands. Will the government ensure that there is an open process, not by invitation only, so that Canadians in every part of this country can express their views on the proposed NAFTA trade arrangements?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to Canadians in every part of the country in terms of trade. Obviously the consultations that will go on at the special committee will be receiving representations from interested parties.
In respect of individual provinces and regions, my hon. friend will want to note that in the January-September
Oral Questions
period the 1992 merchandise exports to the United States are 10.5 per cent ahead of January-September 1991, on course to generate a full-year figure of $119 billion and substantially exceed the 1990 all-time record high of $110.5 billion. Now, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks me a question and yet members of the NDP object to the answer.
Canada's merchandise exports to the United States have been at record levels in every month so far this year, hitting an all-time monthly high of $10,299 billion in September.
I will be happy to provide my friend with a breakdown by province where every Canadian province has substantially increased its exports to the United States since the coming into effect of the free trade agreement.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister.
Clearly there is both a great difference of opinion and experience about the results of the Canada-U.S. trade deal. I say to the Prime Minister: Given yesterday that the subcommittee examining the North American trade deal voted against a New Democratic motion to hold hearings in every province and territory, which means that there will not be hearings in Saskatchewan, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Vancouver Island, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Toronto, Hamilton and-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has referred to something in a committee but I do not think a question has been put. Is the hon. member putting a question?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Why will the Prime Minister and this government not initiate an open door policy to hear what Canadians have to say on NAFTA, which is surely the economic constitution of Canada. Will he make sure they are not just hearings by invitation only but that there are hearings in every province and territory in the country?

November 18, 1992
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, I am sure that the minister and the committee make their own rules with respect to hearings.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I apologize for that hilarious remark, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Tobin:: More nerve than a bad toothache.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Exactly, Brian. When they meet they will probably want to consider some simple facts. When Albertans come before the committee, my hon. friends from the NDP can ask whether it is true or not that Alberta's exports to the United States have risen exactly 30 per cent from 1988 to 1991.


Mr. Langdon:: How about Saskatchewan?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says, how about Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan's exports have increased 18 per cent from $2.0 billion to $2.3 billion.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, what the government does not seem to realize is that there are many people in this country who have seen their plants and their jobs move south, who have seen the results of the Canada-U.S. trade deal and want to have a say and to bring forward their experience to parliamentarians who make the decisions on these very important issues.
Do I understand that the Prime Minister is in favour of very limited hearings on the NAFTA deal, and there will not be hearings in every province and territory? Is the Prime Minister in favour of having invitation only hearings for Canadian people on the NAFTA deal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of wide-open discussions on trade agreements. In fact, I am even in favour of elections on trade agreements.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.



Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
With its trumped up charges of dumping, the U.S. steel industry has engaged in a fight to the finish with Canadian steelmakers to cut us out of the U.S. market. Recently, representatives of the industry throughout Canada had to publicly speak out against the Canadian government's lack of response and support.
My question is this: Why is this government casting aside Canadian steelmakers? Why will it not do everything it can to safeguard the jobs of thousands of Canadian workers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who my hon. friend is talking about. I have met with senior executives of the steel companies, senior executives of the unions, senior representatives from the city of Hamilton and the city of Sault Ste. Marie on occasions during the course of the past year. I have stated very clearly to them the concerns we have with regard to the action that the United States is taking in the question of anti-dumping.
The Prime Minister, myself, our ambassador and other officials in Washington have discussed with the administration the possibility of a U.S.-Canada steel pact similar to the auto pact. We have not given up on the possibilities of that. There is also a possibility that with the change in administration we may have a greater chance of seeing that type of arrangement go forward.
However, these are matters that are continually on our platter. We are also working hard to make sure that the best interests of the steel industry are put forward in our discussions.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the steel industry went public on a CBC broadcast about 10 days ago and said there was a lack of support from the government. They also clearly said that the imposition of countervail duties by Canada was insufficient.
The minister has now said publicly that he is prepared to support a North American steel pact. We are delighted to hear that. The minister blew it in the NAFTA negotiations. He now has a chance to recoup. Bill Clinton has said that as a condition precedent to his signing NAFTA he wants to see new parallel agreements.
November 18, 1992

Will this government make a condition precedent to us signing NAFTA, the signing of a North American steel pact? Put your money where your mouth is.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps members might all consider exercising just a little bit of self-discipline for the rest of Question Period.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has to realize that time is of the essence with regard to the matters before the steel industry today. It is essential that we deal with these matters as quickly as possible. That is why we are having meetings with our industry and with the U.S. administration and with the new administration as soon as the appropriate people are in place.
We will continue to do that, but my hon. friend should be very careful in the way he phrases his questions, not to leave the impression that there will be more trade barriers between the United States and Canada. That might make it more difficult for Canadian ship owners to purchase ships and to operate the ships between the two countries.


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the minister that time is of the essence. That is why we have to ask how serious the government is when the Conservative chairman of the steel caucus has not called a meeting in two years. We wonder if his colleagues should not share the concern of the minister that indeed time is of the essence.


CHILD POVERTY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns the fact that two years ago he co-chaired the United Nations world summit on children. At that conference he stated that the number one priority of his government was to combat child poverty.
The reality is that in the last 10 years the number of children using food banks in Canada has increased from zero to 700,000.
If the Prime Minister was serious about combating child poverty, why did his colleague in the House state
Oral Questions
yesterday that he did not even have a program to combat child poverty?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the absence of the member. We appreciate when she is not here because we avoid that kind of statement which is absolutely false.
Yesterday we said that Canadians will never accept poverty for children. We will fight and struggle against it. We budgeted $3 billion last year. However, it is not just a question of money, it is a question of society. Liberals had the same problem when they were in power. We have the problem and we have improved the situation, but children today face a lot of challenges.
However, we will continue to fight. I hope that if the member has good proposals to make to improve the situation, she will write me and tell me exactly what she believes should be done. In the meantime, she should once again recognize that the money we have put in and the programs we have put forward have helped Canadian children in the fight against poverty.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, what is false here is the minister's statement that children are better off today than they were 10 years ago. Does he realize that in Canada today, 700,000 children go to food banks? Ten years ago, young people did not go to food banks.
Why did the minister admit in this House yesterday that there was no established policy, when two years ago, his Prime Minister made it clear to the entire international community that his number one priority was the child assistance policy, which is no longer true today?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): It is amazing how the hon. member manages to say at anytime whatever comes into her head, even if it is completely inaccurate. There were always food banks for children, even when the hon. member's party was in power. In every society there have always been children who were helped by volunteer groups. I suggest she ask the World Health Organization and the United Nations Council on Children which stated that the policy developed by this Prime Minister after the children's summit and based on children at risk

Oral Questions
and on child benefits was one of the best in the world. I suggest she do her homework before talking through her hat in this House.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. During the recent referendum debate, the Government of Canada spent $350 million to make information available to Canadian people about what they were voting on. During that referendum debate an additional $3 million of taxpayers' money was spent to send out a government propaganda piece in favour of the North American free trade agreement.
In the face of these expenditures, can the Prime Minister tell me whether or not the people of Canada are entitled to the same access on NAFTA? Why is it we are not allowed to spend one penny to advertise that we are having committee hearings in five cities across this country on NAFTA?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hope the figures used by my hon. friend in future will be more accurate than the one he just used. He has seriously mislead the House and the Canadian people. This government and this Parliament never spent $350 million on information in respect of the last referendum.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, if I am to be corrected by the Prime Minister, may I make this request? Is the government willing to spend one-tenth of what it spent on advertising for the referendum to inform the people of this country where hearings are being held?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend ceases using numbers then all of a sudden he becomes more reasonable and his argument is easier to deal with.
Obviously one-tenth of $350 million is one thing, one-tenth of an infinitely more modest figure is another, and I will be happy to refer my hon. friend's request to the chairman of the standing committee.


POVERTY
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health. Yesterday Campaign 2000 released its report on poverty. I hope by this time the minister has had an opportunity to read it.
This report states that a mother with two children receiving the greatest benefits will get a whole extra 46 cents a day per child with the new child benefit. Will the minister explain to these women exactly what sort of improvements will come into the lives of their children at the rate of 46 cents a day?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, in any benefit package for children, we are trying to determine, first, what we have to do and, second, whom we will target.
The hon. member knows very well that the tax benefit package has been determined to target the low-income earners, those who want to remain in the labour force with an income between $10,000 and $20,000.
Five hundred dollars more per family per year represents a modest amount of money. But for a woman with three children in Toronto receiving $45 more per month, it may permit her to buy a little more food and clothing. You will understand that for her it is very important. This is the reason that package has been considered by Canadians as once again not answering all the problems but the government is giving it its best effort.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The minister always responds to these questions with the same answer that the government has no money.
The government is a system and has an approach to making choices. The government has made choices on how to spend $160 billion a year. The government has decided to spend $24 million promoting its agenda for prosperity.
Did the minister not oppose this? Did the minister not stand up and say: "No, put that money toward children. Quit wasting money on such a publicity stunt". Where is the minister when we need somebody to speak out for children?



November 18, 1992

Hon, Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compare figures with my hon. friend.
Yesterday, I said that this government spent $3 billion for children during the last year. It puts $15 billion a year in all departments and you are talking to me about $24 million. I tell you that the government has put $15 billion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister would want to put his comments through the Chair as members do.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Forty-three per cent of Canada's haemophiliacs, 800 men, women and children, are HIV positive as a result of receiving tainted blood. Half of those people have AIDS. This is not a partisan issue. It is for that reason that we in the opposition are proposing the following.
Will the minister and the Government of Canada immediately establish a fully independent inquiry, independent of governments, bureaucrats and politicians? Will the minister assure this House that this inquiry will be conducted by Canadians of the highest calibre and of the highest qualifications?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I believe that Canadians need to have full confidence in the blood management system in Canada. I cannot give to my friend an absolute guarantee that we will put forward today a full inquiry in terms of the assessment of all that has happened with contaminated blood particularly from 1976 to 1987.
However I say that we are in touch with all the stakeholders. We are particularly in touch with the Red Cross. We are in touch with the Canadian Hemophilia Society. The department has been advised that if there is any reason to believe that something happened which would determine that it is a necessity to keep the full confidence of Canadians in the system we have now, I would not hesitate one second. For now and for the victims themselves, Mr. Page and even Mrs. Lucie Pepin, the executive director of the Hemophilia Society, said she does not want an inquiry now.
Oral Questions
I repeat for all Canadians. If we had any reason to believe that it would be better to have an inquiry or investigation I would ask for one immediately.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, several hundred Canadians have AIDS as a result of blood transfusions. I have visited Casey House in Toronto. I have talked with these individuals. They are suffering and time is running out.
What plausible reason can the Minister of National Health and Welfare give to this House by denying Canadians a full public inquiry conducted by individuals of the highest calibre and the highest qualifications? What conceivable reason can the hon. minister give this House?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have also visited from Newfoundland to Vancouver many sites and hospitals where there are people with AIDS. I totally share the concerns the hon. member has.
Once again, having said that, to trigger a full investigation or inquiry the minister would have to have an honest conviction that this inquiry would provide to Canadians something we are not able to provide otherwise. Once again, the Red Cross, which is a highly considered organization in Canada, and the Hemophilia Society have not requested this so far. I assure my hon. friend if that request happens and I believe there is a necessity, I will act accordingly.


THE VALOUR AND THE HORROR
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications.
The minister will know that the CBC ombudsman has declared what veterans across Canada have known for a long time that the documentary The Valour and the Horror is misleading and is historically wrong. That film is being distributed by the National Film Board.
In view of the condemnation of the documentary drama by the CBC ombudsman, will the minister direct the National Film Board not to distribute that film? Will he withdraw the film so that it will not be shown in schools and other institutions as a result of distribution by the National Film Board?

Oral Questions


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will know, since the creation of the cultural agencies the government has maintained the principle of an arm's length relationship between the agencies and government.
The hon. member correctly points out that the CBC has put in place a procedure where people who feel aggrieved have the opportunity to have a fair and independent examination made of whether or not programming it shows meets adequate standards.
The government film commissioner and the chair of the National Film Board indicated just last week that she is studying the ombudsman's report. I think it is appropriate to allow her to do so.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Every day we see the disastrous results of the deregulation policies introduced first by the Liberals and continued by the Conservatives. Yesterday as this House knows, the CPR announced its intention to abandon its Atlantic lines east of Sherbrooke, Quebec. This morning on CTV's Canada AM the general manager of that company indicated that this was the beginning of the end of rail competition from Thunder Bay to the Atlantic Ocean.
My question for the Minister of Transport is the same as it was yesterday. Is the minister prepared to give a policy directive to the National Transportation Agency to order it not to accept any applications to abandon any main lines by any railroad anywhere in Canada?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has indicated that it was the same question as yesterday, my answer would have to be the same.
We have put in place a system whereby a railway company that wants to abandon a section of its operation addresses its request to the National Transportation Agency which is an arm's length agency to the government.
This is the process that has been started. It will be examined. Every player, every stakeholder, every group, every person that wishes to question the advisability of this will have the occasion to appear before the NTA and in due course the NTA will render its decision. Then it is up to the cabinet and the transport minister to examine the findings and make a decision at that time.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the minister that this country was built on transportation and it was built by the policies of the government of the day focusing on transportation. The government just cannot wash its hands of it and leave it to the marketplace or the National Transportation Agency.
I want to turn to the other crisis in transportation and that is in the airline industry. I want to ask the Minister of Transport if he is prepared to call in the presidents of Air Canada and Canadian and tell them it is time to cease and desist this crazy kind of war they are having. Also, will he advise Canadians what the government is prepared to do in terms of protecting that industry and to ensure its long-term survivability, and will he make a commitment to turn back the clock and go back to regulation so we can have long-term stability in the airline industry?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I wish that the member had some continuity between the comments he made in his first question and the comments he made in the second question. He talks about reregulation and having a process.
This is exactly the process that was put in place in order that all cases concerning rail abandonment would be examined by an independent body to determine whether they were right in wanting to abandon that rail line. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either we have a process and we follow it, or we do not have a process.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of TVansport and it is strictly on the rail side and the announcement of Canadian yesterday that effectively guts Canadian operations in eastern Canada and cuts the Gordian knot that used to tie this country from coast to coast.
November 18, 1992

I understand the answer so far from the minister. However, has the minister now in his hands the report of the royal commission on transportation? If he has, will he make sure it is released forthwith in that it might impact on this whole question of abandonment of rail lines?
While he answers that, he could also answer the part of the question put yesterday when he referred to the NTA and the study of the act and the report that is supposed to be coming forward in January 1993 on the effectiveness of the act. Could the minister make sure that report does come through so it will have some effect on the hearings of the NTA before the abandonment process is completed?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer that, yes, we have received the report of the royal commission that was instigated and instituted by the Prime Minister in 1989. I am happy to report that the commission has completed its work on time and under budget and that the committee examining the NTA will also report on time and under budget before January 31,1993. The tabling of the royal commission report is going to be very soon.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for those answers. I refer to the question from my hon. friend with regard to the official from CP saying yesterday and today that what happened in Atlantic Canada yesterday is, perhaps, going to happen in Quebec and Ontario.
Would the minister seriously consider calling in CP to see how valid that statement is? If we are talking about abandonment because of all the realistic factors that are considered then Atlantic Canada will not feel discriminated against as being a guinea pig. This process would also include those portions of Quebec and Ontario that are also under consideration.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member that the NTA hearings are going to be held precisely for the people, groups, companies and the municipalities and provinces that want to question the decision of CP and the mathematics of it. They will have the occasion to do that in front an independent body.
In the meantime, we will receive the report of the committee examining the NTA and when the NTA gives
Oral Questions
its final answer to the requests of CP we will have the benefit of all these elements in place to make our final decision.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but follow up on the remark made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. This Saturday, I will have had the privilege as others of serving in this House for four years and I thought I had heard it all, but a New Democratic member from Ontario talking about disastrous policies?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his
question.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The $1 billion lawsuit filed yesterday by Canadian Airlines is just further proof of an industry in decay due to this government's stalling. When is the Minister of Transport finally going to end the fears and uncertainty of over 16,000 employees of Canadian airlines and end this crisis in Canada's airline industry?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that we received a concrete proposal from PWA and the employees last Tuesday. Since that time we have been exercising due diligence to find a solution that will assure us of a viable airline industry in the interest of all Canadians.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking. Canadian employees do not have much time. I have been getting the same answer from the Minister of Transport all week so I will ask my supplementary question of the Minister of Finance, himself a former Minister of Transport.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to show the leadership necessary to save the thousands of jobs in western Canada, in Calgary and Edmonton, or is he too prepared to inflict more economic damage on this country?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier that we were very much concerned and impressed by the fact that the employees of Canadian Airlines and PWA have come forward with voluntary concessions in their wage package and have also decided to invest in their own company through payroll deductions.

Points of Order
This is why we are at the table at the present time trying to find a solution that will save these jobs.


SMALL BUSINESSES
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
The small business community is having a very difficult time getting banks to lend it money whether through an SBLA or through a regular loan. If they do lend money to small business, the security or collateral demanded is extremely onerous. This is slowing our economic recovery.
Is there any indication that the banks are changing this policy, and is the government doing everything it can to convince them to do so?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question. I have just met with the banks and the Canadian Bankers' Association.
They have reported to me a slight increase in dollar amounts of loans to small business. They have also reported to me that they have frozen their service charges for up to two years in the case of most banks. This, though, is not enough when we have the FBDB increasing its loans 13 per cent in 1992 alone.
Therefore I have been working with them this week to make sure that the Small Businesses Loans Act, which is a federal government guaranteed program, is well publicized, well communicated, and that their personnel are well trained to use it, not only the present SBLA which we are slightly amending right now in the House but any future changes.
Together with the over 4,000 loans the FBDB has made, FEDNOR, ACOA, WD, our program in Quebec and our Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development program, we are moving on all fronts to try to help the small business community.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of parliamentarians from Benin, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Congo, Gabon, Mali and Rwanda.
Our distinguished guests are now attending the seminar on parliaments, governments, human rights and democracy being held this week here in our Parliament.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, there may be a slight problem. Right in the midst of launching the public hearings on NAFTA I called the office to obtain copies of NAFTA and was told that there were no copies left and that they do not plan to print any more. If we are going to ask Canadians to respond at public hearings and they are asking now for copies of the agreement to respond intelligently, we should take some steps.
I realize that floppy disks are available for those people who have computers, but if they want to read hard copy I am told it is not available.
We are lucky the Minister for International Trade is still here. Perhaps he could enlighten us on when copies may be available.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is correct. The text is available on diskette and if a person does not have the equipment to use a diskette, it can be taken to a print shop and a copy can be printed up.
We are reviewing the matter to see whether it is appropriate to have another run of the text made available in addition to the diskette.


REFERENCE OF PETITION TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent of the House on this point of order. I would ask, notwithstanding Standing Order 36, that I be allowed to move:

That the petition by Virginie La riviere on violence on TV be
received by the House and referred to the Standing Committee on
Communications and Culture for its consideration.
There has been some discussion among the parties with regard to this matter. I believe there might be unanimous consent.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, this is a very unusual point of order. We have not arrived at the point when petitions are presented.
The minister is probably anxious to get back to his duties in terms of his leadership campaign. I just want to indicate to him that we would consent to having the petition tabled at this time. It is totally out of order because if follows-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We are all aware that the petition was not presented in the proper form and that unanimous consent was sought to present the petition. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is rising on a point of order of which I have notice. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg Wascana is seeking the floor as well.
At this point there should be a moment of recognition for one of our former colleagues. If other points of orders could wait until we are finished with that matter, I would appreciate it.
On the same point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg Wascana.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TYanscona):: Madam Speaker, Winnipeg Transcona is the name of my riding.
I wanted to rise in order to indicate the agreement of the New Democratic Party caucus with the motion by the hon. minister that the petitions gathered by this young woman be accepted by Parliament and be referred to the appropriate committee.
Perhaps it should have come at another time. The point of the opposition House leader is well taken, but this is when it has been presented and I do not think we should muddy the waters at all. I think we should make it absolutely clear that Parliament has taken this decision on behaif of this young woman who collected these petitions and who is concerned about violence on TV.
Tributes
We all ought to be concerned about violence on TV and this is one of the ways that we can show it.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Madam Speaker, we gladly accede to such a recommendation and such a resolution. We salute this girl's tremendous courage. After the hardship she suffered, she can indeed be a model for us. But perhaps the most important lesson to learn is that we should listen to children more often.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank all members, and I wish to apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona for having mispronounced the name of his riding. I should know better. He is quite right.


