1992-06-19

Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, many people would have us believe that you cannot have good environmental policy without drastically affecting industry or, conversely, have effective economic policy without destroying the environment. Sarnia-Lambton is an exception to the rule.
That is because the petrochemical refining companies in my riding are making a positive commitment to the environment. Specifically, their initiatives deal with separating themselves from our beautiful St. Clair River.
Polysar Rubber Corporation has committed $50 million over the next three years toward a target of 100 per cent reduction in spills. Dow Canada spent $5 million in 1991 and will spend another $8 million this year for its river separation project.
Novacor Chemicals has pledged $3 million a year over the next three years for capital programs, new monitoring equipment, containment basins, and environmental training for its employees. Shell Canada will also be spending millions at its local refinery and chemical plant.
We can all be proud of these companies in Sarnia- Lambton which are making environment a number one priority-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but the time has expired.


ALEXANDRA, P.E.I.
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, this year the community of Alexandra, Prince Edward Island, is celebrating its 200th anniversary. Over the last 200 years many things have changed in Alexandra, but one thing has stayed the same. There is a great sense of community pride among the people, especially this year. Since the spring, events have been held commemorating the last 200 years of accomplishment. Very special events will be held on Canada Day, including the dedication of a conservation area and a reforestation project.
This year, as we celebrate the 125th anniversary of Confederation, we should also give special recognition to communities like Alexandra that are a great part of our history.
I congratulate the organizing committee for its efforts and urge everybody to come out on Canada Day and help Alexandra celebrate.


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Marcel Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, two reports stressing the negative impact of the constitutional crisis appeared on June 9. A comment in Marie Tison's article for Canadian Press reads as follows: "The Quebec question continues to have a negative impact on the Canadian dollar, according to the analysts."
I want to urge Canadians to be united on reaching a consensus that meets their needs and expectations, so that we can continue to benefit from the excellent trade relations we have been able to establish throughout the world.
Madam Speaker, I would also ask all members of this House to continue to express their confidence in this country of ours, a source of untold riches for this generation as well as a magnificent legacy for the next.

June 19, 1992


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I rise in regard to a provincial housing project in the Blueha-ven neighbourhood of my riding. The residents have been extremely concerned about the impact on already high levels of density and anxious over environmental hazards since the project sits adjacent to a closed landfill site.
Last year I wrote the provincial ministers of housing and environment about both fears and on the latter the minister informed me and residents that no environmental risks existed and the government therefore gave the green light.
Last month, however, environmental officials clearly contradicted the minister on two different occasions by pointing to elevated levels of methane gas which may "represent a hazard to the people".
According to residents, the ministry has not undertaken any serious or ongoing testing to date, which is both dangerous and irresponsible. I call upon the provincial government and its local representative to order environmental officials to immediately investigate and initiate the necessary testing and monitoring so that the community's public safety on this can be fully satisfied. The onus is clearly on the provincial Government of Ontario which approved the project-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret the time has expired.



Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, it is only 400 weeks until the end of this century. The earth summit is over but the urgency of population, poverty, climate change, species lost and environmental degradation remain.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment would have Canadians believe that they fought a vigorous battle on these issues in Rio. In fact they did not. There were no efforts to lead and Canada lost a great opportunity.
We like all nations must face the population tsunami that is heading our way. Three children are now bom every second while 40,000 children under the age of 15 die every day from malnutrition and preventable disease. One acre of tropical rain forest is lost every second while one acre of Canadian forest is lost every five seconds. The level and rate of greenhouse gas emissions is rising.
The conventions on climate change and biodiversity will only work if we turn these words into action.
Today Canadians are the largest per capita producers of garbage on earth and the largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gas in the developed world. We must change if we are to survive and pass to future generations a habitable planet. That was the message of the earth summit.


MERCHANT MARINERS
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Madam Speaker, June 18 was a red letter day for our merchant mariners. Bill C-84 was given Royal Assent and as a result these brave seamen will at last be able to receive the same benefits as those enjoyed by wartime veterans of the Armed Forces.
The new benefits become available on July 1. Members of the House should know that applications for benefits will be available at all 32 district offices of Veterans Affairs. The Minister of Veterans Affairs tells me that any of our constituents who fall into the new category of merchant navy veteran should get in touch with the nearest district office.
Our wartime merchant mariners have been waiting for something like Bill C-84 for over 45 years. We can be proud that it was this Parliament that finally heard their pleas.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, the military government of Sudan, controlled by Islamic fundamentalists, seized power from a democratically elected government in 1989. This government is notorious for human rights abuses and continued prosecution of the brutal civil war against non-Muslims of the south.
June 19, 1992


BREAST IMPLANTS
[Stage Direction]
Amnesty International and Africa Watch tell of house arrests, torture houses, disappearances, amputations, summary executions, and crucifixions.
Last month, Hassan Al-Turabi, leader of the National Islamic Front and considered to be Sudan's real leader, was granted entry to Canada. He met with external affairs officials and meetings were arranged with Conservative members of this House.
Canadians and Sudanese have a right to know: Why was he allowed into Canada? When will Canada's welcome end? Why would members of this government meet with Al-Turabi, the de facto leader and author of the present tyranny imposed upon the people of Sudan? Will Canada's government now pledge all its efforts to support Sudanese human rights and end its civil war?

Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Madam Speaker, a few hours ago in this Chamber Russian President Boris Yeltsin said his country is giving priority status to property rights. It is ironic Russia thinks this is a cornerstone of democratic freedom when Canada so far has not given its citizens the same right.
So it is we get bad laws which trample property rights like the one Ontario is now contemplating which would allow homeowners anywhere in the province to open up apartments in their homes even if that is in clear contravention of municipal zoning laws.
Imagine the possibility of rooming houses or bachelor apartments mushrooming in neighbourhoods where it would affect the enjoyment and value of properties that others worked lifetimes for.
Zoning laws are there for a reason, to protect the integrity of neighbourhoods. I denounce this law as a flagrant betrayal of fundamental human rights. It could only spring from the minds of socialists who believe the state should always lord it over the individual. Even the Russians do not buy that one anymore. Is comrade Bob Rae listening?


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of health said in the House yesterday that the health department was unanimous in defending the Meme breast implant. In fact, health and welfare listed breast implants as high-risk devices in 1983 and health and welfare scientists recommended the Meme be removed from the market in 1989.
The parliamentary secretary said the CMA did an arm's length review and did not find evidence to prove silicone gel implants unsafe. In fact, it was a government financed study, published in the CMA journal at the government's expense and request, which the CMA has said is not its policy.
The deadliest inaccuracy of it all was when she said "there was no evidence proving that breast implants are unsafe for women". The director of the USFDA said recently, after extensive review, "we know more about the life span of automobile tires than we do about the longevity of breast implants"; that women are at risk and the risk is unacceptable.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. If there is something that should be withdrawn, it can be withdrawn during the member's statement. I will .listen briefly to the hon. member.


Mr. Edwards:: Madam Speaker, I will be brief and I thank you. The hon. member said the parliamentary secretary to the minister of health and welfare had said the report in question was unanimous. If she would check-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is a point of debate. The hon. member can correct the record later. It is not a point of order at this time and the hon. parliamentary secretary knows it.


TELEPHONE SERVICE
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, the recent decision by the CRTC to move from a monopoly telephone service to a competitive one sounds goods. In fact, for many businesses across Canada it is good, and for many others who live in the urban belt

Oral Questions
of Canada. However, there will be a price to be paid. Most Canadians will probably see that in increased local service charges.
My concern is that the greatest price will probably be paid by the constituents I represent and others like them in rural areas of Canada. You cannot take away the lucrative long distance service and not expect some fallout. Where will the axe fall? In all likelihood on the most costly and least profitable areas of services; rural Canadian telephone service.
I predict the results will be increasingly exorbitant costs for those Canadians who do not yet have any telephone service, and a slowdown and deterioration of needed service upgrades.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


CANADA POST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, the annual report of Canada Post Corporation was tabled today by the government House leader. It gives us the sad news for all of Canada.
It tells us what most of us had predicted all along, that the loss at Canada Post Corporation is $128 million. In fact that loss was quite predictable. Had it not been for a $32 million profit from the sale of assets, in other words selling the furniture to pay the rent, the real loss would have been $160 million.
I have to wonder as a Canadian why it is Canada Post, which is losing money, still saw fit to spend $32 million to buy a share in an Australian company that delivers mail in Europe, namely G. D. Net.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would just like to thank President Boris Yeltsin personally. He has agreed to intervene in looking for a prisoner of war of the Korean war who has been missing since 1951. I wanted to thank both President
Yeltsin and the Prime Minister for agreeing to intervene in this case personally.
My question is for the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the absence of the minister, the acting minister, the parliamentary secretary and most other ministers, I will direct it to whichever minister wants to answer.
Yesterday the parliamentary secretary, when asked about Meme breast implants, told the House that "there is no specific scientific evidence...that they are unsafe for women".
According to the official minutes which I have in my hand, of a meeting of the research and standards division of the department of health of the federal government on January 6, 1989, "the risk and severity of complications seemed to outweigh the possible advantages of the Meme implants". According to these minutes, "the complications include severe persistent infections; the foam can elicit a marked foreign body reaction".
Why did the former minister, the current Minister of Communications, put the health of women at risk by ignoring the official minutes of his own department?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, first it was the elderly, and now they would have women believe the government does not protect them.
We took appropriate action. We are now analysing what we have and waiting for more information. The moratorium is still in place and is supported by the manufacturers. Above all, Canadian women should be told, not once but repeatedly, that the government's foremost concern is their health, which is their responsibility as well. We will maintain the moratorium, and we are waiting for all the information to be in before taking further action.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I think it is particularly unfortunate that the women in this government are defending an indefensible position on the breast implant.
My question is directed to the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare. In fact, the minister himself should have been here today to answer these questions.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
June 19, 1992

Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: His predecessor, since January 6- [English]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member does know that making a point of noticing the presence or absence of anybody in the House is not possible. The hon. member does know that ministers have other functions that they must attend and that sometimes they cannot be present.
I would appreciate it if she would put her question right now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, my question was directed to the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare, because this is an issue that concerns all Canadian women, and the minister should be here to reply.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unless the hon. member for Hamilton East puts her question immediately, the Chair will have to recognize another member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, my question is this. Considering that specific and unanimous information against the use of breast implants was available to the government since January 6, 1989, why did the minister and his predecessor continue to ignore the facts and thus put the health of women at risk?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that if we want to defend women's rights, we should start by showing some solidarity as women.
I am here to answer questions directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was called away from Ottawa, for humanitarian reasons, I may add.
I maintain that this government's foremost concern is to protect women's health. I want to ask the women opposite to stop trying to alarm their peers, and I repeat that no action will be taken by the government until all the results are in.
There is a moratorium, the manufacturers are abiding by that moratorium, and we will continue to protect women's health.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, solidarity means protecting the health of women, not falling behind a government position which is clearly wrong.
I would like to ask the acting minister of health, and we would certainly like to ask the minister if he ever sees fit to come back to the House-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Nepean.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the acting minister of health. I am concerned that maybe the minister was not listening so I will redirect the question.
A senior health and welfare official clearly documented the health risk associated with the Meme breast implant. I quote: "The risk and severity of the complications seem to outweigh the possible advantages".
Fourteen months later the former Minister of National Health and Welfare said in this House, in response to a question by me: "We are confident in the success and the safety of these devices. Let us not create false fears among women".
I ask the minister carefully: Would she please explain once again why her government ignored for so long the urgent warnings provided by her senior officials concerning the safety of the Meme breast implant?


Monique Vézina: The
Minister of National Health and Welfare is carefully monitoring all the recommendations and information coming in, Madam Speaker. In English or French, the answer is the same, and I maintain that we are taking care of the health of Canadian women. We are maintaining the moratorium, and as soon as we have enough relevant information, we will take appropriate action.
I repeat that health is also women's responsibility, and I urge them to see their doctor and get the information that applies to their specific case.

June 19, 1992
Oral Questions


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I will put my supplementary question through you to the acting minister of health.
It was three and a half years ago that these same government officials recommended to government that distributors be asked to voluntarily stop selling the Meme implant.
How could the minister inform the women of Canada for years that the Meme was a safe product when senior officials of the department had called for a ban as early as 1989?
This boggles my mind. Why did the government not act immediately in 1989?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, I prefer to concentrate on the present, not on the past or the future, and we are now analysing the situation. Meanwhile, research continues because we are concerned about women's health. Major funding has been allocated to breast cancer research, and that is what we, as a government, are doing.
We must speed up the pace of research, and we must set women's concerns at rest by giving them appropriate information and especially by avoiding alarmist statements.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, in fact the Department of Health and Welfare Canada listed breast implants as high risk devices in 1983. Then its scientists recommended that the Meme be removed in 1989.
I want to ask the minister who is responding today: Why did the minister of health at that time not take the very serious advice of his own scientists and immediately remove the Meme implant from the market and save the disfigurement and the terrible health costs numerous Canadian women have suffered since 1989?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, we must have complete information before taking concrete action. I maintain that there is no consensus or unanimity, either among the patients or in the various reports.
As a responsible government that cares about women's health, we are compiling complete data so that we can then take the required action. In the meantime, the moratorium is still in effect and we are respecting it, in co-operation with the manufacturers.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, in fact the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare grandfathered the Meme implant. It did not do studies on it itself. It did not take the health of Canadian women seriously.
There is a track record on thalidomide, on the IUD, on DES, on Depo-Provero and on breast implants. There is a long litany of women's health concerns that were not taken seriously.
Therefore I want to ask the minister: Will the government now agree, after questioning many times from this side of the House, to an inquiry into the actions of the health and welfare medical protection branch, a complete public inquiry so that these questions can be answered once and for all?


Monique Vézina: understand correctly, Madam Speaker, we are being asked to do more research so that we can make decisions-


Dawn Black: No, no, an inquiry.


Monique Vézina: -or investigate to find out what happened in the past. That is just what we are working on. We are collecting the information so that we can give women that assurance.
Madam Speaker, I am a woman too and I understand that women are tom and worried about the present situation. As women, whatever my colleague opposite thinks, we are trying our very best to defend women in a government that we have trouble running financially. We want to secure the health of Canadian women.
June 19, 1992

Oral Questions


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the same minister.
The minister has stated now in the House two reasons to explain the negligence of this government. The first is that we should forget the past and the second is that there were budget constraints. That is very poor solace for all the women who have been affected for over the past three years by the Meme implant.
I want to ask the minister very clearly: Is there not a clear ministerial responsibility to take action for the negligence of the past three and a half years? When is the government going to act on that negligence and ask the minister responsible at that time to resign?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, I have just been given a list of the steps taken to ensure that this government made the right decisions for women's health. We did the required research. We had to obtain information from outside. I maintain that this government in the past eight years has done all it could to ensure the health and safety of women in Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the minister has said that she has just received news about government actions, about what it is doing.
Three and a half years ago the government had a report from its own officials which said the consensus of the meeting was that the net result of this review was significantly negative. We did not have to wait till today. The government had the information three and a half years ago.
We on this side of the House want to know when this government will take responsibility for the negligence that took place. What actions is it going to take now to ensure that all women who were affected during that period of negligence will get proper treatment, proper compensation and proper care from this government?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, I asked the people opposite to show some common sense. With his political experience, the hon. member knows very well that a minister who is replacing another does not know in detail all the information that has been reported.
It was a briefing note to remind me of all the measures and steps taken in the past five years on this breast implant issue. It shows our concern to find the right solutions. I maintain that women's safety is a priority for this department.


CANADIAN AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, 500 Air Canada employees gathered in front of Parliament to protest the government's inaction on the unstable Canadian aviation industry.
The only way to save this important industry is solid leadership from the government. What does the government intend to do to ensure the survival of an aviation industry that is controlled by Canadians and maintains good jobs in Canada?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the government intends to maintain the present legislation limiting foreign ownership of Canadian airlines to 25 per cent and requiring that effective control remain in Canadian hands.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, despite widespread turmoil in this industry, the government has had nothing specific to say about the future of the Canadian airline industry.
Today the open skies negotiations have been resumed and given the many public indications, which surely the minister cannot have failed to notice, both Canadian air carriers are looking to establish strong links with U.S. carriers.
How is the government proposing to ensure that Canadian air carriers will not become mere regional feeders for U.S. megacarriers?

June 19, 1992
Oral Questions


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, this is precisely why my predecessor has instituted the open skies negotiations with the U.S. These negotiations are ongoing with success and we hope to have a new agreement signed by the end of this year.


