1992-11-23

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ferguson that Bill C-226, an act to reduce automotive pollution, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to discuss the health aspects of the issues raised by Bill C-226, namely the continued use of the manganese containing gasoline additive MMT, or its substitution.
Our experience with lead additives showed how a seemingly unimportant decision to use a specific additive can have far-reaching health consequences. The ultimate gasoline additive is one that is appropriate both technically and from a health and environmental point of view.
MMT was introduced into the Canadian and U.S. markets in the mid-1970s for use as an octane booster in both leaded and unleaded gasoline. In 1978 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned its use in unleaded gasoline for reasons unrelated to health.
It had been found to slightly reduce the efficiency of the catalytic converters then available for vehicles running on unleaded fuel. At that time there was no concern
about possible adverse health effects and it has continued to be used in leaded gasoline in the United States.
Also in 1978 Health and Welfare Canada conducted an assessment of the potential health hazards of MMT and its products of combustion, manganese oxides. It was concluded that the expected increase of airborne manganese due to MMT under worse case conditions would not be a hazard to health based on the evidence available at that particular time.
In 1985 the Royal Society of Canada's commission on lead re-examined the health implications of increased manganese oxides from MMT with the then proposed phase out of lead additives. The commission noted that the increase in intake via inhalation was small even by comparison to intake from other sources of manganese, and was minute by comparison to intake from food. There was a wide margin of safety between the small extra intake due to MMT and any adverse effects on the nervous system noted in animal or in human studies.
National Health and Welfare has continued to assess MMT and monitors any new information on exposure and health effects. The recent application in 1990-91 by the manufacturer of MMT to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for permission to reintroduce MMT into the unleaded gasoline was rejected, again because of concerns about conflicting data on hydrocarbon emission increases and catalyst deterioration. Health issues and concerns were not cited as the reason for the decision.
Much of this concern is rooted in the fear that because manganese is another heavy metal like lead, use of manganese could lead to a repeat of the same kinds of contamination and health problems associated with leaded gasoline additives.
Airborne lead from gasoline combustion was a major source of exposure for young children. The majority of daily intake was indirectly attributable to airborne lead and was due to the lead deposited near roadways, on the

November 23, 1992
Private Members' Business
soil and the plants in urban areas. This point has been raised as a potential concern with manganese. However, unlike lead, manganese is abundant in soil and is naturally present in high amounts, several hundred times the amount deposited by combustion of gasoline containing MMT. In addition, ingested manganese appears to be well handled by the human body.
There are some critical differences between lead and manganese. Manganese is an essential element, required in fairly large amounts every day to maintain our health. This means that there is a threshold below which there will not be any toxicity, and we do not have the same concerns about exposure to trace amounts in the environment.
Manganese intake, metabolism and excretion are generally efficiently controlled by the body, and manganese is not stored for many years in the body in the way observed with lead.
In contrast, lead has no known biological function. It is a general cell poison. It is highly toxic at extremely low dosages. In the last 20 years we have witnessed a continual lowering of the blood lead level considered to be a health concern for children.
At very high doses manganese like lead is a severe neurotoxin. The question for us today is, how high is too high? In miners, smelter workers, those exposed to
50,000	or more times the normal air levels of manganese, mental disturbances, slow clumsy body movements, speech disturbances and muscle rigidity similar to Parkinson's disease, have been cited. This is a condition called manganism. Somewhat lower levels, around one milligram per cubic metre, have resulted in the first signs of brain damage, including fatigue and hand tremors in exposed smelter workers. Since typical air concentrations in Canadian cities are about 20,000 times lower than this, 0.04 micrograms per cubic metre, neurological damage is not a health effect of concern at normal levels. This conclusion is supported by the U.S. Public Health Service in a 1991 report.
There are, on the other hand, some important differences between lead and manganese which decrease our certainty about the effects of manganese. While lead appears to be equally toxic whether ingested in food or inhaled from air, manganese appears to be much more toxic when inhaled. This has created a lot of concern and has also led some people to discount the information on
safe levels of intake gained from ingestion studies. Too much manganese is toxic, regardless of its route of entry into the body.
We are all exposed to manganese in both air and food. Under normal circumstances, as in most Canadian cities, airborne manganese is extremely low, and we breathe in about a microgram of manganese each day from the air. On the other hand, we take in somewhere between 2,000 and 9,000 micrograms per day from our food. Absorption is very much higher via the lungs than it is via the gastrointestinal tract, probably between 10 and 30 times higher. But the amount to which we are exposed via air is so much lower that the effects of increased lung absorption are really wiped out. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that the small amount taken in by inhalation is going to have any measurable effect.
Special groups in the population who take up more manganese on a body weight basis than most include infants, youngsters, pregnant women, people who are anaemic, or have calcium, protein or other deficiencies. In these cases the contribution for inhalation is really dwarfed by the contribution from food.
Infants and children have been singled out as a particular risk for manganese because of their undeveloped metabolic processes which allow about 100 per cent absorption and zero per cent excretion for the first few weeks of life. This is a normal pattern and MMT derived manganese would be a very small portion of the total. There is no evidence that this group is particularly susceptible to brain damage from manganese, unlike the case with lead.
The elderly may be susceptible to this type of damage but we lack the knowledge about both susceptibility and differences in metabolism in this particular group.
In conclusion, our experience has shown us that there are not too many health effects at this particular point in time. I would like to recommend that this bill not be supported at this particular time. There is no need from a health perspective to phase out MMT and replace it.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-226, an act to reduce automotive pollution. I would like to commend my hon. colleague, the member for Lambton-Middlesex for initiating this private members' bill, which I believe is deserving of the support of this House.
November 23, 1992

The Liberal Party has consistently supported the need for Canada to develop alternative fuels instead of relying solely upon non-renewable fossil fuels. In 1984, the then Liberal Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, the same individual who is sponsoring today's bill, stated: "The federal government supported alternative energy sources and was prepared to implement a program for the development of ethanol blended fuels in Canada".
In addition, on April 17, 1991 the Leader of the Official Opposition called upon the federal government to introduce legislation to support the use of ethanol and ban the gasoline additive referred to as MMT. The hon. member also indicated his personal support for a 3.2 per cent oxygen content in Canadian gasoline.
Bill C-226 is designed to reduce pollutants that are released into our environment by automobiles. To accomplish this reduction, clause 3 of the bill would prohibit the sale, importation or production in Canada of any gasoline that had an oxygen content of less than 3.2 per cent by weight and contained the substance MMT.
Increasing the oxygen content will make gasoline burn cleaner as it causes a reduction in carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide while also reducing other organic substances or residues. In addition, by eliminating MMT, a danger to public health would be removed from our atmosphere. MMT is believed to mix with blood in humans and attack brain cells when absorbed into the respiratory system. With evidence suggesting that MMT poses a health risk, I am sure many Canadians would like to see it banned in Canada.
Since 1978 MMT has been banned in the United States. MMT is a suspected neurotoxin that is believed to lead to diseases such as Parkinson's. In addition, the use of MMT in our gasolines increases hydrocarbon emissions by up to 27 per cent. Clearly we can do without MMT in Canada.
We can get rid of MMT and also obtain a 3.2 per cent oxygen content in our gasoline. By using a 10 per cent ethanol blended gasoline we can significantly reduce CO, CO2 and Nox emissions. A 10 per cent ethanol blend would reduce carbon monoxide by 25 per cent, carbon dioxide by 5.9 per cent, nitrous oxide by 5.7 per
Private Members' Business
cent volatile organic compounds by 8.5 per cent and ground level ozone by 5.3 per cent.
Aside from eliminating a significant amount of pollutants from the air and removing MMT, there are other advantages to be obtained by using a 10 per cent ethanol blended gasoline. By blending we can help conserve our non-renewable sources of fossil fuels. In addition, as fuel ethanol is manufactured from renewable biological feedstock such as corn, barley and wheat, the supply is virtually unlimited.
Another major point concerns the present economic difficulties facing Canadian grain growers. With historically low prices for their crops farmers would certainly welcome the market ethanol would provide. With producers experiencing problems with marketing their grains at prices which meet their production costs, an increase in demand for ethanol would be financially beneficial for farmers.
In my riding of Stormont-Dundas a considerable amount of interest and work went toward the establishment of an ethanol plant in Ingleside. I certainly want to congratulate the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Co-operative for its work in trying to create a grain fed ethanol plant.
I also want to recognize and commend Mr. John Cleary, MPP for Cornwall, and Mr. Noble Villeneuve, MPP for SDG and East Grenville, for their commitment to this project.
On a related matter there is a hope, as Ontario corn farmers face the worst harvest conditions experienced in 20 years, that everything will be done by the federal government to assist farmers in avoiding serious financial problems.
This matter was raised in the House on Friday by my colleague from Prince Edward-Hastings. I hope we will soon see some action taken by the government to help address the cash flow problems of producers who are not able to harvest and sell their corn to meet fall debt obligations.
I believe the government should indicate at the earliest opportunity that it will permit advance payments to be issued for corn left standing in the field under the Advance Payments for Crops Act program and the associated Cash Flow Enhancement Program.