THE LATE ANTHONY ROMAN
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Anthony Roman, a great Canadian who died unexpectedly on Friday, October 30,. 1992, while recovering from brain surgery.
Anthony Roman was bom January 17, 1936 in Velky-Ruskov, Czechoslovakia. He immigrated to Canada on June 19, 1937.
As a young man, Mr. Roman attended St. Michael's High School in Toronto and later attended the Ontario Agricultural College in Guelph.
Tony Roman's interest in politics was apparent early. He was elected a ward councillor in the township in 1966. He became deputy reeve in 1968, and when the town of Markham was formed in 1971 he was elected its first mayor.
Tony Roman served the people of Markham with distinction for over 20 years. This record of service included being chairman of the Regional Municipality of York in 1984.
Also in 1984 he ran successfully as a member of Parliament for the riding of York North. While sitting as an independent MP in Ottawa, Tony Roman served on the public accounts committee and on the panel of chairmen for legislative bills.

November 18, 1992
Tributes
I believe Tony's first love was being mayor of Markham. Under his leadership and guidance Markham grew from a small village to a prosperous, energetic town of over 150,000 residents.
As Acting Mayor Frank Scarpitti said:
When you thought about Markham you thought about Tony
Roman.
York Region Chairman Eldred King said:
He's made a great contribution to the town of Markham and the
region of York for over 22 years. He will be missed.
In closing, our love and prayers go out to Tony's wife Elsie, sons Michael and Edward, daughters Maria and Paula, and his father George.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, Anthony Roman was my predecessor as the member of Parliament for York North, and his commitment to those he represented has always been an example for me.
Mr. Roman was a public servant; he devoted his life to serving and helping people. More than almost anything else he loved his town, Markham, and contributed greatly to its growth and advancement. I know that Mr. Roman will be greatly missed by everyone in Markham, in York region, and by those he served with in this place.
His long and esteemed career began in 1966 when he was elected as councillor in the township. Mr. Roman went on to serve as deputy reeve and was elected mayor of Markham in 1971.
He served with distinction in that post until 1984. He was also the regional chair of York region that year. 1984 was also the year Mr. Roman was elected as member of Parliament for York North.
It is a mark of his singular appeal that a man who ran as an independent in 1984 was rewarded by the electorate with its trust. He honoured that trust as a a member of Parliament and devoted himself to defending the interests of his constituents above all else.
In 1988 Mr. Roman returned to municipal politics and once again was elected as mayor of Markham, a position he held until his untimely passing last month. In losing Tony Roman the town of Markham and York region have lost one of their most tireless champions.
On behalf of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, our caucus and our party, I would like to offer our most heartfelt sympathies to his wife Elsie, his sons Michael and Edward, his daughters Maria and Paula, and his father George. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Madam Speaker, when Tony Roman was elected to the House of Commons to represent the constituency of York North in 1984 he brought with him a wealth of experience from having served for many years at both the regional and municipal levels of government. In the four years of his service in the House of Commons he drew on that experience to bring the concerns of his constituents to this House and to the committees on which he served.
After he chose not to seek re-election to the House of Commons in 1988 he went on to become the mayor of his community and continued to serve in that office until his untimely passing on October 30, 1992.
Tony Roman will be sadly missed by the people of his community and by the people of Canada as a whole.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I want to express our sincere condolences to Tony's wife Elsie and to their children Michael, Maria, Paula and Edward.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, I mourn also for Tony Roman and want to put on the record the fond memories that I have of working with him in his public life and the commitment that he had to the people who elected him to be here.
I think he was one of the least partisan of all of the members of this House, always ready and willing to work and share with us in the interests of serving all of our constituents better. He was a wonderful representative of Markham and he will be missed.
I want also to add that when the story is written one day of the history of liberation of eastern Europe, and particularly the part of it that his family came from, which is Slovakia, that no small part of the work of liberating that part of eastern Europe is to the credit of the Canadian communities of immigrants from those parts of the world.
Mr. Roman was a proud member of one of the families from Slovakia who worked tirelessly for advancing the interests of democracy and the interests of freedom in the part of eastern Europe from which they had come.
November 18, 1992

I know about some of the things that they did and I commend them. I look forward to other Canadians becoming aware of what it is that was done by him in the spirit of opening up freedom and democracy in that part of the world. Ele will be missed and I send my own wishes to the members of his family, whom I know, and to all of those who mourn for him.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, I knew Mr. Roman when he was elected in 1984 and I sat beside him for a while. He was a great man. He was elected as an independent member and, as was said, he was not partisan. He co-operated with everybody. It is tragic that he died and will not see his home country of Slovakia become independent on January 1, 1993.
Mr. Roman was a devoted family member, he was a devoted Canadian, and served his country very well. My sympathies go to his wife and his children.


POINT OF ORDER
Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, I shall have the opportunity to review the "blues" in a few minutes, but I did want to respond or seek some clarification of the statement made by the leader of the NDP during Question Period.
It was to the effect that the Liberal members on the subcommittee on trade had voted against the committee travelling to all provinces and territories of Canada. In fact, the subcommittee had agreed in September to undertake some extensive travel. The motion yesterday would have had the effect of delaying that travel and closing off the opportunity to travel to the additional points at a later date.
I can assure the member from the NDP that in fact we support travel across Canada, full hearings on NAFTA, and we are ready to extend that travel if funds permit.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On the same point order, but before recognizing the hon. member for Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca, I would like to point out to the House we are referring to something that first happened in committee and now we are getting into a debate. As I have listened to the hon. member for Etobicoke North, I will now listen to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, just to put the record straight, the motion did not delay any action by the committee but added to the committee's activities. No specific dates were set for the end of those hearings and I am afraid the record is
Point of Order
correct as presented by the leader of my party. The Liberals did vote against a motion to provide hearings right across this country in every province.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will not get into debate on this subject at this time.
We now proceed to tabling of documents. The hon. Minister of Transport has the floor.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, pursuant-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Just a moment. I just said, and I will gladly repeat it in French for the hon. member for Richelieu, that I certainly did not want this to turn into a debate because we started by talking about something that happened in committee. I think that we have heard both sides of the coin and I would really want us to get on with Routine Proceedings now. That is why I already recognized-
I would really like us to go now to Tabling of Documents, unless the hon. member really has-
I do not see why we would start a debate now on this subject.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I agree not to talk about that subject, but I will tell you that I am very surprised by your lack of patience with a member of the Bloc Quebecois as compared to the other two parties.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think that the hon. member's remark is out of place.
Even before the hon. member rose, I said that I thought it was time to end a debate that was not appropriate now, long before the hon. member decided to get up. Believe me, I would have had the same answer for anyone who rose in this House for the same reasons.
We now proceed to tabling of documents.

November 18, 1992
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report for 1991 of Canarctic Shipping Company Limited.


INTERNATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF FRENCH-SPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF ACTIVITIES OF CANADIAN SECTION
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the activities of the Canadian Section of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians at the meeting of the working group on the AIPLF's future held in Paris from July 8 to 10, 1992.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
[Stage Direction]
50TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 50th report of the Standing Committee on House Management. Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-368, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sureties to keep the peace).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I am introducing this bill today because of the sad fact in Canada that peace bonds are ineffective as a deterrent to violence, most particularly violence against women.
It is hoped that the proposed amendments to sections 8(10) and 8(11) of the Criminal Code will make peace bonds more effective by sending out a message that offenders will be prosecuted and by compelling justices of the peace to issue peace bonds.
In brief, these amendments would make it incumbent upon the justice of the peace to issue a peace bond in the case where a complainant has demonstrated that her fears are reasonable and, second, classify breaches of the peace by a person bound by a recognizance as indictable offences.
In this age of violence against women, it becomes even more true that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Ms. Clancy moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, tabled the report from the management committee. Was that report the one striking the committee membership of Bill C-91? If so, were the correct procedures followed?
In other words were the Whips in agreement with the committee members serving on Bill C-91? That is not my understanding.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, the information I was given was that the Whips were in agreement. Otherwise I would not have presented the report.
November 18, 1992



Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-369, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Albina Guarnieri: Madam Speaker, I am presenting two bills that attempt to reduce the current free rein in crime. One is amendments to an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, the purpose of which is to ensure that young persons who are 16 years of age and over and who are accused of sexual or aggravated assault, or any offence that has resulted in death will be tried in adult court.
The second bill is to provide for the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment of one year in respect to the person who has never committed a break and enter offence but then commits two or more such offences. The same punishment would be imposed in respect to the person who commits a break and enter offence for which there has been a previous conviction.
The amendment provides for a minimum of one year in prison for any person who is a repeat break and enter offender.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Ms. Guarnieri moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Albina Guarnieri: for leave to introduce Bill C-370, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Albina Guarnieri: Madam Speaker, in my eagerness I have already given the explanation on break and entry.
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Ms. Guarnieri moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to raise this but I believe there have been some procedural improprieties.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asked permission to table the management committee report regarding the membership of Bill C-91, and that can only be done if the Whips have agreed to the membership, as my hon. friend has indicated.
My understanding is that there was no agreement at this point as they try to assemble the membership of that committee. In that case I do not think the report is receivable because of the inappropriate procedures followed.
I simply want to make that point. Until this is clarified I would ask my friend to withdraw the request. It is a very important issue. Most legislative committees would not have the same serious consideration but we are dealing with the Patent Act and I think it important that that committee be appropriately assembled.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will listen to the hon. parliamentary secretary, of course, but I think the hon. member for Kamloops will agree that normally he should have risen when the parliamentary secretary rose to present that motion. Now it has been accepted.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I have no wish to tamper with the process. That is the last thing on my mind. I was given the draft report. I was informed that the Whips had consulted and that there was agreement. I tabled it in good faith. I have to accept what my hon. friend tells me, that there was not such an agreement. In that case, I will withdraw the report if I have the consent of the House.
I take it from my hon. friend that it was his Whip that did not assent. I was led to believe that his Whip was in agreement and that there was some hesitation on the part of the Official Opposition Whip but I was told that hurdle had been cleared. Therefore I sought leave to table the report.

November 18, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the generous comments of my hon. friend. I certainly take his word when he says that he was given the impression that all of the Whips had agreed.
I would have rose at the time when he asked leave to table the report but I was not certain of the content of the management report that he was referring to by number 91 or whatever it was. Since that has been clarified, my hon. friend has asked that the tabling be withdrawn until we get this matter cleared up.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM ACT
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I would move:
That, notwithstanding the order made on TUesday, June 23, 1992 under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), any recorded divisions necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, shall be deferred until Monday, November 23, 1992 at 6 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I would move:
That the chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Tbronto from November 22 to 24,1992 to attend the 13th annual conference of the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation.


Louis Plamondon: I will be pleased to give our consent, but we would remind the three parties
in the House that for such travels or when the House of Commons makes such decisions, we would like the Bloc Quebecois to be given more consideration, in view of the referendum result.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is therefore carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Guy St-Julien: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a member of the public accounts committee and I will not go to Toronto.


REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, this is the last of my three motions. I would move:
That pursuant to section 14 of an act respecting the registration of lobbyists, chapter 44, fourth supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations be the committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the administration and operation of this act and submit a report to this House no later than one year after the review is undertaken.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear that it is our intention to proceed with this but not at this moment. There are some deliberations that ought to occur before this motion is passed. I want to make clear that we will support it as New Democrats. It is the appropriate process but we have some discussions we want to carry on with the government before we do that.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, with respect to the motion, there were discussions among House leaders. I wish to indicate the consent of my party to proceed with the contents of this particular motion.
November 18, 1992


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition deals with pollution in the Rideau River in my riding and was signed by a number of constituents in Ottawa-Vanier. I would like Parliament to ask the federal government to act as an equal partner with provincial and municipal authorities in implementing an action plan for clean-up and maintenance of the Rideau River.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, my second petition deals with the Court Challenges Program, which as you know has helped a number of individuals and minority groups to have their constitutional linguistic and equality rights clarified before the courts.
As you know, the program was abolished by the government, and your petitioners strongly urge Parliament to reinstate this program so that Canadians, whatever their income or resources, can bring their cases before the courts and defend their fundamental and linguistic rights.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today.
The first one arises out of the death of a constituent of mine and is related to a theme that has already arisen a couple of times in the House today, that is the issue of violence against women.
The people who have signed this petition call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being perpetrated.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my second petition concerns Bill C-91 and the issue of amending the drug patent laws of Canada.
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners are concerned about the effect of Bill C-91 and its relationship to the North American free trade agreement.
They call upon Parliament not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22, passed in 1987, so that Canadians will have the full benefit of lower priced generic drugs and so that provincial and private drug plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and/or provide less coverage.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions concerning the case of Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who are Canadians imprisoned in Brazil. In the judgment of many Canadians they should now be back in Canada but for the cruelty of the minister of external affairs who refuses to request their expulsion, thereby leaves them in prison in Brazil where riots and massacres take place and where they are in imminent danger.
I present these petitions calling upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, petitioners from the province of Manitoba, including my own constituency, point out that Winnipeg has been well served by the name Winnipeg International Airport, previously Stevenson's Field.
These petitioners point out that the government considered the possibility of changing the current name to Diefenbaker airport. They note that the former Prime Minister was a native of Saskatchewan, and as well they believe that some of his actions while he was Prime Minister harmed the province's air industry.
They want to stress that we have many Manitobans who have contributed to Manitoba and to its airline industry. Finally they stress that any change would cost a great deal of money to everyone. They oppose this change and they want to make sure that it is prevented. I support this petition.

November 18, 1992
Routine Proceedings BILL C-330


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present to this House petitions certified correct by the clerk of petitions.
They contain another 10,000 signatures of Canadians, many of them gathered by my colleague representing the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk.
They support my private member's Bill C-330. They want Canadians to have a greater say in the disposition of offenders in the judicial process and call on Parliament to support victims' rights and the protection of the public from violent offenders.
There will be tens of thousands more signatures to be made tomorrow before I have my private member's hour on Bill C-330.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from close to 200 constituents.
They draw the House's attention to the fact that the U.S. has unfairly imposed a duty on our softwood lumber exports to that country and has engaged in numerous other trade practices which amount to harassment of Canadian producers. They also note that the free trade agreement has caused Canada to lose jobs and devastated the Canadian economy without providing the promised benefits.
The petitioners, therefore, call on Parliament to request that the PM and the Minister for International Trade take any action necessary to defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry against unfair duties. They also request Parliament to act immediately to affect the cancellation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


BILL C-91
Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would also like to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents relating to Bill C-91.
The petition seeks to end the further licensing of generic drugs in Canada and also proposes to extend the patent protection for periods of up to 20 years.
The petitioners call on Parliament not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22 passed in 1987 so that Canadians will have the full benefit of lower priced generic drugs and so that provincial and private drug
plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees or to provide less coverage.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour again today to present to this House a large number of petitions signed by people from across the country in memory of Rosalynn Dupuis, a young girl who was brutally murdered in the spring of this year in the Sudbury area. A young offender has been charged.
It is truly unfortunate that it takes a tragedy such as this one to make us realize a change in attitude and law is necessary.
I would like to thank those who have taken the time to circulate this petition and sign it. The tremendous response to this petition confirms the need for a tougher young offenders law.


REQUEST TO STOP VIOLENCE IN OUR SOCIETY
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by residents of Lebel-sur-Quevillon in Abitibi, which says that films on television that show scenes of violence are dangerous and cannot be tolerated because they act as an incentive to further violence.
Your petitioners point out that toys that provide an excuse for violent games are unacceptable and production of such toys should be stopped. Freedom of the press should be restricted in the case of reporting acts of violence. Information is repeatedly given on acts of violence on television, on all channels, and on radio. This may act as an incentive to commit identical acts of violence.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass the appropriate legislation and thus stop violence in our society, protect our children and give all citizens a better quality of life.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition of thousands of names collected by hundreds of registered nurses from the Sechelt Peninsula, the Powell River area, Campbell River and the North Island, all members of the RNABC, as part of the national health action lobby.
November 18, 1992

They have collected thousands of names in support of a petition that asks the government to ensure that the Canadian Constitution will contain the five basic principles of medicare, that the federal government will reaffirm its cost-sharing responsibility with the provinces for health care and that the federal government will set up a national monitoring agency to enforce federal-provincial health care programs.


MACKENZIE VALLEY HIGHWAY
Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present the Mackenzie Valley highway petition which states that whereas the Canadian government announced the commencement of the Mackenzie Valley highway in 1972 and construction was started on this important transportation link to the north; and whereas the economic need for a highway system has never been greater than it is today, the federal government has transferred responsibility for northern road construction but not the funding to the government of the Northwest Territories.
Therefore we request that the federal and territorial governments accept their joint responsibilities to the residents of the Mackenzie Valley corridor and commence discussions now to prepare a phased implementation plan for completion of the highway to Fort Norman, Norman Wells, Fort Good Hope and further north to tie in with the existing highway south of Inuvik.
Furthermore, we recommend that these discussions take place with the involvement of northerners and include a construction timetable for completion.
This is presented on behalf of 150 residents of the Sahtu region.


BILL C-86
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present four petitions. They are all different but all concerned with Bill C-86.
The first petition is signed by 60 persons from Toronto who are concerned with recent amendments to the immigration bill, Bill C-86. In particular, they strongly oppose the restrictions and delay that parents will face when seeking to join their sons and daughters in Canada.
Routine Proceedings
Therefore your petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to withdraw these amendments.
I have a second petition with 126 names of Canadians who are concerned with many of the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act and Bill C-86. They particularly oppose the provisions that allow decisions to be made retroactively on the ground that it would cause many individuals and families who have already relied upon an earlier decision to be affected in a serious manner.
They urge Parliament to urge the government to withdraw these amendments.


REFUGEES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, my third petition is from 133 Canadians who point out that the refugee board at present is not allowed to review decisions even when it is apparent that a mistake may have been made, evidence that was missing is now available, or that the situation has turned.
This is in spite of the fact that the United Nations minimum guarantee for refugee status determination requires an appeal on the merits.
Therefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which would provide a meaningful appeal on the merits for refugee claimants whose cases are rejected such that they have appeal rights comparable with everyone else in Canada.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Finally, Madam Speaker, I have a petition from 136 people who are concerned with many of the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act, particularly the provisions allowing a detention review, after an initial hearing, only once every 30 days for persons detained by Canada Immigration.
They ask that the legislation provide for a detention review by an adjudicator within 48 hours with two further reviews conducted at least once in each of the next seven days, to ensure that no one is detained without unequivocal proof that he or she is a danger to the public or would not appear for the immigration proceedings.

Routine Proceedings GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of various communities: West-mount, Quebec; Gananoque, Ontario; Kingston, Ontario; and other places in Ontario including Calabogie and Kitchener.
The petitioners are opposed to the goods and services tax on books which the former Minister of Finance, who is here now, introduced. He must be feeling quite repentant because these petitions have been signed by thousands of Canadians across the country. There is a major campaign objecting to the tax that he introduced in this House. I hope he is feeling suitably chastized now that he has left that office because of the outrage he has provoked among Canadians concerning this tax on books. I think Canada is one of the few countries in the free world that taxes reading material.
These petitioners humbly call upon this House to repeal the iniquitous goods and services tax as it applies to books, newspapers and magazines.


BILL C-91
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 600 people from communities in my riding such as Prince Albert, Shellbrook, Christopher Lake, Spruce Home and Weirdale.
These people appreciate the benefits that they have had from the generic drug industry as we know it. They recognize Bill C-91 is another piece of legislation driven by free trade legislation. It is going to cost Canadians over $500 million in the coming years.
Therefore they are calling upon Parliament not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22 passed in 1987 so that Canadians will have the full benefit from lower priced generic drugs and so that provincial and private drug plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and/or provide less coverage.



Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I am presenting petitions today regarding the passage of Bill C-91, respecting the Patent Act.
The petitioners have asked the government to not proceed with the passage of this act. The legislation would seek to end the licensing of further generic drugs in Canada and would allow brand-name drug companies to market their drugs virtually without competition by generic companies for periods of up to 20 years. They are asking for a reconsideration of this act and the long-term costs of passing this type of legislation.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: have a second petition to present, Madam Speaker.
A number of petitioners from my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap are very concerned about the proposed North American free trade agreement as it pertains to the possibility of water exports through non-energy pipelines.
They are asking that article 1401 of the proposed North American free trade agreement be reconsidered, that the government not proceed with this particular section of the agreement and that the government resolves the uncertainty surrounding the issue of water exports through the execution of a separate and binding joint diplomatic agreement stating that nothing in either the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or the proposed North American agreement would apply to Canada's water resources in other than bottled form.


GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing a petition in the House of Commons signed by many residents in the national capital region.
These residents are extremely upset with the high gasoline prices in the capital region when compared with prices in the rest of Ontario. These petitioners are calling on the government to take appropriate action in order to correct this injustice.
November 18, 1992


VIOLENCE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 300 residents of the Rosewood area in Scarborough-Rouge River.
The petition is in support of the work of the parents of Nina de Villiers. It points out the inadequacy of the judicial interim release procedures under the Criminal Code, the vulnerability of women and children to violent crime, the lack of accountability of agents of the Crown in bail proceedings and calls upon the government to make the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code and related legislation.


BILL C-91
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by 1,032 residents of The Battlefords- Meadow Lake constituency who call on the government to withdraw Bill C-91, the legislation that allows brand-name prescription drug companies to market their drugs without competition from generic drugs for periods of up to 20 years.
The petitioners, like those 438 signatories that I presented yesterday to the House, want to benefit from lower priced prescription drugs and want the provincial drug programs also to receive that benefit.
These petitions were signed and gathered by individuals who live in communities in my constituency like Mervin, Tbrtleford, Edam, Livelong, Leoville, Wilkie, Hafford, Blaine Lake, Marcelin, Richard, Stump Lake, Canwood, Speers, Mayfair and Paradise Hill. I thank the petitioners for their efforts.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of constituents from my riding, from the province itself and from the country dealing with the distribution of pornographic materials.
The petitioners ask Parliament to prohibit the distribution and sale of pornographic materials in our country such as Madonna's book.
Routine Proceedings


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition where the petitioners are concerned about the potential export of water by inter-basin transfers through the North American free trade agreement.
This is petition 343. I suppose there must have been thousands and thousands of petitioners who have indicated their concern. We are still waiting for the Minister for International Trade to announce that water is actually an exclusion from this deal.
Therefore the petitioners are simply asking once again for the minister to state that water is not part of the North American free trade agreement and to have to explicitly stated in the agreement.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 371, 388, 390, 400, 403, and 411.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnpeg South Centre): Have any employees of Transport Canada's Policy and Coordination Branch received, for a period exceeding six months, reimbursement of interest paid on bridging loans to purchase a principal residence or obtained temporary dual residence assistance under the Treasury Board relocation policy, since April 1, 1990 and, if so, (a) how many are they (b) what are their names and positions (c) what is the total amount paid or to be paid to each one (d) have any extensions of reimbursement and assistance beyond the six month period been approved and, if so, why (e) while payments were being made, did the department receive any indication that the employee's former place of residence was rented or occupied and, if so, what action has been taken to recover sums paid out while the employee's former place of residence was being rented or occupied?


Jean Corbeil: Yes, four:
Mr. John Murphy, permanent alternate representative on the council to ICAO. Mr. Peter Bailey, chief, fleet and infrastructure. Mr. Ted Rudback, director general, Economic Analysis. Ms. Gail Zahradnitzky, regional director Winnipeg, policy and co-ordination.

Routine Proceedings
This information has been protected under the Privacy Act section 26. However under section 8 of the Privacy Act, Ms. Zahradnitzky has agreed to release some information in light of an access to information request.
That is that she has received $7,391.44 in temporary dual residence assistance.
In reply to (d), yes:


Mr. Murphy:: Initially the evaluation for French language training was for three months. It was extended to one year by periods of three months;


Mr.   Bailey@: His house did not sell in six months;


Mr.   Rudback@: Lease on dwelling in Montreal and family commitments;


Ms.   Zahradnitzky@: Her house had not been sold.
The department received notification from Ms. Zahradnitzky in December of 1991 that her house would be rented three to six months beginning in January 1992. At this time she was no longer receiving temporary dual residence assistance. Assistance ceased in September
1991.


Mr. Mifflin: With respect to the 1991 fisheries compensation package, (a) what
is the breakdown of the $57 million spent to date (b) how much of
this fund is remaining and how is it planned to be spent?


Hon. John Carnell Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: With respect to the 1991 fisheries compensation package, (a) and (b) are as follow:
Budget	Spent to Date	RemainingEmergency Job Creation Fisheries Employment	$25,000,000	$20,800,000	$4,200,000Herring	Export Program	2,500,000	1,400,000	1,100,000Food Aid	4,000,000	4,000,000	-Atlantic Inshore Gear-Up	8,000,000	5,900,000	2,100,000Special Ice Compensation (May-August 1991)	18,000,000	17,700,000	300,000Total	$57,500,000	$49,800,000	$7,700,000**	$6,700,000 of the $7,700,000 has lapsed. The remaining $1,000,000 in the Atlantic Inshore Gear-up Program has been budgeted for fiscal year 1993-94 to accommodate late applicants.


Miss Campbell (South West Nova): For the fiscal year of 1991-92, how many public tenders did the Department of Supply and Services call and close without an award being made and what was the cost to the parties who bid on these cancelled tender calls?


Hon. Paul Wyatt Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: There is no mechanism in the procurement and acquisition support system (PASS) data base that can identify the number of times we might not issue a contract as a result of a tender call. Further, we are unable to identify the cost to the parties who bid on these cancelled tender calls. Only the parties themselves would be able to provide this information.


Mr. Fisher: With respect to the government, its bodies and agencies and the company PNMD-Publitel, (a) what is the total value of contracts since January 1, 1990 (b) what were the dates of these contracts (c) which departments or agencies were involved (d) what was the value of each (e) what was the subject matter of the contract?


Paul Wyatt Dick: With respect to the government, its bodies and agencies and the company PNMD/Publitel:
Total Value of Contracts since Jan. 1, 1990 (a)	Contract Award Dales (b)	Department (c)	Value of each Contract <d)	Subject Matter <*)$152,750	90-04-27	Transport Canada	$ 5,000	Advertising90-07-04	34,750	90-05-28	10,000	90-06-12	25,000	90-09-26	8,000	90-02-18	2,000	90-09-17	5,000	90-10-06	8,000	90-12-17	20,000	91-02-21	15,000	91-05-03	20,000


Miss Campbell (South West Nova): With respect to the Department of Fisheries' helicopter service stationed in Yarmouth to provide fisheries surveillance in the Scotia Fundy region, (a) how is the number of actual flying hours arrived at after considering base costs (b) how many fishery surveillance trips were taken for the past eight months, how many hours were used for each trip, what was the total cost to the Department of Fisheries and how many charges were laid for overfishing (c) how many search and rescue trips were made over the same period of time and who paid for them?
November 18, 1992


John Carnell Crosbie: DFO has a fixed budget for helicopter services in Southwest Nova. Actual flying hours are determined by:
(i)	subtracting monthly basing charges and operational expenses (hangar maintenance, crew travel, and fuel) from the over-all budget; and
(ii)	dividing the balance of the budget by the fixed hourly flying rate to determine the number of actual flying hours.
From January 1 to August 31, 1992, DFO conducted 163 surveillance trips utilizing 424 hours or an average of
2.6	hours per trip. The total cost was $1.4 million. During these trips, DFO encountered 64 suspected violations as follows:
-26 domestic vessels fishing during a closed season; -8 domestic vessels fishing in a closed area;
-4 domestic vessels with improper identification markings;
-4 incidents of illegal salmon and lobster gear;
- 1 foreign vessel entering Canadian fisheries waters without authority; and
-21 domestic vessels fishing not in accordance with their conditions of licence.
For that same period, the helicopter conducted eight search and rescue missions involving 12 actual trips totalling 20.9 hours. DFO covered the cost of 12.3 hours and DND covered the balance.


Mr. Barrett: Regarding the series of shows featuring trade commissioners to be held in Tbronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver later this year (a) what is the total estimated cost for the series of shows (b) what is the cost for each show (c) how much will be spent to bring trade commissioners back from their posts (d) have any contracts been entered into by the government in relation to these shows with private companies or individuals (e) what is the value of each of these contracts and who are the individuals or companies involved?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In its eighth year ExportVision, formerly known as Marketplace, has been held annually by External Affairs and International Trade Canada to promote exports, exporting and to provide direct assistance and information on export markets and government assistance programs to Canada's business community in all regions during October, Canada International Trade Month.
This annual series of seminars and workshops, one-on-one meetings between trade commissioners and
Routine Proceedings
company representatives, self-funded networking luncheons and outreach activities with local chambers of commerce, colleges and schools and media representatives took place across Canada during October.
Some 3,500 persons, mostly from the private sector, participated in one or more of ExportVision's events. It remains too early for companies to say what impact their participation will have on their export operations this year. However, for example, last year, as a result of information provided in an interview that took place at the advance technology Marketplace in Vancouver, Sys-temhouse Pacific entered into an alliance with Samsung Data Systems Co. Ltd. of Korea, to provide its systems integration expertise to Asia. The potential of this deal is worth hundreds of millions to Canadians over the next five years.
The total estimated cost for the series held in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver is $99,275 and the individual estimated costs are: Toronto-$63,000; Montreal-$20,275; Calgary-$4,000; and Vancouver- $12,000. These costs include in-house costs.
Trade commissioners returning to participate in ExportVision also receive ongoing training, briefings and departmental initiative updates as part of their regular duties. Therefore the total estimated travel costs of $166,000 cannot totally be attributed to ExportVision.
Private sector contracts entered into regarding Export-
Vision are as follows:
Toronto
Westin Harbour Castle Conference Centre	10,000.
OEB Public Relations	33,000.
Manpower Temporary Services and
Personnel Opportunities Ltd.	5,364.
Southam Audiovisual-Equipment rental	1,200.
Vernon Rentals and Leasing-Equipment rental	375.
Ricoh Canada-Equipment rental	295.
Ove Design-Design, layout, printing of tickets	515.
Security Management Services	351.
Montreal
Hilton Bonaventure Hotel	2,825.
Clarkson & Conway-display booths	1,850.
Creation Graphique-signs	3,800.
Caron, Belanger, Ernst & YoungModerating services	800.
Corpav-Equipment rental	800.

Routine Proceedings
Inforum-Telemarketing	3,000.
Calgary
The Palliser Hotel	2,230.
Tel Av-Audio/visual equipment	642.
Stampede Display-Display booths, eta	475.
Calgary Tower-Room rentals, dividers, eta	645.
Vancouver
The Meridian Hotel	1,293.
Judy Wvong and Leanne Martinson-
Temporary help	4,079.
New Communications Concepts Ltd.-Signs	940.
Mail-o-matic Services-direct mail	1,542.
U.S. Direct-Consultant services	796.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I am seeking some guidance here. I submitted Question No. 207 regarding the goods and services tax revenues in December 1991. It concerned the amounts and where they would be applied. There is still no response.
I was wondering if I could have an indication as to when it might be answered. As we can well appreciate, constituents are interested in this question and I have been getting some telephone calls.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned that my hon. friend has waited so long. I can tell him there are some three departments involved and the report is proceeding reasonably well. I believe it would be possible to produce it within the foreseeable future. I give my friend the undertaking that I will pursue it personally for him.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Madam Speaker, I would ask that the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received one application pursuant to Standing Order 52.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 52 to request an emergency debate on the state of Canada's transportation industry. I request this debate for a number of reasons, most of which are being played out on the front pages of most of our newspapers at this very moment. One of course is the story we have all been following very closely in the past number of weeks which involves all Canadians. That is the crisis in the airline industry which involves not only PWA and Canadian Airlines, but also Air Canada.
I think it is incumbent upon us as members of Parliament to stand up here in Parliament and debate this issue and debate it very, very soon.
In particular, as an Atlantic Canadian, the news yesterday in Atlantic Canada with regard to transportation was not particularly good. We have a crisis looming there as well since CP Rail made known its intention to abandon or seek abandonment of all its rail lines in Atlantic Canada.
I do not think I have to go on any further. It is being suggested by the other side of the House that I save my speech for the debate. Madam Speaker, I want to impress upon you the importance of it because in a country as large as Canada I think the 27 million Canadians who are watching us from time to time should be aware of exactly what is happening out there and it is incumbent upon us as members of Parliament to put that message out.
The decision has been made by CP Rail to abandon the rail lines in eastern Canada. That is an entire region of Canada that is going to be abandoned by a major corporation that has been mandated and has the respon-
November 18, 1992

sibility to provide a service to a very important part of this country.
I request under Standing Order 52 an emergency debate based on the crisis facing Canada's transportation industry.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if I could be helpful on this point. Earlier in the week representatives of the New Democratic Party and others called for an emergency debate on the crisis facing our two major airlines.
Also, since then the crisis in Atlantic Canada, with the announcement that CP would be abandoning its rail, has arisen. To assist the Chair, I want to make it clear, since the request has come from a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party, on behalf of the New Democrats here in the House of Commons that this will be an opportunity to show the people of Canada that we are prepared to address what have to be the critical issues of the day, which I think was made very clear in the referendum campaign.
We are prepared to give our unanimous consent to this request to ensure that a proper debate takes place later tonight, not only on the airline crisis but on the crisis in the transportation sector generally, particularly, as my hon. friend mentioned, the situation regarding the CP announcement.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I want to echo what the hon. member for Kamloops has just said. We share the concern that has been raised by the hon. member.
As the government has obviously had one of its members put this forward and agrees that it is a crisis, I want to say that we would be more than happy to have an emergency debate and hope that Your Honour will find in favour of the position put forward by the hon. member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am not exactly certain how this ought to proceed. However, if it will be helpful perhaps we could ask my hon. friend if he would seek unanimous consent of the House because the House could then agree and the debate would occur with the understanding that it would occur with the same restrictions and regulations that an emergency debate would have.
Routine Proceedings SPEAKER'S RULING


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. members for their contributions.
I have in front of me an application under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. I can understand the importance of the subject on which he is proposing the House should have an emergency debate.
At this time I do not think that it meets with the requirements of Standing Order 52. In that sense, I am not in a position to grant this emergency debate.
On the other hand, should House leaders get together and propose something to the House, then I am the servant of the House, as you all know. At this time I cannot, according to Standing Order 52, grant this emergency debate.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, if I have interpreted what you have said correctly consent to debate or emergency debate has been denied, but I do seek unanimous consent of the House to proceed in that fashion. If that would be appropriate I would then seek unanimous consent to do so.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that under Standing Order 52 an application is made to the Speaker as to the propriety, the correctness, the timeliness and the need for an emergency debate. It would seem to me that is the route it should go, and that we should await the Speaker's ruling on that particular question by the hon. member for Carleton

Charlotte.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I think the minister's suggestion is an excellent one. However, I think my recollection is that a decision has been rendered by the Chair and the Chair has deemed that this was not, in the Chair's estimation, a reason for an emergency debate.
I sense a spirit of generosity in the House today. My hon. friend has asked for unanimous consent for a special debate, let us call it, on this crisis that is facing the country, particularly those members from Atlantic Canada, and I simply want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party-I know I can speak for my colleagues-that we would be enthusiastic about a special debate this evening on this emergency facing the transportation sector of our country.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I think that what my hon. friend from Kamloops is endeavouring to do is bring

November 18, 1992
Government Orders
us holus-bolus the next stage of parliamentary reform, which would provide for such special debate.
I welcome his and his party's support. I would hope that he would agree, and it would be nice to have his commitment right here and now, to embrace the next phase of parliamentary reform including that provision. I see him nodding. I gather that we have his acceptance. If we could accept the balance of those recommendations and amend the Standing Orders right here and now it would be very positive and desirable.
As I understand it there is, in the absence of changes to the Standing Orders, no provision for the procedure that my hon. friend from Kamloops is proposing.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: I do stand to be corrected, but it is my understanding that it is a well-founded principle of our procedure that the House may at any time do virtually anything it wants by unanimous consent.
If the House decides by unanimous consent that it wishes to appoint a time this evening for the debate of this matter and wishes that debate to be conducted under terms that normally would be applicable only to emergency debates but decides in its wisdom at this time that it wants that debate to be so conducted then by unanimous consent it may so appoint.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, we might consider giving our unanimous consent, but not right away, not until we have discussed with the three leaders the role the Bloc will play in this debate in terms of the number of speakers.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: At any rate, the Chair is in an extremely difficult position right now because Standing Order 52 says one thing-and there has already been a ruling on that-and pursuant to Standing Order 52, the request the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte is making does not meet all the conditions.
That being said, I did hear him request the unanimous consent of this House for such a debate to take place without the traditional request from the three House leaders. Unanimous consent has not been granted at this time. However, if the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte were to bring forward a written motion in due form requesting unanimous consent, the Chair would gladly put such motion to the House at that time. That is the only way I could accommodate the hon. member's request at this time without infringing upon these rules of ours that we have given ourselves.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the legislative committee.
Mr. Comuzzi:: Madam Speaker, my point of order concerns the bill that is before the House right now in consideration of report stage.
To facilitate debate on the motions before the House today I would ask that perhaps the government side would consider not discussing their motions which just showed up on the Order Paper today.
It is an immigration bill. It has been rushed through hearings this summer in the House, and just this morning we received 10 or 12 recommendations from the government with respect to certain changes that it wants made on the Order Paper.
We know that the debate is going to carry on at this stage not only for the balance of today but it will most likely continue on Monday and perhaps into Tuesday.
There will be no harm done. It just gives us on this side of the House the opportunity to review the motions brought forward by the government and placed on the Order Paper today. We would be able to respond with perhaps a little more accuracy on those motions at another time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In just a moment I will listen to the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.
I would like to give the official ruling as to what has been accepted and the way the motions have been divided.
I heard the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon saying that some motions came in at a late hour. All motions came to the House in the very late afternoon yesterday, for six o'clock last night.
I can tell the hon. member that our officers worked quite late into the evening and even early into the night so that we could get this together. Nobody has had more time or less time to study anybody else's motion.
November 18, 1992	COMMONS DEBATES	13561
I think the hon. member should first listen to the ruling as it will be given and then if the hon. member wants to discuss some further arrangements with the parliamentary secretary on the government side, that of course will be his own decision.
Does the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina have anything to add to this?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I will wait. I will listen to your ruling and then perhaps resume this point.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, I understand the capable staff of this House worked well into the late hours of last evening in order to get this matter before the House in proper form.
On the Order Paper of yesterday, there were only those motions which were presented by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de Grace of our party. There were no other motions on the Order Paper yesterday. As a result, if you check the Order Paper of yesterday you will find that those other motions appeared on the Order Paper on November 18 and there were no such motions on November 17. I say that with some respect.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As the hon. member does know, our Standing Order requires for all amendments to be at the Ihble before she o'clock the day before. Many arrived only late yesterday afternoon. We did the best we could and I am sure that with a little bit of discussion or negotiation things can be worked out.


SPEAKER'S RULING
[Stage Direction]
There are 85 motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration, will be debated and voted on separately.
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 2, 4, 8, 21, 30, 33, 35, 37, 42, 44,46, 53,56,
62,	65, 69, 73, 75 and 77 standing in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace are identical to Motions Nos, 3, 5, 9, 22, 31, 34, 36, 38, 43, 45, 47, 54, 57,
63,	66, 70, 74, 76 and 78. After consultation, those motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace have not been selected.
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 3, 5, 70 and 74, standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for
Government Orders
Scarborough-Rouge River, and Motion No. 7, standing in the name of the hon. member for Thinity-Spadina, will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9 in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon will be debated and voted upon separately.
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 10,11,12 and 13, standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina, and Motion No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows:
[Stage Direction]
a)	A vote on Motion No. 10 will apply to motions numbered 11, 12 and 13.
b)	Motion No. 22 will be voted upon separately.
Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina and Motions Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 32, 40, 41, 68 and 80 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: [Translation]
a)	Motions Nos. 14 and 17 will be voted on separately.
b)	The vote on Motion No. 18 will apply to Motions Nos. 19 and 20.
c)	Motions Nos. 32, 40, 41, 68 and 80 will be voted on separately.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration will be debated and voted upon separately.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16, standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina, is identical to Motion No. 15 and therefore will not be selected.
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 64, 67 and 71 standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity- Spadina and Motions Nos. 31, 34, 36 and 66 standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
[Stage Direction]
a)	Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25 will be voted on separately.
[Stage Direction]
November 18, 1992
Government Orders
b)	If Motion No. 26 is adopted, it will not be necessary to vote on Motions Nos. 27 and 28, but if Motion No. 26 is defeated, it will be necessary to vote on Motion No. 27. If Motion No. 27 is adopted, it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 28. If Motion No. 27 is defeated, it will be necessary to vote on Motion No. 28.
[Stage Direction]
c)	Motions Nos. 29 and 31 will be voted upon separatelyd)	A vote on Motion No. 34 will apply to Motion No. 66. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 34 will obviate the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 67. A negative vote on Motion No. 34 will require the question being put on Motion No. 67.
[Stage Direction]
e)	Motion No. 36 will be voted on separately. [English]
f)	Motions Nos. 64 and 71 will be voted upon separately-
Motions Nos. 38, 54 and 57 standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and Motions Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
[Stage Direction]
a)	Motions Nos. 38, 48 and 49 will be voted on separately.
b)	If Motion No. 50 is adopted, it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 51. If Motion No. 50 is defeated, it will be necessary to vote on Motion No. 51.
c)	Motions Nos. 52, 54 and 57 will be voted on separately.
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 39 and 55 standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina are identical to Motions Nos. 38 and 54 standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and therefore will not be selected.
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 43, 45 and 47, standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, will be grouped for debate and the vote on Motion No. 43 will
apply to Motion No. 47. Motion No. 45 will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 58, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
[Stage Direction]
a)	Motion No. 58 will be voted on separately.
b)	The vote on Motion No. 81 will apply to Motions Nos. 82, 83, 84 and 85.
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 59, 60 and 61 standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina will be grouped for debate and voted upon separately.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 63, standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, will be debated and voted on separately.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 72 standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina will be debated and voted upon separately.
[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 76 and 78, standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79 standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina will be debated and voted upon separately.
[Stage Direction]
Therefore I will now submit Motion No. 1 to the House.

Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 32 to 34 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"prescribed date in each calendar year, which prescribed date shall be no later than November 1, cause"
November 18, 1992

Government Orders


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I would like to explain very briefly the purpose of this amendment.
In the legislative committee it was agreed that such an amendment would be a good idea. What we agreed however was that the wording would read "that not later than the 60th day before the commencement of each calendar year".
Obviously the 60th day is something approaching the first day of November. It makes much more sense to put the first day of November in there and it has no other impact other than to be a little bit more modern and a little bit more sensible.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 11 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"making the application and any or all accompanying dependants".
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 43 at page 15 the following:
"(6) A visa officer shall not refuse to issue a visitor's visa to a person who made an application pursuant to subsection (1), or any of the persons's dependants, where the person satisfies the visa officer that
(a)	the person has a place of residence, immediate family and
permanent employment in the person's country;
(b)	the person and the person's dependants, as the case may be,
have return tickets and intend to return to that country; and
(c)	the person does not have a pending application for landing.
(7) For the purposes of paragraph 6(b), the fact that a person and the person's dependants will return to the person's country shall be presumed unless there is strong evidence to the contrary."


Derek Vincent Lee: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-86 be amended in clause 4 by adding immediately after line 43 at page 15 the following:
' '(6) A visa officer shall, in determining under this section whether or not an application for entry as a visitor is a person who may be granted entry as a bona fide visitor, take into account the existence of a valid and subsisting performance bond, surety or other prescribed security provided therefor to the Deputy Minister by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who is a father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter of the applicant or the spouse of a father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter of the applicant and the existence of any security described in this subsection may be taken into account in relation to family of the applicant who intend to accompany the applicant on the same proposed visit.
(7) The absence of any security described in subsection (6) shall not be taken into account in making the determination described in subsection (2) and (4)".


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 8 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"of that person".


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Motion No. 70
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 102 by striking out line 23 at page 111 and substituting the following therefor:
"and occupation, which terms and conditions shall be imposed fora period not exceeding two years".
Motion No. 74.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 102 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 114 the following:
"(13) Where an immigrant has paid fees for a visa application, the fees so incurred shall be reimbursed to the immigrant if the application is refused, or is not considered, as a result of retroactive regulations."


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, these motions have been grouped: Motion No. 3 dealing with family members: Motion No. 5 dealing with visitors' visas; Motion No. 70 with residency requirements; and Motion No. 74 which deals with the refund of the fee. Let me first deal with family members and what is specifically meant by this clause.
When officials and senior immigration officers are processing an application they can assess all members of a family when deciding on the immigration application of one member of that family. It is our position that the application should only be assessed on the merits of that particular person who is making an application to come to Canada, along with those members of his family who will accompany the applicant to Canada.

Government Orders
Unless this procedure is followed it is a fundamental denial of procedural fairness if some person is being tried, being judged or is having an adjudication made on his or her behalf based on the actions of perhaps another family member.
When we talk about family members under the extended meaning of that phrase it embraces a whole class of people: spouses, fiances, unmarried children of any age, a child under 13, or parents of any age, grandparents who are over 60, orphan brothers and sisters, nephews, nieces or grandchildren. It goes on and on.
The purpose of this amendment dealing with family members is to ensure that the application and consideration should only be given to that person who is applying for status along with those dependants or those people he will be bringing with him at the time of his application.
There is a proverb that we never had any opportunity to pick our family members, in his wisdom the good Lord having deprived us of that right, but he allowed us to choose our own friends. This particular section reminds me of that. It reminds this side that people who are making an application to come to this country are being jeopardized by certain acts of members of a truly large and extended family.
A hypothetical situation could result in valued members, whom we would welcome with open arms into our country as the very type of people this country wants and whose skills we need, being denied admittance because after an investigation of the extended family members one may have done something that is contrary to certain sections of the act. Although that person is not making any representation to become a Canadian citizen the application of that whole family is denied because of the acts of that one person at whatever time in that person's history.
We feel that matter should be clarified and that procedural fairness should be applied just to those people making application and to those who are intending to come to Canada with the original applicant.
With respect to visitors' visas, we are proposing a more definitive way for those folks who are working the immigration offices throughout the world to be able to
make a more definitive answer with respect to visitors' visas.
We all know, those of us who work in our constituency offices, that if there is an immigration matter that comes before us it more often concerns a refusal of a visitor's permit to Canada. When there is an intervention by a member of Parliament questioning the wisdom of not granting a visitor's permit I would say that on 99.9 per cent of the occasions that this happens the visitor's permit is granted.
What we are trying to do with Motion No. 5 is eliminate some of the abuses that we have been finding recently in the foreign offices throughout the world, some of which we have heard of just recently. The amendment deals with the further presumption that when a person makes a statement under oath to a department official in our embassies that there is a fundamental rule in law of a presumption of innocence.
What we should be doing in this instance is presuming that the person who comes to our offices to be granted a visitor's visa should be presumed to have told the truth about everything in that application. At this particular period of time there is a presumption that perhaps what is being stated to a visa officer is not true.
What we are really doing in this motion is enforcing the concept which we all hold very dear in the system of laws that we have in this country, which is the presumption that the person who is making those statements is making the proper statements.
Therefore, we recommend that particular change with respect to the additions of the immigration officer being put into the position-and the operative words in the section that we propose are "shall not refuse", providing certain conditions in that application are adhered to. Once those conditions are adhered to it should only be a matter of procedure that the visitors' visa be granted to those people planning to visit relatives or friends in Canada.
Motion No. 70 concerns the residency requirement. It says that at the time of issuing an immigrant visa the period of time allocated to live in certain communities within our country should be limited to a two-year period.

I must confess that I have some doubts about this particular section. I am absolutely sure that this is one of the first sections of this proposed act that will be tested in the courts, right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, if it should pass. If a person becomes a landed immigrant and eventually becomes a citizen of this country and is forced to stay in a certain area, it infringes on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If I am correct, what we are trying to do in legislation such as we have before us today is prevent the application and the costly processes with regard to legislation this House passes and which places a tremendous burden on Canadian citizens to have their matters tested in the courts. It is the duty of all of us who have anything to do with the wording of legislation to provide the proper legislation to prevent the necessity for this particular section to be tested in the courts for interpretation.
This is the highest court in the land. We should be very precise in the wording we use and very precise with what we are asking people to do through legislation such as this so that it does not interfere with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada.
I would suspect that this is a matter that would be tested in the courts in very short order if this motion is not adhered to.
I might also add that on the residency requirement the Senate committee voted unanimously that this amendment, requiring a period not exceeding two years, be accepted. We propose that amendment with Motion No. 70.
Motion No. 74 concerns the refund of immigration fees. The bill as it reads now anticipates a retroactive processing charge of immigrant applications up to the point of either a suspension or a cancellation by the minister. Our amendment is again based on procedural fairness. The change that we are proposing in this particular motion is that once an application is accepted by a responsible official of the Government of Canada if that application at any time is thwarted because of procedural requirements or whatever reason, which should have been discovered at the time of acceptance of that application, then any funds paid by the person making the application should be refunded.
Government Orders
I believe the cost now is about $350. Tb some members of this House $350 is not a great amount of money. However, for people of Third World countries $350 is a large amount of money. That represents perhaps their total life savings, which they have given for the opportunity to come to Canada.
We would suggest once an application is accepted and the fee is paid that if there is a breakdown in the process or a suspension of the process that money be returned to the applicant.
Those are the points we want to make. We impress upon the government that they are very valid points. In some instances they will stop court proceedings. There is then a certain procedural fairness that applies to all Canadians by adhering to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of our country. It would make good sense if all sides accepted those recommendations.


Mr, Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to these amendments.
First, I would like to congratulate my colleague for Thunder Bay-Nipigon for his excellent work on behalf of our caucus on the many amendments that have been proposed. I would also like to remind the House that the bill we are discussing today consists of some 113 pages, 128 clauses, the most extensive amendments in the history of the Immigration Act in Canada.
We should give due care and time to consider the amendments that we have proposed today. With respect to Motion No. 3 respecting family members, I would like to indicate that I strongly underscore the point made earlier by my colleague.
Indeed, we should continue to respect the individuality of citizens wherever they are. When they come and apply to Canada to be potential immigrants, the difficulties of one may not be used to penalize the potential benefits of others that come to our country.
We have seen cases of that. I have seen actual cases of a family member left behind. Now they are trying to continue to so-call extend the investigation of the remaining family member. Therefore, those who have arrived are filled with fear and trepidation. Will they be sent back if this one additional member of their family is unable to be allowed in under our current regulations?

November 18, 1992
Government Orders
I would like to underscore the fact that yes, we must evaluate those who have applied. Consider them on the basis of their reasons and intentions and the wishes of those of the same family who elect for whatever reason not to be included in that application must be respected. I have wondered if without that amendment being adopted we can in fact prevent really large families from coming to Canada under the guise that one family member is not admissible. That is not in keeping with the standards of the United Nations.
On the second point, Motion No. 5, regarding the visitor's visa, indeed we must underscore that the presumption of goodwill must be in favour of the applicant. We are proud of ourselves as a nation. We try to promote tourism to Canada. What better tool for tourism to say yes, Canada welcomes visitors from any land. Visitors applying to visit the country should not be quizzed as though they were already on trial, as though they were committing an offence. It is really a disgrace if we let the impression continue that in order to enter Canada you must pass a critical test, almost like a judicial trial.
We have to give the presumption of favourable consideration to the visitor applicants, moreover I submit, particularly when relatives of the potential visitor applicants are citizens of Canada. Can you imagine a Canadian citizen deprived of the benefit of a visit from his or her relatives from their country of birth?
It would be most painful, particularly when those visits are to join families in Canada in a special celebration such as a wedding anniversary. A golden anniversary is a classic example. Sometimes even when visiting family members whose relatives are near death in a hospital they encounter problems.
I submit that we should give good guidelines to our immigration officials so that they too will be placed in an easier position to evaluate. Let us remove from them as well the heavy burden of making the judgment as though the visitors are to violate the immigration law and the law of the country.
On the motion submitted by my colleague for Scarborough-Rouge River, I would like to indicate that this suggestion on the part of my colleague is really an attempt, almost a last desperate attempt, to find an additional tool with which we can allow legitimate visitors to enter the country.
If one were to ask me, we ought not to come to the requirement of a surety or a bond, but my colleague in trying to find a solution and give that extra ounce of assurance has come up creatively with this proposal which I support. I would like to indicate that perhaps this type of requirement would not be the routine requirement in the future.
On the issue of Motion No. 70 about the residency requirement, like my colleague from Thunder Bay I am seized by a nagging fear that this requirement may be contrary to section 6, paragraph 2, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, lliis section guarantees the mobility of any Canadian citizen, including landed Canadian immigrants. By reducing it to a two-year requirement, it could be construed perhaps as a part of a work contract. I am sure prospective immigrants would not mind that kind of designation to a designated place. I hope the courts would take a reasonable look at that.
I was once an immigrant. I entered the country in 1968. When I entered the city of Winnipeg in Manitoba, I did not think that I was only entering Winnipeg, although I knew where I was going geographically. I knew I was becoming a Canadian immigrant and in the future a Canadian citizen, which I did some three or four years later, in 1972.
The intention of the immigrant to be a Canadian should be looked upon with the kind of broad view that truly it is more than a mere statement of wanting to be a Canadian. There is inherent in that the rights that accrue to being a Canadian immigrant and in the future a Canadian citizen. Those rights are entrenched in the Citizenship Act and also in the Immigration Act.
On that basis, I definitely support a limitation of the residency requirement to at most two years in the belief that this will facilitate the entry of some of the immigrants in areas where their expertise and skills are needed most during a certain period of time.


Derek Vincent Lee: I want to thank you for reading through the amendment which was a little long but it was either you, Madam Speaker, or me who was going to read it.
In looking at this amendment, I want to ask members to put on somebody else's shoes here. I want them to put on the shoes of a Canadian who has a mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter who is not a Canadian citizen and who resides in another country.

I want members to do that and then plan a visit of their family member, let us say their father or the mother. Plan a reunion, go through all of the planning, set aside the funds, get the family organized here, get the family organized there, purchase the airline ticket, which for overseas travel could be $1,000 or $2,000. Maybe it is the father and the mother. Then I want the members to think about their father and mother lining up at a foreign embassy or a high commission for a few hours, starting maybe at 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. and then being told to go away and get some more paperwork. Go and get a letter from your son or daughter in Canada. Do something else, we are missing a piece of paper. Come back next week. Bring them back next week, go through the process again, and then have the Canadian official decide no. In that context let us not have the Canadian official give any reason for the rejection of the application. Let us take the mother and father in that country and take them back to their home and have them write or telephone the son or daughter in Canada and say: "We were turned down. We do not know why".
I want members to put those shoes on and try to figure out why it is so many close relatives of Canadians living in countries abroad are turned down for visits. I know it is a large number because my constituents come to me with these problems. Maybe it does not happen in a lot of cities and towns across Canada, but it does happen in the riding that I represent. I know it happens in all of the ridings around my riding in metropolitan Toronto, and is probably a similar circumstance in Vancouver, Montreal and in other larger cities in Canada. This is a problem.
I want members to wear those shoes and I want the members to try to think of a way to overcome the problem. To date, we have not.
The law says now that the burden of showing entitlement to a visitor's visa is on the applicant, not on anybody else. If the applicant simply fails to convince the visa officer that he or she is bona fide and that he or she will comply with the terms of the visa, simply failing to convince is sufficient. The visa officer does not have to decide that person is a liar or will not comply. The visa
Government Orders
officer simply has to reach a conclusion that the applicant has failed to convince.
There are a lot of reasons why these kinds of applicants could fail to convince. For example, they may not speak English very well. This happens all the time. They cannot convey. They are bona fides. They cannot convey all the nuances that have to be conveyed in trying to convince a visa officer that they are bona fide. I want members to think about that.
I and all members recognize that there are abuses. There have been abuses of the visitor visas and it still goes on now, originating from many countries. The current system penalizes the close relatives of Canadians, Canadian citizens. Canadians say: "Why can my mother, father, brother, sister, son and daughter not visit?" I do not have an answer for them.
This amendment which I have moved would permit a Canadian to put forward a surety or form of guarantee to the immigration deputy minister in the same type of surety vehicle that exists now for people who are released from custody by immigration officials. This would assist the visa officer if that surety was in existence and put forward by the Canadian in relation to the proposed visit of the mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter. The visa officer would then know that there was a Canadian at the other end because sometimes they do not know that. They would know there was a Canadian who had put forth an undertaking that manifested or articulated the good faith of the Canadian in relation to the visit.
Some have suggested that there could be a charter problem here, but I do not understand that. I do not understand it because we already use sureties under the Immigration Act. Already visa officers abroad will consider letters from the Canadian relative alleging good faith or offering good faith and undertakings of financial support of the proposed visitor. As it so often happens with family visitors who do not often come with a lot of money, they stay with the relative here.
That is what my amendment proposes. My amendment does not change any of the existing criteria for visitor visas. None of those criteria are changed. All that it does is permit the addition of one new element, the surety

November 18, 1992
Government Orders
representing the good faith of the Canadian in the invitation of the visitor who is a close family member.
I say to members here and I say to the members opposite recalling that this very subject was a matter which was considered as part of Private Members' Business in this House about a year ago. I say to them that it is important. I say that the Department of Immigration has not fairly and adequately considered this as a problem for reasons which I do not know. I certainly represent Canadians who know that it is a problem. The government has not responded. I say to it: Please, do not miss this opportunity to address this very particular and very real problem.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I rise particularly to speak to Motion No. 7 which stands in my name. Since it is a very simple motion I will have to explain what it is.
On page 16 of the bill, section 10.2(1) states:
An immigrant who makes an application in Canada for landing may
apply on behalf of that person and every dependant in Canada.
The point of my amendment is to strike out the words "in Canada" and replace them with the words "of that person" so that immigrant would be able to apply on behalf of himself or herself and every dependant of that person.
If a family is coming here and perhaps one teen-age dependant remains to study in the old country or for some reason wishes to stay temporarily but follow, it would seem to me very unfortunate if that person were not able to have an application for landing processed along with the parents and any other brothers and sisters.
It would be doubly unfortunate if the sponsorship procedure, which has now slowed down considerably through the mail-in arrangements at least around Toronto or the general crowding caused that 17 or 18 year old to be delayed in the working out of his application until he or she passed the age of 19. In that case he or she would no longer be a family member within the meaning of this act. He or she would have to apply as an independent immigrant and might have great difficulty doing that or at least have an unexpected delay.
It seems to me to be reasonable to allow the general immigrant family the same procedure as this bill allows to a person who has been found in Canada to be a
refugee and is therefore entitled to apply for the landing of his whole family, which is almost always outside the country, at the same time as he or she applies for his landing.
I applaud the decision of the government to make that provision for the refugee because we have had great distress of thousands and thousands of people in refugee families who have been separated. I am not suggesting that there is likely to be the same amount of trouble in the same number of people in the non-refugee cases. In fact, landing within Canada, apart from refugees, is the exception rather than the rule. It will not happen very often and it has not happened very often. The rule is landing from outside Canada where this question does not apply.
I ask the members opposite to consider for their own constituents as well as for everybody elses' constituents the convenience, where it is asked, of making the application for all the dependants, including any who are overseas at the time of application in the case where a person is making application from within Canada himself or herself. It seems to me that it would be just as efficient from the point of view of the department and far more satisfactory from the point of view of that dependant and of the family.
While I am on this, I wish to comment on these other motions that are before us in this group.
Motion No. 3 would change the wording in clause 4 to "any or all accompanying dependants". It makes much more sense not to force people, if they do not wish it, to make an application for dependants overseas. For the reasons that have been given already, it should be left to the choice of the family concerned. It may be necessary to make certain assurances that the choice will not be reneged upon in legal form. However, if it is reneged upon, it should only be with the minister's permission or something like that. It seems to me quite unnecessary to restrict the family from that freedom of movement.
We should all be strongly in sympathy with Motions Nos. 5 and 6. I do not imagine there is any member of Parliament who has not been genuinely distressed at the difficulty that some constituents have in getting a visitors' visa. We heard the argument previously that if anything is written into the law then it becomes a matter of right that people can demand and even, perhaps, a subject of litigation. This is true.
November 18, 1992

In my experience the large number of applications for a family visitor that are delayed and even the large number that are finally refused as well as delayed is out of proportion to the danger of abuse in the other direction. I think the present abuse is to the disadvantage of the family and not really to the advantage of the department.
I wish to speak also on Motion No. 70. This new system of requiring some immigrants-we are told it will only be a handful-to live in certain areas is unnecessary. It will be entirely at the discretion of the government. Some immigrants will be told they have to go to Podunk and work at such and such an occupation. At present there is no time limit given.
It was suggested that it might end at three years when the person becomes a citizen and, therefore, can claim charter rights. I am not clear on that. If charter rights do not apply when the person is a permanent resident, I am not sure they apply when the person is a citizen. Alternatively, if a citizen could complain against that, then why not a permanent resident under the same charter?
I think a time limit is needed and it should be two years rather than three years. Things are mobile enough in Canada that circumstances change. I know that what was once considered mandatory conditions have now been softened so that they are not mandatory conditions and people can apply to have them changed if employment or living arrangements fail or something of that nature.
It would reduce the unnecessary burden of applications if the requirement to live in a certain area was limited to two years. Not all permanent residents wish to proceed or do proceed to citizenship at three years. Some people have stayed here for many years for reasons satisfactory to themselves and presumably of no harm to anybody else. I would not want them then to be held by this.
On Motion No. 74, where an immigrant has paid fees for a visa application, the fees so incurred shall be reimbursed to the immigrant if the application is refused or is not considered as a result of retroactive regulations.
It is quite true that the present fees-and they probably are not likely to go down, they are more likely to go up-can be a serious burden, especially on a family of several members from Third World countries, or even from many European countries. With the uncertainty
Government Orders
that the application could be cancelled part way through by a retroactive decision and that the fees would have to be paid all over again, or the plan given up entirely even in future years seems to me a way of keeping immigrants out of Canada.
If that is not the intent of the government, I would hope that it would agree to this amendment. I know the government has emphasized the wish to have good immigrants, and I think we want immigrants to be attracted by reasonable government with a reasonable law such as this amendment proposes.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for the comments they have made.
A number of points were made that will be extremely useful and will ensure that we have a fair, common sense, sensitive, orderly and humanitarian policy on immigration.
Most of us are coming at this from the basic principle that immigrants can and do enrich our country in many ways. We have in this House a colleague who has come from another country and has contributed a great deal to Canada.
In my own riding, we have a week called Kermes Week when we celebrate the achievements of the Belgian community. We have Folklorama as well where we have 50 various kiosks celebrating the various contributions of Canadians from some 50 different countries.
One of the points that I want to stress very strongly is that we have a number of what one could call nightmare situations or horror stories. I want to share with the House one case with which I am dealing currently.
A Canadian citizen whose widowed mother lives in Bangladesh has been waiting for two years and eight months and has not yet received even an interview. Still ahead of her are a background investigation and medicals. I find this deplorable, unnecessary and shocking. This mother is virtually by herself and almost three years later has still not been responded to.
In another case, a citizen in my constituency found out that members of his family in Vietnam had left on fragile boats and had reached Hong Kong. They could be repatriated to Vietnam at any time and there are serious questions which have been raised about the fate that awaits them on their return.