NUCLEAR TESTS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and has to do with the Russian President's visit. Our two countries share all sorts of concerns about the economy, the environment and international policy. However, the international community is worried because President Yeltsin has decided to end his moratorium on nuclear tests; they are to start again this fall.
Has the Government of Canada encouraged Russia to restore this moratorium and redouble its efforts to achieve an international moratorium?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I know that today and yesterday, the Prime Minister had discussions with Mr. Yeltsin on co-operation in various fields. The issue of co-operation on nuclear matters also came up. He no doubt knows that some concern has been expressed publicly for several months now on the nuclear installations in the former Soviet Union, among other things.
I am waiting for a report on those discussions and I will be pleased to provide my colleague with the part on nuclear tests, the subject which concerns him, once we have an opportunity to find out what was said in the discussions between the two leaders.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the various treaties and accords with Mr. Yeltsin which have been announced today do not include, so far as I can tell from the information which has been given us, any information or suggestion that we are trying to persuade the people of Russia to take action to ensure the moratorium on nuclear tests which is due to end this October will be continued. This is a crucial issue for all Canadians and all people throughout the world.
Will the Canadian government take advantage of this important visit and push for this moratorium to continue in the future and for it to be extended to all countries throughout the world?


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, as I just indicated there have been discussions between Mr. Yeltsin and the Prime Minister on a range of issues. Some of them pertain to nuclear safety. A nuclear safety initiative was made public today.
As the member might know there has also been some concern, probably more of it voiced in Europe and Germany, around nuclear safety power generating stations which is also related to this issue.
On the issue of testing I will have to await, as he will, an opportunity to hear what the contents of the discussions were. I will be happy to inform him as soon as I get that information.


GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also on the Yeltsin visit and is directed to the government House leader.
The government House leader, who is from the prairies, is fully aware that three-quarters of Canadian aid to the former Soviet Union was in the form of grain credits. The Prime Minister signed a treaty with President Yeltsin in February for a five-year contract for 25 million tonnes of grain.
My question is very important to the prairies. There are now some stories and rumours that the port of Churchill may be about to close. In view of the importance of that port to prairie Canada, can the government House leader tell the House today whether or not the Prime Minister had a chance to raise the issue of grain shipments to the Soviet Union with President Yeltsin? Was the suggestion made that some of that grain should go through the port of Churchill so that all Canadian ports can benefit from increased trade with the federation of Russia?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we know how important the market to Russia is for Canadian farmers.
June 19, 1992

The Canadian Wheat Board has always maintained and tried to ship wheat at the preferred customer location destination and we will continue to do that. I would expect this was likely raised with Mr. Yeltsin this morning. The main thing is that we maintain those sales and keep the sales moving to Russia.
There are no plans to change anything at the port of Churchill. We hope there will be an opportunity for some of those grain products to go through that port. That is a decision the Canadian Wheat Board and the buyer will have to make.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
On TUesday in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, a thousand fishermen and plant workers organized a demonstration calling upon the government to pay attention to the fact that they have been without income since May 15 and asking it for assistance.
On Wednesday in the House the Prime Minister committed his government to bring in a program of short-term, medium-term, and long-term assistance. We applaud that on this side of the House.
Given that there are only a couple of House sitting days left and given that no information has yet been communicated to fishermen and to plant workers who are looking at a moratorium on the fishery for the first time in 500 years, can the minister, through the House, tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what proposals and programs he will be bringing forward to provide immediate short-term assistance for those who have been without income for the last five or six weeks?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated on June 17 in this House, the government is well aware of the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador, for that matter, all of Atlantic Canada and the state of the fishery.
He indicated then that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is in Newfoundland today would be coming back with proposals for the government to consider.
Oral Questions
I would like to be able to inform the hon. member of more details today but it is not possible. I would not want him to leave the impression that because the House will adjourn it will be impossible for the government to take the necessary action. If it is not possible to make an announcement or state the government's intention before the House rises, the government will still have the ability to do that after and as soon as possible.


Brian Vincent Tobin: supplementary, Madam Speaker.
More than 60 members of Parliament from a variety of political parties, including independent members, have officially asked for a proper emergency debate on this issue.
For the first time in 500 years we are talking about a formal moratorium, a close down of an industry that is the backbone of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly in similar straits in other parts of Atlantic Canada.
Will the minister tell the House today that before the House adjourns for the summer recess he, as minister of employment, together with the minister of fisheries, is prepared to come before Parliament and through Parliament tell the people of Atlantic Canada what their program will be? What measures are going to be introduced to ensure that people are able to maintain the basics of life and certainly the dignity to exist during the interim period until those cod stocks are rebuilt?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the government has already had occasion to act to protect the fishing families in Newfoundland and Labrador and in all of Atlantic Canada.
The Prime Minister indicated quite clearly that we were looking at options and ways of trying to address their concerns. He is talking about a moratorium that has not been announced. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is there consulting with stakeholders in Newfoundland and Labrador and with the provincial governments. As soon as the government is capable of making known how we can contribute to help those people in Newfoundland and Labrador, we will.

June 19, 1992
Oral Questions


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In addition to the 1,000 people in St. Anthony who demonstrated on Tuesday, just a few hours ago there was a demonstration in Clarenville in my riding representing two of the 57 plants, about 9,000 people involved in the fishing industiy and fish plant operators.
These people are very worried. They do not have unemployment insurance or their unemployment insurance has run out. They have no fish and they have no idea what the short-term, long-term or interim plans are.
These people are crying out. They are asking for help. In view of the crisis situation, could the minister share with this House some indication of what his action plan is for the compensation for these people?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, it is too bad for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that it takes a demonstration to wake up the member.
On March 23, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I announced a task force to deal with that very problem. The member talks about the long-term problem of those fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I do not think that by inviting people to hold demonstrations it will address the problem. We have to find a way to solve the long-term problems of the fisheiy in all of Atlantic Canada and we have a task force doing that.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I have been quite clear. We are committed to help those people. We are in the process of analysing and trying to find out how we can best help them. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have our commitment that we will do that.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, this government including that minister, is responsible for mismanaging the fishery for the last eight years. I do not need lessons from him.
He tells me to wake up. I have made 25 interventions in the last three months. I think I have been awake for a hell of a long time.
This House is going to shut down on Tbesday. The Atlantic fishermen are afraid they are going to be forgotten. The Prime Minister stood in this House and gave a commitment to these people two days ago. For those people, the circumstances they are in, a day is like a year.
I ask the minister one more time and I do not want any smart remarks.
I want him to tell me that the Prime Minister has made a commitment. Will he take this commitment and turn the promise of the Prime Minister into reality and do it now?


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, I want to assure members opposite that we on this side do recognize the serious problem that is evolving on the east coast.
The member need only to look back to 1990 and 1991 to what this government did to be assured that there will be a program in place should we have to announce a moratorium.


AIRPORTS
David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question for the Minister of Transport.
As the minister knows, a significant part of the air transport side of his department is to check and maintain navigational aids at airports across Canada.
It has been brought to my attention that the private sector can provide a more economical and more technologically advanced system to check and maintain these navigational aids.
I would like to ask the minister if he is considering improving the method of checking these devices and at the same time saving the taxpayers' dollars?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that Transport Canada uses the most advanced technology in the testing and calibrating of navigational aids and that our main concern is the safety of the aviation industiy.
At the same time, we are examining proposals that have been made to us to maintain the safety at a lower cost and of course we are interested in it.
June 19, 1992


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, two days ago in the Manitoba legislature, the Conservative minister of trade raised his concerns about the NAFTA negotiations relative to the apparel industry.
It appears that the Conservative trade minister is concerned that under NAFTA, this government is going to force the apparel industry in Canada to buy all of its textiles either from Mexico or the United States. If that takes place, over 109,000 jobs will be at peril in Canada.
I want to ask whoever is the acting minister of trade today whether or not the concerns of the minister in Manitoba are valid? If not, will the government speak out today and say that no such deal will be signed to put those jobs at risk here in Canada.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that negotiations are ongoing. One of the areas on which there is considerable discussion is the textile industry.
Canada of course is at the table to protect the textile and the garment industries in this country because they are both creators of employment and very important to the economy of this country.
My hon. friend did not want us at the table. He did not want the Government of Canada to be at the table to protect the interests of the textile and garment workers.
Well we are there and we are doing that.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I would like to have thanked the minister for his answer but there is nothing there to be thankful for.
I am going to move now on the NAFTA issue to another minister and that is the Minister of Transport, Madam Speaker.
President Bush has just signed a presidential order that will permit Mexican truck drivers to drive their rigs right into the United States through California and perhaps other states. President Bush, signing on behalf of Canada, may have done the same thing.
Oral Questions
The reality is that under this presidential order Mexican truck drivers will be permitted to drive rigs that normally would have been driven by American truck drivers. As a consequence, jobs will be lost and wages will be lowered.
I want an assurance from the Minister of Transport here today that no such waiver will be given to Mexican trucks crossing through the United States and up into Canada. I want that assurance.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understand the geography of the hon. member, but I can assure him that I attended the convention recently of the Canadian Trucking Association with the American Truckers Association and the Mexican Truckers Association. All of these players were very much in favour of free trade among the three countries in trucking.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment. The minister will know that the unemployment rate on Cape Breton Island is now over 22 per cent. Yet there is no increase, probably there is a decrease, in the amount of job creation funding available.
For example, for the North Sydney-Sydney Mines area there remains only $35,000 in the job creation fund and no more money will be forthcoming until April 1993.
When will the minister add some funds to the job creation program for Cape Breton Island?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the numbers for the region that the hon. member talks about but I can look into it.
What I can say is that last year the province of Nova Scotia, under the programming of my department, received over $110 million and that figure is not going down. I can look at the specific area that the hon. member has raised and can advise him accordingly.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister would acknowledge that Cape Bretoners, like all Canadians, want steady jobs. They are doing everything possible to find

June 19, 1992
Oral Questions
them and to save the jobs that are left. Yet the bankruptcy rates continue to increase.
I would hope that the minister would recognize that this is a very critical situation on Cape Breton Island. Will he acknowledge this crisis and do what he can to provide some assistance for the people of Cape Breton Island?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I am ready to look at how we can ensure that all the programs we have at CEIC relevant to the area are being utilized. The hon. member, to help those people back home, could also give them hope. Interest rates have gone down again. We have the lowest rate of interest in some 20 years. We have the lowest rate of inflation in 20 years.
It may be funny to other members, but in a region like Cape Breton, because I am from Atlantic Canada, I know that this will be helpful. We will build on this with the programs we have in order to help the people in that part of the country.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The notion of low interest rate loans to small business is a sham. The fact of the matter is that the Canadian financial institutions in this country are not giving credit to businesses that want to expand.
What will the minister do to wake up the banking institutions in this country to the importance of small business to our economy?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. Banks have been very difficult with their credit. There is no question about that.
I, like the hon. member and I am sure others in this House, am getting complaints from the small and medium sized business community that the banks have tightened up with their credit and it is non-existent for some businesses.
We have encouraged, through my constant contact with the Canadian Bankers' Association, that this is the
time that it should be supporting small businesses to encourage them to expand and grow at this particular time because the economy is improving. That is number one.
Number two is that with the changes we have brought to the Financial Institutions Act, trust and insurance companies can now make commercial loans. That will take a little time to get in place, I am sure, but it will provide competition for the banks and will provide commercial moneys to businesses which heretofore they have been unable to obtain.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
There are 1.7 million entrepreneurs in this country and they are looking for some very specific leadership from the Minister of Finance.
Would the minister be willing to write to the presidents of the financial institutions of this country, as well as their directors, asking them to give much more care and, therefore, ultimately more credit to this sector of the economy? Would the minister be willing to write a direct letter to the leaders of these institutions?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I will pass that on to the Minister of Finance as a suggestion, a representation from my hon. friend, who does come up with many positive ideas.
I might say that the entrepreneurs that the hon. member is talking about have asked for low inflation and low interest rates. They have asked for that and they have that now. They have a good, steady economic base from which to operate and that is very important. They also asked for that.
I might remind the hon. member that we are helping small businesses out that are having financial difficulties at this time through the small business bond program, which I will-


An hon. member:: Nobody knows about it.


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member says nobody knows about it. I will rely on him to help us spread the good word about that.
June 19, 1992


THE ECONOMY
Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, I would like to keep the same minister on his feet for a minute.
The government has a lot of credibility riding on its ability to achieve its deficit targets. After years of spending cuts, the GST, and sometimes painful restructuring so our trade can increase, Canadians want to know if the government is on track with the deficit or not.
I would like to ask the minister if he can give a report on Canada's fiscal position to this House.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that we have set goals for deficit reduction and we feel veiy confident that we can reach the $27.5 billion deficit figure for 1992-93.
There are so many encouraging signs in the economy today.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Horton McDermid: Well, I listen to my friends on the Liberal benches who are guffawing about trade figures. In the month of April we had a record export figure of $12.8 billion. This is the fifth month in a row of increase. And I might say that of that amount, $10.8 billion went to the United States, which is also a record. The free trade agreement is working. We are going to reach our deficit figures because the economy is improving, interest rates are falling. We are pleased with the signs that we see.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister answering on behalf of the Minister for International Trade.
In Kootenay East my constituents face dangerously low water levels in the Columbia River reservoirs and they are suffering serious economic, recreational and environmental damage.
In 1961 the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker signed the controversial Columbia River Treaty which gave the Americans the right to drain fresh water out of B.C. regardless of local needs. In 1988 the Tory government
Oral Questions
signed the free trade agreement which further erodes Canadian control over our fresh water resources.
Now the government threatens disaster by completely giving in on Canadian control over our water resources to the U.S. and Mexico in the North America free trade agreement.
Will this government pull out of the current NAFTA negotiations in order to ensure that Canada can regain control of our precious fresh water supply?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the short answer to that question is no, we will not withdraw from the NAFTA negotiations. That would be foolish. The hon. member's colleague just said that we should be there to assure that textile workers and garment workers are protected. So you can't have it both ways.
Second, Canadians have control over their water resources. It was proven during the free trade agreement debate time and time again. We still have control, and we are not going to negotiate anything away at all. The hon. member knows that.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, the minister may say that, but the reality is that the flow was increased a month ago from 8,000 cubic feet per second to 22,000 cubic feet per second. That is the kind of control that the free trade agreement has brought in. Now they are not going to be able to cut back because you cannot cut back on areas where you have made commitments in the past.
My question is this. Will the minister at least assure Canadians that he will specifically exclude fresh water as a commodity in the NAFTA negotiations?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I know the free trade agreement inside out. I do not know where it says anything about river flows or fresh water exports or anything else to the United States.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the free trade agreement or the North American free trade agreement. The NDP is putting up another red herring in front of the Canadian people.

June 19, 1992
Oral Questions STUDENT EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada reported that 166,000 students were out of work in May, an increase of 60,000 since 1990.
Why does the Minister of Employment and Immigration continue to reduce funding for student employment programs when unemployment in this group is at crisis proportions?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member should know because the question has been answered a number of times in the House, contrary to what he is trying to suggest today the budget for summer employment was increased, not decreased.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, in the course of Question Period I commented on the absence of the minister of health. It has since come to my attention that he was delivering the eulogy at a funeral. Of course I would not want it to be left on the record that I in any way expected him not to fulfil his responsibilities in that area.
I apologize for commenting on his absence when he was obviously doing something very important.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for her apology.
Something for all of us to remember is that before we accuse someone of not being present sometimes we should inquire or simply not mention it, as that is what our rules say.


POINT OF ORDER
Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is another point I would also like to bring to the attention of the House. I made a mistake earlier this day when I recognized the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House
leader on a point of order during statements by members.
The only reason why a point of order would be recognizable at that time would be if there was really something unparliamentary. As I had been speaking to someone who was at the chair with me, I thought maybe there was something serious I had not heard, which is why I recognized the hon. member. I should not have done so. The hon. member has other opportunities of putting something on the record. I am sure he would find the reason. I should not have recognized him on a point of order at that point.
I do apologize for the House. I guess it is a learning process for all of us.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I hope I did not inconvenience the House or the Chair with that intervention.
What I had intended to say at that time was that I thought the hon. member would find the record would show that the parliamentary secretary said yesterday the report was conclusive not unanimous, as the hon. member had suggested.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The point has been made. The hon. member knows that this a question of debate and not really a question of order itself.
I thought the hon. member was going to apologize for raising a point of order in the middle of the statement by members. This is why I recognized him.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I did.


WAYS AND MEANS
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay upon the table a Notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Pension Plan, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Thx Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and certain related Acts. Madam Speaker, I ask that you designate an Order of the Day for the consideration of the said motion.
June 19, 1992

Routine Proceedings
[English]	ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


POINT OF ORDER
Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, further to the point of order, I must say for the parliamentary secretary to rise during statements and to engage in debate is something I have never seen happen in the House.
I appreciate the Speaker getting up to indicate her unhappiness with the way things went. On the other hand, the parliamentary secretary has continued to put motives to remarks that I made.
I must say I reviewed Hansard very carefully before I made my statement in the House. The parliamentary secretary had said there was conclusive evidence and that gave the impression the health department was unanimous.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. We are getting into a point of debate. I did admonish the hon. member for getting back into a debate on this very subject and if I have not accepted what the parliament secretary was saying about debating this subject at this time, I cannot accept what the hon. member is doing either. I do suggest we go to tabling of documents.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I wish to indicate my appreciation for your ruling with respect to your apology to the House. That was the point I wanted to make.
I do want to raise a point about the fact that the person who caused that apology to have to be made was then permitted to stand up and make his entire point. It seems to me at the very least it should be possible for the member for New Westminster-Burnaby to be able to make hers back.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, it seems clear. The Speaker has ruled and has clarified the matter.
The parliamentary secretary having intervened a second time, the last time he spoke he apologized. The member has quite legitimately and quite properly made her point. Can we get on with the business of the House?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do agree.