November 23, 1992
Private Members' Business
It is clear that Bill C-226 is attempting to provide cleaner and safer air for Canadians. There is no doubt the reductions in noxious gases and toxins that using ethanol blended gasoline would accomplish. We have an opportunity before us today for this House to give its support to a very worth-while piece of legislation.
I know members opposite are supportive of the environment. In addition, I am aware how the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture is very much in support of ethanol blended gasoline. One cannot pick up a story in the media on ethanol without seeing either the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex or the hon. member for Huron-Bruce pictured in it.
By supporting this bill we can take a step forward for our environment, our health, our farmers, our natural resources and, above all, our future. We can also display once again that Canada is the leader in environmental protection and technology.
It is important for us to remain at the top as it can mean millions for Canada. At present considerable work in the area of biological renewable fuels is being conducted throughout the world. One example is in Germany where a test car has been developed with a rapeseed oil powered engine.
I am pleased to support Bill C-226.1 also recognize its importance in opening up the expanded and highly beneficial use of alternative fuel for Canadians and Canada. Bill C-226 supports our environment and calls for a ban on MMT.
I believe Canadians would appreciate the onus being placed on MMT to prove it is safe rather than for others to say it is not. Nonetheless, MMT is being used without adequate and irrefutable evidence to substantiate that it is indeed safe and therefore should be banned. The time has come to say no to MMT.
In conclusion I want again to commend my hon. colleague from Lambton-Middlesex on this legislation which seeks to make Canadian gasoline the cleanest burning and least polluting in the world. I would like to ask members of this House to give it their support.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound -Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the privilege to speak in this Chamber on Bill C-226, an act to reduce automotive pollution.
Before addressing the specific issues of Bill C-226, I would like to say a few words about automotive pollution, what this government has done and, more important, will be doing about automotive pollution.
Automotive pollution is the single biggest factor contributing to the formation of smog in Canadian cities. Under the green plan, this government's comprehensive environmental agenda for tackling Canada's pollution problems, the Minister of Environment announced a $30 million initiative to combat urban smog.
Another initiative will see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources undertaking measures to initiate a further round of fuel efficiency targets for new vehicles, an important element in the government's plan to stabilize the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Certainly Canada has launched a number of initiatives to limit pollution from motor vehicles. We have eliminated the use of lead additives in gasoline. No longer will we have to worry about the potential threat to health, especially to the health of our young children, that the presence of lead in gasoline posed.
We are currently assessing ways to reduce the sulphur contents of diesel fuel which, when used with more technologically advanced engines, will reduce the emissions of particulate and black smoke emanating from large trucks and buses.
Our standards for the exhaust coming out of the tailpipes of our cars and small trucks are among the most stringent in the world. These standards set strict limits for nitrogen oxides which contribute to acid rain and are key components in the formation of smog. They also set limits on the amount of hydrocarbons, another major contributor to smog that cars can emit, and on carbon monoxide.
On February 20 of this year my colleague, the hon. Minister of Transport, signed a memorandum of understanding with Canadian car manufacturers and with car importers to establish striker standards which will come into effect in 1994.
We are committed to protecting the Canadian environment. We are moving forward on a number of fronts, including a comprehensive agenda to further control pollution from motor vehicles. This includes fuel quality as well as new vehicle emission standards.
November 23, 1992

Bill C-226 has two major purposes. First, the bill would require that all gasoline in Canada contain as a minimum 3.2 per cent of weight oxygen. This minimum percentage effectively favours the use of ethanol over other oxygenates such as methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE. Ethanol is an alcohol that can be derived from grains or biomass. When blended with gasoline it acts as an octane enhancer. Even as I speak, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is making a major announcement in Saskatoon to encourage the production and use of fuel ethanol in Canada.
The environmental benefit of blending ethanol with gasoline is that it leads to reduced emissions of carbon monoxide. Depending on the biomass and processes used for making the ethanol, ethanol may also offer an over-all reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, one of the principal greenhouse gases.
The Canadian government, in its desire of establish a biofuels industry and a level playing field for oxygenated fuels with other alternative fuels such as propane and natural gas, effective April 1 of this year, removed the federal excise tax of 8.5 cents per litre on the ethanol portion of the fuel produced from biomass. The removal of this tax is an incentive for the marketplace to determine the range and extent for the manufacture, use and distribution of these fuels.
Carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles are highest during the winter months because it takes longer for the engine and catalytic converter to warm up and function efficiently. In the United States the use of up to
2.7	per cent by weight oxygen in gasoline has been mandated during the four winter months in areas where levels of carbon monoxide exceed the ambient air quality standards.
There is, however, concern that gasoline blends with over 2 per cent by weight oxygen can lead to increases in emissions of nitrogen oxides, thereby contributing to the formation of smog. Smog is a summertime problem in many parts of Canada. Certainly given the initiatives to reduce smog in the United States, this would not be desirable.
Based on these facts Bill C-226 which calls for a minimum 3.2 per cent by weight oxygen in gasoline year round cannot be justified on its environmental benefits.
Private Members' Business
The second part of Bill C-226 calls for a ban on MMT, a manganese additive used in gasoline as an octane enhancer. In Canada the use of MMT as an octane enhancer is allowed in unleaded gasoline up to a maximum of 18 milligrams of manganese per litre. In the United States the use of MMT in unleaded gasoline has not been allowed since 1978, although it continues to be used in leaded gasoline.
The use of MMT in gasoline has been the subject of a number of studies in three major areas: the health effects of manganese released into the environment with combustion, the effect of MMT on hydrocarbon emissions, and the effect of MMT on catalytic converters.
Health and Welfare Canada has concluded that the use of MMT at current levels does not pose a threat to human health. Air quality data has not shown an increase in the concentration of manganese in the air over the last number of years.
A very comprehensive review by the Ethyl Corporation showed that emissions from cars fuelled with gasoline containing MMT have reduced amounts of nitrogen oxides and increased amounts of hydrocarbons when compared to vehicles fuelled with MMT-free gasoline. The emissions met the prevailing tailpipe standards and there was no observable effect on the performance of the catalytic converters.
A less extensive review by the Ford Motor Company shows a much higher increase in the hydrocarbon emissions due to MMT and no reduction in the emissions of nitrogen oxides. Deterioration of the catalytic converters was also observed.
After reviewing both studies, the United States Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition by the Ethyl Corporation to allow the use of MMT as an octane booster in unleaded gasoline but continues to allow its use in leaded gasoline.
It should be recognized that an MMT induced increase in hydrocarbon emissions will become a more important consideration in 1994 when, as mentioned earlier, more stringent vehicle emission standards will come into effect. Generally the government's role is to identify standards to meet environmental quality objectives.
Our intervention to regulate fuel quality should only be where no other mechanism will achieve the desired result, such as our intervention with lead through the

November 23, 1992
Private Members' Business
voluntary co-operative efforts of the fuel suppliers and motor vehicle manufacturers. Specifications for fuel quality are developed to ensure that appropriate fuels are available throughout Canada. This market based approach has proven effective and therefore the government will continue to support and facilitate these efforts.
In closing let me emphasize once more that we cannot support this bill because, first, mandating the use of 3.2 per cent weight oxygen in gasoline year round is not justified on the basis of environmental benefit. The existing data on the effect of MMT on exhaust emissions and catalyst efficiency are inconclusive. According to Health and Welfare's assessment, there is no evidence of any adverse health effects related to the use of MMT in gasoline. The benefits of removing MMT and adding oxygenates to gasoline should be addressed as well as development of a comprehensive strategy on fuel quality. The development of such a strategy should involve fuel producers, engine and vehicle manufacturers and government regulatory and fuel standard setting agencies.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words this morning on Bill C-226 of the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex. I congratulate him on bringing forward this bill. The operative clauses are fairly simple but the implications for Canadian agriculture, the environment and for health and safety are very large and extensive for our country.
I want to comment on the speeches of the two previous speakers, the member for Calgary Southeast and the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. The parliamentary secretary has gone into some detail to try to justify the use of MMT in Canadian fuels. Yet it is clear that the United States is not moving away from its ban on MMT.
I have in my hand a document put out by the Department of Health and Human Services from the National Institute of Environmental Health Science in North Carolina, in which the director, Dr. David P. Rail, a physician and a Ph.D., outlines to some extent the very grave concerns that agency had with the use of MMT when it was proposed that it be reinstated. On June 7, 1990 he outlined in some detail the concern about the toxic effects, the absorption effects through the skin and the impact on the central nervous system in great detail.
Clearly the United States is not moving away from the ban it has placed on phasing out MMT.
With regard to the comments by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, he mentioned that the minister of energy is making a major statement in Saskatoon this morning. I must say that in my view is totally unacceptable. We have a major piece of legislation before the House this morning. If the minister is going to be making a major statement with regard to the use of ethanol, it should be made in the House of Commons, not at a press conference in Saskatoon. I would hope that when the minister returns to the House he will explain why he did not make the major statement here. This is the Parliament of Canada. This is where statements are supposed to be made on matters that have an effect on our economy, the environment, health and safety and transportation of fuel supplies in this country, not at a press conference in Saskatoon.
On Friday we received a beautiful, thick, glossy booklet put out by the Department of the Environment which outlines programs and activities that the government is involved in. In the section on agriculture there is one page entitled "Sustainable Agriculture". This is the entire content on agriculture in that booklet.
It is interesting to hear government members talking about the importance of moving to sustainable agriculture, the use of ethanol and renewable fuels and so on. However, in this document put out by the Department of the Environment there is not a single mention of the use of ethanol, even though the government did take the initiative of reducing the excise tax 8.2 cents per litre this past spring. We are very appreciative of the government making that initiative, but we have not seen it followed through by other action.
The bill before us this morning, Bill C-226, does principally two things. It requires that gasoline have 3.2 per cent oxygen by weight. The best way to do this is through the use of ethanol. It also removes or bans the use of MMT because of the health concerns that this chemical has caused and the fact that it has been banned in the United States for many years.
The implications of these two actions as proposed in the bill by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex are very extensive. They reach far beyond those two little clauses in the bill. The impact is on the environment, to
November 23, 1992