November 18, 1992
Government Orders
Perhaps the one issue-some of my colleagues have spoken about it-that enrages Canadian citizens most are those situations where parents or relatives want to come and visit them, but are unable to do so. Imagine the silliness of it all. We have mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and sometimes spouses who will go to a point in the United States that is close to Canada and that individual who is here with a visa, or he may be a Canadian citizen, will go out of the country in order to visit those relatives or friends.
I cannot imagine this, particularly when we want to promote our country. We want to make sure that people come here rather than the United States. We want them to visit with their relatives at their home, to be able to share with them their new lives.
I will give you three quick situations. In one instance, a young woman is studying at the University of Manitoba and her husband is studying in Australia. Her husband wants to come to Winnipeg to visit his wife and there is the likelihood that he may want to stay here. I understand that, but at the same time once we have had a written commitment from both parties, it seems to me that we ought to take a chance. The reunion of those two people has been prevented.
In another instance, a gentleman who is a Canadian citizen wanted his mother-in-law to come to his wedding. Again, I understand that there may have been the possibility that the person from another country wanted to come and stay and they were prepared to make written commitments and yet that particular person who wanted to come to Canada for that wedding was unable to do so.
Finally my third example is of a woman who had not seen her parents for some time, whose parents were denied entry into Canada, even though she was a Canadian citizen. She had to fly out of the country to see her mother and father. I find that shocking and really unnecessary. This is one issue that must be dealt with.
I just want to make some very quick comments about the other amendments here. Clearly we need to deal with the applicant. Whatever the other members of the family do, in whatever way family is defined, should not
have an impact upon the applicant's desire to come into the country.
I think we have to respect the fundamental principle of Canadian law as well that whatever is declared is true unless proven to be untrue. Otherwise, we apply two different standards.
I want to question the government-I say this in a very positive kind of way-about the residency requirements. Everyone tells me that it will not hold up in court. I wonder whether or not the government has checked this out. Is the government in fact proceeding here, yet it is for naught because it will not in fact go through?
Finally, with respect to immigration fees, I would like us to consider just how much $350 is today in Canadian money and how much this really represents to those who are very often in extremely difficult poverty-stricken situations. We really need to examine that.
We need to take very seriously those criticisms, those points that are being raised by organizations, including churches, that are committed to making sure that we have an orderly, sensitive and humanitarian approach to immigration in this country.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to follow my other colleagues in speaking on the report stage of this bill. I am sad, too, that we are still having this kind of debate with regard to immigration.
I look around among my own colleagues in the House this afternoon. I see names that are French, English, Italian, Hungarian, Filipino, Irish, Jewish or whatever in one portion of this House. We are all immigrants. The fact that some of us came recently while some of us had families that came a century or more ago is merely a question of timing.
The second thing that amazes me about the fact that we are still having this debate and dealing with a bill that is essentially flawed, is the size of this enormous country with its enormous potential and with its need for a larger population. How many of us in how many parts of the country and on how many occasions have used the image of our tiny population strung out across the bottom part of the country? How many of us have gone to northern Canada, to the vast empty reaches of this country, to see what could be done if only we had more people? How much could be done if only we opened our doors
November 18, 1992

generously the way the doors were open certainly in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries when my ancestors came here?
I hear my hon. friend from Alberta over there making comments about when the Liberals were in power. I guess what some of the people on the government side do not understand is that we in the Liberal Party learn from our mistakes. It might be something the hon. member might want to think on if indeed the process is possible. The hon. member from Newfoundland might want to think too, but I will deal with him in a minute.
One of the amendments that I want to talk about in particular has to do with family members and the questions that this bill raises. The bill provides that the government can assess all members of a family when it is deciding on the immigration application of one member of that family. That is nothing more and nothing less than guilt by association. There is a real problem.
It is true that some of us in this House subscribe to the theory of being one's brother's or one's sister's keeper, but this is going a little too far. Obviously in this modem age, and particularly in an age when families are split up and far away from each other even within one particular country, it is utterly insane to decide whether or not Mr. Jones should be accepted on the basis of whether or not his brother is an acceptable candidate. It goes against the rales of natural justice and it goes against those principles that we hold dear in our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it is utterly appalling that we are even contemplating something of this nature.
Look at the question of Canada and its immigration policy particularly in the world that we are facing today. Look at what is happening in eastern Europe. Look at what is happening in Africa in Somalia. We see the carnage in Yugoslavia and we know that there are those who are refugees in the truest sense of the word. They have no homes to go to any longer because their homes have been destroyed. They are the victims of civil war and insurrection based on ethnic cleansing or on religious bigotry.
We look at this immense country. We look at this blessed country. We look at each one of us who came ourselves or whose ancestors came here to escape
Government Orders
something similar in another country to make a better life.
The parliamentarians and legislators of this country say: "Too bad for you. It is too late for you. I have my share. I am here but the rest of you can stay outside the door". How can we? How dare we? We did that, tragically, in times past in this country and all of us bear a portion of our national guilt for that. I do not want future Canadians to bear the same kind of guilt especially when a larger population is something we so desperately need.
Before I came up here on Monday, I was fortunate enough to be present at a YWCA breakfast where they awarded the peace medal to one of my constituents, Dr. Joni Guptill, who has been very active with Doctors Without Borders Medecins sans frontieres in Africa and in Yugoslavia. Dr. Guptill herself spoke about the conditions in those countries. Peter Dalglish is the executive director of Street Kids International, an international foundation based in Toronto that looks after street children. He is a man who is known to many of us on this side of the House at least. He spoke at the same time as Dr. Guptill about the need for Canada to be generous.
The amendments we are bringing forward in this group and in other groups of amendments today are an attempt to make us more generous. We are known world-wide to be among the luckiest citizens on the face of the earth. Because we have so much, are so lucky and live in this incredibly wonderful country, we should be able to share this with others.
It is incumbent upon us to be generous. It is incumbent upon us to show that the legislation that we have dealing with immigration is open and forward looking and welcoming to those people in the world who we can use. The myths have been debunked. Immigrants are not a drain on the public purse. Immigrants do not create difficulties and problems to any extent in the manner that some already arrived and long-term Canadian citizens do. Immigrants are a blessing to a country.
Most important, each one of us has an absolute duty to remember from whence we came. We must not be smug and self-satisfied. We must know that the life-blood of our country and its future will be immigration. We forget this at our peril.

Government Orders


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to a more specific issue that my friend for Thunder Bay-Nipigon was dealing with before. That is the issue of the visitor's visa and the very discretionary way in which visa officers in our embassies and high commissions deal with that.
I can give a number of examples of problems that I have experienced in my constituency office with families. They tried to bring family members from their homeland overseas to Canada and have had the experience of seeing them rejected in a very arbitrary way by visa officers overseas.
Many of these people are long-time citizens of my constituency who are productive and contributing members of Canadian society. These people are respected in their community, the province and across the country. They have been deprived of the right of contact with family members overseas because visa officers in our high commissions and embassies act in a very arbitrary way.
In many cases these potential visitors are even denied the right to make a written application to come to Canada as a visitor. Let me give you some examples. I had a constituent who is in the import and export business. One of his business partners is a citizen of the Philippines. She is between 25 and 35. The minute she went to talk to the Canadian immigration officials in the Philippines, they decided at first sight that she was an unsuitable visitor to Canada.
The reason for that is that some visa officers overseas have decided that women from certain countries who are of marriageable age would probably violate their visa requirements by trying to marry a Canadian and then apply for landed status in Canada. This woman was denied the right to even apply for a permit.
My constituent called me and asked me to write a letter of recommendation outlining the fact that this woman had been to Canada before on a 60-day visitor's visa and had done her business in Canada. She had travelled around to look at markets and at potential products to market in the Philippines. She had actually gone back before her visa had expired and was, in fact, an exemplary visitor to Canada.
Yet, this woman was rejected on sight. She was not even permitted to make a written application for a visa.
She was simply rejected on sight. I think the immigration officer made a judgment that because she was of marriageable age that through his determination she was not entitled and was not a suitable visitor to Canada.
That has happened on a number of occasions. I know two young women from Chile who attempted to apply to visit Canada. At first, they were reluctant even to approach the Canadian embassy in Chile. They had heard from previous applicants that women of their age, determined by the visa officer to be of marriageable age, are not suitable visitors to Canada because they are likely to attempt to marry a Canadian male and then apply to stay in the country.
I point out that these women are not permitted to make applications. They are simply denied the right to come to Canada on sight because of a discriminatory choice that visa officers made about these women based on their marriageable age or entitlement to be married.
My concern is that the process used now is extremely arbitrary and open to those kinds of discriminatory choices. There has to be something written in legislation which first allows a person who applies for a visitor's visa to be able to make a written application and to outline their suitability to be a visitor to Canada. If they are denied, they should have the right to the reasons for that denial, reasons for the statement made by the visa officer that they are not a suitable visitor, and there should be a process to allow them to appeal.
My concern right now is that many of these people get their family members in Canada to go to their members of Parliament for a letter of recommendation outlining the family's residence in Canada, the fact that they are good citizens, and the fact that this person overseas- whom you do not know and only have the family's word for it-is unlikely to violate the conditions of the visa and is unlikely to stay in Canada at the point the visa expires.
As I have said, my concern is that the process is arbitrary and by requiring people to visit their member of Parliament to get a letter of recommendation it is also politicizing the process so those visitors from overseas get the impression that in Canada the right to visit this country is a right that is handed out by politicians in local communities. I do not think that is the impression we would like to convey to the visitors from overseas.
November 18, 1992

I think the process should be fair and non-discriminatory. It should be conducted in such a way that we allow Canadian citizens who at one time emigrated from other countries to have free contact with family members and friends from their homeland. I think they are being treated unfairly because of the arbitrary nature of the process as we currently have it under the act.
Finally, I would like to outline another case from the Philippines. Two of my constituents, a husband and wife, invited the wife's mother over to visit. They had not seen the wife's mother for many years. She was getting old, so they invited her to Canada to visit. She wanted to bring along her son because she did not feel she could make that journey. It is a long journey from the Philippines to western Canada. She did not feel she could make the journey alone. She might get sick or lost and she did not have the same kind of facility with the language that her daughter and son-in-law in Canada had. She wanted her son to accompany her.
Strangely enough, the visa officer accepted the visa of the mother and rejected the visa of the son because even though he was fully employed in the Philippines working for a telecommunications company, even though he had family in the Philippines that he was going to be leaving behind in order to come on this visit with his mother, even though he had a home and a job, all of those things, it was felt that as his pay with the telecommunications company in the Philippines was low he was likely to stay in Canada and try to apply for a job in Canada where his skills are paid for at a much higher rate by telecommunications companies.
What an arbitrary way to make these decisions. So the son was rejected and because the mother could not travel without accompaniment, she ended up not being able to visit her daughter as well. Again they came to me and applied to me as a member of Parliament to write a letter of recommendation as to the good name and reputation of my constituents living in Port Albemi.
The process should not be as arbitrary as it is and it should not be politicized the way visa officers in embassies overseas are forcing it to be. There should be a process laid down where family members of Canadians who are resident overseas and who want to visit Canada should have the right to make a written application for a
Government Orders
visa. That visa should be processed according to certain criteria that those applicants are aware of.
If they are rejected there should be good reasons made for rejecting them and there should also be a process available to them to appeal. At that point during the appeal process then possibly the member of Parliament or other people willing to make recommendations should be involved.
I am concerned that what is happening here is that Canadians who have come from overseas are being denied the right of contact with their families as a result of arbitrary decisions being made in visa, embassy and high commission offices overseas. I hope that the amendments to this legislation will correct that kind of discriminatory behaviour and make it possible for Canadians to have those kinds of family contacts and visits from overseas.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any bill that touches more the expression of what this wonderful country of Canada is really all about: the openness, the respect for difference, and the wish of people around the world to come and either establish themselves here or visit family who are here, or perhaps just visit and see what this whole country is all about. We certainly raised the vision and the visibility of our country over the last couple of months. Nonetheless, we still have lots of people who care to join our shores who recognize the uniqueness of the diversity that is Canada when that diversity includes its culture along with its geography and its language.
We are dealing with specific amendments in this report stage to this extraordinarily complex bill. When I looked at this bill I could only say to my two colleagues, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, that they really had to have a tremendous amount of courage and enthusiasm to face a bill of this size in the very short time this government gave them to address the major concerns that are in this bill. Also, over the summer break while the rest of the members of this House perhaps were having some holidays and working in their ridings, these members had to sit and hear witnesses-I am glad at least we allowed witnesses to appear-and go through this enormous bill.

Government Orders
I have forgotten how many pages it is. Somewhere I had the number of pages because I was quite fascinated. We are talking about a bill with 128 sections and 113 pages. It is quite an extensive bill.
The amendments we are addressing today in this report stage start with the questions brought forward by my colleagues, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the member from Thunder Bay, with respect to the matter of a visa. From my experience as a member, I can tell you that I have had so many visa refusals it is becoming almost an embarrassment. It would seem to be that there are more refusals coming from countries like Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Russia. There is something wrong with the extent of what would seem to me to be countries which seem to be suffering more than other countries in terms of the receipt of a no on a request for a family visit or a visa.
I had one case that I dealt with today with our consulate and our consul general in New York. It was with a great degree of frustration that I spoke with our officers there. I must say that I was quite impressed with the quality of the service I received and I particularly noted Mr. John Baker who was very helpful and seemingly very thoughtful.
Nonetheless, he had some misinformation on the documents which he was reviewing. I am not suggesting that it was done in any kind of a duplicitous way, but I am saying that it was very difficult to try to resolve the problem of a Sikh family in my riding who were joyfully celebrating the marriage of their daughter, who just graduated as a doctor, to a doctor colleague. The wedding was taking place in New York. This gentleman, who is a substantial member of our community and well respected, had invited his brother and his brother's family to come to the wedding.
Only the brother intended to come and went to our offices in New Delhi, applied for a visitor's visa and was turned down in no time flat. He was turned down and it was a great disappointment to the family. He went across the street or however far away the United States Embassy was and he got a visa in a very short order. He landed in New York.
The wedding was this past Sunday. To Mr. Gill and his family, I wish them congratulations and I hope the young couple has a very happily wedded life.
His brother who is now here would like to come from New York to Montreal to visit the rest of the family. Once again, the gentleman went with his brother, a Canadian citizen, to our office to explain his case. He was there as an interpreter. I would suggest that the immigration or the consulate office says that perhaps it spent 10 minutes with him, but according to my friend he felt that maybe it was five minutes. He said: "Really, it felt like one minute but maybe it was five to seven minutes. They did not even listen to me, Mrs. Finestone. They didn't listen when I said I had a letter from the bank attesting to the substance of my brother. I had a letter from the bank which is an affidavit as well to the land that this man owns. I had this letter describing the fact that he is a man who is married with a wife and two children". His daughter is presently in a masters program at the university in New Delhi and he has family and obligations. He is well-to-do and well established in his own country. He wants to come merely for a visit.
The assessment that was given to me was that this gentleman has no ties that would make him want to return to India. He has no ties to his home country, no stakes to go back to and therefore, he does not seem to be a good risk. Frankly, I find that to be a matter of personal judgment, number one; no criteria, number two; and quite inhuman in the course of the joys of those particular moments in life when one would like to have one's family present.
I certainly am very supportive of the amendments that are brought forward and I hope the government will be with respect to having within the bill certain criteria that will help the visa officers in very crowded offices overseas have guidelines. Then it will not be arbitrary. There will be guidelines. As a matter of right, certain decisions will be taken without using a discriminatory sense of what one thinks is a person's potential to evade the proper procedures of immigration to come here and perhaps claim refugee status, which was not the intent at all in the case I mentioned.
November 18, 1992

Government Orders
Therefore, the motion makes good sense. I hope the government will seriously consider "that a visa officer"-this is the amendment-"shall not refuse to issue a visitor's visa to a person who made an application pursuant to subsection (1) or any of the person's dependants where the person satisfies the visa officer that: (1) A person has a place of residence, immediate family and permanent employment in the person's country".
I heard my colleague from Vancouver describing just such cases which would have had no problems on landing had they had this mere, simple criteria. Second, "that the person and the person's dependants as the case may be have return tickets and intend to return to that country; or the person does not have a pending application for landing".
For the purposes of whatever paragraph 6 (b) is in this instance, "the fact that a person and the person's dependants will return to the person's country shall be presumed unless there is strong evidence to the contrary". I do not know why we have to presume everybody is filled with ill will and mauvaise entente, poor intentions. I think the world generally is a decent place and individuals on a one to one basis should be presumed to be innocent rather than be declared guilty before the fact.
That is the first of a series of amendments which I think are important. I hope that we will give serious support to a list of directions. I see the parliamentary secretary shaking her head no. That is not very helpful.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: That is the minister.