THE STATE OF CANADA'S FORESTS TABLING OF SECOND ANNUAL REPORT
Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to table, in both official languages, the second annual report to Parliament on The State of Canada's Forests.
Last year you would recall our report was called The State of Forestry in Canada. I believe the new name, The State of Canada's Forests, much better reflects the government's recognition of the public sensitivities to the multiple use we make of our forests, our dependence on our forests, our international obligations as the owners of 10 per cent of the planet's forest resources.
Public expectations related to the use and restoration of our forests are indeed very high. The issues covered in this year's report present a balanced picture of forestry in Canada reflecting society's demands for both a healthy and strong economy, as well as a healthy and pristine environment.
I trust the information presented in this report will provide a useful basis for facilitating dialogue and decision-making on the future of our forests.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


James Ross Fulton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not in order for members on this side to say something about the report the minister has just tabled?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No. The hon. member knows this was not a statement by a minister but a very brief explanation while he was tabling the report.

June 19, 1992
Routine Proceedings



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the activity report of the Canadian section of the International Association of French-Speaking Parliamentarians on the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Parliamentary Affairs Commission in Paris on April 14, 1992.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: I have the honour to present the 46th report of the Standing Committee on House Management. Pursuant to Standing Order 113(a), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the Table.




Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I also have the 47th report of the Standing Committee on House Management. With unanimous consent, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West) moved: for leave to introduce bill C-355, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.


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


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Madam Speaker, I have a very short explanation. This bill would amend section 52 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. That is the section which permits the Security Intelligence Review Committee to make certain recommendations in connection with decisions that have been made by, for example, senior bureaucrats.
As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and a decision by the Chief of the Defence Staff, it has become obvious that those recommendations are toothless.
This private member's bill is an attempt to give some teeth to the recommendations of SIRC and to provide an opportunity for the minister in Parliament to explain why SIRC's recommendations will not be followed in a particular case.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Wappel 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.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That four members and two staff of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to London, England, from October 31 to November 5, 1992, to study the British comprehensive auditing system and information to Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 19, 1992


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, with unanimous consent, I move that the 47th report of the Standing Committee on House Management presented in the House today be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-12, an act to amalgamate The Montreal Board of Trade and The Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.', 'June 19, 1992\nGovernment Orders\nPursuant to Standing Order 135(2), the bill is deemed to have been read a first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the House.']
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for this motion:
That in the opinion of the House the government will proclaim
Saturday, July 4, 1992, as Shop Canada Day to keep consumer
dollars in Canada and to support Canadian industry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table a petition signed by over 15,000 Canadians from British Columbia to Newfoundland that calls upon Parliament to withhold approval of the drug RU-486 and prevent the marketing and/or testing of this drug to induce abortions in Canada.
These petitioners state that the said drug RU-486 has been used to cause the abortion of the human foetus in the early stages of pregnancy and has also been shown in some cases to have caused serious injury and even death in one case to the mother when taken with prostagladins.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, today I have eight petitions concerning the Court Challenges Program. Your petitioners, who now number in the thousands, would like to see Parliament
Routine Proceedings
review the government's decision which abolished this program last February.
The Court Challenges Program has made it possible for the courts to hand down a number of important decisions aimed at clarifying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The courts have been able to rule on a broad range of human rights issues, including the rights of inmates, Canadians of native origin and disabled Canadians, as well as on issues concerning discrimination on the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, citizenship, race, ethnic origin, marital status and family circumstances.
The petitioners ask that the program be reinstated so that all Canadians can have access to this federal assistance which helps protect the rights of all Canadians.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present 10 petitions containing approximately 637 signatures from citizens of Burlington, Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Dundas, Mississauga, Oakville, Scarborough, Kitchener, Guelph, Toronto and all over southern Ontario.
The petitioners urge the government to stiffen the penalties for violent crime and points in particular to the death of Miss Nina de Villiers who was brutally murdered on August 9, 1991.
The petitioners ask the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to continue to review all legislation that deals with public safety and to negotiate, where necessary, with the provincial authorities to ensure that the laws are amended to reflect the concerns expressed by the petitioners on public safety.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting to the House a petition collected by the Finch-Weston Multicultural Seniors Committee urging the government to amend the drug laws in this country that permit the Government of Canada, when it seizes profits from drug seizures, to put them solely and totally in the federal revenues of the federal government rather than trying to share those proceeds with local police authorities, local organizations and municipalities so that those groups which are on the front lines of battling drugs in our society may in fact

June 19, 1992
Routine Proceedings
have the equipment and the financial wherewithal to try to combat those forces in a successful way.
I present that petition and hopefully the Solicitor General will amend the Narcotics Control Act to do just that.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and the honour today to present a petition in memory of Ryan Garrioch. These are petitioners from the province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia who petition this Parliament to revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lowered maximum age of 13 years.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions. The first one has been signed by some 314 persons from the cities of Castlegar, Nelson and Trail and some 13 other communities throughout my constituency of Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
The petitioners state as Canadians, we have a deep concern for the suffering of Iraqi children. The United Nations and NGO reports tell of a million children at risk from malnutrition and diseases for which there is no medicine.
Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament instruct the government to take an initiative at the UN to have the sanctions imposed on Iraq modified sufficiently to both allow the necessary amounts of food and medicine to reach these children in an unrestricted fashion and also allow for the reconstruction of those elements of Iraq's infrastructure crucial to meeting the human needs of that country's suffering civilian population.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, the second petition, under the provisions of Standing Order 36, is signed by a number of signatories from 12 communities throughout my constituency. The undersigned residents of Canada draw to the attention of the House that there has been a promise from the government to freeze unemployment insurance
premium rates for three years and that the recent cumulative increases to UI premiums are unfair and insensitive to small businesses during hard economic times. Further, job losses due to business closures would further impair the chances for a full economic recovery in Canada. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to freeze unemployment insurance premium rates for one year.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to the House today from a number of residents of Calgary in memory of Ryan Garrioch and these petitioners request that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lower minimum age of 13 years.


Al Johnson: Madam Speaker, I also present a second petition on a different issue. This is from hundreds of my constituents who ask that the Minister of Transport change the flight direction from runway 28 back to its original line of flight to prevent noise in their area.
I presented a petition previously on the other side of this issue. I would simply ask the Minister of Transport to try to develop a sensitive solution that protects all of my constituents from airport noise.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, as you see, my colleagues here are all concerned about the co-operative housing program cut.
On December 17, 1991 the government stated in a news release an increase in the budget pf $6.1 million for 1992. However, on February 25, 1992 the co-operative housing program was cancelled altogether by the government. The co-operative housing program was highly successful in creating healthy, mixed income communities.
I join with my constituents in calling on Parliament to urge the government to immediately reinstate the federal co-operative housing program and to commit the $6.1 million that it already committed previously and cancelled to the program which had been planned for 1992
June 19, 1992

to permit approximately 2,000 co-operative housing units to be sponsored in 1992.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member agree with me that was very close to a speech and not presenting a petition?


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions today and I will be very brief with them.
The first one I would like to present on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Yellowhead. It has been signed by 150 residents of Drayton Valley and they are supporting a binding referendum on the Constitution.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: The
second petition I would like to present is from people associated with the Kids First Organization. They call upon the government to amend the Income Thx Act such that child related benefits and deductions for child care are fair and equitable to all family structures based on financial need and irrespective of child care choice.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: The
third petition I would like to present is a petition from well over 1,000 of my constituents. This petition calls upon Parliament to influence the government to award a postal franchise to the Heritage I.D.A. in Edmonton, Alberta.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: It is my pleasure to present a petition requesting that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lower minimum age of 13 years.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is one calling upon the Government of Canada to hold a national referendum in order to determine the wishes of the people of Canada on the issue of the amendment to the Constitution of Canada.
5. O. 52 HOUSING


John Paul Manley: This petition, supported by my colleague from Ottawa Centre, deals with the cancellation of the federal co-op housing program and asks the government to reinstate funding for this important, low-cost housing program.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I have the privilege of presenting a petition from residents of Calgary, De Winton, Clare-sholm and Okotoks, Alberta calling upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lower maximum age of 13 years.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received an application pursuant to Standing Order 52 and I will recognize the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 521 wish to give notice of my intention to move the adjournment of the House for an emergency debate on the crisis in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fishermen and plant workers on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland, in particular, and along the northeast coast and in other regions have been without income now since May 15 and have no prospect of any income because of a combination of reasons; no fish, various fisheries have been closed, ice conditions and a pending moratorium.
I ask Madam Speaker to give consideration to this petition for an emergency debate, that it be held as soon as possible and practically. I will conclude very quickly but I would remind the House that more than 60 members over the last two days of Parliament from this side of the House, in two opposition parties, from almost every province of Canada, including independent members-and this is unprecedented in my 13 years here- are supporting this petition for an emergency debate because they recognize that it would be improper for Parliament to close for the summer, close until September, without giving a proper opportunity for a debate on this crisis situation and without giving an opportunity for ministers opposite and for the government opposite to

June 19, 1992
Routine Proceedings
present their program on how they intend to deal with this crisis.
With that in mind, I ask the Chair to consider this petition and to grant an emergency debate to give an opportunity for the voice of fishermen and plant workers to be heard as soon as possible.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not think anyone in this House is ignorant of the problems now facing people in Labrador, Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces in general, and I am referring to people who work in the fisheries.
The Chair has carefully examined the requests that were filed this week, even and especially today, for an emergency debate on the subject. I do not think it would be reasonable to allow this type of debate today. In fact the Speaker with whom I discussed the matter earlier tends to agree, it is unlikely we could get the answers people are entitled to expect, and I think it would be wiser to wait, but only for a short while, before having this kind of debate.
I do not want the hon. member to see this as a lack of interest on the part of the Chair or failure to recognize the seriousness of the situation, but as an attempt to ensure that the purpose of the debate is served as well as possible. We do not think having this debate today would provide that kind of assurance.
Consequently, I cannot give permission for this debate today. However, I can assure the hon. member, and all members who asked the Chair to consider their requests, that the matter will be considered again during the weekend, and we will be able to resume our discussion when the House meets again.


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. 310 and 350.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East): Will the government direct the management of Canada Post (a) to respond favourably to any requests received from any of its employee union locals to mark the April 28 Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured in the Workplace where such requests are for (i) the lowering to half-staff of flags flown on or at corporation facilities (ii) the observation of one minute of silence at corporation facilities in each of the major shifts of workers present during the 24 hours of the day (iii) permission for employees so wishing to wear black arm bands (6) to consider seriously any other requests for the marking of the day received from any of its employee union locals?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: (a) During a 1991 meeting between the parties at the national level on the April 28 Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured in the Workplace, the corporation expressed a willingness and remains willing to meet with the CUPW to endeavour to find a mutually acceptable solution to the union's request. No request was received from the union at the national level for consultation on this issue this year.
(i)	The corporation is of the opinion that the lowering of the flag is not appropriate for this occasion.
(ii)	The corporation workforce is located in facilities all over Canada with operations being conducted on an around the clock basis. Such request would result in a disruption of mail processing and counter activities.
(iii)	The corporation has no objection to employees wearing black arm bands in any non-public areas; but employees who have any person to person contact with customers or the public are not allowed to wear these arm bands.
(b) The corporation continues to improve accident prevention Programs which strive to educate and encourage employees to work safely and ensures that employees are provided with and utilize the necessary protective clothing and equipment. The corporation and the union also meet on a regular basis to discuss health and safety matters. It is through these efforts,
June 19, 1992

throughout the year, that the corporation expects to reduce the frequency of accidents on the job.

Question No. 350-Mr. Fee:
For the period May 1,1992 to June 12 1992, what has been the (a) total cost (b) cost per question (c) cost for this question, to the government for answering Order Paper Questions?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: (a) & (b) Questions answered during the period of May 1, 1992 to June 12, 1992:
Question	Approximate	Question	ApproximateNo.	Cost	No.	Cost164	$5,930	277	$ 55228	6,605	278	79235	75	279	111236	195	280	95240	49	281	86241	541	287	447244	18	288	55249	4,576	290	84252	300	292	10255	179	293	35258	154	299	327262	344	301	164263	452	302	43266	63	305	88268	43	306	64269	310	308	620272	36	309	36275	275	316	30276	144	321	59Total Cost: $22,777	c) $30


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.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings HOUSE OF COMMONS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, in relation to Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, when the order for second reading is called, the Speaker shall recognize one speaker per party and immediately following, the debate shall be deemed adjourned and the Speaker shall adjourn the House forthwith until the next sitting day.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on this particular motion. Being a member from Toronto, as you know, this bill is very important to my community as it is to other members from Toronto. I need to get an assurance from the House that we are going to have sufficient time on Monday to examine this bill in detail.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I believe that Monday will be devoted entirely to debate on this bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion as presented by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Does he have the permission of the House to present the motion?


Mr. Heap:: Madam Speaker, in the name of the NDP caucus I present our agreement with this motion.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-12, an act to amalgamate The Montreal Board of Trade and The Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

June 19, 1992
Government Orders
Pursuant to Standing Order 135(2), the bill is deemed to have been read a first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Bernard Valcourt: that Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration act and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, a few days ago I proposed to Parliament a number of important changes to the Immigration Act.
These changes will give us the means to more effectively manage the immigration program, to better respond to the changes which have taken place since the current act was passed in 1976 and to position ourselves to meet the immigration challenges of the future.

However, before I address the substance of the proposed amendments, it is important to establish the context for change. Why now? What perspectives do we bring to bear when proposing these changes?
We begin this debate at a time when two issues of great importance dominate the national agenda and preoccupy the minds of Canadians. At kitchen tables, in coffee shops, in cafeterias, on buses, and in church halls across this nation, Canadians are talking about the unity of their country and about Canadian economic prosperity. These are bedrock issues for this country.
Canadians instinctively understand that you cannot have one without the other and yet incredibly we find ourselves debating that very possibility. I raise these issues because they are both inextricably linked to the issue of immigration.
This is a point I made in my presentation to the standing committee last month. It is a point that is well
worth restating here on the floor of the House of Commons as we begin this debate on these important amendments to our immigration program.
In many ways, Canada's immigration policy is symbolic of the country itself and of the challenges that we face as a people. When Canadians are asked to describe themselves, to identify what makes them different from others, we often speak with pride about our compassionate and tolerant nature as a people.
We describe Canada as a welcoming nation. Whether we know it or not, we are talking about the values which underpin our immigration and refugee policies. Those policies are part of the face we present to the world. They are a calling card and observers judge us on the basis of what those policies tell them about Canada. The message is one of generosity and openness.
At the same time, these policies that we have shaped as a nation have in turn shaped us. They have helped us understand who we are as a people. They provide us with a mirror to look into our soul as a nation and while the reflection is far from perfect, it does represent a face that the world has come to trust. It is an honest face, one which conveys a compassion and pragmatism of an immigration policy that has served this nation well.

Like immigration, our unity debate is about who we are and who we trust. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians will demonstrate the same compassion and tolerance toward each other as we have had the wisdom to adopt in welcoming newcomers to our shores. It may be our newest citizens who are best able to see Canada as it is.
Nineteen years ago, writer Neil Bissoondath moved here from Trinidad. He was 15 at the time. Today he writes: "Canada is a grand country, and it is that grandeur that I wish to leave to my daughter; its beauties, its immensities, its incomparable diversities. Those diversities include the duality that is her heritage from both her parents, for in her are blended white and brown, francophone and anglophone, native bom and immigrant. To accept the division of this country is to betray decades of vision and effort. It is to betray generations, those of yesterday and those of tomorrow."

In a similar way immigration policy addresses public concerns about prosperity, a central objective of that policy. The objective over our 125 years as a nation is to attract to Canada people with the skills and talents we require to build a prosperous country.
At different times in our history the economic rationale for immigration has been more obvious than at other times. For example, at the turn of the century we deliberately recruited immigrants to open the west and less than 50 years later a new wave of builders arrived to participate in the post-war industrialization of Canada.
The bottom line today is the same as the bottom line of more than a century ago. Immigration is essential to prosperity. Immigration contributes to both the soul and sinew of Canada. Responding to the social and humanitarian concerns of Canadians and meeting our economic needs are central objectives of the policy. Managing the balance between these two faces of immigration is the key to a successful program that best serves the interest of all Canadians. We cannot have one without the other. The program would be incomplete.
The same logic holds true for the great debate that engages us today as a nation. Unity and prosperity are inseparable. I am confident that Canadians understand this logic. I am equally certain that immigration will continue to contribute to our unity and prosperity.
Like Canada itself, our country's immigration and refugee programs face important challenges as we move through the nineties. The world is changing around us and that change is placing new and mounting pressure on our programs.
Just a few weeks The Toronto Star ran two news stories side by side. They were prominently displayed. The stories touched a nerve which many of us will recognize. The first story described in typically dramatic fashion the recent United Nations report on global population. In big, dark letters the headline read: "Immigrant tide to grow higher. Throngs to flee poverty and turmoil of Third World".
The second story, the headline not quite so big, said: "Toronto woman faces 20 charges in immigrant scam". In 40 column inches of space The Toronto Star managed to capture the scope of our immigration challenge and the nature of some of the obstacles we face in meeting that challenge.
Government Orders
Those headlines were also typically provocative. They transmitted a sense of anxiety about the value and effectiveness of immigration. They represent yet another dimension of the challenge we face in sustaining the public's confidence in these essential programs for Canada.