reduce the production of carbon dioxide, which has been a major concern and major target in reducing the impact of the greenhouse effect. The impact of banning MMT has wide implications for health in our country. In many areas of the United States they are moving rapidly to eliminate MMT. They are using ethanol and other forms of chemicals as octane enhancers.
The impact of moving to the use of ethanol in our country would be very extensive for agriculture. It is estimated that it would take between five million and eight million tonnes of grain. Whether it was feed wheat in the west or corn in Ontario, the implications of that are very extensive. We only have to look at our largest export markets: some four million or five million tonnes to Russia and the other Russian republics. Therefore, you are talking about something that would be larger in terms of the use of our western grains than any one of our single exports of grain. This of course would have a profound impact on diversification of Canadian agriculture.
I had the opportunity last spring to visit the Lanigan ethanol plant east of Saskatoon. It is a tremendous facility, producing some 10 million litres of ethanol. It utilizes some one million bushels of grain and, at the same time, it uses the material that is left over after the ethanol process has taken place to feed some 15,000 head of cattle. It is a major agriculture diversification facility.
The government should be moving on this immediately. By 1995 it is estimated that we will be importing some
500,000	barrels per day of light crude. Surely if we can replace a large percentage of that with the use of our own ethanol made from our own biomass, but principally grain, feed wheat and com, we should be doing it. The foreign exchange implications are very great.
This bill would achieve all of these things. We hope that the government will move in this direction and that it will adopt this legislation because the impacts would be very great and very useful for our country. This bill would achieve all of these things.
However, there needs to be a commitment by government to more research and development and to reducing the cost of production. There needs to be a public commitment by the government to the use of these fuels because of the impact they will have on agriculture,
Private Members' Business
diversifying our economy and, of course, public health and the environment.
I hope the government will reconsider the position that it has taken here this morning as set out by the two government members who have spoken. The impact could be very beneficial for our country if the government were to adopt Bill C-226 which has been brought forward by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex. I certainly hope the government will reconsider and send this bill to committee for analysis and further study, and ultimately for implementation.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this bill, particularly as I am a farmer and know of the developments on ethanol in the Lanigan area which the hon. member just mentioned. It is east of Saskatoon where the minister of energy is making a very important announcement today. Our government has removed the taxation on ethanol and taken a very balanced approach to this whole area.
Proposed Bill C-226 would set a minimum allowable content for oxygen in gasoline and ban a manganese gasoline component, MMT, which is currently in widespread use in Canadian unleaded gasoline.
Is this kind of legislation acceptable in Canada? What is the environmental objective of the bill? Is it reasonable to pre-empt a comprehensive review of gasoline specifications and environmental impacts under way in Canada and the United States by pronouncing on one of several possible specification changes?
Federal departments are currently involved in reviewing all aspects of gasoline formulation. Further research on the air quality impacts of oxygenated fuels is required in the context of the examination of changes in several components of gasoline. This is a very complex subject with large potential impacts on the economics of the refining industry, the cost of gasoline, and air quality in urban areas.
The first part of this bill proposes to prohibit the sale in Canada of gasoline that does not contain at least 3.2 per cent oxygen, ostensibly to reduce automotive pollution. This minimum allowable oxygen content could be met using ethanol as a gasoline blending component and might also be met with the use of MTBE, but at higher blending volumes than commonly used for MTBE. However, since over 18 per cent of MTBE is required to meet 3.2 per cent oxygen content, which exceeds the

November 23, 1992
Private Members' Business
amount of MTBE currently allowed, the use of ethanol to meet this oxygen content might be more likely.
A minimum allowable oxygen content of 3.2 per cent in gasoline, therefore, would favour the use of ethanol in an attempt to create a new industry in Canada as well as a secondary market for grains. What will be the effect of requiring this high level of oxygen content in Canadian gasoline?
Oxygenates in gasoline have been found to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide. However, at levels greater than 2 per cent, oxygenates have also been found to increase tailpipe emissions of oxides of nitrogen. These nitrogen oxides react with hydrocarbons to form ground level ozone, a cause of smog.
Depending on how the oxygenates are blended into gasoline, there is also risk of increased hydrocarbons emissions, the other component required for ozone or smog. So depending upon the environmental situation in a given region, such a high level of oxygen content might actually worsen local air quality.
In Canada, high ozone levels and smog are a concern in the lower mainland of British Columbia and in the corridor between Windsor, Ontario and Quebec City and in some regions of Atlantic Canada, at least for part of the year. In these areas some actions have been taken to reduce hydrocarbonate emissions, particularly in the summer months. Forcing such a high oxygenate content into gasoline might worsen the ozone problems, counteracting the results of their programs to date.
Given this situation, mandating that Canadian gasoline contain 3.2 per cent oxygen cannot be justified on environmental grounds.
The U.S. is going through a process of identifying gasoline formulations that give environmental benefits at reasonable costs in their circumstances. Canadians should learn from the U.S. experience and examine the options of gasoline specifications that are available to the refining industry and the provinces, through the established process of the Canadian General Standards Board. Sufficient technical information would be required before the federal government attempts to modify the existing gasoline specification process to address the unique environmental concerns of the various parts of Canada.
The over-all impact on vehicle emissions of a change in gasoline specifications is often not clear, since often the change in gasoline properties will have the effect of reducing some of the vehicle tailpipe emissions while increasing others. Arbitrary specifications which are designed to force the market penetration for ethanol should not be encouraged by supporting Bill C-226. Rather, the established process of considering changes in gasoline formulation through consultation with the vehicle and oil industries and the provincial governments, in conjunction with the Canadian General Standards Board should be followed.
What has the government already done to encourage the use of ethanol as an automotive fuel?
In the February federal budget, the excise tax of 8.5 cents per litre, normally charged on all gasoline sales, has been waived on the content of fuel ethanol produced from biomass. This incentive will offset some of the costs of blending alcohols into gasoline, making it more attractive as a gasoline blending component. Undoubtedly this has been a factor in the recent decision of United Co-operatives of Ontario to begin marketing a gasohol blend in southern Ontario.
In 1990 ethanol-gasoline blends were granted the right to use the Ecologo, under the government's Environmental Choice Program. This program helps promote the use of certain products by increasing consumer awareness of the environmental benefits.
In addition, under the green plan and other government programs, research and development continues to be carried out to reduce the costs of ethanol production so that alcohols can make an even greater contribution to meeting the energy needs of Canadians. A lot of research effort is also directed toward a better understanding of the ways in which transportation fuel formulation can impact on air quality.
We believe that Canada's agricultural industries and the producers of fuel ethanol can take advantage of these initiatives to develop a strong, viable fuel ethanol
November 23, 1992

industry that can significantly contribute to Canada's energy future.
The second element of this bill proposes to prohibit the use of Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl, or MMT for those who prefer using acronyms. MMT additives are one of the options refiners have to increase the octane rating of gasoline. Its big advantage is that it makes a very cost effective contribution to gasoline octane levels, at least at the level at which it is permitted. If MMT were not allowed, gasoline production costs would increase, likely leading to higher gasoline costs to consumers.
MMT has been used as a gasoline component in almost all Canadian motor fuels since 1978. In the United States, MMT was believed to interfere with some of the early automotive exhaust emission control systems and so it is used in lead free gasoline and has been disallowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since the 1970s. Its use however continues to be allowed in the U.S. in leaded gasoline.
MMT has undergone extensive assessment in Canada to determine the environmental and health impacts. Although Transport Canada uses gasoline that does not contain MMT in the compliance testing in new vehicles, Environment Canada has tested emissions of vehicles burning MMT containing gasoline and demonstrates that these vehicles were within emission standards.
With regard to the health aspect of MMT, there is no evidence that the use of MMT causes any direct health threat. In fact, manganese is considered to be one of the essential elements of a balanced diet and over 99 per cent of the body's intake of manganese is from a dietary source.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the bill of my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex, Bill C-226, which would legislate a minimum level of oxygen in gasoline sold across this country at 3.2 per cent by weight and eliminate the use of MMT in gasoline sold in this country.
As I listened to comments made by my colleagues across the floor, once again it reminds me, and I am sure many other Canadians, of what drives the government to its policies of acceptance and rejection of certain legislation proposed either by itself or by us and that seems to
Private Members' Business
be the corporate agenda. Where in the policies of this government do the issues of concern to the people come into being?
I listened to arguments from my colleagues on the government side against passage of Bill C-226. Their argument is that which was put out by the large corporations in this country that might tend to lose something if there was a ban on the use of MMT in gasolines.
I am very concerned about the importance of banning MMT in our gasolines for health reasons. I am very concerned about substituting this octane enhancer MMT by the use of ethanol in our fuels because of its important positive environmental impacts and also the positive impact it would have on the agricultural sector of our country.
I cannot understand how colleagues who understand that there could be even the slightest cause for problems to the health of our nation through the use of MMT in gasoline could object to the elimination of its presence in gasolines at this time.
Last week we listened to reports of how haemophiliacs have suffered because of blood transfusions when a government was warned that a certain procedure could cause complications and the government refused at that time to take adequate necessary measures to countermand that. We see today, the very negative results of that.
Now we hear of another possible threat to the health of Canadians from manganese as it exists in the chemical MMT, a chemical that can cause characteristics similar to lead when absorbed. Manganese is a chemical which is absorbed, and retained. As it is absorbed and retained has an increasing toxicity that can particularly imperil children and the aged in our society.
Manganese is a normal element in the chemistry of the air we breathe and some of the food that we absorb, but when it is absorbed at levels that are too high it does have a toxic reaction. It becomes a neurotoxin and has persistent and irreversible pathological effects on brain structure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

November 23, 1992
Government Orders

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)) moved:: Thai in relation to Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, that not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of report stage and one sitting day to consideration of the third reading stage of the bill and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Call in the member.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
@Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 18, consideration of Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon) moved:: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately
after line 9 at page 17 the following:
"(1.2) Notwithstanding section 10, where a person claims to be a Convention refugee, the person shall, upon request, be granted authorization to engage in employment on completion of the medical examination referred to in subsection (1.1)."