Sheila Finestone: Are you now the minister? Pardon me. Excuse me, I forgot that. I am sorry, but as the minister I would hope that you would not be shaking your head no. Besides which, she is not the minister of immigration, Madam Speaker, so I hope that the minister of immigration will be a little more open to this.
The second set of motions I would like to address has to do with the question of the resident requirements. Under resident requirements, a person is sent to live in a certain area. I am concerned about this being subject to a charter challenge and I would strongly represent the right of mobility rights for people who come to this country. Has the notwithstanding clause been put in here? If not, it is the only way this would stand a charter challenge, I believe.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to speak to three of the amendments in the group, specifically Motions Nos. 3, 6 and 70, and I want to do so with some particularity.
Motion No. 3 deals with an applicant for an immigrant's visa. The section reads: "An application for an immigrant's visa shall". That is key because it is mandatory for the visa officer to consider the person making the application and every dependant of that person.
That is very important because the visa officer, therefore, must consider every dependant, whether or not that particular dependant is going to be accompanying the applicant to Canada. There have been many, many cases, and all of us in this House can cite them, where there has been unfairness because a person defined as a dependant under the immigration laws has prevented a family from coming to Canada even though that particular person who is defined as a dependant has no wish to come to Canada.
The intent, it seems to me, of Motion No. 3 is very clear, and that is to say all right, those who wish to come to Canada have to be considered, but those who are not accompanying the applicant should not affect the over-all application made by the applicant. That to me seems eminently reasonable. I stand to support it wholeheartedly. I am at a loss to understand what the department would find difficult about that. If there were some problem where later on somebody might make an application, one could always deal with that by way of regulation by saying that that particular dependant had to renounce or indicate that they would not use those who were allowed to come to Canada as a hook whereby they could come in.
There is a way of dealing with that without having to deny the entire application of the applicant and those dependants who would be accompanying the applicant, simply because another person defined as a dependant does not meet the criteria. I think Motion No. 3 is very, very reasonable and within the spirit of the Immigration Act and the proposed Bill C-86.
I would also like to speak in favour of Motion No. 6 put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. The House will remember that my colleague had a private member's bill which was, if not identical, very similar to this motion and which had an opportunity to be debated. I can tell you that from discussions with constituents of mine in the riding of

November 18, 1992
Government Orders
Scarborough West, this amendment is eminently reasonable in their view. It is very simple to explain.
Let us say someone wants their aunt to visit them. They say: "Listen, we realize that you are afraid that my aunt will not go back. What I will do is I will put up a guarantee in the form of a mortgage or a bond on my home. If this person that you allow in does not go back then I will forfeit that $25,000 or that $15,000, or $5,000 or whatever it may be". That is very, very reasonable. It shows the bona fides of the person who is making the application to have the visitor come in.
I am certain that if this amendment were allowed, if there was any abuse of the system once the Immigration department started cashing in on those performance bonds, in very short order the word would spread across Canada that the department means business. If there is a false application made the immigration department is going to call that performance bond. The point is that the fear of the immigration officer abroad that this particular visitor would not return would very quickly be dealt with.
Some might say that is unfair to those people who cannot put forward a bond. I say no because my hon. colleague has dealt with that in subsection 7 of his amendment which clearly says that the absence of any security described in subsection 6 shall not, -that is mandatory,- be taken into account in determining the question we have been talking about.
I think that in searching for a solution to a very difficult problem, my hon. friend has come up with a very reasonable proposal. It is not something that is new or unique, that has not been brought to the attention of the department. On the contrary, the department is perfectly aware of it. But for some reason, and I do not know quite what it is, it has failed to act on it.
Therefore I want to say unequivocally that I support this particular amendment and the idea behind it, which is clearly to permit people who are Canadian citizens or landed immigrants to have visits from their family and friends and to guarantee to the Government of Canada that those people are indeed visitors and not people who
are using visitor provisions to get here illegally. That is a reasonable proposal which helps, not hinders, the immigration system in this country and I hope that the government would consider it.
Finally, I would like to address Motion No. 70 which deals specifically with subsection 114(1) of the act. It talks about prescribing the classes of immigrants in respect of which landing shall be granted and then goes on to say that there can be terms and conditions imposed, including place of residence and occupation.
Some are worried about the charter implications. I would like to say I am one who is not concerned about the charter implications because the relevant section of the charter deals with citizens and landed immigrants or people with the status of landed immigrant.
Subsection (ii.2) of the proposed amendment clearly states that the department can prescribe classes of immigrants in respect of which landing shall be granted "subject to terms and conditions".
Of course one of those terms and conditions can be that you must live in a place for a certain period of time before we will grant you landed status. Therefore that person during that period of time is not landed and therefore is not within the definition provided in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To me these arguments about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a red herring.
Having said that, the amendment that we in this party have put forward provides a time limit. That time limit specifically states that where there is a condition concerning the place of residence and occupation, that time limit cannot be a period beyond two years.
That to me is a reasonable proposition. It accepts the principle that is in the section, which is the possible requirement concerning place of residence and occupation, and yet says you cannot abuse this. There will be a specific time limit that will be imposed, which will be a maximum of two years. It does not have to be two years. It can be less, but it certainly cannot be any more than that. That is fair. By that time the department should be able to determine whether or not the terms and condi-
November 18, 1992

tions have been met. If they have, landed status should be able to be granted.
These three amendments are perfectly reasonable. I find it unconscionable for no one in the government to be standing up and commenting on these amendments or indicating why they are wrong or why they are not going to be accepted or indeed if they are going to be accepted. If they are, why do we not just get on with it, approve these amendments by voice vote and go?
If we are going to have a bunch voting no, if we are going to have a recorded vote, if we are going to get up and vote against these amendments, surely someone over there should be telling us what is wrong with these proposed amendments. It is not as if we are changing the entire act. It is not as if we are changing even the intent of the act. We are accepting the principle for example in Motion No. 70, but we are asking that there be a reasonable time limit. Where are the people who are going to be speaking against these amendments and telling Canadians why these amendments are unacceptable? I cannot see why they are unacceptable. They seem perfectly reasonable. I know for a fact, from discussions across Canada and in my riding, that these kinds of amendments are acceptable to the people of Canada. They are acceptable to immigrant people who want people to visit them, who want their relatives and friends to be able to come here and who are now meeting a bureaucratic brick wall.
For example, Motion No. 6 comes up with a solution. It comes up with a ladder whereby these people can climb over that brick wall and bring their friends in. We hear nothing on the other side and yet there is also a protection to Canada from those who would abuse the system because the bond would be forfeited. We do not hear any reason why there is something wrong with putting a time limit on a term and condition to live in a particular place, but most Canadians would think that is a reasonable situation.
Where is the negative here? If there is no negative, why do we not pass these amendments?


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I too would like to address a couple of the amendments set out in this grouping, perhaps starting with those dealing with visitor visas and the criteria being suggested to govern the granting of such visas.
Government Orders
I would be surprised if there were a member in this House who has not had the experience, probably many times, of having puzzled constituents come in to her or his office, saying that an immediate family member in x,y or z country has applied to come and visit Canada and has had that application turned down. You patiently sit down with the constituent and you go over the facts of the matter. You are left, time after time after time, scratching your head, trying to figure out what the heck the problem is. I had an instance just this last summer where we were dealing with a person who had been granted successive visitor visas previously. There was no change in that person's circumstances in their country of residence, yet they found that the latest application was turned down with, at best, a scant explanation.
This kind of utterly arbitrary exercise of authority certainly does the system no credit, it does the government no credit and it does the act no credit. Any attempt at this point to bring some degree of consistency and fairness into that, at present, utterly arbitrary system I would hope would only be welcomed by all of the members in this House. Again I say that I cannot imagine there is a member here who has not had this experience.
I do not understand why the government members would be, I assume, preparing to defeat these amendments. By the way, in my opinion, Motion No. 5 is superior to Motion No. 6, if for no other reason than the property requirements are not a proper element to be considered here. Were it mine to do, I would even loosen up proposed Motion No. 5. Be that as it may, these at least are an attempt to bring some objective criteria to the matter and, as such, I would hope would enjoy the widespread support of all members of the House.
Second, Motion No. 74 sets out in one small part to deal with the question of retroactivity that has vexed people who have considered this legislation since its introduction. This one small part has to do with fees charged for visa applications. That is all well and good, and I support it unreservedly.
However, I think that in considering Motion No. 74 we should have a thought as well for the general problem of retroactivity that afflicts this bill. There is major confusion at this point about which clauses in the new bill will be applied retroactively, and whether cases currently in the system will be continued or families made to reapply under the new regime established by this bill. The matter of visitor visa fees and immigrant fees are but one example.

Government Orders
There are other examples. I would like to give a couple out of my case files in Edmonton. One involves a woman who has been trying to sponsor her parents and two siblings since July 1990. After two years, little had happened. It was only through the intervention of my office that the application had begun to be processed. In the meantime, the father has died and the family abroad are dependent on their family member in Canada for support. Under the new quota system that the bill provides, it would only be if the family were lucky enough to get into this year's allotment that their application would be processed, if retroactivity is applied.
There is a chap who applied to bring his wife and children from Vietnam in 1986. It took four years to process the case and then, due to a number of circumstances springing from that prolonged period, the case was delayed. For the last two years, the case has been tied up in workings between various embassies in southeast Asia. These delays have been largely the fault of our embassies and procedures. If the case is not processed before the bill comes into effect, again this family will have to compete for spaces if retroactivity is applied.
In fact, the active cases I have in my office right now number at least 50 that will be affected to some degree by the retroactivity provisions in this bill. Therefore, I heartily support Motion No. 74 and would ask again that the government at least make clear its intentions with regard to retroactivity in this bill, intentions which to this day remain murky.
Last, the matter of Motion No. 70 and precisely what the authorities may and may not do in directing where people live, how long they stay, what professions they seek, et cetera, I would just note that I have a constituent named Andrew. He came to Edmonton because of the large Polish community there, the community being his sponsor in Canada.
However, given the authority contemplated in the bill, had the government directed his settlement it might have sent him to the maritimes or to B.C. because he was a fisherman. Now of course, he would be an unemployed fisherman. He came to Edmonton, trained as a carpenter, and he has been able to work consistently at his new profession.
I am trying wherever possible to back up the argument on the motions with concrete examples from my own
experience of a constituency of average size, average population. This bill has serious flaws. They are flaws which at least are addressed and in part corrected by the motions we have before us in this grouping.
I now turn to the matter of visitors' visas and the utterly capricious way in which they are currently granted or withheld, the matter of the powers of the administration to direct people to do this. It has been correctly pointed out this will probably fall before a charter challenge. Also is the matter of retroactivity and what does or does not fall within retroactivity within the bill.
All of these things compel us to accept the amendments before us and I hope compel us, when we get the chance at third reading, to direct the government to go back and try again.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Ottawa Centre probably over 70 per cent of the work-load deals with both immigration and refugee cases. This is no different from any other urban riding anywhere in Canada.
Most of our colleagues in the House on a daily basis are faced with requests and questions from constituents, who are trying to bring in a family member as a visitor or as a landed immigrant or whether they have a friend who is a refugee claimant.
I want to say that our public servants have done an outstanding job in trying to keep up not only with the demands of the Canadian population, but also with the demands that members of Parliament and ministers are asking of them. Unfortunately throughout the past three years we have seen a tremendous increase in the work-load of our public servants, and we have seen a tremendous decrease in the numbers in the work force.
In other words, as we have more and more demands on the immigration offices and on embassies abroad, we have seen less and less manpower being allocated to those areas. We only have to look at some countries where there are waiting lists in excess of 5,000 applicants that are trying to get into the country. They have applied to come to Canada as landed immigrants and are waiting in desperate situations in some of those cases. Our public servants are doing their best to deal with it. Unfortunately with the present resources they cannot keep up with demands.
November 18, 1992

The same situation applies in the national capital region. In some cases applicants or constituents have to line up at the immigration offices an hour before the offices open so they have a chance to inquire about one case or another.
Rather than speak about the over-all bill I would like to focus on a couple of aspects. One aspect deals with work permits for refugees. Under the present law a work permit is issued to a refugee after he or she is recognized at the first stage, the credibility hearing. The present bill eliminates the first hearing and a refugee cannot obtain a work permit immediately. Therefore, a refugee claimant is forced to go on welfare and tremendous pressure is put on our social welfare system.
One of the motions that my colleagues have proposed would allow a refugee to obtain a work permit upon request, providing that a medical exam is passed. For the life of me I do not see why the government would not support a motion that would reduce the pressure on our social welfare system and would turn the refugee claimant who was waiting for his application to be processed into part of the work force. This is a very important motion and I hope the government will look at it with a positive eye.
Today I received a letter from Amnesty International which is extremely concerned about certain aspects of this bill and in particular about issues that deal with the refugee determination board.
Under the present bill, for a refugee to gain admission to Canada, his fate is decided by a senior immigration officer at the port of entry. At this stage a refugee claimant would have no right to a lawyer and would not automatically be given an oral hearing.
Amnesty International, through its communications and through its presentation to the committee, has requested that this be looked into and be addressed in a fair and reasonable way.
On another point, some claimants will only be accepted as refugees if there is a unanimous decision on the part of the board. I wonder what kind of a democracy we are living in that you would need a 100 per cent approval rate. It is known world-wide that in a democra-
Govemment Orders
cy, if 50 plus one have said yes, you proceed. This particular aspect of the bill will have to be addressed.
I must commend Amnesty International for its work on behalf of refugee claimants world-wide and I must also commend our public servants who have worked tirelessly trying to address some of the issues they are faced with.
We support certain parts of the bill that deal with those who try to abuse the refugee system. However, at the same time we have proposed a number of amendments that the government should look at with a compassionate eye.
If you ask me for my views on this whole aspect, amnesty should be granted to all the refugees coming from countries that have civil wars or other problems through some sort of an administrative system. In this way we could save millions of taxpayers' dollars rather than carrying on with a lengthy process that is not beneficial to anybody.
On a final note, the refugee processing system has cost the government in excess of $500 million so far. However, we do not yet have a grip on this situation. It is my hope that over the next few weeks the minister will look at this issue a little more closely and try to see whether he cannot grant amnesty to many of these people who come from war-tom countries. I think compassion is the key issue in helping to resolve their problems.
Again I reiterate the fact that many of the amendments are put before the government in good faith and it is my hope that it will address and deal with them in good faith too.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-86.
The concerns of immigration policy are very much ones in which many members of this House share because of what happens back home in our constituencies. I know the member for Winnipeg North, who is participating in this debate, is also very concerned about the future of the Winnipeg immigration community because he and I share many of the same problems. He has done a great deal of work on behalf of constituents throughout Manitoba and across the country who have troubles dealing with the Immigration Act.

Government Orders
I would like to say at the outset that we should take a minute to thank the many public servants across the country and around the world who faithfully try to respond to our many requests for information and for clarification of the status of our constituents and who have to go through a great deal of paper work in order to make sure we have the best immigration policy in this country.
Whenever a request is made on behalf of constituents of Winnipeg North Centre the public servants are very generous with the time they spend on the cases and are very forthright in the way they try to deal with each individual case.
Immigration is an area which is of concern in Winnipeg North Centre because we have a large number of people who choose that part of Winnipeg as their first home in Canada. It is one of those areas in which, because of the inexpensive housing and the services available in the inner city, people choose to live to start out their lives. As they move up they move on to other cities or into the suburbs of Winnipeg. However, when they are first in Winnipeg they are very needy and we need to develop a system which is much more responsive to the problems facing new Canadians.
However, that is outside the content of Bill C-86 except for one important point. The spirit with which we deal with people from other countries as they arrive in Canada is one of the bench-marks we have used for our country as being a democratic and open society.
I have always been impressed by the way in which people, for example from Vietnam, the Indo-China Chinese community in Winnipeg, people from Hong Kong, mainland China, the Asian community itself has been brought to Winnipeg through refugee policies and settlement policies to seek out and make a living here. Then when they try to extend their roots by bringing other members of family, friends, or students within the extended family they find there are a number of barriers.
As we receive people from the rest of the world, we have to understand that it is in fact a changed process. We are not the society we were in 1900, not the society we were in 1950, and by the year 2000 we will be an entirely different society.
It is up to us in the House of Commons to make sure that we modernize laws so that they respond and respect
the people who are now to become part of our society. When it comes to issues of defining families and issues of trying to figure out which refugee is acceptable and which one is not, we have to remember we are not trying to make those definitions for the country that we were in the past but we are trying to make it for the country we are becoming and will become in the 21st century.
I say this because so many decisions do not come naturally and do not come easily. Let me put this case to you. In order to build up a family business, to make money in a strange society, people depend on family members whom they trust. It does not matter whether the person speaks the local language, the question is do they speak the language of the family. Can they be trusted with the cash? Do they know how to do a certain business like the lumber business? Have they been involved with it for generations?
When people start a small business in a strange society they want to work within the family until they are more confident of the culture, the business attitudes, and the ethics of a new society.
We are the host society to these businesses but we do not provide a generous environment. People say to their member of Parliament: "Sir, we want to bring in family members to help us with our business", which is a great idea, but when we face the regulatory process we find it almost impossible to assist them.
As we look at Bill C-86 we should be asking ourselves if we are modernizing the legislation in such a way as to help those who are coming to Canada become more deeply rooted and more successful financially, so that when we look ahead we have the people who form the core of our new business and professional classes and who will become our teachers, our business people and the owners of large businesses.
We must deal with the macro-economic question, which people do not usually associate with the immigration issue. The major problem that faces the Canadian economy has been the total collapse of many of the traditional sectors that we have depended upon, and manufacturing has been mentioned several times in this House of Commons. However, to move beyond that, the problem is a depletion of capital.
November 18, 1992

As we have experienced the Americanization and globalization of the economy the ability of Canadians to compete has been severely limited. We have talked about this on many different occasions. However, if we are going to be practical and if we are looking at ways to rebuild the economy, who are going to best be able to adjust to the new markets in Asia? Who are going to best be able to adjust to the markets in the Philippines? Who are going to best be able to understand what is happening in eastern Europe? Who are going to best be able to set up small firms in this country and take the inter-generational approach to building up capital and reaching out to these markets?
They are not the companies that are closing down factories. They are not the companies that are pulling out of Ontario and the maritimes and have pulled out of Manitoba. They will be new companies that we cannot even imagine as we stand in the House and talk about this issue.
The cornerstone to the economic revival of this country will be a revised and modernized Immigration Act.
We, on this side, were very disappointed to hear today that the government was using time allocation to speed the debate up and push this piece of legislation through. The bill is extremely long and complex, with 128 sections and 113 pages. It is the most extensive revision to the Immigration Act since 1978, and it deserves careful consideration.
The committee met all summer and heard from dozens of groups across the country. These groups were well organized and spoke against what the government was trying to do. Even in this context the changes have been done quickly and are not fully understood at this time.
In these circumstances the government's original handling of the bill was deplorable. The bill was tabled for a first reading on June 16, 1992 and called for a second reading debate on June 19. The vote on second reading was forced under a closure order on June 22 with only one and a half days of debate. Consequently, there was not enough time to examine the bill in detail or to discuss it with immigration experts and NGOs.
Government Orders
I raise this issue because in the debate that I have had in this House about the child benefits package I have found that there was the same rush, the same inability to discuss things intelligently and the same inability to bring in good witnesses. In fact, when good witnesses did appear in the middle of the summer, which was the only time the government had to meet with them, every one of these witnesses said that this was a bad piece of legislation. However, the government continued.
I hope and I trust, in the spirit of goodwill which prevails from time to time in this House, that the minister will listen to the opposition's point that it is not necessary to push, push, push and change some of the fundamentals of our immigration law without considering the implications.
Under severe criticism from all parts of the country the government finally became more flexible and committee hearings took place during the summer. The clause-by-clause examination of the bill was completed in committee on November 5, 1992, and during the clause-by-clause process the government agreed to 65 amendments. Some of these were technical but others were substantial and have led to a certain improvement in the bill. To that extent, we congratulate the government on being flexible in receiving these changes.
Nevertheless, many key offensive sections were not amended and the bill as a whole is still unacceptable to us.
There are four major points we would like to make on the consideration and which our critics, the members from Notre-Dame-de-Grace and Thunder Bay who have done a tremendous job in responding to this piece of legislation, would like Canadians to be aware of.
First, it would make it more difficult for law-abiding, hard-working immigrants to enter Canada, which is exactly what we do not want. Second, it puts barriers in the way of legitimate refugees. Third, it opens the door to inequity and capriciousness in the selection of immigrants. Fourth, it suspends traditional legal safeguards, especially in the areas of deportation without hearings, suspension of rights through retroactive provisions and so forth.

Government Orders
We also oppose the bill for two other reasons. One, there is an emphasis on enforcement as opposed to fairness and humanitarian values. Two, too much power has been transferred from the law and the House of Commons to the authority of the minister, which leaves the whole process open to abuse.
The Liberal caucus is providing a number of amendments that I would like the House to consider. We have provided amendments with regard to the provisions of how the assessment takes place with family members, with visitors' visas. It is unbelievable how difficult it is for people from many countries to come and visit family. We can almost say that the process is so biased against people from these countries that it borders on being an embarrassment to all Canadians. We have provided amendments dealing with work permits and many other areas.
Time is limited in a debate like this. However, although an overhaul of this legislation is badly needed I would like to say that this bill is a bad bill. We wish the government would withdraw it.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-86. These are the first amendments of any extent that have been made since 1978. There are many, many good things in this bill. What we are trying to do as a party is make the bill even better.
The proposed improvements to the bill have been a long time coming, but there are still some parts of the bill that are unacceptable.


An hon. member:: Speak your mind.