This Chamber of elected representatives, this government whose role as steward is dependent upon the will of the Canadian public, has an obligation, indeed a fundamental responsibility to preserve and improve a vital national program in the face of increasing international and domestic pressures.
What are these pressures? How do they exhibit themselves?
We do not have to look too far to see evidence of change. The 1980s mark the start of a period of great migration.
Today, some experts suggest that as many as 80 million people are on the move throughout the world. Prompted by political and economic instability, environmental disasters or the simple desire for a new beginning, individuals and families have uprooted themselves in search of new homes.
Other factors contribute to that movement. Modem communication technologies spread images of the affluent west around the world. The growth of an international labour market has opened up opportunities for those with the special skills sought after by developed and developing countries. The scale of that movement can be startling to consider. For example, in 1983, approximately 95,000 people sought refugee status in all OECD countries. By last year, that number was more than
700.000	individuals, an increase of approximately 800 per cent. In 1983, Canada received 1,500 claims for refugee status; last year, it received 30,000.
In Europe this year, the Germans alone expect some
400.000	people to claim refugee status in their country. This large scale, unpredictable movement of people is a phenomenon to which industrialized nations like Canada have been required to respond. It is a phenomenon that is not going to disappear soon. A recent United Nations report on global population predicts an explosive rate of growth in the next decade. Most of those births will take place in the Third World, the primary source of today's immigration.

June 19, 1992
Government Orders

At home Canadians are concerned about the growing costs of immigration and about backlogs in applications which result in extended delays and increased frustrations. They are concerned about the fairness of the program for applicants tangled in backlogs. They want to be assured that immigration is being managed to bring the greatest possible social and economic benefits to Canada. They want to know that the laws which govern the program will be enforced, that we will deal firmly with those who have used our generosity.
All this adds up to increasing pressures on a legislative framework built to manage the demands of a simpler time.
The world is awash in a sea of change, but Canada has not been standing still waiting for events to overtake us. Since 1984 this government has pursued an approach of steady growth and adjustment of our immigration program. That approach is based on the recognition of immigration as an integral element of Canada's economic and social agenda.
The annual level of immigration has increased gradually over the last eight years. This year Canada will welcome 250,000 immigrants, almost three times the number we welcomed in 1983.
During those eight years we have either reinforced existing programs or established new programs to help immigrants adjust to life in Canada. From language training to community relations programs which breach barriers between newcomers and native bom Canadians, work goes on to introduce new immigrants to their rights and responsibilities as new citizens.
In 1988 Parliament passed Bill C-55 creating the Immigration and Refugee Board. This was a response to the unprecedented level of refugee applications which had choked and overwhelmed the previous management structure.
Today the IRB and my department have virtually eliminated the enormous case backlog which built up in the late 1980s. The board is now processing and making decisions on all claims it receives annually.
We introduced the five-year plan for immigration in December of 1990. The plan was the result of more than a year of extensive consultations with governments and interested parties across Canada. We reached broad consensus on the numbers and categories of immigrants Canada requires in the coming years. Our objective was also to introduce a level of certainty to our collective planning to improve our management of immigrant and refugee programs.
Today we are taking another step in meeting the challenges posed for Canada by a changing world environment. The amendments we have proposed will give us the tools to adapt our immigration program to the realities of the 1990s and ensure that we have a program that is fair, balanced and effective.
The changes we have proposed involve improvements in three general areas. They will give us the means to more effectively select and process those who come to Canada by improving the way in which we manage the categories and numbers of immigrants and by improving the service we provide to them. They will give us the means to better protect Canadian society by tightening up enforcement and control measures to defend the integrity of the system and protect Canadians from those who abuse our generosity and break our laws. We will further streamline the refugee determination system in order to improve the effectiveness of an excellent program with fair decisions rendered quickly.
What about effective selection? To be effective Canada's immigration policy must balance our compassionate character as a people with our pragmatic requirements as a nation. This balance is reflected in the three fundamental policy objectives which underpin the program. We have a social obligation to reunite families, a humanitarian responsibility to protect refugees and an economic requirement to attract newcomers whose particular skills and talents contribute to our prosperity. The proposed changes will help ensure that we maintain a constructive balance between these three policy pillars.
June 19, 1992

Government Orders
At the present time we have the authority, Mr. Speaker, to set over-all levels of immigration; however, we lack the means to actually deliver on those targets.
For example, if 50,000 people, 50,000 eligible individuals, apply in a particular category during a specific year, the government must consider each of those obligations even though the annual plan may only have room for
25,000	applications. That is the law, and that is why we have backlogs.
The proposed changes will give us the means to more effectively control those numbers. It will introduce greater certainty to our planning. Greater certainty means fewer delays, it means more predictable processing times and greater fairness for applicants.
Specifically, I have proposed the introduction of three management streams for selecting immigrants. Stream one will have no fixed limit on applications for its various categories. The stream could include, for example, spouses and dependent children, convention refugees and immigrant investors. Applicants will be processed according to specific time standards. For example, our objective will be to process routine immediate-family applicants within six months regardless of whether the application is made in Germany or in India. Stream two will operate on a first-come-first served basis. There will be a ceiling for applications from each group within this stream. Parents and grandparents, refugees processed abroad, and immigrants with arranged employment could be included in stream two.
For some groups, once the ceiling was reached no more applications would be processed. Others would be able to reapply in the next planning period. These changes would stop backlogs from accumulating.
In the third stream, we select for excellence, accepting only the most highly qualified individuals. This stream could be composed largely of individuals from the independent categories or entrepreneurs, or people qualified in designated occupations.
Again, there will be a ceiling for each group within the stream. Only the allotted number of applications will be accepted. This approach to managing the program will give us the means to eliminate the build-up of backlogs which drain our resources and reduce our flexibility to help others.

The House should also be aware, Mr. Speaker, that these proposals do not change the decision-making authority for the selection of immigrants contained in federal-provincial agreements. In particular, the changes will be consistent with the Canada-Quebec Accord on Immigration. The hon. member for Joliette was concerned about that at some point. These provisions will be fully respected.
We are also proposing a measure to further extend the economic and social benefits of immigration to the regions. Not every area of the country currently benefits from the program. Some regions find it difficult to attract newcomers.
In 1991, 3.5 per cent of immigrants went to communities of less than 100,000 people and only 1 per cent went to communities of less than 50,000 people. However, 68 per cent of immigrants went to cities of over 500,000 people.
To encourage a better distribution of this pool of talent, some skilled immigrants will be offered a contract-like arrangement. As a condition of their acceptance to Canada, they will be required to settle in a community where the number of people having their specific skills would otherwise be insufficient to meet the needs of that region. They would be required to live in the community for a limited period of time.
Individuals who choose to participate in this program will do so fully aware that their application has earned additional consideration as a consequence of their willingness to settle in a designated location. There is nothing coercive about this measure.
Our hope is that individuals will want to stay in a particular community once they are settled. But ultimately, that hope is dependent on a number of things, including the ability of the community to create the type of welcoming environment which will cause individuals to set down roots.

Canada has been ranked as the best place in the world in which to live. Surely those who prepared that assessment must have considered the generosity and openness of our immigration and refugee programs when they made their decisions. On a per capita basis, we accept more immigrants than any other nation in the world. Today about one in six Canadians was bom somewhere other than in Canada. This year we will welcome as many

June 19, 1992
Government Orders
as 250,000 newcomers, or almost three times as many people as we welcomed a decade ago.
Even with the highest immigration rate in the world, we cannot meet the demand of all those who want in. Because there is a finite number of people we can accommodate each year, an increasing number of people are seeking ways to bypass the regular immigration process.
Canada is not alone in facing this problem; the Germans, the Australians, the British, the French, the Americans, indeed most developed nations, are faced with the same problem. It is an issue that cannot be ignored because it ultimately threatens the very viability of established immigration programs.
The federal government has an obligation to protect the integrity of these vital programs. We will respond to that need by taking a number of steps to protect these programs, at home, at our borders and overseas.
Overseas we will provide further training and technological assistance to our own staff and to airline personnel to help them identify fraudulent documents and intercept illegal migrants before they reach Canada. We will also extend the rule governing criminal inadmissibility. This will allow us to keep out individuals who may have a criminal record but who are known members of criminal or terrorist organizations.
At our borders, we will give immigration staff the authority to search individuals and to seize documents and vehicles used in smuggling people into Canada.
We will also expand an authority the current law already gives the department and that is the department's authority to use fingerprints and photographs to establish the identity of people seeking admission to Canada. These procedures will be extended to cover all individuals who make refugee claims.
Canadians want their country to provide protection to those fleeing persecution. They insist that we leave a light in the window for those hounded from their homelands. But Canadians have a right to know whom we are welcoming to this country on their behalf. They have a right to know who is entering their home.
When the generosity of Canada's immigration program is abused, the public's confidence in the value and effectiveness of immigration is shaken. Abuse of the program upsets everyone, newcomers and native bom alike.
The problem of multiple refugee claims is a good example of an issue where the actions of a few people erode the confidence and trust of the broader community-
Yet we cannot effectively control this type of limited but costly abuse, largely because we lack the tools to monitor the identity of people. The fragility of the system became patently obvious when a single individual is capable of successfully making 17 refugee claims.
Expanding the use of photographs and fingerprints, with the appropriate safeguards for the individual in place, will help us eliminate a problem which hurts everyone.
At home, we are proposing a number of new measures, including legislative amendments to prevent criminals from using our refugee system to avoid justice in their own countries.
By defending the integrity of these programs, we achieve two things. First, we preserve the social and economic benefits of these vital national programs. Second, we maintain public confidence in our immigration and refugee systems.
Canadians have earned a special position in the world for our work on behalf of refugees. In fact these efforts earned the people of Canada the Nansen Medal in 1986. It was the first time the United Nations has recognized an entire nation for its work.
The plain fact is that Canada has the highest refugee acceptance rate of any nation in the world and it has occupied that position for some time now.
But despite our international reputation, we now have a refugee determination system that is working at maximum capacity and showing signs of strain. While we are able to process as many claims as we receive at some stages in the process, other components of the system, particularly the Federal Court, are experiencing large backlogs.
June 19, 1992

In addition, it is quite clear that we could not meet a sustained surge in the number of claims. The time required to process claims is still too long and that is not fair to claimants.
The speed with which we can remove rejected claimants remains slow and that erodes the effectiveness of the system. The consequence of this delay is the need for costly support programs, and that is certainly not fair to taxpayers.
It is our intention to further improve the decisionmaking process at the Immigration and Refugee Board. We will eliminate the first level hearing. This step will accelerate the processing times, cut administrative costs, and allow the IRB to direct its resources where they are needed most.
This is a change recommended by the Auditor General and the Law Reform Commission, and supported by the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Genuine refugees should be able to get on with their lives as quickly as possible. The sooner decisions are made on the status of a claimant, the sooner a refugee can get off social support programs and become a fully contributing member of the community.
New procedures will allow convention refugees to be landed more quickly and take up employment sooner. The proposals will permit the spouse and dependent children of the applicant to be processed at the same time as the claimant. We expect to cut the waiting period for landed status after the IRB decision to six months.
It is worth noting that the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has lent its support to the changes we are proposing.
In a recent press release the UNHCR said:
We expect that the new legislation will continue to work in the
best interest of all those asylum seekers needing protection -
UNHCR supports the fine-tuning of the legislation, insofar as it
concerns asylum seekers in Canada.
It is an important endorsement because it lends perspective to the debate we are having and to the course of action we are following. This comment is particularly helpful because it may allow us to have a more reasoned debate devoid of the predictable hysteria of some of the government's more vehement critics.
Government Orders
We have also proposed a series of additional measures to help achieve better control over access to the refugee determination system. For example, in straightforward cases senior immigration officers will be given the authority to decide whether an individual is eligible to claim refugee status.
The dramatic increase in the number of people now claiming refugee status throughout the world has made it clear that ultimately the management and resolution of refugee issues require international co-operation.
European countries have perhaps been the first to understand this, and as a result they have recently signed agreements to share responsibility for examining refugee claims. The purpose of these agreements is to eliminate asylum shopping while ensuring that refugee claimants receive a full hearing in one of the states that is a signatory to these conventions.
Last year about one-third of all refugee claimants came to Canada through the United States and a further one-tenth through Europe.
It is important that the government has the legislative authority to enter into agreements with other refugee receiving countries similar to those that have been reached in Europe. This will help ensure that we can provide better and faster protection for those who choose Canada as their first country of refuge.
Without the ability to enter into these agreements Canada may be receiving large numbers of claimants from countries that, while party to the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, would prefer to see another state provide the protection offered by the convention.
We are currently negotiating such an agreement with the United States in order to better share the responsibilities for the determination of refugee status between our two countries. We are also talking to the Europeans.
A fair and effective determination system must include the authority to remove people whose claims have been rejected. International authorities, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, clearly recognize that fact. As a result we will also be taking

Government Orders
additional steps to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of our removal procedures.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware, as are other members of the House, of the efforts my department has undertaken to improve our service to the public through our offices in Canada and overseas.
Those efforts will continue. Centralized information centres will provide people with quicker access to information on the status of applications. The department will increase the use of mail-in and drop-off services and we will introduce more user-friendly application and information forms.
We have also proposed a number of changes to make more flexible the way in which we handle documents for visitors, students and returning residents.
On a per capita basis, Canada receives more immigrants and accepts more refugees than any other country in the world. Our current Immigration Act dates back to 1976. It was not designed to handle the numbers of people now trying to enter Canada. The system is showing signs of strain. It is important that we act now to bring the system in line with the realities of the 1990s.
A failure to respond now will have significant consequences. Backlogs in applications will lead to longer processing delays and ever escalating costs. Illegal immigration will only continue to grow and our ability to control its impact on our programs will diminish. None of these results is fair to the prospective immigrant, the refugee and the Canadian taxpayer.

More important, our ability to respond to the needs of Canadians will be undermined if we do not act now. Without effective control over the number and categories of immigrants coming to Canada we cannot ensure that immigration continues to serve the best interests of Canada.
At the outset of this debate let us be very clear about whom these amendments are meant to serve. They are not meant to satisfy those who would have no room in their small world for the contribution of yet another generation of immigrants. They are not meant to satisfy those who deny their own immigrant roots or who fail to see the reality of a global community that grows closer
together by the minute. Nor are they meant to satisfy those who feel Canadian resources are limitless, that there is no need for rules and that national borders are meaningless concepts.
These amendments to our Immigration Act will not satisfy those who want to slam the door and they will not satisfy those who want us to give away the store.
However, I am confident that the vast majority of Canadians will understand these amendments for what they are: pragmatic and sensible changes that will preserve the integrity of an immigration program that has contributed to our sense of identity and served as a source of prosperity for more than 125 years.
That is what these changes are about.
In closing, I would like to quote Neil Bissoondath one last time. He said:
In the end I am as at home in Montreal as I am in Vancouver, in Toronto as in Quebec City, in English as in French. Nowhere have I felt myself a stranger. The immigrant who, 19 years ago, gratefully embraced Tbronto has become the citizen who has gratefully embraced Canada. While I am abroad and miss home, it is this country-its air, its sounds, its smells-that I long for. It is here, everywhere, that I find the comforts of home.
All of us, no matter where we were bom or where our parents and ancestors came from, can endorse such words, for they ring true. We have a great and wonderful country, the envy of the world, and let us get on with our work of keeping Canada unified, prosperous and generous.
As an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to second reading of Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and under the provision of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder, since we are only going to have one speaker from each party today, if I could get consent of the House to put a couple of short questions to the minister as we have him here in the House today and he may not be here for the debate on Monday.
June 19, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion. Is there unanimous consent for the member to ask a question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister just gave notice that an agreement could not be reached pursuant to Standing Order 78(3). I have spoken with the opposition House leader, the opposition Whip, and there was no consultation whatever in respect of Standing Order 78(3). No request was made for an agreement, I am so instructed. I am the assistant House leader on our side. No request has been made through me or with me for any time allocation arrangement in respect of Bill C-73. This notice in my view is improper.
While I recognize Your Honour may do nothing this afternoon, I expect that on Monday this point will be argued in the House.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the facts differs from that of my friend opposite. There have been consultations with the House leadership of the Official Opposition and with the House leadership of the New Democratic Party and avenues, therefore, under Standing Order 78(1) and (2) have been explored.
I referred briefly and clearly to that situation in a discussion that I had with my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands within the past hour.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I agree that the hon. member indicated to me that it was the minister's intention to give the notice that he has given. That does not constitute consultation. That may be notice that the government is going to give notice.
Standing Order 78(3) is quite specific. He must state that an agreement could not be reached. A request must be made for an agreement. Some consultation must take place.
The House leader has told me that there was no consultation with him. The Whip has told me that he has not been consulted on this matter either. I have not been consulted on this matter. I do not know if some other member on this side was consulted.
I know it was not the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace who is the critic on this bill and I know it was not the deputy Leader of the Opposition. I would like to
Government Orders
know who it was. If the hon. member thinks that consultation with various staff members of the members of this House is sufficient, the precedents in this House indicate it is not. The consultation must be with members. There has been no consultation and no request for an agreement with these members. If there has been, I would like to know with whom the consultation took place because there must be an attempt to reach an agreement with the members.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what my hon. friend is saying. If he is offering agreement then we accept the agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will take the question raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands under advisement and has duly noted what was said by members on all sides of the House. On Monday, the Chair will probably be in a position to rule whether the time allocation notice given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration was in order.
Pursuant to order adopted earlier, I will now allow a period for questions to be put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. [English]


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House and specifically the minister for giving me this opportunity.
I listened to the minister carefully and being a member in downtown Toronto we must listen to him carefully because 90 per cent of our time as members of Parliament in downtown Toronto is taken up on matters related to immigration.
I have not had enough time to read thoroughly and analyse the immigration amendments in total, and therefore I do not want to get into the substance of the bill. Our critic, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, will begin that debate for us.
Many of the things that the minister said today I have good feeling for. There is one thing that I did not hear him talk about and that is additional support staff, additional man-years in order to make sure these changes, these transitions and this streamlining, can really be done.