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, no wonder there is so much cynicism and disdain for politicians in this country when we see what the government has just done in putting another motion of closure on this bill. We have a government that speaks time and again in favour of parliamentary reform and democracy and yet, at the same time, systematically closes down debate on important and controversial bills.
Here we have the most extensive amendment to the Immigration Act since 1976, a bill with 128 sections and 113 pages. Yet at second reading-which by the way it called two days after the bill was tabled-second reading was limited to one and a half days on a closure motion. Now report stage where 69 amendments including 10 new amendments from the government have been tabled has been limited to one and a half days-a short day last
Government Orders
week and one day today-and then the government is limiting third reading to one day tomorrow.
If the government had been reasonable and really did believe in democracy and parliamentary reform and had let this debate run its course, it would have only taken another couple of days. When I was asked by the government House leader and the representatives on the other side, I said that we could have done our amendments on report stage in two full days and probably we would want another full day for third reading.
But no, for all these amendments, for the New Democratic Party's amendments and for our amendments, because it has used up 45 minutes on this closure motion, in effect we really are not even going to get two full days. We got a half day last Wednesday and another half day today.
We are dealing with matters that touch the very heart of this nation. We are dealing with matters that touch on the peace and stability of the whole world. Experts before our committee predict that we will have an increase of three billion in world population in the next 30 years. We now have 20 million refugees in the world and here we are spending a few simple days on these matters when this should involve a lot of discussion and a lot of thought.
I have just come from a meeting at the United Nations. These matters are causing great concern in the United States and in all countries of western Europe: in Germany, in the United Kingdom, in France. They are allowing at least some time to discuss the matter.
Motion No. 9 before us is a Liberal Party amendment dealing with the granting of work permits. Right now, under the present law with the two-stage refugee hearing, a refugee is granted his or her work permit after being recognized at the first stage hearing. Right now it only takes about two months to get to the first stage hearing.
Under the bill before us, there is no provision to grant a work permit to a refugee until the refugee is fully recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board. In the past this has taken up to two years but now takes between five and six months. But we do not know what might happen with the increased flows of refugees. There is no provision in this bill to provide for the quick

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
and reasonable granting of work permits to refugees after they come into the country. What does this mean?
We had municipalities from Ontario appearing before the committee saying that because the federal government will not grant these work permits quick enough and will not provide for a quick granting of a work permit, many of these people have to rely on welfare. This great number of refugees has to rely on welfare whereas many of them could be working. By the way, many refugees work in the most menial of jobs. They take jobs that many Canadians will not take. But they could be doing that kind of work if we provided for the granting of work permits.
What is suggested in this amendment is that the work permit be granted after the completion of the medical examination. The government has said that the medical examination must take place within 60 days. We are saying in this amendment that we should put into the law that the work permit should be granted after the medical has been completed, which is after 60 days.
The government says that if that is done, people will come to Canada as refugees just to get a work permit within 60 days. What nonsense that people are going to leave Yugoslavia, people are going to leave Bangladesh, people are going to leave countries in central America just to come here and work after 60 days. They are coming because they are legitimate refugees and they are being driven from their countries by violence, by fear, and by persecution.
We should allow these people who want to work, if there are jobs available to them, to work after 60 days, as they can now after the first stage hearing. We support the abolition of the first stage hearing and we believe that the provision to grant the work permit at the end of the first stage hearing is a good thing. However, to leave it open-ended with no provision in the law for the granting of the work permit until the person is fully recognized as a refugee is not only stupid but is inhumane.
In committee the government accepted a certain number of amendments. This is the kind of amendment I thought it would have appreciated and would have agreed to. Under the new system it says that people will
fully complete the process in five or six months, if it is contested. However, that is not assured. That is a hope. What is wrong with putting the provision into the law, such as we done under the present law, that a work permit could be granted after 60 days, after the completion of the medical examination?
As I said, the government agreed to certain amendments in committee and that was good. It showed some reasonableness and the bill was improved in committee. Unfortunately, many oppressive sections still remain and in our amendments before the House we hope to deal with those oppressive sections. This is one of them.
I am now doubtful whether we will even have a chance to debate many of these important amendments coming from the opposition parties. There is this closure motion. It is going to be voted on at 6 o'clock tonight and there are 60 some amendments to deal with. It is totally ridiculous.
I am urging the government to reconsider and accept this amendment or one like it.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment that has just been moved by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I wish to add a little to his opening remarks about the shortness of time for this very important debate.
The government put in 70 amendments at almost the last minute before the committee hearings. The government put these 11 amendments in at the very last minute before the deadline last Tuesday. The government knew what it was doing. It told us that it took eight months to prepare this bill before it was tabled in June and then there were two days to study it. Staff lawyers take two weeks to study it and there is only a day and a half for debate.
Committee reading was during the summer when most of the people who could advise committee members were on vacation and when committee members also needed some time with their families. Now after committee hearings there are further amendments from the government and one and a half days to debate the amendments in a long bill-128 pages. It is clear the government does not want to have debate. We will not be able to do justice to the necessary amendments after I, and perhaps other colleagues, have eliminated some of
November 23, 1992

the amendments we originally thought were necessary for the sake of focusing on the more important ones.
This amendment, which would give refugee claimants a chance to work and earn their living within 60 days of their arrival, is extremely important to metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding municipalities. The majority of refugees who have come to Canada are in the Toronto region.
Welfare costs are already very high because Toronto now has higher than average official unemployment, higher than the Canadian average. It is not as high as Newfoundland or Montreal but it is higher than the average for Canada. This has been going on for several years and it has affected welfare costs.
One neighbouring municipality has complained about the number of refugees on welfare even though the numbers are not that great.
In fact, the government is well aware that by putting a cap on the welfare payments it is making it next to impossible for municipalities in Toronto and the region to cover the cost of the refugees whom the government will not allow to work.
Under the new system the government says it take three, four or five months at most until there is a decision. It will not agree to give a work permit at the end of two months because it claims there would be fraud.
I do not understand how the minister can support that with a straight face because he told our committee publicly that the vast majority of refugee claimants are real refugees. Those were the minister's words: "The vast majority are real refugees". In fact he has repeated it.
If the vast majority are refugees how many people are going to travel thousands of miles-whether it is from east, west or south, they do not come across the pole-for what cannot be more than two or three months work at low wages? This is not an attempt to protect the country against a flood of frauds. This is an attempt to punish refugees for being refugees. It is an attempt to punish people who are being persecuted, who are being threatened with persecution, because they have come to seek safety in a country which in the past,
Government Orders
before the last four or five years, earned a great reputation for accepting people in need of protection.
There is no good reason for refusing to let these people work. They want to work. They did not come here to live off welfare. They want to earn their way.
The municipalities want them to work and have said so. The Association of Canadian Municipalities said that to the committee. Yet this government refuses to allow them to work and it can only be because the government is adopting the policy of what is called humane deterrents, as expressed by a previous director of refugee affairs, Raphael Girard. We will not shoot them at the border, we will not send them away without a hearing, but if possible we will make them wish they had never come there by making life miserable with delays and under-funded refugee processing systems and by making it as hard as possible for them to earn a living or to pay for legal help.
This has increasingly become the growing policy of this government. Its refusal in committee to give us any answers to our questions on this point shows it is not willing to listen to reason, unless it has a last minute change of heart now.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment on the amendment and then I will continue in the time remaining to comment on the earlier comments of my colleagues.
In terms of the amendment, the bill does not provide for any specific point at which authorization for a work permit will be given. That is in response to the flexibility that is essential to changing conditions.
There is no question that there has been quite a broad debate on this subject. It is a concern that a number have raised, particularly the municipalities, in terms of access to a work permit.
I think what is important, and I would disagree with my colleague for Trinity-Spadina on this one point, is that a great deal of the refugee sections of this bill are in response to a number of people who were concerned that the process needs to be speeded up to be more humane and to provide for better service for refugees.
The intent of this legislation is to ensure that positive determinations are reached within two or three months, which is essentially the same effect as that of the proposed amendment. What we do not provide for

Government Orders
specifically is that work permits be issued before the determination is found, and the policy will reflect that in the end.
I want to return, if I may, to the comments of my colleagues from Notre-Dame-de-Grace and Trinity- Spadina about the process that we have encountered here. I would like to remind all members of the House that this legislative committee received 186 letters and 116 briefs over a period of four months.
We heard 110 witnesses, 48 groups and 35 officials from federal government departments. Within the community this was widely discussed and a number of meetings were held outside of the committee, both with individual members and with the government.
Therefore, when I hear a complaint on one hand that there were 70 amendments and a comment on the other that the government was not responsive I wonder a little bit about the inconsistency. Most of the government amendments were either technical, in response to very specific concerns raised by witnesses or in response to the opposition.
Certainly, we did not address all of the concerns raised by the opposition or all of the concerns raised by the witnesses. That happens in this process. However, both of my colleagues have said elsewhere that they felt in certain areas that the government was responsive.
The government put forward its amendments when others put forward their amendments, and certainly before the report stage met all its obligations to do so. Its amendments, with one exception, are very technical and make the bill a little bit better.
I too have no sympathy for the process of time allocation. I do not like the process, but on Thursday last we debated Bill C-86 for three hours in this House. We dealt with one quick amendment that took 40 seconds. We dealt with another group of amendments, six amendments, for the rest of the time, one topic.
I spoke-I was the only government member to do so-for eight minutes in this House while successive opposition members trooped in and made speeches that had nothing to do with this bill. That was absolutely their right. However, when I hear the opposition complain
that it does not have time to debate the amendments I worry about those lost three hours and where they went, and how far we might have gotten in discussions on these amendments.
Frankly, I lose a little bit of my concern about time allocation when I am confronted with this indignation this morning and am expected to have some sympathy for that position.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to speak to this amendment because I think it is very typical of what has happened in this country concerning the amendments to the Immigration Act.
There has been some dialogue. The community is very concerned. It is becoming apparent that this government is out of step with the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians, as reflected in this bill and in the amendments it is putting forward.
For example, most Canadians think that family class and assisted relatives should be the priority in immigration, but this bill does not reflect that. Canadians feel that because it has been the history of Canadian immigration. Historically, people can come, and they have relatives here who can assist them in integration into the Canadian community by finding employment, finding housing and dealing with Canadian culture. This bill does not reflect that.
In my community of Surrey North there is a very large immigrant population. There are a large number of Asians from Hong Kong and from some other parts of south-east Asia. In particular, we have a very large Sikh population. The Sikh population has made tremendous contributions to the economic and cultural well-being of Surrey, of British Columbia and of Canada.
We are now downplaying that community's ability to involve its relatives in coming to Canada to strengthen Canada. Those people have extended families and they want extended families to come here.
Similarly immigrants in this country have always had a very high commitment to the work ethic. They have wanted to work from the day they arrived in Canada, like my father when as an immigrant digging ditches in March in Edmonton. He wanted to work and that was the work available.