Gilbert Parent: The member from the other side is giving us encouragement to speak our minds and that is precisely what we intend to do.
In my view, one thing about this bill that should be noted is that it will make it more difficult for law-abiding, hard-working immigrants to enter Canada and will put barriers in the way of legitimate refugees.
I refer to the section on family members. The bill provides that the government can assess all members of a family when they are deciding on the immigration application of one member of that family. We are opposed to that provision. Through this amendment we
propose that an individual should only be assessed with respect to those members of his or her family who accompany him or her to Canada under the application.
It begs the question as to how we can accept the fact that "the sins of the father are visited upon the sons" or vice versa. It seems to me that many people might be kept out because of some failure of another member of the family who at that point is not even applying to come into the country.
It is unfair to keep out an entire family because one brother or sister may have legal difficulties in his or her own country or might be a political activist who does not wish to come to Canada with the rest of the family, although I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would not want to come to Canada. There are millions of people who are trying to get into this country.
In my view, this is the method by which the government hopes to keep out large families. Large families are a fact of life in most parts of this planet. I do not think that it is right that one person in a family, who may or may not be trying to come into this country, can keep the others from getting in because of some indiscretion or even misdemeanour.
My second point concerns visitors' visas. The bill does very little to improve the law or administration with respect to the granting of visitors' visas.
At the present time there are many incidents in which Canadians wish to bring members of their family to this country as visitors but are turned down. This happens consistently. The reason they are being turned down is because of situations in which immigration officers believe, rightly or wrongly, that they want to come in on a visitor's visa but they ultimately want to stay in the country.
We are prejudging them, we are giving to them motives which they may or may not have. I believe that we should at least take them at face value. If we find that they are coming into the country and abusing the system then they can be deported. My understanding of deportation is that when they are deported they should not be allowed to enter the country at a later time. That should be one of the items of basic fairness that we must examine and should have to live with.
November 18, 1992

I would like to address two other small areas and then expand from there.
The first is the residence requirement. The bill provides that conditions can be placed on an immigration visa obliging a person to live and work in a certain community. While the government agreed to amendments in committee which would moderate this situation it is still not acceptable.
Here I am of two minds. On the one hand, I believe that people coming in to Canada should accept, for a short time perhaps, working in certain areas in the country or landing in certain areas of the country. On the other hand, I am a little bit distressed. If we can do that to immigrants coming in then I wonder if we can at some later time also hope to do the same thing to other Canadian citizens.
Personally, I am a little bit reluctant to agree to the residence requirement although I can see that, at least initially, when a person enters the country it should be one thing we at least should consider.
I note here also that the Senate committee proposed a similar amendment. Perhaps more work could be done in that particular area.
In years gone by, with regard to immigration, people who came in from another country would-I do not know if I would use the word indentured, but it would be close to it-be given jobs working on certain farms, for example in the west or the north, or to put it another way in our under-populated areas. While this might seem to be a solution to some of our current problems it could have long-term ramifications for all Canadians. It is for this reason that I am reluctant to whole-heartedly back this particular amendment.
Another area is the refund of immigration fees. Bill C-86 proposes retroactive changes to the processing of immigration applications, including the suspension and cancellation of applications even after they have been moved considerably along the approval process.
In this amendment we say that if an application is cancelled after it had originally been accepted for processing then the fees for application should be refunded to the applicant. That seems fair to me. At the present time there is a fee of $350 for each immigrant application, and that represents a lot of money for people in Third World countries.
Government Orders
I do not denounce this bill completely. There are some things that are still not acceptable. However, with these few added amendments that we made in addition to the ones that have already been accepted-and we put in 65 amendments from this side of the floor-it would perhaps be worthy of our consideration.
A few other reasons that this bill is not acceptable in its present form is that it opens the door to inequity and capriciousness in the selection of immigrants. It suspends traditional legal safeguards, that is to say deportations without hearings and suspension of rights through retroactive provisions. I just do not like that. There is an emphasis on enforcement as opposed to fairness and humanitarian values. It must be noted that over the years we have been known as a very humane society. We have opened our doors and our hearts to immigrants from all lands. That is why Canadians are able to proceed, I hope harmoniously, for the duration of history. Over the years we have not had the racial unrest that has typified many of the other countries of the world. Witness Germany where there is this backlash of, we are told, right-wing neo-Nazis who want to close their doors to the opportunity for people coming in from the Third World.
We do not want that here and I am sure we are able to absorb not only the immigrants who have been coming in, but who will be coming in in the years ahead and we should be able to accept them with open arms.
I have found in my experience that most of these men and women want to come to this country to start a new and better life for themselves and for their children. It is very important for them to at least have their chance.
I do not say we should allow just anyone to come into the country. Yes, there must be criteria. There must be standards, but I think Canadians can learn to live with these standards. Even more than that, we must open up our boundaries to men and women who want to help us build a stronger and better country.
Finally, I feel that too much has been transferred from the law and the House of Commons to the authority of the minister. That leaves the whole process open to abuse. I do not in any way criticize the minister as being dishonest or anything like that. It is just that ministers, like all human beings, are fallible. In their fallibility they are prone many times to overlook other circumstances or people which in some way would reflect on the over-all aspect of Canada which we want seen in the world.

Government Orders
Immigrants have been and continue to be in many ways the backbone of our growth. We need new people to help us as a nation. Our nation over the years has grown because of new ideas which have been brought in. It ill behoves us to make conditions so difficult for immigrants coming in that they would not want to come to our shores, to our cities and to our homes and build a better country.
We are, after all, as has been said many times by my colleagues in this House, a nation of immigrants. We are a large nation geographically with a small population. We are told we can easily accommodate as many as 50 million to 60 million people on the land area that we have.
I think we should be looking in the years ahead to expand our population because quite frankly the world needs us as a representative of what the world could be. This is a nation where people can get along with one another and a nation where people can grow. This is precisely what we have in Canada and what we are offering to all citizens who want to come to our shores.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on an issue that is very close to my heart. Bill C-86 concerns amendments to the Immigration Act.
I stand as a former immigrant to Canada. I must say that when I immigrated in 1956 I was-and I still am- indeed very grateful to Canada for having accepted me as an immigrant. I think this spirit which I try to exemplify in terms of contributing to Canadian life is one that is exhibited by 99.99 per cent of the people who chose Canada and who were accepted by Canada as immigrants.
In fact, immigrants have contributed much to the development of Canada. There is not a sphere of life in Canada that has not been touched by the contributions of immigrants from all comers of the world. I wonder why, in its attempt to amend the Immigration Act, this government seems to have pandered to particularly the Reform Party ideology and philosophy of trying to close the door or make it more difficult for immigrants to come to Canada.
Immigrants have created employment in Canada. They do not take employment away from Canadians. They are vital to the professional life of Canada, to the economic
life of Canada and to the cultural life of Canada. This is one of the few countries that in fact has multicultural laws that reflect and stress the importance of immigrants to Canada.
I find it very strange and very difficult to understand why a government would do some of the cruel things it is proposing in the legislation. An example is saying that you can send someone who comes as an immigrant to a part of the country without any kind of time limits and keep them there. In fact, an immigrant can come to Canada and he can bring with him all his dependants, but if there is one dependant left back in the other country, then that particular dependant would have to go through the whole rigmarole of applying, being sponsored or whatever else. We all know from experience in our riding offices the red tape and the rigmarole. As time goes on they could turn 19 and then they would have to re-apply as an independent.
There is the cruelty of refusing a refund to someone who has applied to become an immigrant to Canada after they pay the fee and decide not to go through with it or for some reason they are not passed. They cannot get their $300 or $350 back.
Maybe to the government members $350 is not a lot of money, but from where I come $350 represents a huge amount of money. Where I come from there is an exchange rate where $10 Canadian equals $100 Guyanese. That is $3,500. It is a humungous amount of money. And yet this government is proposing this particular change to the Immigration Act.
Along with my colleagues who served on the committee, we found there was not one group that supported these changes. Look at what happened. The government brought to the committee 70 amendments to a bill that has 100 pages. The government brought 70 changes and then another 11.
Not one group came before the committee. Ask my colleagues who sat on that committee. Not one group gave their okay to these changes. They all made these arguments much more eloquently than I can make them. Yet, this government using polls and tapping in to the xenophobia which we all know exists in the Canadian population, pandering to it and maybe trying to vault itself in the polls in terms of its popularity on the backs of immigrants is totally, totally unacceptable. It is absolutely shameful. It is not in the finest traditions of Canada.
November 18, 1992

My colleague from Spadina and my colleague for Thunder Bay-Nipigon have made some very thoughtful and fair amendments to try and make the bill more humane. To put a time limit of two years on where a person can be designated on their arrival is very wise. It seems to me that the government should accept that. What is wrong with accepting that? Is there a good reason. I hope the government spokesperson who will respond can give us a good reason and I do not want fluff. I do not want flim-flam and I do not want him to try any jiggery-pokery in this House.
I want to hear specific concrete reasons. I want the government spokesman to respond specifically to the other amendment of my colleague for Thunder Bay- Nipigon, the question of refunding people their money where an application is withdrawn and disallowed. I want to hear why you cannot do that. I want to hear from the minister's representative specific reasons why that amendment cannot be allowed.
I want to hear why the amendment of my colleague from Spadina cannot be allowed, the one where the family comes and brings the dependants but there are one or two dependants left in the other place. Why can they not do the paperwork to bring them at a later date. It could very well be that the dependant may be in school. He has to complete his school year.
Do not put your hands up in a pleading way. I want to hear why that cannot be processed at the same time and not have that dependant at a later date go through the rigmarole and the red tape that we all have to deal with in our riding offices.
Last, I have known through my office the power that is placed in the hands of the immigration officer in the other country where a person applies for a visitor's visa. A family member has died in Canada. It could be a father, a brother, a sister or a mother. What they put that person through. Often times they are denied the visitor's visa. By the time they get to the MP for us to go through the bureaucracy in Ottawa or even to the minister, the person has been buried. In some cases, the
Government Orders
culture does not allow the person to be buried until that close relative is there.
Does the government not understand the sensitivity of that? Does this government not understand that? Yet, that immigration officer can simply say: "Well, I have detected in the demeanour when I interviewed the person in the New Delhi office that they do not want to come as a visitor and they might try to stay. They are not a bona fide visitor".
That is an awful lot of power. I think we ought to turn the tables around so that the person applying for the visitor's visa should have the onus placed on the immigration officer to prove. He does not have to prove anything. It leaves open whether it is a bias or prejudice. I do not think that is fair. We need to reverse the onus.
I want to know from the minister's mouthpiece that in fact we are going to get-


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Order, order.


John R. Rodriguez: What else can I use?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Fine, I am not taking that crap.


John R. Rodriguez: You do not have to take it. Okay? You do not have to take it, but if you do not have to take it you can leave the room.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That's not the way it works.


John R. Rodriguez: That may not be the way it works, that is fine. Just tell the people out in the country, those who are going to be affected by this bill. They do not see the niceties of language. They only see the cruelty of these kinds of changes that are made.
I say that this government is pandering. It has the Reform Party banging away at it in the west and I think this is geared to outflank it on the right. That is what these amendments are all about. They have to do with politics and the Conservative Party's unpopularity.
I will be listening very carefully to the responses from the minister's spokesperson when he gets up to respond.

Government Orders


@Acting Speaker: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. I always enjoy listening to him in debate, but I regret his time has expired.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Earlier today I presented the 50th report of the Standing Committee on House Management. It was suspected that it was not totally in order.
I find on checking, Sir, that it was totally in order. Therefore, I would ask permission of the House to revert to the tabling of motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Tabling of report. The hon. member for Sudbuiy.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to stand and speak in favour of these amendments to Bill C-86 which makes changes to the Immigration Act.
I am also pleased to be following my colleague from Nickel Belt. I must say that while many times I do not agree with his politics, I do feel that the member for Nickel Belt has added greatly to the culture in our country and to the culture in my riding with his colourful attitude and his very worth-while thoughts from time to time.
I still have a lot of work to do to get him convinced of some of my ways, but I will keep working on that. As you know, my colleague from Nickel Belt did immigrate at some point 20 or 30 years ago. I hate to tell you how old he is, but he is older than I am and that makes it better.
At any rate, I have to say that immigration is, of course, the backbone of our country. While many of us may have forgotten, most of us here if we go back far enough, are descendants of immigrants of one sort or another.
I think it is absolutely essential that we continue the tradition of Canadian immigration, that is, we welcome people from all over the world to come and share this land that we have, to help us build it and to become truly great Canadians as many, many immigrants have become.
I was bom in the town of Kirkland Lake. Whether you are aware of it or not, after the Second World War Kirkland Lake, being a mining town, had many jobs at that time and many immigrants came and settled there. We learned many things. We learned hard work. We learned that they valued family greatly, and they certainly appreciated becoming Canadians. It was truly a momentous occasion for them who had had such great trials and tribulations during the war. They contributed to Canada and they have made it a different and I believe much better place.
When I became an adult I moved to Sudbury, another area where very much immigration has taken place over many years. There again you can see a model of what it is like where everyone lives together, works together and builds together, which we have done. There are people from every comer of the earth there. It is a wonderful community to use as an example for others who may not understand the value of immigration and how well it can function.
I look at some of these changes that are being proposed. I want to tell the people of this government about what happens when one of these immigrants who are now Canadians invites a member of his or her family, say from Poland, to come and visit. As you know, for very many years these people have not been able to travel freely and come to Canada. It is only in the last few years that they have had an opportunity to do so and to leave their country.
Many times they go to the Canadian consulate and they are denied a visitor's visa. Often it is because the person who is coming does not really understand the questions that are being asked. They are refused. The families are heart-broken because they would really like to have the opportunity to show the family that was left behind, say in Poland or in one of the eastern bloc countries, what their life has become, and to share with them a little bit over a few weeks some of the bounty that they have.
Many times I have had families from my riding come to see me to see if we can help. I must always explain that one way of getting this visitor's visa is to show that you own your home, that you have a job and a life in your country, and that there is no reason why you would want to stay in Canada, that you really only want to come for a visit.
November 18, 1992

I think it is especially important nowadays that we become more flexible, not less flexible, when it comes to issuing visitors' visas.
One of the other amendments here would provide that they not assess the whole family based on whether one brother is perhaps not what he should be. In most families there is a black sheep. You do not control everything your brothers and sisters do. A family may be denied the right to come to Canada because that family may have one brother or sister who is not doing things the way they would do them. Why would we judge the whole family by the actions of one? That is very, very serious. I would hope that we are more humane than that. It is very important that we treat people with respect. In that way we will be treated with respect.
One of the other problems with immigration is that often people pay to apply, and for some reason or another the application which was originally accepted is rejected. We have talked about how $350 does not seem like a large amount of money to us, although it is for many Canadians. It is something many people do not have quite at their fingertips. For some of these people it may even represent almost a year's worth, or two or three year's worth of savings.
That application money should be refunded. I think it is only fair that we treat people with some kind of respect. Often the application has been paid for perhaps by a Canadian family wishing to sponsor a relative. They may try again and again to sponsor this relative. To have them spend $350 every time gets to be a little bit expensive, especially if the application is first accepted and then rejected. I would like to see that kind of humanness put into the system.
The other thing is the residence requirement. I am all for encouraging immigrants to spend a certain amount of time in a certain area. I believe that there are times when we would want more people to come and settle in certain areas where there is a high demand for employment and perhaps it is difficult to get people to live there, but not for an extended period of time. It should be no more than two years. Often after two years they will be able to move on.
I am being told that my time is up. I want to say though that I would hope that the members of the government would show some humanness, some kindness and remember that somewhere along the way Canada wel-
Govemment Orders
corned us, or welcomed our fathers or our great-great-grandfathers. Basically most of us are immigrants. Let us make sure that we keep on being as humane and compassionate as people were then.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I appreciate the opportunity to respond on behalf of the government. First and foremost, it is essential to say that this legislation ensures that the system we have in place will enable us in the future to bring people into this country who choose to become Canadians and my personal view and my personal hope is that it is in ever increasing numbers.
The second thing is that the system must ensure that those who need our protection from persecution around the world, who have not found refuge elsewhere can find refuge and protection in this country and that our tradition of leading the world in this area will be maintained and continued. It is essential that we have a system which is visible and a system which Canadians have confidence in. I fear that if we lose confidence in this system, Canadians will not tolerate the high numbers of immigrants we have seen in the past seven or eight years and will not tolerate increases in numbers of immigrants in the future.
I would like to comment very briefly on the six or seven points raised in this group of amendments. The first refers to Motion No. 3 which involves the question of accompanying dependants. I think it should be recognized first of all that the premise of the 1976 legislation was that all dependants or all applications for immigrant status were to be handled outside of the country.
The provision here is in fact a large step forward. What we have also done is ensure that visitors, when applying to come to Canada, only get assessed on the people who are coming with them and that refugees get a special consideration as they are considered as family units.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am told that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader just recently came into the House and sought unanimous consent to table the report of the Standing Committee on House Management having to do with striking the committee concerning Bill C-91. I just wanted to register with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order that we will be raising this tomorrow morning. I wanted to do it as soon after the event as possible

Government Orders
because the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has indicated that he thinks the Whips have agreed when in fact the Whips have not agreed in the same way that they had all not agreed when he tried to do this earlier in the day. We will be raising it with the Chair tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is fine. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona has put his plea to the Chair. I am sure that will happen tomorrow.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I refer to clause 5, which refers to the question of criteria against which visitors' visas may be measured, and at the same time to Motion No. 7 from my friend for Scarborough-Rouge River. There is no question that we have all experienced a great deal of difficulty in dealing with visitors and visitors' visas. I will tell you and it is no surprise to this House that this is a tremendous problem for those held responsible for administering the immigration system and the people who are in the field representing Canada abroad.
I may say that the proposal of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River as an idea and as a policy holds some merit. There are some fundamental flaws in the system, however, which need to be looked at. One of the big difficulties we have is in prescribing criteria like this in a piece of legislation. Courts use that legislation as a strong measurement. If those are prescribed in the act and there is a problem in that the courts are interpreting them either much more strictly than they were intended or too leniently, we run into a problem in terms of fixing them. In fact, perhaps the best place to accomplish this would be in the regulations. As others have done, I caution against the fear that it becomes a capacity-to-pay privilege rather than a protection that is guaranteed by Canadians and those in this country who are prepared to put their resources behind their commitment.
I would like to refer to the question of mobility, Motion No. 70. On the question of the charter applying, first of all it should be recognized that the charter applies to the government, not to the people to whom the government applies the charter. That is more accurate than as has, perhaps, been said before. It may come under charter challenge but I think it is important to recognize exactly what the mobility provisions provide. For those people who might not normally have the
opportunity to come to Canada because they would want to come to Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, if there is employment in place and if there are support mechanisms in place, those people can come and live in the more remote parts of the country.
There were some real concerns raised in the hearings and we have addressed those, particularly as they involve the variance of conditions. We have provided in section 15 not only for the variance of conditions but also that the visa or immigration officer must vary those conditions. I think that is important and it is an important change.
In terms of the time frame, why should we limit it to two years? On the top end citizenship comes in three years. They would disappear. There may be circumstances where we would only want to put the conditions in place for one year. I would argue that two years is far too restrictive.
Very quickly, on the question of a fee, it is not an admission fee to Canada. The fee is a processing fee for the application and it should be recognized that the minister has made it clear and the evidence in the hearings has made it clear that the processing fee for those who have applied and have had their applications denied without any process or because of retroactivity or changes in policy will, in fact, have that fee refunded. There are opportunities in the regulations that would provide to have fees changed or taken into account if necessary.
One minute to conclude, Mr. Speaker, because I know you would like to have the opportunity to put this forward.
I think it is important to recognize that a number of people came before the committee on this legislation with a variety of views, a great deal of them very valid. The government responded as well to the opposition to say that this legislation is cruel and ridiculous. To say that nobody came forward in support of it is inaccurate and unfair. If one looks at the evidence, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the IRB and the Senate report, the government has addressed a number of those considerations. I would remind my friend opposite that in fact one of the groups that came forward, in fact one of the least fettered sources of support, was the union that represents the workers of Employment and Immigration Canada.
November 18, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am going to put the question. Is there unanimous consent for me to put the question on this grouping?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 3, 5, 70 and 74 standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, and Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina were grouped for debate and will be voted upon separately.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Government Order


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motions stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motions stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 70. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.