June 19, 1992
Government Orders
I do not want to stand up here in the Parliament of Canada and sound like I am complaining, but I can honestly tell the minister I have no problem with the spirit or the caring or the attitude of the officials in the Department of Employment and Immigration. However, quite frankly, I find that their workload is just crushing. It is crushing to the point at which it is inevitable that the quality of their work from time to time suffers. It is crushing to the point at which at times members of Parliament, who have constituents coming at them and begging them to respond, end up yelling in a minister's office and to your staff. It seems to me that we are trying to do a lot of good things and yet we do not have sufficient man-years, whether they be in the embassies abroad or in our houses or in your department here.
My question to the minister is, in this amendment package has he arranged with the President of the Treasury Board or whoever is responsible for man-years in this place to give the necessary resources so that those positive parts of this process that we are obviously going to adapt in the next little while can be implemented in a way that everybody wins?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a fair question. I guess I could have asked my colleague, the Minister of Finance, or the Treasury Board to borrow more money on behalf of Canadians or to tax the people more to pay for increased resources.
What we have done here is look at the over-all situation and made conclusions on things such as our staff's having the tools it needs to competently manage immigration and our doing away with make-work provisions of the act. For example, if a student on a student visa in Canada changes his course of study he must go and reapply for another visa to keep a bureaucrat busy. Nothing is being accomplished.
We have done away with a lot of make-work provisions. We are giving ourselves tools that will result in a massive saving allowing us to reallocate these resources within the immigration envelope to better serve the public, to better serve our members of Parliament, and to better serve those people around the world who want to immigrate to Canada.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question of the minister. It concerns the consultation that will be held on June 29 and 30 in Niagara-onthe-Lake and will be hosted by senior Canadian immigration officials. They have invited their counterparts from western Europe, the United States, New Zealand and Australia to attend.
The purpose will principally be to further consider the regulations relating to the movement of refugees into these countries, largely from countries of non-white populations, largely from countries that used to be parts of the empires of western Europe or North America.
This consultation is one in a series that has gone on for several years now.
I have two questions of the minister. First, why is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees not represented in these meetings as a full participant? I understand that an observer from the UNHCR will be there but not as a full participant, yet this is part of the very essence of the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Second, is the reason for the time allocation, which the minister has moved, that it is a goal of the government to have the provisions of this act-especially relating to the port of entry, fingerprinting, the safe third country provision, increased fines for people who bring undocumented persons to the country and so on-in place so it can present it as a model to the other countries-western Europe, the United States, New Zealand and Australia? Or is it because it wishes to show those countries that we are just as tough as they are?
Is that the reason for the deadline? Second, what is the reason for excluding full participation by the United Nations?


Bernard Valcourt: The reason we are moving for time allocation is because this will ensure that the bill will get to a standing committee because there is a window of opportunity in late summer. This bill is not the result of any green paper or white paper. We have consulted, but we want the Canadian public, NGOs, lawyers and stakeholders to have the chance to appear before this committee and give their input to it.
That is why I insist that we complete second reading and send it to committee before we adjourn. That is the reason for the time allocation. It is important that by January 1, 1993 the real refugee person who is admitted to Canada and recognized as such benefits from the provisions in this act.

The hon. member has made many representations to me concerning the delay before refugees in Canada can reunite with their families. We got him to wait a year or two. Before he was landed, he could not. We are changing that.
There are many beneficial provisions here that will result in a more humane, more compassionate immigration program in Canada. The quicker we can get the legislative committee to do its job, I think Canada will be better for it.
As for his first question, the issue of the informal consultations at Niagara-on-the-Lake to be held at the end of the month, I can only tell the hon. member that this undertaking is one of national governments that have similar problems. These are informal consultations.
Officials of all these governments will be trying to learn from one another and see whether or not the mass movement of asylum seekers in the world is one that could benefit from a concerted approach. That is the reason why the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is there as an observer, to contribute however he can to this informal process.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, this year in Canada we are celebrating 125 years of Confederation. In those 125 years there has never been a government so abusive and disrespectful to Parliament than this present Conservative government.
We have before us today another example in Bill C-86 on immigration, a very long, very complex bill of 113 pages, 128 sections, tabled in Parliament and revealed to us for the first time on Tuesday of this week and then put to this House today for debate three days later.
We in the opposition have only had this bill, this very long, complex bill, for three days. The minister, with his officials who drafted the bill, who wrote the bill, who developed the bill, have had it for months, and are very familiar with it. We are today being asked to debate the principle of the bill, to debate the many complex issues in the bill, without having had the opportunity, because it is so complex, of analysing it properly.
Government Orders
I spent the entire afternoon yesterday and into the evening, from 3 p.m. until about 8 p.m., calling practitioners throughout the country, experts that deal in immigration, to get their views on the bill. They stated they have not had the opportunity to review the bill.
The minister stands before us today and much of what he said we could all agree with, very soothing words. A lot of the printed material sounded very good, but I have come not to trust the written material that is put out by this government.
There are some good parts to this bill and there are some parts that are obviously not good, but there are many other parts that can be interpreted either way and have to be examined and analysed, that will have to be examined in relationship to the present act and the regulations and practice. The impact on those sections could fall either way.
It is not enough for us to accept the words of the minister or the publicity that is put out by his department. The editorials are on both sides up to this point. Some have praised the minister's bill, some have condemned it. In either case, I do not know how they can come to such a conclusion unless they have more expertise with their newspapers than the practitioners and the immigration lawyers have.
I am amazed that the United Nations High Commission on Refugees should give a pat of approval to the bill. I wonder whether it simply read the minister's press releases or whether it examined the bill in great detail.
I talk about the fact that the government comes to us with such a complex bill within three days of presenting it, asking us to give informed comment on the bill. Worse still, the minister, having just initiated the debate a few minutes ago and without even hearing from the opposition, moves for closure on the debate by Monday evening. He does not even wait for the debate to get going but moves for closure on the debate before any of us in the opposition have said a word.
I said that this is probably the worst government in 125 years of Confederation with respect to Parliament, and I mean it. This government has introduced closure in the eight years it has been in power more than any other government since Confederation. It has used closure in

June 19, 1992
Government Orders
the last eight years more than closure was ever used from 1867 up until 1984.
The government has restricted the sittings of the Elouse, has virtually ruined the committee system so that members of Parliament can no longer properly scrutinize the legislation that comes before Parliament.
The people of Canada expect Parliament to scrutinize clearly and thoroughly the government's legislation, but when you have the kind of farce that is being presented to us today, that cannot be done. There is no way that members of Parliament, even those who have become experts in the field of immigration, can deal with a bill like this within three days of its being presented to the House, without consultation and without analysis.
The government's soothing words with respect to reform of Parliament and respect of Parliament are just what they seem, they are part of the politics of rhetoric. It says one thing and does another thing.
Canadians deserve better from Parliament, especially when we are dealing with important matters. It is not only important that members of Parliament be given an opportunity to fully examine such bills, but the many NGOs in the field should be given an opportunity so they can consult with us and give us their opinions; the churches, the ethnocultural communities which are very concerned about immigration, and the immigration bar.
This bill impacts quite heavily on the transportation carriers. They should have an opportunity to examine the bill in detail too and to give us their views.
The bill makes changes with respect to the impact on health and social services. We would like to hear from the health and social services to see whether they confirm that immigrants are impacting in a very severe way on their health and social services. The bill talks a lot about terrorism and criminality. We should be able to hear from the police, from CSIS, and the RCMP.
It is very difficult at this stage to evaluate many parts of this bill. I can say to the minister that some parts, some clauses, are good, are positive. They are things that were requested and I give him credit for that. Others, in my opinion, immediately seem quite bad. Perhaps he has a good explanation for them, perhaps he can convince us they are good but they appear at first glance to be quite bad.
There are a large number of sections where we have not yet had a chance to evaluate their effectiveness, their impact, and consequently we condemn the fact this bill is being debated today and the government is trying to close the debate by Monday evening.
Immigration has played and will continue to play a very important role in Canada. Nearly all of us, except the aboriginal people, come from immigrant families; even the British and the French come from immigrant families. Immigration has built Canada into a great nation as it has built other countries, such as the United States. Like Canada, the United States is the great country it is today because of the immigrants that went to that country.
Every great new wave of immigration has brought new riches to Canada, riches economically and culturally. Consequently, we must have an immigration policy that is fair, humane and generous.
The Immigration Act that is presently the law of this land, which was passed in 1976 by a Liberal government and proclaimed in 1978, sets out the goals for immigration policy in Canada. Those goals remain in force today. They have not been changed and there is no attempt to change those goals by the bill that the minister has tabled.
I think I should put on the record some of those goals, not all of them, to remind the House and Canada of the purposes of our immigration law.
To begin with, it starts by saying that the purpose of our immigration law is to promote the domestic and international interests of Canada so our immigration policy or immigration laws are to promote the interests of Canada.
It goes on to say the bill will enrich and strengthen the cultural and social fabric of Canada taking into account its bilingual character.
Further, the purpose of our immigration policy is to facilitate the reunion in Canada of Canadian citizens with their relatives from abroad so as to promote family reunification.
It goes on to say that to ensure that any person who seeks admission to Canada is not discriminated against in a manner which is inconsistent with our charter of rights. Immigration policy is to be non-discriminatoiy based on
June 19, 1992

objective criteria which are aimed at the ability of the immigrant to adapt in Canada and to settle in Canada.
It goes on to say in those goals of our immigration policy that Canada has a legal obligation with respect to refugees and to uphold its humanitarian tradition, a great tradition which we have had. The minister mentioned that we won the Nansen Medal a few years ago for our record with respect to refugees.
It is also the purpose of our immigration policy to foster a strong and vibrant economy in Canada to maintain and protect the health, safety and good order of Canadian society and to promote international order and justice by denying the use of Canadian territory to criminals, terrorists, and so on.
Those are the goals of our immigration policy as set out in the law. Those have not been changed and it will be our job, our task, in this debate to evaluate the amendments that the government has put before us to see whether they correspond with those goals.
The bill before us contains very significant changes. In fact I would say that this bill sets out a series of amendments which are the most extensive we have had since the present act was enacted in 1976. We had Bill C-55 a few years ago, but these amendments are the most extensive amendments to the law up until this time. I would like to go through some of those more significant amendments in the bill.
In the bill the government proposes ending the so-called first stage hearings for refugees, the credible basis hearing, and we think that is a good thing. We congratulate the government for doing that.
Those first stage hearings were for the most part in recent months a waste of time and resources. The large majority of cases were being accepted. Consequently, those first stage hearings did not serve any great purpose.
On the other hand, the government in terminating the first stage hearings, the credibility stage hearings, has now given some of the authority that tribunal had at the first stage hearing to officers at ports of entry. It appears it has given them that authority without providing for due process of law.
What we have now is power being given to immigration officers and senior immigration officers at the border to refuse refugees who present themselves and make a claim for refugee status.
Government Orders
In some of the cases the matter will be sent on to an inquiry under an adjudicator. In other cases, the individual will be sent back from the country. In some cases, the refugee will be sent back to a so-called safe third country, and I will discuss that in a minute, in other cases sent back to the United States, and in other cases simply turned down without any hearing by an inquiry or an adjudicator.
With respect to the safe third country, we in this party have not accepted that concept. We did not accept it when it was proposed with respect to Bill C-55 a few years ago and we continued to reject it. We believe the International Convention on Refugees, which we have signed, and the protocol give those who claim refugee status universal access to a fair hearing to determine whether or not they are really a refugee.
We know that the United States which is a democratic country for many purposes has not been as democratic with respect to its refugee policy. As a matter of fact, for the last number of years the refugee policy of the United States has been tied to its foreign policy and has been politically motivated.
If the refugee came from a country which was more or less a right wing dictatorship and was being opposed by left wing freedom fighters, the United States was not favourable to those individuals fleeing those right wing dictatorships. I have in mind in particular Guatemala, El Salvador and other Latin American countries.
On the other hand, if the refugee claimant going to the United States came from a left wing dictatorship, such as some of the communist countries in Europe, the refugee was received very openly and warmly in the United States.
In other words, in our opinion, the refugee convention was not applied evenly to all types of refugees who appeared in the United States. Therefore, for Canada to return refugee claimants to the United States because we considered it a safe third country and the refugee claimant had to come through the United States by plane, truck, train, boat, or whatever, and to say to them that they do not belong here, they belong in the United States because it was a safe third country, we do not think this is a proper way to deal with legitimate refugee applicants.
Another change in the bill is the fact that the government is proposing that the refugee panel of the Immigrant and Refugee Board now requires the agreement of two members in certain cases to recognize the applicant as a refugee. Up until now, the recognition of only one of