November 23, 1992

This particular amendment is saying the same thing to refugees. Refugees who have arrived in Canada want very quickly to be able to shift from being a burden on Canada to being a contributor to Canada. They want to be able to get employment so they can support themselves and their families.
We have a government that is not listening to them, not listening to provincial governments that are having to provide income assistance for people who are awaiting the determination of their status and not listening to the general public. The general public says these people are here and while they are here why not allow them to work while their determination is being made? It certainly would be a benefit to the community, to them and to their families.
I cannot agree with the last speaker about the fact that this bill and the amendments put forward by the government have been debated by the public. After the government tabled the bill, there were meetings right across this country of concerned citizens and groups looking at the bill. All of a sudden there are amendments put forward and they have not had the opportunity to study those amendments, to determine whether they meet the concerns raised whether they support them. If the government actually had any faith in its package of amendments, it would let the public look at it at leisure. It would let the public determine whether it could now support the package. I believe the reason the government is now determined to push this bill through is that it knows it would not stand the scrutiny that people would give it if they had a more leisurely opportunity to look at the amendments.
I want to again say that I support this amendment. Most Canadians do. Most Canadians do not agree with the thrust of the government in this bill. They certainly do not agree with the fact that the government will not accept this amendment.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate the debate today I was not going to debate this particular motion. After the government advocate from St. John's, Newfoundland, spoke just a few moments ago I thought that it was only right that we should respond to some of the accusations that were
Government Orders
made in the context of the motion that we are debating today before this House.
There was some discussion, and I agree with my friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace and my colleague, the member for Trinity-Spadina, what they have said with respect to the rights of people as they enter Canada, either as an immigrant or as a refugee, and their right to work.
First let me make a couple of comments about some very important matters that were dealt with the last time this bill was debated in the House. There were some very, very important amendments proposed by this side of the House, by both the NDP and the Liberal Party, with respect to substantive issues concerning the immigration bill.
We are concerned that time allocation was just announced a short while ago with respect to a discussion on the amendments. Let me just go over four or five of the amendments that we discussed in some detail. There were many people on this side of the House who wanted to continue the debate on matters that concern issues involving family members and their right to come to Canada. One fundamental principle that we stand for in the Liberal Party is uniting family members should they choose to become immigrants or refugees to Canada. That bill was debated. There were members on this side of the House who wanted to continue the debate.
The second motion, No. 5, was a motion on visitors' visas. We all know, as I said on the last day in this House, that visitors' visas were the ones that were causing the most concern with respect to problems with immigration outside of the country for members on both sides of the House about how those visitors' visas were granted. Our proposals were very sound and made sense. The proposals would have facilitated the operation.
The debate was stunted because not enough members were given enough time to make the salient points that they wanted to make with respect to a very vital issue, the visitors' visas that are issued by every embassy in the world. It is not done right. Our recommendations, as proposed by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace, were substantial and they were recommendations that this government should have taken into consideration and implemented without question. That was debated.

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
Other issues debated were the refund of immigration fees, which was not of much consequence but there were members who wanted to debate that issue, and Motion No. 70, the resident requirements. Along with that, Motion No. 7, proposed by my friend from Trinity-Spa-dina, and Motion No. 6, presented by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, were substantive issues that this government should have adopted and implemented in this act to make it a more humane and palatable piece of legislation that would guide not only the immigration process in this House but the refugee problem that the government still cannot seem to correct.
The issue before the House now, Motion No. 9, is a motion which we have proposed for the benefit of the municipalities of this country. To put it in its simplest context, its simplest terms, as people come into this country, either by immigration or as refugees, they are denied the opportunity of having a work permit issued immediately.
What we are saying is that as soon as the medical process is through, which takes about 60 days, they should be offered the opportunity to go to work if, because of the economy, a job is available.
Having been offered the opportunity to go to work, at that point, 60 days after their arrival, what does it do? It takes a substantial amount of people who come to this country off of the welfare Rolls. We all know, through the experience not only in Ontario but in Quebec and every other province in this country, that the substantial portion of welfare payments is made through the municipalities. I compliment my friend, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, for attending all these meetings and for having the perseverance to bring this motion to the House. What we are trying to accomplish is a resolution that will help to eliminate the costly welfare system that we have in our country.
For people who have to apply for welfare, it is picked up proportionately by the provincial government and by the municipal government. If we afford the person more of an opportunity to get to work as soon as he is allowed to come into Canada, it would reduce the welfare rolls substantially, particularly in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal where over 90 per cent decide to locate when they
become either accepted refugees or immigrants to our country.
This is a motion that is spoken to and presented on behalf of the municipalities of Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and all the other municipalities right across this country. It goes toward helping them bring under control the very expensive social welfare system that they are forced to fund.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 9.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed with consideration of Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, standing in the name of the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina, and Motion No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon,, which have been grouped for debate.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out lines 30
and 31 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c.l) persons who".
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 11
(a)	by striking out lines 10 and 11 at page 21 and substituting the
following therefor:
"zation that has been prescribed as an organziation which is or was
engaged in"; and
(b)	by adding immediately after line 16 at page 21 the following:

November 23, 1992

"and while members are believed on reasonable grounds to have participated in such acts".
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out lines 37 and 38 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a. 1) persons who".
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out lines 22 and 23 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) have been convicted outside".


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 28 by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 40 and substituting the following therefor:
"constitute a serious threat to the security of Canada or whose presence endan-".


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, in the time we have I want to focus particularly on three of these motions, Motion No. 10, which would do also for Motions Nos. 12 and 13, and Motions Nos. 11 and 22.
Motion No. 10, along with Motions Nos. 12 and 13, is a motion to remove some offensive words from the bill, offensive in the place where they occur; namely, the words "who there are reasonable grounds to believe''.
What we are talking about is a bill that says if there are reasonable grounds to believe that you have been convicted of something outside of Canada you can be excluded. That is an innovation in our law which obviously suits some police-minded people but does not suit the general public of Canada which believes that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the government thinks it has reason to believe that a person has been convicted outside Canada, it has a duty to find out whether that is true, what country it happened in, what court it happened in, where the record of conviction is, rather than say there is a rumour that there has been a conviction of this or that.
It is extremely unjust that a person should be turned away with little or no chance to seriously defend himself or herself simply on suspicion or rumour.
Government Orders
Clause 10 and clause 12 both fail on that point, and clause 13 also.
What I want to have there is that we will deal with persons who have been convicted, or in the case of clause 13, persons who have been convicted outside the country, not persons whom somebody suspects were convicted.
Clause 11 is a little different. Clause 11 would amend page 21 of the bill. I will read a little bit of page 21 to give the context. This is a clause to exclude people on the grounds of their connection with espionage, terrorism or subversion. It is agreed. There was no debate in the committee and I do not think there is any debate here that we need to keep out people who are concerned with espionage, subversion or terrorism. However, what this bill does at this point is to say that we will exclude persons where there are reasonable grounds to believe are or were members of an organization, that there are reasonable grounds to believe is or was engaged in acts of espionage or subversion or terrorism. In other words, it is twice built on rumour: he is, she is or was at some date last year or 20 years or 40 years ago a member of a certain organization or we have reason to think that and we have reason to think that organization, somewhere in the world, 10 years ago, 50 years ago, 1 year ago, it does not matter, was engaged in some of these activities and because this person belongs to that organization, the person will not be admitted to Canada.
What I would like to see changed is that at least the people should be able to know what is the organization or organizations whose members are forbidden to enter Canada. Therefore, I ask that the government prescribe these organizations and say that this, that or other organizations have been engaged in terrorism, or whatever it may be, and any member therefore can be excluded unless there is a catch-all clause at the end and unless the minister says it is all right. However, generally speaking, they will be excluded without much consideration.
Second, I believe the law should say that he or she will be excluded if at the time there is reasonable ground to believe that the person participated in those actions. In other words, a person could be a member of the African National Congress and not have been a participant in all the actions of that congress. A person could be a member of the Republican Party and not have been