November 18, 1992
Private Members' Business


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.
And more than five members having risen:


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Parproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motions stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 74. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
It being 7.05 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Brightwell (p. 10609).
Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my constituency deserves more respect than that, sir.
I take pleasure in rising to speak on this motion introduced by my colleague and friend, the member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo. The subject is really about cross-border shopping and the impact that has had particularly on the food-producing community and especially the farm and poultry community in Canada.
I have learned through the years that whenever one introduces an issue like this, there is an equal and opposite reaction to that motion somewhere else. There is not a thing we do in this House that does not affect another part of the community. In this case we are talking about the food producers of our land and they are, I guess, pitted so often against the consumer. It is unwitting and certainly not because producers want it that way. The consumer, however, wants low food prices and the producer wants to have cost recovery and some profit. This is understandable.
It has always been a mystery to me that those of us who are consumers feel free to organize in labour or trade unions. We feel that the employer is entitled to organize into employer groups and protect the business. The unions protect the interests of the workers so that they can have higher wages and better working conditions and the employer wants to protect his business so he can ensure his profits.
However, the consumer groups, when they band together, complain about marketing boards or supply management. I have never been able to understand why it was okay for the consumer groups to organize to protect themselves and protect their livelihood and act as though that does not increase the cost for the other people. That is, if the auto workers get a better wage it does not increase the price of cars, does it? They feel that they are entitled to that, but when farmers band together and form supply management systems and regimes to make sure that they get a return on their investment and maybe some profit, that somehow is scandalized by the consumer community. They think that is unfair.
I do not think it is unfair. I am not saying that I always agree with everything that the supply management system does, but I think that they are entitled to organize just as much as any other group is entitled to organize.
As I said, we are pitting the producer against the consumer in this issue unfortunately. It shows itself most vividly in cross-border shopping because everybody is looking for cheaper prices. They will willingly go into the United States where dairy products are subsidized many times up to the tune of 50 per cent and where the

American taxpayer is helping to subsidize those farm products. We do not mind that, but we are saying that it is okay to go there and buy those products and ding the Canadian farmer out of his business.
I can tell you that in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia the estimate is $50 million to $60 million lost by the farmers of British Columbia every year from milk being brought in in the trunks of cars across the border. I understand why the consumer, with the squeeze on the cost of food nowadays, wants those cheaper prices, but how many dairy farmers have been driven out of business because of milk, eggs or chickens being brought across the border in the trunks of cars?
On the one hand we want to protect the Canadian farms because if we blacktop all of them, the prices will surely go up in the United States and they will have us entrapped.
The government on the other hand is trying to make it easy for the consumer by making transit across the border easy. This is something which every consumer should be able to enjoy. I agree with that. My own riding has the busiest border-crossing point west of Windsor and we have done a lot. The Minister of National Revenue has done a lot. He has opened special lanes for tourists. There is a pace lane at Douglas. He has increased the resources and the staff, introduced new technology, streamlined the enforcement procedures and instituted automatic cash machines providing gains of 70 per cent. The list goes on and on. Incidentally, he also improved the plants and the offices so that the mayor of Abbotsford, George Ferguson, has said that upgrading that border crossing at Sumas is encouraging Americans to come through at California, Oregon and Washington. On the one hand we want those people coming and spending their dollars. On the other hand, at the same time, we are saying we want ease for Canadians to go shopping in the United States.
They should also be aware of what that does to the Canadian producer. My colleague has introduced a motion which has called for a 48-hour delay in poultry and dairy products being brought into Canada. If Canadian consumers go down into the United States and buy dairy products there would be a 48-hour delay in bringing them into Canada by changing the permit system for importing them.
Private Members' Business
That complicates it even more for the government I hasten to say because if you have a 48-hour delay, the consumer cannot stay there and wait for the 48 hours. That means storage facilities. It becomes a terribly complex problem. Incidentally, I have not even mentioned the impact this has on the merchants in Canada for those who are at the border who experience a loss of business because of the cross-border shopping.
We want, on the one hand, to protect the rights of Canadians for free and easy access across the border. That ought to be. We believe in free trade. We want them to be able to move across the border at ease. We should also be aware of the impact that has on the commercial side, the merchants in Canada, and certainly on the food producer side.
My colleague has introduced this motion in representing a farming community. He is trying to do his part to make sure that the interests of the farming groups are protected by the system, but at the same time he recognizes that it is much more complex than that.
There have been discussions regarding the means to implement this procedure and it is not a simple yes or no vote in the House that will solve the problem because it means incredibly costly expenditures to bring about the procedures at the border that would allow us to implement this particular motion if we were going to do it. At the same time we want to do something tangible that will protect the farmers.
What are we going to do? As I said at the outset of my remarks, we want to protect the farmers, we want to protect the consumers, we want to protect the merchants and we are caught in that squeeze. Four hours of debate does not really elevate the intricacies of the issue to the degree that we need.
We have agreed that there should be a much more intense study of the problem and that we should be able to bring people into a discussion on this so we can hear from experts in the farming and commercial communities, from Revenue Canada officials and be able to define even more accurately what the issues are and how we can solve them.

November 18, 1992
Private Members' Business
My colleague has written a statement I would like to read and put on the record. The member for Perth- Wellington-Waterloo has said: "Therefore I am pleased that the government has assured me that the subject matter of this motion will become a topic of a special committee study regardless of the outcome of the vote. I have also been assured that such a committee could continue through any prorogation if a House order is obtained".
I believe we have now concluded three hours of debate. Obviously there is much more that could be said about this subject. The farming community must be protected. The customs system must be able to operate at the border. We have to reduce the cost of enforcement at the border as we have been trying to do. We have to make it as efficient as possible at the border.
We have agreed that regardless of the vote tonight, there will be a special committee established, which has been lobbied for by the member from Perth, to make certain that all of the relevant issues are brought to the surface so we can come to a thorough understanding conclusion of this matter and we can do something tangible for the farmers of our country.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to support my colleague from Perth-Wellington-Waterloo who moved this motion. As the previous speaker started his speech, I too support marketing boards and the organized marketing procedures we use in Canada, which work well. Our party supports marketing boards.
I think this private member's motion supports, perhaps in an indirect fashion, marketing boards. I will just speak about dairy in this case, although his motion goes a little further than that, it goes into poultry too.
Marketing boards are responsible for giving us a superior product in the dairy industry. It is always in good supply, the highest quality at a fair price. Even if we take inflated dollars into account, the price of food in this country is still a fair price compared to other countries. In some instances, compared over the last few years, there may be even a decline in the price of food, which
tells me something is working and there is some stability where marketing boards are involved.
I get a little nervous sometimes when we are told that once again GATT is down to the final hours. Those are the big players. There are 108 countries involved. Canada is not a big player in that GATT deal, but we certainly could be affected by it.
Our party has been consistent. We will protect marketing boards. The domestic market in this country is not up for grabs. That has been established. No Canadian wants Canada to become the dumping ground of the world for cheap dairy and poultry products. That is what marketing boards are endeavouring to protect. I do not think any Canadian would want to see a change from what it is right now where we have the best product that can be produced at a fair price.
I live in a border community. I know the consequences to to my part of the country of cross-border shopping. This item my colleague has brought forward in his private member's motion is one of the main culprits. Cross-border shopping has had a devastating effect on some small border communities. We put out some ideas periodically in the House as to what we think would correct this problem, but nothing has been done of any substantive nature.
The most recent article I have read is in one of Toronto's papers yesterday. It stated: "Same-day trips to the U.S. are on the rise". Anyone who thought that we had snuffed out cross-border shopping had better look at the facts.
The difficulty with the importing of dairy and poultry products under this general import permit is that people can bring in $20 worth of product as often as they like. They could conceivably go back and forth across the bridge several times a day, each time bringing back $20 worth of product. If a person is accompanied by his neighbour, he is entitled to bring $20 worth too. That would be $40 worth of milk for example. Forty dollars worth of milk is a lot of milk. He is supposed to be bringing it over for his own personal use. Sometimes I wonder.
The fact is he would pay duty on that, I suppose, if he wanted to go strictly by the law, but 10 per cent duty on dairy products would amount to about $2. It is customary at customs to waive anything in the neighbourhood of $2 or a little less or a little more. There is no incentive not to keep bringing the product across as many times as you
November 18, 1992

like. This is having a very serious impact on the dairy and poultry industries in this country. Higher amounts occasionally are waived. Sometimes they do not stick to just $2. If they happen to be busy in customs, you can imagine what happens, they wave you on and you can have much more than $20 worth.
There is nothing to prevent an importer, somebody who is bringing it across, from going back and forth as many times as he likes. There is nothing wrong with that except it has a bad effect on the controlled marketing system that we have in this country. We think this marketing system is one of the best, and we think it should be protected.
Statistics will show, and they are there for the reading, that this has caused serious problems with the producers, the processors and the retailers. We are not talking about a few thousand dollars. We are talking about several million dollars annually being lost because people can run back and forth bringing back $20 worth each time.
This proposal that my colleague is presenting has the support and indeed, I think it originated with the dairy farmers of Canada who have made a study of this problem. They would like to see the general import permit changed in about three or four areas. The dairy industry happens to be permit number one, and it would like to have it changed, as my colleague has mentioned, so that a person would have to stay in the United States for a period of 48 hours, after which time he would be entitled to bring across $20 worth. That would not correct it totally. We would have some problems with it still, but it would make a great start. We want to cause a slowdown in this flood of milk that is coming across the border and turn it into a trickle. That is all my colleague across the way is trying to do, he is trying to institute an amendment that could be put in place.
Apparently this matter has been studied and Canada has the authority. There is nothing wrong with putting this amendment in place. It would conform with any rules that we have regarding free trade or any rules that we have regarding GAIT. Therefore, I think it deserves support. I would like to see us support it. Our party will support it.
The dairy farmers of Canada need our support right now. We are supporting their marketing system. We would like to see it enhanced, of course, and we would
Private Members' Business
like to see some clarification at GATT of article XI but those things will happen. It would be a good start if we could get this much done.
This could be done without causing great hardship. It is not intended to cause great hardship to anybody. If the rules were applied fairly, I suppose most people would bring $20 worth of product across once in a while and use it. That was the intention, but that was before there was a lot of running back and forth cross-border shopping. When this measure was put in place, perhaps there was not any particular advantage to going across and bringing back dairy or poultry products. That is not the case today.
My colleague is just trying to bring the rules up to date a bit. Circumstances are different out there today and I think that is what his amendment would do, change the rules in three or four areas. He speaks of poultry and dairy products and they are under four categories as far as the rules go.
I am pleased on behalf of our party-there may be other speakers too-to support his endeavours. I hope that something will be done. As I say, it would not be a great hardship to anybody. It is not as if it is very severe. We are just proposing that a stay in the States be for 48 hours before bringing across some dairy and poultry products. There would be no harm done. It would help stem the flow which dairy farmers tell us is having a severe impact on their industry.
It is a pleasure for me, personally, to support my colleague's private member's motion and I know I speak on behalf of my party.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments on this motion and emphasize that we in the Bloc Quebecois thoroughly agree with what it proposes to do. The mover of the motion deserves our congratulations. It is like a breath of fresh air to see a Tory member mindful of the concerns of his constituents and those of Quebecers and Canadians in general.
The mandatory 48-hour stay will definitely help small producers who are often located along the border and even those who are further away, now that changing consumer habits are becoming a threat, both in Canada and Quebec. The mandatory 48-hour stay will certainly help our farmers who, as you know, live with a lot of uncertainty and are often very worried about the outcome of the GATT talks.

Private Members' Business
As my learned colleague said before, there is a direct connection with our marketing board system. Our new marketing boards have been instrumental in maintaining prices and ensuring security of supply. As far as quality is concerned, if we compare what is produced in this country, in Quebec or the rest of Canada, product quality is quite superior, when we look at what is on supermarket shelves, because of better quality control. And since we use our marketing boards to regulate Canadian or Quebec consumption, we have a duty to protect those marketing boards, as the hon. member said. This motion reflects the need to listen to what our farmers have to say, especially in connection with the GATT talks which, as I said earlier, are a matter of great concern to our farmers.
This proposal is acceptable, it does not violate existing treaties and it is legally votable. It seems to me we have a duty to support an idea that is as brilliant as it is practical. We often tend to go on at length about agriculture in the abstract, but listening to our farmers also means actively responding, with actions like this one, to their needs and expectations. I think Motion M-633 should be considered by our government, and I think the mover and the seconder of the motion fully deserve our congratulations. All parties here in the House should support this motion which, although modest in scale, will help our agricultural industry.
I think this motion should also be seen by the government as an example of how it could be more attuned, as was one of its members, to the needs of Canadians and above all how to introduce practical measures that could be immediately effective in supporting our agricultural industry, our dairy producers, our egg producers, our turkey producers, and also ensure that unfortunate consumer habits that are spreading in this country and affecting dairy products and products in the areas I just mentioned will stop and that consumers will stop and think about the product quality we have right here. To maintain that quality we must buy these products, which are often the same price and even better quality, and ensure the survival of our agriculture with practical measures like this one.
The Bloc Quebecois takes great pleasure in supporting the motion before the House, which is being debated for the last time today, and it will vote in favour of the motion.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to support the motion of the member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo. It is time indeed that we take action on some of these issues that dramatically impact on the farmers of Canada, particularly those fanners of Canada who are not contributing to surpluses on the world markets.
This situation in which food is being brought in through cross-border shopping seriously undermines some of the most sophisticated marketing systems of any country in the world. Not only do we have those marketing systems but the food being sold under those marketing systems is also the highest quality of any country in the world, as a result of the inspection services we have here in Canada through Agriculture Canada, their inspectors and our own officials. The producers themselves are to be commended for the quality of food they produce. If people are paying less for food in the United States I can well understand why when I look at the differences in food quality between Canada and the United States.
These products being brought in are produced in an entirely different cost environment. I continue to keep tabs on the differences in costs between those of a dairy farmer in my own constituency and that of a county in Michigan, St. Clair County. Time and time again we have found that there is about a 25 per cent difference in the cost structure. This is a cost difference that our producers in Canada are powerless to do anything about.
Consequently, if we are going to have a viable industry in Canada a degree of protection must be provided. I believe this motion would go a long way toward providing it.
However, I do not accept the suggestion that this would be too difficult for the Minister for International Trade or the Minister of National Revenue to monitor. I can remember going across the border for years. If a person was there for more than 48 hours they were able to bring things back duty free. That was not difficult to monitor and this proposal would not be very difficult either. In fact, if we wanted to take a quart of milk into the U.S. I wonder how far we would get with it.
November 18, 1992

In view of the losses being incurred by the dairy farmers, particularly in the lower valley of British Columbia, in Ontario, in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada, this motion is long overdue. I hope it will be sent to committee tonight, be brought out very quickly and implemented as soon as possible so that the hurts and the cutbacks that are taking place in our industry at the present time do not have to continue.
Another thing we have to examine, and I have spoken about this quite a bit lately, is the current account deficit here in Canada. The Minister for International Trade loves to brag about the merchandise trade surplus but he does not say a word about the current account deficit. This money being spent outside of Canada is cash flowing out of Canada. Of course, that is part of the current account deficit. For every $20 billion in current account deficit we lose about 500,000 jobs in Canada. These are not my own figures, these are figures from prominent economists who have been studying this for quite some time.
This move alone would help get the government off the hook in terms of its current account deficit and what is happening to Canada because of it.
I also want to point out that here in Canada-I will go back to the year 1990 because that is the last year for which complete figures are available. We must look at the fact that it was about three years ago that the Minister of Agriculture started to talk not about the net farm income but the net family farm income in this House.
He pointed out that the average Canadian family farm income was almost $37,000, but out of that $37,000, $21,250 came from income earned either by the spouse or by the farmer himself working off the farm in some other industry to help supplement the farm income. That left a balance of about $15,500 in income from the farm itself. However, out of that figure $8,091 came from subsidies, either federal or provincial, leaving a net figure of about $7,400 from the farm operation itself.
Let me assure this House that the dairy farmers of Canada do not receive any subsidy at all for the fluid milk they produce. The only subsidy they receive is approximately $267 million for the industrial milk they produce, which is in turn made into cheese or skim milk powders and so on. This motion is really protecting the very viable industry which we have here in Canada including the poultry industry.
Private Members' Business
That average Canadian family farm income, and the net from the farm production alone of roughly $7,400, is a national disgrace. However, due to the marketing systems we have here the dairy farmers are not in that category. The dairy and poultry farmers are paying their way and they do not need any subsidy to do so. Look at their buildings and compare them with those of the dairy farmers of the United States and look at the poultry buildings here in Canada and make comparisons. It is an entirely different environment. For the good of all Canadians we should make sure that this motion passes as quickly as possible when it comes out of committee.
Another matter I want to touch upon and about which I am very concerned is health inspection in some of these institutions south of the border. We can look back at the deregulation that took place in the United States. It is on the books here. A deregulation of some of the regulations in Agriculture Canada was proposed last Friday by the Minister of Agriculture.
I am very concerned about it because we have the highest quality standards of any country in the world. When I look at some of the news media reports of what is happening in southern United States, and I will use the Atlanta Constitutional-Journal which did an ongoing study into health conditions in some of the poultry slaughtering plants in the United States, they indicate that conditions are absolutely deplorable.
Last Saturday night I was speaking in Bruce County to the Federation of Agriculture about this subject. One man in the audience rose and said: "You are exactly right. I am an inspector. I see truckloads of poultry coming into Canada from southern United States. In no way would it be allowed through a Canadian poultry processing plant".
There was a documentary on Prime Time Live last April 30 on the beef packing industry. We saw the conditions there. They would never be permitted in Canada. That would never be allowed to take place in Canada, under such deplorable conditions.
This bill not only protects the Canadian farmer but it protects the health of the Canadian consumer. Nobody is going to bring back some milk that is two days old or some chicken that is two or three days old, even though it could be sold over there. In this context, if we intend to keep control of the agricultural industry in Canada, if we intend to have our producers prosper, like any business they need a return on investment, management and risk.

Private Members' Business
As I look at the concentration in the agricultural industry in the United States at the present time, for example four firms control 45 per cent of the poultry produced and processed in the United States and four firms control 69 per cent of the beef produced and processed in the United States. We do not want to go that way. We must protect the Canadian family farm. It is the most viable institution we have for food production in the world. We have the highest quality food in any country in the world at a very reasonable price.
If food prices are too high here then I suggest to this House that we should look at the returns, the five-year average rate of returns of the Canadian dairy producers, which will range somewhere between 8 per cent and 10 per cent. We should compare that to other sectors of the food system, particularly the food distribution system with an average range of return of 17.2 per cent. It is not the farmers who are causing high prices.
I suggest this motion should be passed and sent on to committee immediately.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to stand and speak in favour of the motion brought before this House by the hon. member from Waterloo.
It is not often I get a chance to agree with a member on the government side on an initiative and I am pleased to be able to do it on this particular one. The motion calls for an amendment to the Export and Import Permits Act to provide that importations under the authority of import permits, namely pertaining to dairy products, to chicken, turkeys and eggs, shall be subject to a mandatory 48-hour stay of the importer.
In other words, if Canadians go across the border to Washington to purchase these goods, they would have to stay for a 48-hour period in order to bring them back essentially duty free.
This motion goes some way toward resolving the problem. It will not eliminate the problem altogether. I am speaking from the perspective of a member from British Columbia. I might add that I have some 87 dairy producers in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap as well as
a large number of poultry producers and egg producers. Many Canadians are doing this but I make reference in particular to British Columbians who are going across the border for same-day visits to purchase commodities such as cheaper gas, dairy products and poultry products south of the border. This has really caused a significant economic haemorrhaging from the economy of not only British Columbia but Canada as a whole.
Certainly one cannot blame people for trying to find the best deal possible. Every family has a budget to meet and a financial expectation to live up to. They are looking obviously for the best deal they can find. That has been made somewhat more difficult I might add the fact that these goods have been subjected to different taxation rates in terms of production and whatnot through the goods and services tax and different classes of production. We simply have to recognize that British Columbian farmers and Canadian farmers face higher costs of production than farmers who have different economic circumstances south of the border. There is a price difference between these commodities. A person cannot blame someone for trying to save a buck.
People do not think all the time about the economic consequences of moving that dollar south of the border and the kind of economic haemorrhaging that it causes our economy. When Canadians or British Columbians shop south of the border they are exporting jobs. That has hurt British Columbia. I would submit that it has had a fairly dramatic impact on the viability of our agricultural sector in British Columbia. I do not have the particular figures at my fingertips right now, but I know that there has been a significant loss in the millions of dollars in terms of losses to the agricultural industry.
What happens of course is that as people purchase products outside the country, the consumption of B.C. or Canadian dairy products goes down accordingly. Therefore, the quotas that are assessed the dairy farmer or the chicken producer or the egg producer are reduced accordingly. It is not only for farmers close to the border, but for farmers all over British Columbia. It affects the entire industry. That has had a fairly dramatic impact.
November 18, 1992

I do think that this particular amendment will have a modifying effect on the purchase of these particular goods outside of the province. I would suggest it would have a fairly significant impact on the viability of those industries and small farms in my riding of Okanagan- Shuswap, in ridings in the lower mainland, in the Fraser Valley and in the southern part of Vancouver Island.
Our economy in British Columbia is probably in better shape than in other parts of Canada, but there is no question that every time we lose a dollar to producers south of the border, we are essentially losing jobs. We are also losing tax revenues for both the provincial government and the federal government.
While we recognize, as I mentioned before, that consumers of course have every right to look for the best deal possible, I would hope that Canadians also recognize the importance of buying these products in Canada to support Canadian industries and to support the entire infrastructure. This has been put together to ensure that not only do consumers get fair prices but that the primary producers-the farmers and agriculturalists in Canada-have an opportunity to make a fair return on their investment.
It is a tough, tough business out there. Farming, agriculture and the return on investment is very low indeed. I think this government owes a responsibility to our Canadian fanners to do everything that it can to assist that industry to ensure that it remains viable and healthy in Canada.
I take pleasure in rising to support this particular motion and I congratulate the hon. member from Water-
Private Members' Business
loo for having the courage-because, of course, there is going to be some criticism of this motion-to recognize the problem and the courage to attempt to make an honourable approach to resolving this particular issue.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eight o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.46 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 19,1992