June 19, 1992
Government Orders
the two was necessary for the applicant to be considered a refugee.
While it is true that the two are only required in certain cases, one of those cases is related to the possession of legitimate documents by the claimant. Anyone who deals with refugees knows it is very often natural that the refugee who flees his country as a political opponent of a regime, or who was being persecuted because of his religion, ethnic background, or colour will flee in the middle of the night, sometimes over mountains, through forests and whatever to escape that country and he will not have his documentation. As a matter of fact, in many of those countries he is refused documentation.
For us to insist in this country that every refugee applicant must have proper documents from his country, passports, travel documents and identification documents, because he is applying as a refugee and to turn him back or to make it more difficult for him I believe is not fair.
This morning I spoke to a Jewish man who fled Nazi Germany at the beginning of World War II. He got to Denmark and swam to a Swedish island in nothing but shorts and a T-shirt in order to get away from Nazi Germany and get to a country that would respect his religion and give him freedom. He was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany and had no documents. Many people fleeing those sorts of conditions have no documents. We will want answers on that.
The bill provides for a better system of family reunification, and we give credit to the government for doing that, but I return to the question that was just asked by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood. If you are going to do what the government says in its proposal with respect to family reunification, you are going to need the resources in the department to make that work. We would hope that will be the case.
Right now refugees have been without their families for up to five years. There are cases in my office where the individual is here and has not seen his family for five years because of the slowness in our process. Many of the NGOs have asked that the minister use ministerial permits to deal with these cases which are excessively cruel, but he has refused to do that. We still ask him to use his ministerial permits because that would be a way
of dealing with these cases that are between three and five years, which is really inhumane when you come to think of it. A man is here and his wife and children are still in a country which is in turmoil and he has not been able to get them into the country with him even though he has been recognized as a refugee.
The measures in the bill to provide a system of discipline for those members of the board who misbehave and who are negligent is a good thing and we support it. There were cases last winter where members of the Refugee Board were rude to refugee claimants, slept during the hearings, laughed at their stories and even tried to use pressure, one to the other, to come to certain decisions. When this was raised with the chairman of the board, he said that there was not too much he could do because the members of the board were Order in Council appointments which, by the way, makes us wonder about the judgment in appointing some of these people. Nevertheless we believe that this is a positive step to put a measure in the bill to allow the government and the board to deal with members who are misbehaving or who are negligent in their duties.
Another major change in the bill is the increased authority given to the government, to the minister and to his officials to do things by way of regulation. There is quite a massive shift of authority from Parliament to the minister and to his officials in this bill. He referred to some of them. He looks on it as a more effective way of managing the immigration system and the refugee system. However, some of those decisions which are being transferred from Parliament to the minister and to the officials are ones that are open to abuse. While this minister might be a democratic-minded minister and may be fair, although some people might disagree with that description from time to time, we do not know what minister will be in that position. We do not know what government will be in power. We could have a minority government after the next election with the balance of power with the Reform Party which has been, for the most part, speaking against immigration.
We will want to examine very closely the many measures in the bill which will transfer authority to the minister and to the officials in the government to make regulations on these matters. For example, to make changes in the streams of immigrants, to decide which streams have priority over other streams, to decide that
June 19, 1992

they will suspend the list for a period of time and wait for others that they consider to be of better quality.
I use those words, but the minister in the publicity material that he sent out used these terms to choose those that he would consider to be the best.
We all want the best immigrants, but we all know as well that the term the best can be interpreted in many ways. It can be interpreted in a very subjective way and in a political way. We do not want that. We want people to be chosen based on fair criteria. We want the best but we want them chosen against rules and criteria which are fair and which correspond to the goals of our immigration policy that I referred to at the beginning of my remarks.
Among those increased powers that are being given to the minister and his officials, one would require the immigrant to settle in certain regions and provinces. This is one of those measures that requires much more analysis. It appears that it will be made a total obligation, a condition attached to the immigration visa or the immigration residency.
For two years, let us say a dentist, would have to live in northern town A or B no matter what happened. While it has always been the policy to encourage immigrants to go to certain regions and to encourage certain professions, trades and occupations which were in demand and to try and promote those in our immigration policy, it has not been made an absolute condition and obligation. One wonders again if this requires further examination and analysis and whether this is not against article 6 of our charter of rights which says that Canadians and residents of Canada can travel to any part of Canada, live in any part of Canada and work in any part of Canada that they wish.
The bill makes some important changes. Again it is hard to assess whether they are good or bad. There will be changes to the health provisions of admissibility. In November 1991 the minister and his officials told us that they were conducting a review with respect to medical admissibility in Canada. When the officials were before the standing committee a few weeks ago, I asked about that review. They told me it was not completed. Here we are, making changes to the law with respect to the admissibility clause with respect to health and social
Government Orders
services with a statement that they will by regulation clarify whether or not certain individuals with health problems will impact excessively on the health and social service system.
We have always had laws to that effect but again I have to ask the question: What is really meant by that? To what extent are they going to exclude certain individuals with health problems from Canada if they impact excessively on the health and social service system? I give notice now that we will want to hear evidence on that before the legislative committee. If it is true that there is evidence to back that up, we will have to do something about it.
As I say, it says in the immigration policy that was passed in 1976 for which I voted at the time, that we have to protect our health and social service system, that we have to protect our communities and so on. On the other hand, we have a tradition of being generous and humane. We will have to see how this proposal balances off against those rules.
Again, I am asked to vote on this bill today and I do not know the answers to those questions. There will also be changes with respect to the ability to support oneself in the country based on welfare as a means of support. The provision may be a good one or may be a bad one. I am asked to vote on a bill that I do not have all the details about or on which I do not have enough information.
The government is transferring an additional burden to the transport carriers that bring people to this country. I do not know what the transport carriers will have to say about that.
I am also concerned about how we are going to keep these carriers accountable and under our control. They are going to be acting more or less as an extended arm of the Department of Employment and Immigration, of the Government of Canada, but they are not really employees who are responsible to Parliament or the Government of Canada. We are going to need testimony with respect to that matter.
With respect to the provisions for fingerprinting, photos and greater search and seizure at ports of entry, of course we have fingerprinting in this country but it is associated with criminality for the most part. It is the sort

Government Orders
of procedure we do not use unless there are good and very sound reasons that it is required.
As a matter of fact, under the Privacy Act of Canada, which is a statute, a law of this Parliament, fingerprinting is considered to be a matter of personal privacy and must be treated in veiy restricted ways. Fingerprints are considered to be something that cannot be used in a loose fashion and cannot be used for any reason whatsoever. There are certain provisions in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that put limits on the use of fingerprinting.
I understand that there are also international human rights treaties that Canada has signed that set out limits on the use of fingerprinting.
In the material that was distributed by the minister and his department there is an implication that refugees and immigrants are for the most part out to defraud the government. While there are some who are, there is no doubt about that, it is a bad rap against the great majority of our refugees and our immigrants.
Another good measure in the bill is the one that would extend visitors' visas from three to six months as a general rule. I have to inform the minister that a lot of people who should be getting visitors' visas these days are not getting them. These people's families are ending up in the offices of members of Parliament and we are not getting good explanations as to why visitors' visas are not given.
These are cases in which there has been a death in the family in Canada and a person who lives in India, for example, and has a business there, has a home there, has other members of his family there, applies for a visitor's visa to come to a funeral but is not given the visitor's visa. He has all that evidence that he will return, and a return ticket as well. I have many examples of this happening.
While I welcome the extension of the visitor's visa something must be done to make the granting of visitors' visas more fair.
One of the provisions in the bill that I think is bad and do not understand at all is the greater use of detention. We are not talking about detention for people charged with crimes. We are talking about detaining potential immigrants and refugee claimants because there may be some doubt with respect to their claims. We are afraid that they will disappear so we put them in detention.
Under the present law there must be a review of that placement in detention within 48 hours and then every seven days. Most of these refugees and immigrants, many of whom cannot speak English or French, are not able to organize themselves properly to get a review within the first 48 hours but a great number of them do manage it in the first seven-day review. A great number are released at that review after seven days.
In this legislation we are changing the seven-day review to a 30-day review. That will mean that a lot of people will be kept in detention for 30 days without good cause, and at a great additional cost.
There is one of those detention centres in my constituency. They are going to have to triple the size. If we are going to keep these people in for 30 days and only review their cases every 30 days there is going to be a lot of injustice at a great cost to the taxpayers of this country.
As well, the bill provides for a greater use of deportation orders, as opposed to exclusion orders and departure notices. Again, I do not understand why that is necessary. That is another thing which I have serious doubts about, especially some of the cases mentioned in the bill and in the material. I am asked to vote on such things as a greater use of deportation orders and I am not convinced. We will have to get evidence on that as well.
In the moments that remain I would like to discuss some serious matters that are not dealt with in the bill. Probably the most serious is that there is still no appeal on the merits for refugee applicants turned down by the board. There is an appeal in law, but even that appeal in law is more limited in this bill than in the present law.
For years now the practitioners in immigration, the churches, the NGOs, have pleaded for an appeal process. The minister referred to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. It has also recommended that we should have an internal review or appeal process.
An appeal process is necessary because no matter how good this refugee board is it is going to make mistakes. It is composed of human beings. There have been some terrible mistakes. There is inconsistency in the board's decisions and there is no appropriate review or appeal process. The result is that some people have been deported from this country to areas of conflict, where their lives are going to be in danger, where they are going to be put in prison, while other people in the very same situation are admitted. There is great imbalance.
June 19, 1992

The way to deal with that is through an appropriate appeal process.
It could also be dealt with through a proper use of the provisions of section 114, which allows the minister to admit people for humanitarian and compassionate reasons. However, unfortunately this minister

and I still have not got a good answer from him-has virtually closed down the use of that provision to admit people on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It is now more limited under his ministry than it was under the two former Conservative ministers, the hon. member for St. Paul's and the hon. member for Roberval. They used those provisions to a greater extent than he has. Now people turned down by the refugee board who, because their case is deserving, should be admitted under the humanitarian compassionate clause are not being admitted at all. Nothing is being done about that at all.
Last year only 23 out of 3,485 cases in Ontario and Quebec were accepted under those provisions. That is very, very few.
Another major matter that is not being dealt with, and it may be dealt with in the future but the minister has not taken steps to deal with it yet, concerns the many individuals and families who have gone before the refugee board and been turned down as refugees because the conditions in their countries have changed. A lot of them are from eastern Europe, from Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the Soviet Union.
They have waited for two to three years to get their case before the board. They were legitimate refugees when they fled. They severed their ties in the countries which they left and came here. As a result of the slowness and the inefficiency of our system they have had to wait. Finally, they get before the board and are told: "No, you are not a refugee, your country, Poland, is now a democracy". Many of these people have established themselves in this country, have had children here, have married here, and yet they are being forced back to those countries.
The NGOs and many other people have asked the minister and the government to do something about that, to have more fairness and humanity. These people,
Government Orders
many of them, have severed their ties in their countries of origin and were refugees when they came. It is not their fault they were not admitted as refugees. It is our fault as a country for having such a poor system.
The minister in the bill takes steps to regulate and place a greater burden on the transport companies, but he has done nothing yet to control, regulate and monitor immigration consultants and agents, and they do require regulation and monitoring.
While there are some good ones in the field there have been a lot of bad ones and that has been admitted. They have exploited many immigrants.
Again, I do not understand why the minister did not take this opportunity since he is opening up the act to do something about these consultants and agents.
Mr. Speaker, you indicate to me my time is coming to and end. There is much more that could have been said. In the last few minutes I would like to simply say again this is a very complex bill. I think to call the debate today is premature and it is worse still to close down the debate by closure on Monday night.
I want to tell the government that although there are some good things in the bill and there are some bad things, because there are so many things we have not had a chance to analyse and consult on what may be bad or good, we do not know, we refuse to vote favourably for this bill at second reading.
Not only will we vote against the bill at second reading but we will move that consideration of the bill be put off until a later time.
I also want to say to the minister that I hope if the bill is rammed through at second reading and sent to a committee he will have some fair consideration of the NGOs in the field. They, unlike the minister and his staff, will not be ready to appear before any committee within two or three weeks. They need to consult, to analyse. Many of them have volunteers. I am thinking of the ethnocultural communities, the voluntary refugee assist and support groups. They will not be able to come before us that quickly. You have to give them time to prepare themselves.

June 19, 1992
Government Orders
I would like to move, supported by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys:
That the motion before us be amended by deleting all of the words
after the word "that" and by substituting the following therefore:
Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to report stage and third reading 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.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move the time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before recognizing the member, I would like to make it clear that once the Chair has recognized the minister on a notice of this kind, it cannot interrupt, and I will now first recognize the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: I think that under the rules of the House it is not possible to move a motion when you have been recognized on a point of order. I think that this motion is, therefore, out of order at this stage.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully differ with my hon. friend from Essex-Windsor.
A notice of time allocation under Standing Order 78(3) is in order, either by rising in debate or by rising on a point of order.
Your Honour did recognize the hon. minister and I believe that his notice is completely in order.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when the government members immediately prior to my intervention attempted to make a similar motion, our deputy House leader appeared in the House and pointed out that no attempt had been made in accordance with the Standing
Orders to get agreement on a proposed allocation of time which is required before you make the said motion.
At that time you promised to take that point under deliberation and decide on it at a later time, I presume on Monday.
As far as I know, there has been no proposal for allocation of time put to us for which agreement was sought, and consequently I think the point of order that was raised by the hon. member from Kingston some minutes ago is still a valid objection to this motion at this time. We ask the Chair to take that under consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before recognizing the parliamentary secretary, I would like to recall that the notice given by the minister concerns Bill C-26, the Public Service Reform Act, and not Bill C-86, the Immigration Act.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: You are absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker.
On the general point that my friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace was making, I can assure him that were he to consult with his House leader or his deputy House leader and were the New Democratic Party to do the same they would find that consultation has taken place and that it is completely in order. I can assure my friend of that.
I do apologize to my friend from Spadina for the point of order's coming after his speech had begun. It was not our intention and it was intended that it be made between the speeches. We did not wish to be rude.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize. I thought the minister had said Bill C-86 and I apologize. My remarks were directed to the C-86 situation.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, independent members were not consulted on this motion. Therefore, we cannot give our consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think it is important to recall two aspects of the Standing Orders. First, it is a notice that does not require unanimous consent. It may be given by a minister of the Crown in the course of
June 19, 1992

debate. Consequently, unanimous consent is unnecessary.
Second, raising a point of order becomes a technicality. In the past, I have had occasion to recognize a minister on a point of order, but any minister of the Crown may rise to give this kind of notice within normal sitting hours.
So the minister may raise a point of order to give this kind of notice, and I have on occasion recognized a member on a point of order that was not really a point of order. I stand corrected if I am wrong, but I think the Standing Orders allow any minister of the Crown to give this notice at any time, within normal sitting hours.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to challenge your decision, but I would appreciate some clarification. Standing Order 78(3)(a) says:
A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the House has
stated -
Whatever the Standing Order provides with respect to time allocation.
From his place in the House infers that the minister had the floor. However, on a point of order, the minister does not have the floor in debate. Rising on a point of order means the minister wishes to make some kind of comment on how Standing Orders should be applied in the House.
Perhaps the Chair could tell me if the words from his place in this particular Standing Order mean or confirm that the minister has the floor whenever he rises in the House? The Chair just said that often a minister may rise to make a statement or comment.
As I see it, the minister is a member just like any other, and to speak in the House, we must be recognized by the Chair, either in debate or for a specific procedure. Sometimes parliamentary procedure says that with the Speaker in the Chair, a minister may do such and such a thing. Sometimes it says when a minister rises in his place, he may move such and such, but I always infer from that that he has the floor.
In this case, the minister did not have the floor. He rose on a point of order. I asked on what point of order, and the Chair answered: "Standing Order 87(3)." Well, Standing Order 78(3) says, and quite clearly, that the
Government Orders
minister in question, from his place in the House, has stated at a previous sitting that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of sections (1) and (2), after the appropriate consultations.
My question is this: Did the minister have the floor to move the motion? I maintain that he may have been recognized on a point of order, but he did not have the floor in debate and could not do what he did without having the floor. If the minister wanted to do this, he should have been recognized in debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I certainly would not dismiss the opinion of a member as experienced as the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, but I can say that since I became Assistant Deputy Chairman two years ago, I have often given a minister the floor, without any objections from members or the clerks at the Table. I even saw the government House leader rise before the debate on the adjournment motion.
Finally, to ensure I am not mistaken, I will take the comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier under advisement, to avoid creating a precedent and to ensure that the Chair is acting in accordance with the Standing Orders and the traditions of this House.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, because the bill as it stands has too many faults and too few virtues.
One fault which has been mentioned already by the previous speaker is that it takes too much of the power of debate and decision from the House of Commons. It asks the House of Commons to surrender too much power to the cabinet, to the minister, and to immigration officials such as the senior immigration officer at the port of entry.
Another fault is that it threatens to reject retroactively some of the over 300,000 applications for immigrant visas completed or in progress.
Another fault is that it opens the immigration process to what would in effect be planned discrimination. No matter what the intent was it would be not accidental but would be by order of the cabinet. That is by allowing rules of admission to be radically changed from time to time by the cabinet without adequate notice to the public or to Parliament and with no serious possibility of debate