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
engaged in the Watergate burglary and so on and so forth. If the tables are turned, a person could be a member of the RCMP and not have been engaged in the crimes that they committed during the 1970s in Canada.
It should be limited to an organization that has been listed as subversive, terrorist or a spy organization and there should be grounds to believe that a person was a member and took part in those actions.
Finally, just a brief word. I want to say that I support strongly Motion No. 22 where it says that we should exclude people because they constitute a serious threat to the security of Canada, not a threat to the security or interests of Canada. Security, yes. If he or she is a threat to the security of Canada, we have to put them out, but if they are a threat to the interest of Canada, that is undefined. Does that mean they are opponents of the Tory government or, if there is a change, opponents of some other government? What are these interests to which the person could be a threat? It is so undefined that a person could not possibly be expected to defend himself against that and therefore it really means that we do not like the colour of that person's eyes or maybe the colour of that person's skin so we call him a threat to our interests.
Those are the only three I wish to speak on and they cover the other two that I have listed here.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in particular to amendment No. 22 which was tabled by the Liberal Party and which is being debated in this grouping. Amendment 22 would strike out of article 28 on page 40 the words "threat to the interests of Canada".
Let me explain. That clause of the bill says: "For purposes of section 39 to 40.2, to enable the Government of Canada to fulfil its duty to remove persons who constitute a threat to the security or interests of Canada". In other words, this is a clause in the bill that allows the government to deport people who are a threat to the security and to the interests of Canada.
We in the Liberal Party accept fully the right to deport people who are a threat to the security of the country. That was in the bill we put to the House in the 1970s.
The words "security of the country" are well known. That could be criminality, espionage, terrorism or subversion. Therefore, we believe that people who are a threat to the security of Canada should be deported. In this bill the government has also put in the words "a threat to the interests of Canada". That is not defined. What immigration officers are going to decide if a proposed immigrant is a threat to the interests of Canada?
If somebody appears at our borders or at our embassy abroad and says: "I want to immigrate to Canada", are they going to question them and ask: "Are you against the GST?". Some people in this country and this government think if you are against the GST, you are against the interests of the country. Are they going to ask: "Are you against the North American free trade agreement?" Some people might think if you are against the North American free trade agreement you are against the interests of Canada. Is being against this bill being against the interests of Canada, in the view of some government officials?
The point of the matter is that being against the interests of Canada is not defined. It is too broad and too general. Who is going to make the decision about whether an applicant for immigration is against the interests of Canada and, therefore, should be deported?
In my amendment to the government amendment, I am suggesting that we strike out the words "against the interests of Canada" and simply keep "threat to the security of Canada". We all agree that we do not want people in this country who are against the security of the country. However, we do not want some wishy-washy words in our law that say that we can deport people who are against the interests of Canada and nobody defines what "the interests of Canada" means. It is so general it could mean almost anything to a government in power. It would define what the interests of Canada would be. We do not think that should be in our law.
I am surprised that the government has not gone along with us on this one. I know many people on the government side and I think they would agree with me on this point. However, that is the purport of Motion No. 22.
November 23, 1992

I just want to say a few words on the amendments tabled by my colleague for Trinity-Spadina. As I said a few minutes ago, the Liberal Party fully supports provisions in the law that would keep out of Canada criminals, subversives, terrorists, spies and so on. We support measures along those lines. This bill goes beyond that. This bill provides, for example, that you could be kept out not simply because you have committed a crime but because there are reasonable grounds to believe that you might have committed a crime. That is quite different. Not that you have committed, but reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed. Right now the law says that if you have committed an offence you do not get in. Good enough. Then it goes beyond criminal offences. It goes on to deal with acts or omissions. If in addition you have committed acts or omissions in another country that would be considered criminal offences then you are also barred. My colleague's amendments are attempting to deal with this.
The worst amendments of all are the two catch-all ones that are so broad that they take in almost everything. One is if you belong to an organization that might have committed an offence in the past. He mentioned Exxon.	,
An American may wish to emigrate from the United States. If he or she worked for Exxon, because Exxon was convicted of an environmental offence a few years ago, according to the words of this section they could be barred from admission.
If you belonged to the Republican Party or Greenpeace, in which organizations there have been members who have committed offences over the years, just because they committed an offence or the organization was found guilty of an offence, are you going to bar forever all the other people, who might have been very good people, just because they belonged to an organization which was so structured?
We support those amendments as well. We think the government has drawn the net too widely in trying to keep out people. What is wrong in drawing it so widely is that you end up with subjective decision making, not objective criteria. You end up with unfairness. Whereas one person might get in and not be considered as being against the interest of Canada, another person may be
Government Orders
considered as being against the interests of Canada. There may be reasonable grounds to believe that they belong to an organization that had committed offences. In another case there might not be reasonable grounds.
There is a thin line here that is too vague and will lead to unfairness. It is against the traditions of this country with respect to immigration.
I wish to get back to our own amendment, that we keep the provision that you can deport people who are a threat to the security of the country but we take out the part that says that you should be deported or sent away because you may be against the interest of Canada.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to respond on this group of amendments. Like my friends across the way, I will tend to do it by referring to Motions Nos. 10, 12 and 13 together, 11 and 22 on their own.
On Motions Nos. 10, 12 and 13, I want to say, and I know that many people in this House recognize it, that the principle of reasonable grounds in criminal activities are well established in this country, not only for the Criminal Code, the tax act and the competition legislation but it is something that requires a well established objective basis.
In the past, the courts quite clearly have made decisions along this line. To suggest that it is simply government responding to rumours would not stand up in any court and would not be reasonable in any government administrative process under Bill C-86 or any other legislation.
In terms of proposal No. 11, it suggests that we would only be able to keep people out that are members of prescribed organizations. In discussing this at length in the legislative committee, one of the expressions I used then which I think is appropriate at this time is that while it is impossible always to know the nature of an immigrant or of a refugee that you might want to bring in in the future, it is equally impossible to be able to know and therefore define all of those people that you are going to want to exclude in the future.
I understand when my colleagues often talk about clauses in legislation which sometimes are too wide open and perhaps cast too broad a net. But I also have come to understand the real problem that we have when we quite clearly start trying to go too far to define. In our attempt

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
to be prudent and fair, we find ourselves in a position where we work against not only the interest of the country but against those who choose to come to the country.
On Motion No. 22, which involves the discussion that my colleague had about the question of the interest of Canada, I want to make two comments if I may. First of all, this particular clause, clause 28 of this bill which will be section 38.1 of the new law when it is in place, is a purpose clause. It provides, as my hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace has said, for the setting up of sections 39 and 40, which provide for the certification process in recognition that you do not want to have too much power without the proper checks and balances.
This legislation provides for a certification process under the provisions where there is a threat to the country. Both the minister of immigration and the Solicitor General must sign a certificate and that is what this process allows for. Certainly there is protection provided in section 6 of the charter that relates to the same thing.
The second point is that the interests of Canada are not always clearly defined but sometimes they are readily evident. Unfortunately we have seen in this country from time to time those who have come here and co-ordinated or undertaken activities that have nothing to do with things in Canada but with other countries.
For instance, if there was an effort to carry on a plan of terrorism or subversion in another country from Canada it is certainly not a threat to the security of Canada but it is a threat to the interests of Canada.
One thing this particular section of amendments addresses, which is sometimes very difficult for some of us to come to grips with, and I find myself in this bind often, is the question of balance. We constantly must balance the interests of Canada and Canadians with our responsibility to not only provide the opportunity for those who want to come to Canada and contribute to this country but also to provide safe haven and refuge. Certainly in my view that is the greater responsibility that we have.
The balance comes in ensuring that we have a system that is fair, accessible and open and continues to allow Canada to live up to its tradition of being a protector without parallel around the world, while at the same time ensuring the security of Canadians and the immigration refugee determination system by knowing who we have in the process and by being able to deal in those very rare situations with those who should not be in this country. Until now in some cases the minister and the department have not had the ability to remove people from this country when I think any reasonable person would say they should be gone. That is what some of these provisions provide for.
I suppose we could sit and imagine situations where there would be a negative effect, where provisions could, if we examined them in isolation, be used against those who choose to come to Canada. That has not been the tradition in this country. That is not the way the Immigration Act has been used, either the 1976 act or the 1988 act. I do not believe there are many who believe that is about to change.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
I may remind hon. members that the vote on Motion
No. 10 also applies to Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 13.
November 23, 1992

The question is now on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 76(8), a recorded vote on the motion stands deferred.
In accordance with the Chair's ruling, we will now consider Motions Nos. 14,17, 18, 19, 20, 32, 40,41, 68 and 80 which have been grouped for debate.


M. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina) moved:: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out line 31 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"exclusion order against the person, unless the person requests an inquiry or claims to be a permanent resident, in which case the senior immigration officer shall cause an inquiry to be held concerning the person as soon as is reasonably practicable."


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport) moved:: Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 16
(a)	by striking out lines 20 to 30 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"(i) ceased to be a Canadian citizen pursu-"; and
(b)	by striking out line 13 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) the person is not a per-".
Government Orders
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 21
(a)	by striking out line 15 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada within the applicable period specified in the";
(b)	by striking out lines 7 and 8 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d), (e), (f), (g), (/'), (k) or (/) or 27(2)(/t) or (i), the adjudicator may, subject to"; and
(c)	by striking out line 14 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada within the applicable period specified in the".
Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 22
(a)	by striking out line 28 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"ture is issued within the applicable period specified in"; and
(b)	by striking out line 2 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"the expiration of the applicable period specified in the". Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 23
(a)	by striking out line 30 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada within the applicable period specified in the"; and
(b)	by striking out line 7 at page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d), (e), (f), (g), (/), (k) or (/) or 27(2)(h) or (i),".
Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 36 by striking out lines 37 to 45 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"(1.1) A person who claims to be a Convention Refugee on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force is not eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division if
(a)	the person had, before that day, claimed to be a Convention Refugee and the person was determined not to have a credible basis for the claim;
(b)	the person was, before that day, issued a departure notice; and
(c)	the person has not left Canada since the departure notice was issued."
Motion No. 40.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 45
(a) by striking out line 42 at page 56 and substituting the following therefor:

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
"(2) Subject to section 56, where an exclusion order is made against a person, other than a person who has claimed to be a Convention Refugee, the person shall not, after the person is removed from or otherwise leaves Canada, come into Canada without the written Consent of the Minister during the twelve month period immediately following 1he day on which that person is removed front or otherwise leaves Canada unless an appeal from the order has been allowed.
(3) A person against whom a departure";
(6) by striking out line 1 at page 57 and substituting the following therefor;
"before the expiration of the applicable period sped-"; and
(c)	by striking out line 9 at page 57 and substituting the following therefor:
"of the applicable period specified for the purposes of".
Motion No. 41.
Thai Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 46 by striking out lines 25 to 30 at page 57 and substituting the following therefor:
"come into Canada unless the person has paid to Her Majesty the removal costs prescribed under regulations made pursuant to paragraph 114(1)(/) or, in the absence of any such regulations, has reimbursed Her Majesty for any costs incurred by Her Majesty in deporting the person."
Motion No. 68.
Thai Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 102 by striking out line 26 at page 110 and substituting the following therefor:
"(s.2) specifying periods during which a".
Motion No. 80.
That Bill C-86 be amended by adding immediately after line 36 at page 117 the following new clause:
"113. A departure notice issued to a person before the day this section comes into force shall be deemed to be a deportation order on the later of the expiration of
(a)	ninety days after the day this section comes into force; and
(b)	the period specified in the departure notice for the person to leave Canada."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The debate will be on all the motions just moved.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have one motion in this grouping. The other nine or ten are all government motions. I will comment on a couple of the government motions that I think are not merely technicalities. I think they are quite harmful and I regret very much that we were given so little time, on top of everything else, to handle these late government motions after their eight, ten or twelve months of preparation.
First, my Motion No. 14 places a condition on the new powers of the senior immigration officer. On page 25 there is a section, and I will not read it all, that says, after listing certain grounds of inadmissibility:
the senior immigration officer shall allow the person -
That is the person who has just been confronting him.
- to leave Canada forthwith or make an exclusion order against the person.
In other words, he either leaves voluntarily or is ordered to leave.
I wish to add these words:
unless the person requests an inquiry or claims to be a permanent resident, in which case the senior immigration officer shall cause an inquiry to be held concerning the person as soon as is reasonably practicable.
As it stands, the power given to the senior immigration officer is far too absolute, far too arbitrary. There are some things that cannot be cleared up, just standing there, between a person coming in and the immigration officer, even if they are sitting down. The person does not have the time to find out what test he must meet, which was unexpected, and the immigration officer may or may not give him sufficient time, it may not even be practically possible for him to do it. That is why the inquiry system is used.
I am thinking particularly of a person who is a permanent resident but who, in coming back or even after he has come back, may be challenged as not being a permanent resident but a visitor who over-stayed his visa or somebody who came in without a visa, who sneaked in. He may be picked up at his home a day later or a month later and deported without notice as an indirect consequence of this clause and other clauses which the government is about to pass.
Under the new system the person should have a permanent resident card instead of the landing paper. However, there are a couple of problems with that system. The card may expire and if the person has been legitimately abroad working or studying, fully intending to return to Canada, he may be told that he does not have a valid card and is not a resident. The person may have lost the card. It may have been stolen, this can happen. The person may then be told that unless he can
November 23, 1992

prove right on the spot that he is a permanent Canadian resident and he is not a permanent resident he is excluded.
I believe there would be many injustices, perhaps unintentional injustices, in such a case. A person may not be prepared, may not carry around all kinds of documentation with him. If he was robbed of his wallet, and perhaps other documentation was lost as well, they would be available at home in Toronto, or wherever else the person lives, but not available right there while he is standing in front of the senior immigration officer.
There will be other occasions when the person believes that his statement of fact is not properly understood by the immigration officer.
In either case, whether it is a permanent resident or somebody else who believes that he should have the right to inquiry, I believe that this clause should be amended to give him that right to an inquiry before an adjudicator with the time-it should not be instantly then, it could not be instantly then, but it says "within a reasonably practicable time"-to collect whatever evidence this person may have that he is currently a Canadian citizen ordinarily living in Canada but away on business.
For some reason not explained the government is abolishing a very practical arrangement, which is that if a person is leaving Canada to study for a year or something like that and is a permanent resident, a person can get a certificate from the government that certifies that he is a permanent resident and has the right to return. That is the law at present. That provision is being taken away by this bill. It means that the person coming back is very vulnerable to being mistakenly accused of not being a permanent resident. The only recourse against that is that he be allowed to go to an inquiry and have opportunity to present the evidence which would then enable the immigration officers to do justice to his real situation.
I would hope that on further consideration the government would consider this amendment and support it.
There are two other motions I wish to speak on. Motion No. 17, as far as I can understand it-and some of these I have not been able to understand, even with the help of some legal, professional advice-would give this power of exclusion, particularly page 32 which changes the line significantly. Instead of saying that the
Government Orders
senior immigration officer may make a departure order against a person as long as he knows that person is not alleged to be a person described in any other paragraph or somebody who overstayed a visa and was ordered to leave and knows that the person is not the person described.
In other words, if he said it is alleged it is reported, that a certain person should not be let in, the procedure is that the matter would go to inquiry and the person would have the chance to prove that the allegation is mistaken or untrue and that he is not somebody who should be excluded. This subtle little change means instead of saying the person is not alleged to be a person described, it says the person is not the person described. In other words, the senior immigration officer is to make his decision on the spot, not to do a report to an inquiry, but to say leave the country now.
This is a mistake. This is in Motion No. 17, which I will have to oppose for that reason.
Likewise, Motion No. 32 says it is going to strike out certain lines and substitute: "A person who claims to be a convention refugee on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force is not eligible to have the claim determined by the refugee division if (a) the person had, before that date, claimed to be a convention refugee and the person was determined not to have a credible basis for the claim; (b) the person was before that day issued a departure notice; (c) the person has not left Canada since the departure notice was issued".
There have been several refugee claimants who have challenged in courts successfully the denial of their credible basis on the grounds that the test was unreasonably hard at that preliminary stage. This would insist that such a person would be sent away before he has a chance to make the appeal.
That would be very unjust and although this is only transitional from the old system to the new, there are some cases which are in the pipe right now. One of them has already been to court and will go to court further. While it is being decided by the court, and while other cases are being decided by the court, we should not introduce this clause which would send the person out of the country to possible persecution, even death, without the court's having given an opinion on the matter.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that I have six minutes with the endurance of my colleagues, I will refer to these amendments as a group as best I can identifying them.

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
The first would stem from Motion No. 68, which deals with clause 102. There are subsequent amendments that will be found in clauses 21, 22, 23 and 45. What that does is allows the government instead of being able to only set one period of time, to set more than one period of time.
An example that I would give is if the departure order said that the time of leaving the country was January 15 but an H and C hearing was arranged for February 15, it would allow for a second period or another set of periods to be put in place and that adds some flexibility. As I said, there are some sequential amendments that go with that.
I want to refer to the amendments that flow from clause 80 which refer to provisions that are transitory and relate to changes in sections 113 and 27(21).
What would happen is if the departure notice is in place for a certain period, the new legislation would come into place. What the new legislation will say is that the departure order becomes a deportation order in either 90 days or the date already in the departure notice, whichever is the greatest.
What that obviously does is allow for more equal treatment of time. You can argue that one date is 89 days away, another date is two days away, and that is not equal. It ensures that the date for everybody is 90 days from when the legislation comes into effect.
We should remember that those who have departure notices in hand already will have had hearings either before an adjudicator or other processes in place.
1 want to refer to Motion No. 41 which refers to the costs of removal that would be incumbent upon a transportation company. The costs to be paid are the actual costs if the regulations have not provided for prescribed costs.
Motion No. 40 would allow, not demand, that the officer would be able to put in place a 12-month order
against returning to Canada. This would prevent against going literally from one border station to the other. This is something that does not apply to refugees and is something we have seen the need for in the past.
The amendments to clause 36 provide for more precision and the proposed amendment makes it clearer; before it was a bit loosey-goosey.
I would like to respond very briefly to Motion No. 14 put forward by my friend, the member for Trinity-Spa-dina. He would, I know, agree with me that in terms of dealing with permanent residents and lost cards, there was quite an extensive process of amendments put in place through which the government was responding to very real concerns of the opposition and other people.
Certainly section 23 subsection 4(b)(ii) provides for the protection he seeks. It is important to recognize that if someone is a permanent resident and comes forward and says he has lost his card, it is not simply a matter of that is it, that is tough, he is done for. If that person has the ability to show there are good grounds that he or she is a permanent resident, this new card, which will be provided to students and others, will be replaced.
However, if after all of that we or the immigration officer or whoever comes to the conclusion that they do not believe there is permanent residency, that there is absolutely nothing to be done to convince them of it, there is an appeal procedure which provides for that person to come to Canada for that appeal. That should be recognized. Again, refugees are quite clearly protected from this section. They are not included in this group. I think that is another important recognition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
November 23, 1992


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the Delta Hospital has always been a prime example of a community hospital with active participation of the community in the affairs of the hospital in the form of volunteers and also fund-raising.
The hospital is currently in the midst of major fundraising efforts, during the month of November, and to date has raised $650,000 of a $1 million goal. These funds are to provide a computerization of patient information, second, to support the excellent emergency department with equipment and assist the casualty officers and, third, to provide an education endowment fund to ensure continuing education and upgrading of all the hospital staff.
I commend the Delta community and its hospital board and staff for the excellent facility that they are developing and their accomplishments to date.


QUEEN'S GOLDEN GAELS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday the Queen's Golden Gaels won the Vanier Cup for the third time. Playing stifling defence and with a potent offensive attack led by running back Brad Elberg, the Gaels completely overwhelmed the Saint Mary's Huskies 31 to 0.
I am sure all members of this House, even those who attended Saint Mary's, will join with me in offering our heartiest congratulations to the Gaels on their convincing triumph and to the Huskies who played the high calibre of football we have come to expect of their team in recent years.
Special congratulations must be extended to Queen's coach Doug Hargreaves. He has led the Gaels for 17 years. Through hard work and dedication he has ensured that Queen's is consistently among the top teams in Canada.
Today, in addition to being the best university in Canada, Queen's can now rightfully boast that it has, without doubt, the best college football team in the country.
Oil-thigh na Banrighinn a' Banrighinn gu brath.