June 19, 1992
Government Orders
in Parliament, let alone a vote to stop or amend any there were deeper troubles in that board, as I have said discriminatory aspects.	before in this House.
Fourth, by illusion or implication, it slanders refugee claimants, implying that there is a serious number of them who are fraudulent or criminally intending or even terrorist intending, whereas I believe there is either little or no evidence of terrorist activity. I know that when Bill C-55 was considered there was, according to the RCMP then, no evidence of danger to Canada from undocumented aliens. It also restricts the refugees' access to the refugee determination system and further restricts their right of appeal.
Fifth, the bill, which is over 113 pages long, is very complicated. It is being pushed at second reading before the parliamentary Library staff have had time to study and analyse it.
Sixth, because of these reasons this bill will intensify conflict and disunity and racial tension among Canadians.
The bill has some virtues. Some of them, as the minister has said, are on points that many of us have been asking to have amendment. First, I want to say that I agree with the minister that it is a good thing that the rate of immigration has been raised to 250,000 per year. I have supported any governmental initiatives that increased up to this point and I believe the proposal of the Canada Ethnocultural Council that immigration be roughly at the level of 1 per cent of the Canadian population is a very reasonable proposal. This government's policy roughly follows that. I have always supported that.
I also agree with the principle that he imposes no numerical limit on in-Canada landings, whether it be refugee landings in Canada or other landings for humanitarian cause, such as the alien spouse of a Canadian married in Canada. There is to be no limit by number of those.
I welcome also and I know the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board welcomes the provision of a means of discipline of board members. I do not believe that all the troubles that we have heard about were to be attributed simply to lack of discipline. I think
I am also quite content with extending the visitor's visa normally to six months. I wish, as my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace has mentioned, that it would be possible-I do not know why it is not possible-to enact a provision for bond. That is if a Canadian wants a relative to come over to a wedding, to a funeral or something like that, and offers a bond of so much money for performance by the visitor. I have been told by officials that the law will not make that bond enforceable. Yet such bonds are normally taken in a matter of bail of a prisoner or for that matter for the release of a person detained by the immigration department at the port of entiy.
If bonds are usable in those cases, I do not understand why they are not usable in the case of visitors. I think every member of Parliament must have cases where we are quite sure that a visitor was bona fide but was refused a permit.
I also agree with the proposal to give permanent residents some sort of proof, a card to carry as permanent proof of residence, so they do not have to make special arrangements every time they leave Canada to make sure they will get back.
I welcome the abandoning of the credible basis part of the preliminary hearing in immigration and refugee board work. I do not welcome the handing over of other aspects of the board to the senior immigration officer at the port of entry, but I will come back to that later. To get rid of that very foolish legislation of five years ago on credible basis was really long overdue and I am glad that it will be done.
It will certainly be good news if the convention refugees, so determined in Canada, can be landed within six months, along with their spouses and children, but I wait to see whether that will happen. I have heard promises similar to that regarding spouses from other countries and certainly it has not in all cases been carried out. I do not have the complete list, but that is only a promise and there is nothing in the bill that I can see that gives the convention refugee the right to have that promise enforced. If the government says: "Well I am
June 19, 1992

sorry, we are too busy, you will have to wait a year", I believe he has no recourse. It is shaky.
I also believe, as my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace does, that much more debate is needed before this bill is accepted even in principle. I know that the government plans to force the vote on Monday. Our party will be voting against it because there is simply too much that is either unclear or outright wrong in the bill as it stands.
There was no broad consultation with the non-governmental organizations: the churches, the refugee support committees, the ethnocultural groups, many of whom are very active in this matter, and the ethnocultural council. There was veiy little consultation even with the experienced members of the bar or with individuals whose profession is to work with immigrants and with refugees.
That must be done in the next three months or so, but also with that there should be consideration of withdrawing the bill, as the government has done in some cases, in order to bring in an amended form after the public has had a chance to discuss it. I hope to return to that if there is time.
One question that some of us will want to examine in some detail is the one the minister raised of the UNHCR, United Nations High Commission for Refugees' statement of approval of the bill. It is well know that the UNHCR works within veiy close limits. It can operate in any country, such as Canada, only as a guest, and only with the goodwill of a government. It has no right to act against a government or in opposition to a government.
Furthermore it depends on voluntary financing. It is true that Canada is a generous donor to the cost of the UNHCR. It is equally true that the UNHCR in the past has always followed the practice of never biting the hand that feeds it. The fact that it has approved of this bill really just means that the UNHCR, as usual, publicly agrees with the Government of Canada. It is not a serious endorsation and whether anyone read the bill or not is open to question.
I want to begin with what I have been able to do in a hasty study and hasty consultation with some people with experience. I want to give a few examples. One would be an example of the anti-democratic taking of power from Parliament in the transitional provisions.
Government Orders
Section 107 of the bill on page 106 states:
Subject to sections 108 to 116, every provision of the Immigration Act as enacted by this Act shall, on the coming into force of that provision, apply in respect of every application, proceeding or matter under that Act or the regulations made thereunder that is pending or in progress immediately before the coming into force of that provision.
This appears to people such as the newly claimed chairman of the immigration bar in Ontario to be retroactivity. This means that of the 300,000 or 400,000 immigrant applications that have been made or are in progress, perhaps some of them even completed, the fees have been paid, plans may have been made, some can be cancelled. They have acted according to the law and have been found acceptable according to the law but it can be cancelled by a decision of the cabinet or indirectly by a decision of the cabinet.
No Canadian citizen, no would-be immigrant even if he has paid his fee, no members of Parliament or Parliament itself will have any power to correct that sort of injustice. It is a very serious matter to introduce massive retroactivity into the proceedings of a government. It is generally considered to be quite un-Canadian.
Along with that section, on page 6 there is section 6(5) of the act. This one gives the cabinet wide powers to change the landing requirements for any country or any class of would-be immigrants. It reads:
6(5) Subject to subsection (8) but notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any regulation made under paragraph 114(l)(a), an immigrant and all dependants, if any, may be granted landing for reasons of public policy or compassionate or humanitarian considerations if the immigrant is a member of a class of immigrants prescribed by regulations made under paragraph 114(l)(e) and the immigrant meets the landing requirements prescribed under that paragraph.
In other words, as it was explained to us informally in dealing with eastern Europe, we might give certain countries a waiver releasing immigrant applicants from those countries from having to meet the normal requirements of independent immigrants to Canada.
We are told that it does not apply to family members and it does not apply to refugees but it would apply to those this government is most interested in, to the independent immigrants. There could be a rule set up for this group, a different rule set up for that group and a different rule set up for the other group with no control by Parliament and no real accountability to the public.

June 19, 1992
Government Orders
These designated class of people will not have to meet the provisions of the act except the landing requirements specified by their particular regulations. The designation for the classes for the relaxed requirements has the possibility of discriminating positively or negatively with regard to people's race, nationality, religion, national origin.
The government is particularly interested in using this for what it calls excellence. That is the third stream that the government wants to create as compared with family reunification or refugee. It wants to create within the independent immigrant stream the class of excellence. There is no indication of how it is to be judged.
Mr. Carter Hoppe, chairman of the immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association in Ontario says: "The immigration officials seem to want to have this retroactivity provision to clean up bureaucratic nightmares created by whom? Not only are the retroactivity provisions unfair from an applicant's perspective, but suddenly the rug could be pulled out from under her or him. It will not help us to attract immigrants and will send the wrong message."
This kind of change will engender rivalry and bitterness among Canadians and among immigrants of different nationalities, races, religions or skills and occupations which is my third point.
My fourth point is that by innuendo this act slanders refugee claimants in general.
Undoubtedly this act is intended particularly to target refugee claimants and when the amendments were first proposed or discussed with me was in connection with refugees.
The government keeps reiterating its emphasis on abuse although it has not shown that the refugees commit any more abuse than other people in proportion to their numbers. They are being made to suffer unfair restrictions on the rights of refugees both to entry and to appeal.
This is an attempt to curry favour with the powerful people we were mentioned earlier such as the powerful Conservatives who are more conservative than the Conservatives.
My next example of the flaws in this bill is that it seriously restricts access by genuine refugees to the Canadian refugee determination system. Section 46.01(1) seriously reduces the right recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the same decision of 1985 of everyone physically present in Canada who claims refugee status to have an oral hearing. This it does by shifting the responsibility for certain decisions to the senior immigration officer who would not be told to hear the substance of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are signalling me that the time is short but I thought I had five minutes left. Are you saying only two? The last speaker went on for about 50 minutes. I think the clock moves at different speeds.
The government claims that it has eliminated the first step of the RID but it has put important parts of it into the hands of the senior immigration officers such as, for example, the decision to send a person back to a so-called safe third country. The country most often talked about is the United States, which is nakedly violating its obligations under international law not to refoule refugees who are trying to get its protection.
The judge who acted in one of these cases, district Judge Johnson, said as follows: "It is unconscionable that the United States should accede to the protocol and later claim that it is not bound by it. This court is astonished that the United States would return Haitian refugees to the jaws of political persecution, terror, death and uncertainty when it has contracted not to do so. The government's conduct is particularly hypocritical given its condemnation of other countries which have refused to abide by the principle of non-refoulement. As it stands now, article 33 is a cruel hoax and not worth the paper it is printed on". That is referring to the UN convention on refugees.
Our government is negotiating to send refugee claimants back to the United States by the perhaps tens of thousands and without having given them a chance of a hearing without any guarantee whatsoever they would get a fair hearing in the United States. The evidence against that is that the United States sent 98 per cent of Salvadorans back to Salvador, clearly an unjust practice by the United States.
June 19, 1992

I want to say it is essential that there be time allowed to the public to study this bill and to make interventions. Until then I and my caucus will be voting against this bill.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member who is a very experienced member in this field had more to say on some points and I would like to have his views.
In my speech I had commented on the fact that the government in the bill is moving to a greater use of deportation orders as opposed to exclusion orders and removal notices. The hon. member knows that the deportation order is a much harsher measure. I am not convinced that we have to move more extensively to a deportation order.
Veiy often with the use of the exclusion order or the removal notice, the individual obeys, leaves and his rights are not as restricted as with deportation orders.
I am wondering if the member would mind commenting on that and also on the other point that I find quite hard. I do not understand it at all.
Is the government now imposing a 30-day review on detention as opposed to a seven-day review? I would like to know what his experience is. In the detention centre in Montreal they find that the great majority of those who are in detention get released at the end of the seven-day review. If you keep them there for 30 days, people who should not be there are going to be kept there fore 30 days, I think it is an unnecessary burden on the system financially and extremely unfair to the person that should not be there.
I am wondering if he would mind commenting on those matters.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I thank the hon. member for those relevant questions.
On the matter of the deportation system, I believe that it is very unfortunate that under the new orders even a person who has been given a departure order and is planning voluntarily to leave can be arrested and deported before the date on which the person had been asked to leave.
It is also true that in Toronto-I do not have direct experience, but the lawyers who work on this tell me-as in Montreal, most of the claimants are released on
Government Orders
proper recognizance by about the seventh day, but very few of them by the second day, for the reasons the hon. member gave. The fact that these two changes of the law are put in reflects what a former director of refugee affairs, Raphael Girard, called "humane deterrents". In other words, we do not shoot them at the border, we make them wish they had not come. We make them write to their friends saying: do not come to Canada, you will be locked up for a month whether you have done anything wrong or not or you may be kicked out without any notice even when you were planning to leave. This is a form of harassment, punitive harassment of refugee claimants, that is a disgrace to Canada.


NOTICE OF ALLOCATION OF TIME TO CONSIDER SECOND READING STAGE OF BILL C-86
Bernard Valcourt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that consultations have now taken place between the relevant persons and an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to second reading of Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that consultations have now taken place on the question of allocating time to end this debate by Monday night, and it is correct that we have refused to give consent to that because we think on a bill of this nature it is indecent to impose the allocation of time after such a short debate and in such a manner. It is totally indecent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.49 p.m., pursuant to Order adopted earlier today, this House stands adjourned until Monday, 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.49 p.m.

June 19, 1992

[Stage Direction]
of

[Stage Direction]
to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Friday, June 19, 1992
[Stage Direction]
June 19, 1992

[Stage Direction]
of

[Stage Direction]
to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Friday, June 19, 1992
His Excellency Boris Yeltsin was welcomed by the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Guy Charbonneau, Speaker of the Senate and the Honourable John A. Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Hon. John A. Fraser (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Order, please. The Right Honourable the Prime Minister.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, chers collegu.es, mesdames et messieurs. We are here today to celebrate the state visit to Canada by the President of the Russian Federation, His Excellency Boris Yeltsin. We are here, as well, to launch a new era of peace and partnership between peoples too long divided.
Fifty years ago this month, diplomatic relations were opened between Ottawa and Moscow. Diplomatic relations between us were bom, as it turns out, of absolute necessity during the darkest days of the Second World War. Europe then lay in subjugation and Russia lay under the darkest siege.
I have stood before the War Memorial in St. Petersburg in the brutal cold of winter and I have listened to the winds whisper silently of great tragedy and enormous human loss in Russia. I have visited cemeteries from Dieppe to Sai Wan Bay and I have heard courageous veterans mourn fallen comrades sacrificed in the defence of liberty and democracy against the very same enemy.

The establishment of diplomatic relations at that time was both an act of defiance toward those who wanted to destroy us and an act of hope for better days. We indeed finally defeated our common enemy, but our relations drifted into the great desolation of the cold war. We found ourselves facing each other in a new struggle, a war waged not on the plains of central Europe or in the jungles of Asia but in the hearts and minds of men and women throughout the world.
This war as well is now over; the victory was won not by one army over another but by fundamental values and powerful ideas to which all can adhere.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker and fellow Canadians, the largest measure of the credit for this unique opportunity that now opens down the vistas of years must be given to President Yeltsin.
Courage is an abstraction to those at a relatively safe distance. But as it turns out, President Yeltsin was given no such latitude.
In the crucial days of last August on the top of a tank, at immediate risk to his own life, he dispatched the tyranny that had held Russia in the grip of fear and arbitrary power for 70 years.
The image of Boris Yeltsin last summer and his defiant message to the enemies of democracy everywhere, particularly in his own country, will remain as an historic symbol of courage and purpose so long as men and women gather in free Parliaments to defend the cause of liberty. And I tell you, Mr. President, all Canadians salute you for the extraordinary courage that you have demonstrated.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: President Yeltsin's success was the success fundamentally of the human spirit. His beneficiaries are us all.
Mr. President, you have offered us friendship and you have challenged us to join with you in bringing your country into the community of free nations. I know that I speak for every member of this House and that, sir, is a most rare occurrence.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As I told you, sir, on both sides of the House, all of them are active supporters of mine.
June 19, 1992

I speak for every member of this House irrespective of political party because every Canadian believes fundamentally in liberty and democracy. I speak for all Canadians, Canadians across this land, when I say that all Canadians reciprocate your friendship and today we accept your challenge.

The ancient Greeks taught us that democracy is government by the free. The people of Russia are not yet fully free of the dead hand of debilitating ideology and the victory of values is not yet complete.
Mr. President, we understand that the way ahead is fraught with serious difficulties, even perils, and that there will be setbacks and course corrections along the way. Here in this House of Canadian democracy, I give you the firm assurance of our understanding and support. So long as your compass is set for democracy, Canadians will be at your side, Canadians of all regions, of all political parties, of all parts of society.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. President, on behalf of all members of Parliament and on behalf of all Canadians, it is with respect and admiration that I invite you today to address the Parliament and the people of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
[Editor's Note: Mr. Yeltsin spoke in Russian.] [Translation]
His Excellency Boris Yeltsin (President of the Russian Federation): Respected Speaker of the House of Commons, respected Speaker of the Senate, respected members of the House of Commons, respected senators, ladies and gentlemen, respected citizens of a free Canada.
First of all, Prime Minister Mulroney, I thank you for your kind words addressed to a free, democratic Russia and to its President.
Thank you for the warm reception. Like you, Mr. Mulroney, I do not always enjoy such a favourable reception in my own Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: It is a great honour for me, the President of Russia, the first to be elected to the highest position of
a great state, to address you from the rostrum of the highest legislative body in Canada.
The moment has arrived when two peoples who have much in common can take a decisive step toward one another. Official relations between our countries, as you said, Mr. Prime Minister, were re-established 50 years ago. But today, unfortunately, one can see how little has been achieved, how many opportunities have been missed. Now we have a rare opportunity to make up for lost time.
When people speak about Russia and Canada, they generally comment on how similar our countries are. Canada is probably the only place where a Russian could forget that he is in a different country. The amazing similarity of the nature, climate and even the wide-open spaces of our countries has left an imprint on the character of Canadians and Russians.
I continually ask myself: given such similar circumstances, why have our countries developed so differently? Why do our peoples live so differently?
Canada is a recognized world leader in terms of quality of life. Life today in Russia is extremely disrupted, with conditions as tense as a taut string. It is easy to see the enormous, damage wreaked on Russia by the 70-year dominance of the Communist totalitarian system. Here in Canada there are no echoes of the arguments with which party ideologues formerly explained the terribly low quality of life which Russians experience. Neither its northern position, nor its harsh climate, nor the alleged nationalistic narrow-mindedness of the Russian people, nor malicious neighbours are to blame for Russia's failure to develop. The main cause lies in the anti-popular stance of the former regime, in the ideology that was forced on the country. For years, the foundations that support life were systematically destroyed. But the citizens of today's Russia do not simply mourn over lost opportunities. Your country is an especially visible and attractive example of the goals which we are now pursuing.
Last August, when we faced the coup-plotters, a very dark cloud loomed not only over Russia, but over the whole world. But the collapse of the totalitarian system was total. The collapse of communistic ideology was total. Once and forever.
As the first president in the thousand-year history of Russia to be elected by all the people, I triumphantly announce this to you. Once and forever.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

June 19, 1992


Mr.   Yeltsin@: The first thing we want to do now is re-establish a normal country, with a normal economy and a normal life. Not a super life, but a normal human way of life. Our tragic past has convinced us that one of the highest treasures that any human community can have is a normal way of life.
Russia knows revolution only too well. That is why I say today on behalf of all Russians that Communist revolution is an evil. We have opted for normal evolution. Russia knows arbitrariness and lawlessness all too well. That is why we have chosen a state based on the rule of law. We are more familiar than other peoples with the nightmare of totalitarianism. That is why we have chosen democracy and why we defended it in those days of last August.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: We know better than others what it is like to be everyone's enemy. That is why we have chosen openness and co-operation with the world community. Russia has opted for freedom, and no force can take it away from us.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: "We don't need any more great upheavals. We need a great Russia." These words, spoken a century ago by Russian patriot and reformer Stolypin, have not lost their relevance. On the contrary, they are full of deep, immediate meaning for us. We want our people to raise children and work peacefully. We want them to be governed not by base social instincts or ideological delusions, but by just motives and thoughts. Today, we turn to your rich experience so that we can once and forever say no to all ideological delusions that demand human sacrifices and reject morality.
Borrowing the words of poetess Anna Akhmatova, I pledge to you as President that I will do everything to ensure that Russia never again lapses into the insanity of upheaval.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: Broad new horizons have opened for Russian-Canadian co-operation. Half a century ago, our countries were allies in the anti-Hitler coalition. Today, when I visited the memorial to those who died in the First and Second World Wars and in other conflicts, I thought of the fact that Russia and Canada have never
fought against one another. This is a great achievement. There is a firm conviction today that we are closer to world peace than ever before. Today, when I passed the peace monument being built, it struck me that you have chosen the most appropriate moment possible to build it, when this confidence in peace is at its peak.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: Half a century ago, our countries were allies in the anti-Hitler coalition. Today, we have every reason to speak of a new alliance between us. I am convinced that the need for this alliance has long been felt by those prepared to become direct participants in diverse Russian-Canadian contacts.
Both sides have no shortage of plans for co-operation. It is time we gave them the green light. From this point onward, there are no limits to co-operation between Russia and Canada in world affairs. We can pool our efforts in many different areas in order to strengthen international security, to withstand potential aggressors through collective action, to ensure that all the nations of the world observe the rules of civilized behaviour, including in their behaviour toward their own citizens and national minorities, and to solve global problems.
We applaud your policies of constructive internationalism. We ourselves have already begun to co-operate in working toward the goals identified by the international community. Your country's longstanding commitment to the United Nations organization and to institutions of multilateral diplomacy in general is well known. As is the role played by such outstanding Canadians as Mr. Pearson in working out ways to use the United Nations apparatus in peacekeeping.
This area of United Nations activity and preventive diplomacy aimed at averting conflict could become an ideal domain for applying our joint efforts. The importance of such international mechanisms is regrettably increasing, even in Europe. We have no intention of declaring Russia or any of the states that made up the former union off limits to necessary measures taken by the international community, whether through the United Nations organization or the CSCE. We want peace and calm in our house, in each family. We therefore have a stake in ensuring peace and calm outside it.
June 19, 1992

The opportunities for co-operation between Russia cine. Unpopular measures, including price increases, and Canada in world affairs are greater now than ever must be adopted in order to shift from a planned before. We must not let them slip by at this of all times, economy to a market economy. However difficult this
may be, we will not retreat.
Ladies and gentlemen, throughout history merchants have preceded diplomats. Such was the case in Russia before 1917. The first treaties were trade treaties. And economic co-operation occupies centre stage in Rus-sian-Canadian relations. Our people have goods to trade, and there are areas for co-operation. Russia is rich. All that is needed is an unbiased approach unhindered by preconceptions. Given such an approach, Rus-sian-Canadian co-operation offers substantial benefits to both parties.
For three hours yesterday and an hour today, Prime Minister Mulroney and I took part in discussions. The Government of Canada proposed a very interesting idea for developing our relations, an idea that could serve as an example for other countries as well. We particularly appreciate this, knowing that Canada too is experiencing difficulties at present. I feel that the high degree of mutual trust which characterizes our personal relations with the Prime Minister allows us to feel confident that this co-operation, these new ideas will be realized.
Russia has set a firm course toward economic reform. We realize that every last market mechanism was eradicated over a period of more than 70 years. After three generations, we have lost the historical instincts we once had for business and private ownership. No one remembers what they mean. We introduced private ownership only half a year ago, including private ownership of land and ownership by foreign private investors.
Practically no one is left who remembers life before the revolution. We realize that the economy is being overhauled during a serious economic crisis, and consequently at a time when the civil peace is highly vulnerable. But it cannot be denied that substantial progress has been achieved in half a year. There have been real changes both in the economy itself and, more important, in people's consciousness.
The people are gradually rediscovering the creativity that was crushed by Communist ideas and ideologies.
Of course, we are currently going through the most painful period, especially this year. This is bitter medi-
Russians are a patient, stubborn people. With gritted teeth, they will overcome these temporal difficulties. They trust their President. They trust their government. They trust their Parliament. And that is very important.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: Every month, I find myself in various districts, regions and republics of Russia. There are 20 republics in Russia. And we have succeeded in signing a federative treaty. Blood is being spilled on Russia's doorstep, but inside Russia we have signed a treaty and preserved the civil peace without spilling a single drop of blood. Russia has remained united and indivisible throughout this period. That is very important to us.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: Russia's young government of reformers the President of the Russian Federation will support to the end. And it is practically impossible now to force him into retirement. I will not resign until my term expires in 1996. You will never catch me sick. I am extremely healthy. I will therefore support this government of reformers to the end.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: We took our first steps toward a market economy on January 1 of this year. The main one was the freeing of prices, and the government is prepared to take the reforms further. You know that before leaving on this official visit, I asked Parliament to confirm Mr. Gaidar, who is currently acting in my place, as Prime Minister of the Head of State of the Russian Federation. And he is only 36 years old. He is a bold, young reformer.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: One of the main principles for choosing people to serve in the government, as ministers or vice-president, besides considering their professional or business skills, is to select democrats and ensure that none of them is older than the President.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: We call for full co-operation with other countries. I am confident that a revival of the Russian economy will be beneficial not only to us, but to our partners as well. If you invite our specialists, talented young people, to come and study, after studying in Canada for a year, they will return to Russia to advocate Canadian experience, the Canadian market and the Canadian economy. And this co-operation will develop still further.
I believe that one of these people, who will number approximately 150 over five years, as the Prime Minister and I agreed today, may very well develop into a new and talented President of Russia to follow me.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: Of course, I am sure that new president will be more talented and more intelligent. That is understandable. Such is history. Today, Russia attaches special importance to western investment and co-operation in the technical field. Today, we agreed on technical co-operation aimed at ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants. We have a program drawn up. The fact that it will be implemented through joint efforts is a complete guarantee that all nuclear power plants will be absolutely free of danger and under the control of the IAEA.
We are not asking for any special injections of money or materials. I want to be quite forthright about that. If Canada did find an opportunity of this kind then, of course, it would help us overcome our problems in this very painful period.
It is true that Russia does not yet offer all of the conditions necessary for accepting private capital from abroad. But before this visit, a series of laws were adopted and decrees promulgated that clear the way for private capital, mainly by making it possible to own property and land, thus facilitating the construction or privatization of factories, buildings, and so on. It is our firm intention to promote this process energetically and to complete it in the very near future.
To achieve this, there is no need to invent anything new. Our course, our norms and standards are those accepted throughout the world. I realize that many Canadian firms are not waiting for an ideal investment climate to develop in Russia. That is how one must act:
without being afraid of taking a risk. I do not doubt that this risk is worth taking. Any western investor who fails to enter this unique Russian market this year or next should keep in mind that 1994 will be too late: there will be no room left in the market.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: There is no other way open to us, no alternative to normal economic development. When Russia is rich and flourishing, as I am certain that it will be, we will surely not forget those who were the first to take a risk, a warranted risk.
We have an area for bilateral co-operation that has always attracted much attention: the Arctic. We are much concerned about the situation in the far north of Russia and Canada. The spectrum of problems ranges from the status of aboriginal peoples to environment protection.
Of course, our problems differ in scale. The entire population of the Canadian Arctic is around 100,000. You have no major industrial centres above the Arctic Circle. But I think that I am not mistaken in saying that only together can we solve all of the problems involving the Arctic. Only by working together. Of this I am convinced.
The prosperity of the countries in this region, and above all of Canada and Russia, depend in large measure on conditions in the Arctic. Experience has shown that co-operation between us in this area cannot develop exclusively through dialogue between our capitals. We must therefore emphasize immediate links between the direct participants in co-operation, and above all between the people who actually live in these Arctic regions. They are more interested than anyone in seeing prosperity and the well-being that follows come to their extremely forbidding land.
There is another area of mutual interest in the Russian-Canadian dialogue that might be opened up for further avenues of bilateral co-operation. I wanted to begin my address by congratulating the people of Canada on the 125th birthday of the Canadian federation. From my heart and on behalf of the entire Russian people, I sincerely congratulate everyone in Canada on this anniversary.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
June 19, 1992


Mr.   Yeltsin@: Our states are federative in nature. This creates unique opportunities for making the ties between our states better reflect the needs and aspirations of our people. Russia is very interested in studying Canada's experience in managing relations within a federation. We will learn from you how to solve problems in a civilized way through negotiations.
And now a few words about the problems facing the Commonwealth of Independent States of the former union, which are causing many people around the world to worry. This unique intergovernmental organization is currently in the building stage. But it has already proved itself to be a working mechanism for finding the most acceptable form of mutual relations between the republics. At the same time, a process is under way in the Commonwealth whereby republics are both falling apart and coming together. However difficult it may be for us to ensure that this highly complex process remains governable, the seventh and most recent meeting of the heads of government of these countries can be considered the most productive meeting in terms of results.
Respected parliamentarians of Canada, you have considerable opportunities for positively influencing the development of Russian-Canadian co-operation. As I have said before, the advantages to be derived from co-operating with Russia may not all be immediately apparent. They must be explained, but this will not be difficult in the new atmosphere characterizing our relations. I urge you to make active use of your opportunities in Parliament and in the ridings when speaking with the Canadians who elected you to actively promote the dialogue between Russia and Canada, between our peoples.
There is every reason to speak of fundamental national interests shared by Russia and Canada and of human aspirations shared by the ordinary people in our countries. This is what has enabled us, after decades of isolation, to base Russian-Canadian relations on a solid legal foundation: the Treaty on Concord and Co-operation which will be signed today. The community of interests of which I speak cannot be built on thin air. As you know, much is being done in both countries to ensure that it becomes a constant theme of the domestic and foreign policies of our countries.
Speaking from this lofty rostrum, I would especially like to mention Canada's active contribution to the development of the dialogue between us. We are grateful for the solidarity which the people and political leaders of your country showed for a democratic Russia in August. I remember the telephone conversation I had at that time with Prime Minister Mulroney. It had enormous significance, and Russians will never forget it. Russians know about it. Russians remember it, and will continue to remember it for the rest of their history.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Yeltsin@: Your solidarity has continued in the form of Canadian economic and humanitarian assistance to Russia. We value highly the heroism of individual citizens and organizations, including the Salvation Army's renewed activity in our country.
Today it is no less important or urgent that we learn the language of mutually advantageous co-operation and partnership in business.
We have a clear vision of what we are striving toward in our country, in the world and in our relations with Canada. And many would do well to study the development of our relations.
Our intentions are not secret. We are prepared for hard work, which is the very essence of any partnership. We have a long and difficult road ahead of us. I am convinced that our peoples must travel together if they are to attain the best results.
I want to wish Russians and Canadians a happy journey and success in developing peaceful areas of mutual co-operation. Thank you.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Guy Charbonneau (Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. President, Mrs. Yeltsin, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, honorables collegues du Senat et de la Chambre des communes, distinguished guests:
[Editor's Note: Mr. Charbonneau spoke in Russian.]
We are honoured by your visit and very grateful that you have shared with us as parliamentary colleagues your international preoccupations and your determination to carry through the program of reform and restructuring upon which your country has launched itself.

June 19, 1992
Your presence in these precincts testifies to your faith in the solid basis of the friendly relations between our two countries and to our confidence in your courageous leadership.
We are all the more touched by your presence here today in that we know very well that you are required to be ubiquitous in order to respond to the exigencies of your post on the national and international levels.
As president of the young Russian federation, your leadership has been and remains preponderant to your people, as it does for the collectivity of nations.
Your remarks to us today confirm your indefatigable will to succeed in attaining your goals.

Mr. President, we are all aware of the balancing act you have to perform, caught as you are between attraction for the West and respect for the Russian soul.
Your great writers of the last century made us keenly aware of these differences between the two societies, both so rich in virtues and so laden with an uncounted heritage.
We remember Dostoyevsky, in particular, who in search of a fair balance between the pro-Western and pro-Slavic forces agreed to modernization for Russia if it respected the nation's traditions.
Like you, he worked for understanding of different cultures. In his tribute to Pushkin, he wrote, "Our vocation is European and universal. Is not being Russian, perfectly Russian, the same perhaps as being a brother to all men?"

In a historical continuity, Tolstoy and Chekov both called for the rejection of a completed past but on the condition that the characteristics of their ancestral customs be preserved. Then, as in our own century, it was the political system in place that was seen as bearing the blame for stagnation and frustrated hopes.
You, Mr. President, have had the courage to confront and repudiate the doctrinaires who were so mistaken about the nature of man.
Without renouncing for the people of your federation their rooted national traditions, you are bringing them into a universal current of liberty.
All the world remembers how you stood up (in every sense of the word) in front of the White House in Moscow, not quite a year ago, to defend liberty and democracy when they were threatened. We are convinced that the same democratic and courageous spirit will carry you forward in the future.
To borrow the language of a sport at which you excel, tennis, we want to wish you, in all your battles with adversity, a final score of game, set, and match.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker Charbonneau:: Once more, Mr. President, we congratulate you on the eminent and challenging role to which you dedicate yourself in these critical years and we are grateful to you for sharing with us your main concerns and your intention to continue your work in space and time. We thank you and wish you good luck.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker Fraser:: Mr. President, Madam Yeltsina, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, members of the Senate and the House of Commons, honoured and distinguished guests:
On behalf of all members of the House of Commons I take great pleasure in welcoming you today to this august Chamber.

The momentous changes which have reshaped the global political landscape over the last several years have left us facing new and daunting challenges. Perhaps no country is more acutely aware of this than the Russian Federation.

We are seeing today in Russia and the other new republics of the former Soviet Union one of the most remarkable transformations in history.
Communism is now a fading memory, and in its place have been planted the seeds of democracy. Among the new republics, Russia is taking the lead in sowing these seeds.
You have shown tremendous courage, Mr. President, in introducing bold economic reforms.
June 19, 1992

Russia possesses enormous economic potential, blessed as it is with immense natural and human resources; however, only a continued commitment to economic reform will ensure that these resources are effectively tapped.
We are a sensitive people, Mr. President, and we are aware that the transition to a market economy brings with it unavoidable hardship; the Russian people have displayed patience and courage in the face of economic adversity, and in so doing they have earned the respect and admiration of all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker Fraser:: We feel certain that, despite the many obstacles that remain, the historic spirit of the Russian people will ultimately prevail.
Canada will do all it can to help. As one of the G-7 countries we helped assemble the recent $24 billion assistance package to Russia which will be tied to an economic reform program devised by the International Monetary Fund.
On a bilateral level, Canada has pledged considerable assistance, and, as you mentioned during your last trip to Ottawa, Mr. President, we have fulfilled all our promises.
We have provided your country with substantial grain and other credits, as well as a wide variety of technical and humanitarian assistance.
We hope that trade and investment ties are also growing.
Clearly, we are in a special position with relation to Russia, a position which we understand, a position that brings a responsibility to us which we want to accept.
Both countries now have an unprecedented opportunity to build on what should be a natural friendship. The last 50 years have perhaps blinded people to the striking similarities and unique ties that exist between our countries.
You mentioned that being here from your country you could feel at home. Canada's vast expanse of land, our northern geography, our climate, our abundant natural
resources, our multicultural tradition, even our hockey tradition-all these we share in common with Russia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker Fraser:: We have taken steps to strengthen these ties.
Part of our technical assistance is aimed at upgrading Russian resource industries such as oil and gas.
As northern neighbours, both countries support the creation of an International Arctic Council which would deal with environmental and security concerns in the region.
Also on the environmental front, which you mentioned, sir, Canada recently pledged to help Russia ensure the safety of its nuclear reactors.
We need to cultivate these bilateral ties.
Perhaps the best way to do it is to encourage people-to-people contact.

In May, the House of Commons held a week-long seminar on the theme of "Canada's Federal System of Government", which attracted delegations from the newly emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe, including one from Russia.
We look forward to more such parliamentary co-operation in the future.

Finally, our countries share a common concern over security. The Cold War is over, and a new era in international politics has emerged.
Canada supports and encourages you, Mr. President, in your continued efforts to preserve regional and international security.
Your recent agreement with President Bush to slash strategic nuclear weapons represents an historic breakthrough, and we trust that relations with your neighbours in the Commonwealth of Independent States will show similar goodwill and co-operation.
Your leadership on this matter, Mr. President, is well known in this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

June 19, 1992


Mr. Speaker Fraser:: In closing, Mr. President, let me say on behalf of all who are here today what enormous respect we have for your achievements as President of the Russian Federation during a difficult period. Your courage has been mentioned.
Perhaps it is appropriate to remind ourselves of what Mr. Churchill said once when asked: "What is the greatest quality a person may have?" He said: "Courage, because it secures all others".
Sir, you are an example of that and we are very proud of you.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker Fraser:: We value our growing friendship with your country, and look forward with great eagerness to increasing our ties in the future and helping you in whatever way we can.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, for being with us. You will be welcome again. To you and madam, we wish you good luck and Godspeed.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Monday, June 22, 1992