BLENDED FUELS
Mr. Garth Ttirner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, one of the happier events in my riding earlier this fall was the opening of a blended fuels gas bar. Now I and my constituents in Halton Hills can tank up with gasahol, which is comprised of 10 per cent ethanol. This fuel is environmentally friendly and completely renewable. It helps consumers protect the air they breathe while providing an important market for local corn producers.
The advent of gasahol is directly attributable to the actions of the federal government. The last budget removed the excise tax on the ethanol portion of blended fuels, making them commercially viable.
Now the government is doing even more. Today in Saskatoon the energy minister announced a five-year $12 million green plan project to encourage the production and use of ethanol in Canada. This initiative will expand the assessments of fuel emissions, support research and development of ethanol production technologies and encourage commercially viable ethanol projects.
Ethanol is one of Canada's future fuels: clean burning, powerful and ecologically responsible.
I am proud to be part of a political party which recognizes and promotes this.


THE ECONOMY
Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my exasperation with this government's economic policies.
Canadians are suffering and far too many are living below the poverty line. High unemployment rates have become chronic. In my riding of Northumberland alone, we are experiencing a backlog of 500 welfare applications, with an additional 2,000 people about to exhaust their unemployment insurance, thereby swelling the welfare rolls to unprecedented levels.
The number of hungry children sitting in classrooms forced with their families to food banks is directly linked to unemployment. One million, one hundred thousand Canadian children live in poverty.

Since 1989 when this House passed a resolution to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000, 170,000 more children find themselves living in poverty. Government economic policies are responsible for this deplorable situation.
Without question human beings, Canadians, are our greatest natural resource. Children are our future. Swift action must be taken to lower unemployment rates and to directly benefit Canadian children living in poverty.

[Translation)


SCHOOL BUS SAFETY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for several months, coroner Marc-Andre Bouliane has been fighting a big battle in Quebec for our children's safety when they ride school buses.
Here is a man who cares and listens to all parents and those whose children were killed by a school bus.
Mr. Bouliane is shaking up the Government of Quebec and the school commissions in that province. He is fighting, but it is not a revolt. On the contrary it is learning to be responsible for what happens.
Mr. Bouliane, you have my respect and, for the love of our children, continue your struggle.


FORESTRY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, for the 300 communities across Canada that depend on the forest industry, staying the course with this government's trade policy means failure.
From 1987, when it signed the softwood lumber memorandum of understanding with the United States, to the four straight losses during the countervail hearings, this government has betrayed the people who earn their living by working in an industry that is our number one export earner.
We learned on Friday that the Canada-U.S. panel hearing the softwood subsidy and injury case has collapsed. One of the panellists has resigned due to a conflict of interest and this resignation has suspended
the panel and, as weak as it is, will further delay resolution of the issue, costing more Canadian jobs.
Staying the course means that Americans will continue to attack Canadian industries at every opportunity. For the sake of our forests, change course.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -StoufT-
ville): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hadassah-Wizo organization of Canada launched its 75th anniversary celebration under the leadership of President Esther Matlow. I want to recognize the exceptional achievements of the women in this important organization.
The 17,000 women from across Canada work together to improve the lives of Israeli women, children and seniors. They also educate Canadians about Israel, Zionism and Jewish culture.
Hadassah-Wizo plays a major role in providing social services in Israel and promoting women's rights and human rights in Canada. They do an outstanding job funding many services, including schools and hospitals in Israel.
I applaud the work these women have accomplished over the past 75 years. They have left an indelible mark on the Canadian and Israeli way of life. Many people will continue to benefit from their devoted efforts in years to come.

William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on November 9 the case of Leonard Peltier, Indian rights activist was heard by the United States Court of Appeal in St. Paul, Minnesota.
At that appeal the views of 55 Canadian members of Parliament were presented in a brief to the court by Toronto lawyer Diane Martin. We argued that Peltier's extradition from Canada to the United States in 1976 was fraudulent in that it was based on a false American affidavit, another example of judicial discrimination against aboriginal people.
Not only did this act constitute a gross injustice to Leonard Peltier, but it was also an arrogant abuse of the
November 23, 1992

Canadian courts by the FBI. This is not the behaviour one expects between friendly sovereign countries.
Once again we are asking the Canadian government to recognize that this extradition was fraudulent and that it approach the American government to request a new trial for Leonard Peltier.
After 16 years of imprisonment ,this the very least we can do.


MANPOWER TRAINING
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, having been very involved in the issue in recent months, I note with disappointment today that, perhaps due to some bitterness, some of us are refusing to negotiate any administrative agreement with any province whatsoever.
I would remind you that in the constitutional negotiations, everyone saw an advantage in transferring labour force training to the provinces. How can one justify refusing to negotiate administrative agreements today? Economically it would save taxpayers $250 to $300 million and eliminate overlapping if manpower training were transferred to Quebec.
Quebec insists on negotiating such an agreement and we as a government cannot for long justify a seemingly intransigent attitude to our constituents. All parties concerned in Quebec are unanimous in considering the transfer of labour force training to be essential. Let us leave bitterness behind and work to improve-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is now up. The hon. member for Mount Royal has the floor.


HADASSAH-WIZO
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the 75th anniversary of Hadassah-Wizo, Canada's largest organization of 17,000 Jewish women, active from sea to sea, through their 276 chapters. Highly
regarded at home and abroad as a force for good, they have been at the heart of Israel's history, its social and humanitarian development ever since its creation in 1917, the very year of the Balfour declaration and more than a generation before modern Israel became a reality.
In their high energy achievements and unrelenting pursuit of social betterment, they have championed an impressive number of causes vital to the well-being of Canadians as well as to the Jewish and Arab women and children in Israel. An outstanding training ground in community leadership skills, participants in all facets of their own communities' life, they also made significant contributions at the international deliberations for the Decade for Women in Mexico and Nairobi.
It is with some small measure of shared pride as a long time member that I salute their work, local and global, acts of loving kindness, Mitzvot. Yasher Koach as their's is not a simple task, it requires devotion to principle, as well as planned strategic action in cultural, educational, youth and elder care as well.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal government established the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to buy and sell fish in much of northern Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and the Northwest Territories. The FFMC has been both necessary and important for many who are involved in the fishing industry.
Unfortunately under both the Liberals and the Conservatives this agency has failed to provide the flexibility to meet the real needs of those who fish for a living. This was a major concern of a conference raised by delegates in Winnipeg last weekend, a conference that no federal minister deemed important enough to attend.
Why is it impossible to buy fish in many of the communities that are surrounded by the very lakes in which these fish are caught? Why do major cities in Canada not sell these same fish and why do those who fish for a living not have any effective role in making the decisions that determine their lives?

November 23, 1992
For the sake of the children of those who fish for a living, I ask the government to change the course and to work positively to solve the problems these people face.


CANADA SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, high quality education and training are essential to Canada's future ability to remain competitive internationally. With the creation of the Canada Scholarships Program in 1988 as part of Innovaction, the Canadian Strategy for Science and Technology, and its extension to 1995-96, the federal government will have invested a total of $155 million to encourage young people to become educated in high technology and to ensure that an adequate supply of highly trained Canadians exists in the scientific and technical fields for the future.
I am proud to say that this week 48 such gifted students from the University of New Brunswick's faculties of Engineering, Computer Science and Science are receiving scholarships amounting to $2,000 per year over the next four years.
These young men and women will have the opportunity to compete for careers in fields where the forecasted demand for highly qualified people in science and engineering will exceed that of most other occupations. Canada scholars will not only be viewed as prime prospects by employers in industry and the public sector, but will lead Canada's participation in the high technology and knowledge based economy that the world will offer in the next century.
I know the House will join me in congratulating all recipients of Canada scholarships in this country.


DETERIORATION OF OZONE LAYER
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as far as the ozone layer is concerned, the situation is serious and indeed urgent.
This year, the ozone layer reached its lowest level in decades and it is deteriorating at a faster rate than
expected. Last month, the ozone layer above Canadian cities reached its lowest level in over 30 years.
This situation, is hazardous to human health. The deterioration of the ozone layer increases the risk of skin cancer and of cataracts that can cause blindness, and it has a disastrous impact on farm production. The health and well-being of Canadians and of the whole world are at stake.
Today, in Copenhagen, nearly 90 countries are trying to accelerate elimination of substances that destroy the ozone layer. I urge the government to take the kind of progressive position the occasion demands and show that Canada is capable of leadership in this field. The government must approve a specific and definitive timeframe for the complete elimination of methyl bromide and commit itself to banning the use of HCFCs. This is imperative, in order to protect human health.


STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the student loans program is under review currently. This review involves all aspects of the program. A frequent complaint received in my office is that the income ceiling disqualifies many prospective students from student loans and prevents their continuing education.
A student coming from a family with a total family income in the $35,000 to $40,000 range will have a difficult time securing a student loan, and chances are the application will require an appeal.
If Canada is to maintain its place as having a leading economy, we must ensure that those students with the desire and ability are able to continue their education.
The Secretary of State must address a high delinquency rate now running at one student loan in five. As well, he must also deal with steadily increasing administration costs.
With all this in mind, I urge the Secretary of State to work toward raising the maximum family income limits to ensure that our students have a chance to complete their education.
November 23, 1992

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
According to the newspapers, in his speech yesterday in Montreal the Prime Minister said that he would enact policies that would be right for the country in the future. Canadians wonder why he failed to do so during the past eight years.
He also said that his current non-interventionist policies were in the best interests of our children.
Today 406,000 young people in this country between the ages of 15 and 24 are looking for work. The question is this: Will the Prime Minister do something so that these 406,000 young people will be able to go home at night with the satisfaction of having earned an honest living?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in my speech yesterday in Montreal, I said that despite the problems that exist throughout the industrialized world today, there is some good news for the Canadian economy.
Canadian productivity has increased 5.2 per cent, while unit costs have dropped more than 5 per cent, which is a major contribution towards improving our productivity and our competitive position.
Furthermore, interest rates remain competitive, while inflation is now 1.6 per cent on an annual basis, the lowest of any major industrialized country.
The International Monetary Fund predicts that next year, the economic growth rate in Canada will be 4.4 per cent, the highest in the industrialized world. Even more important, among the G-7 countries, Canada will rank first on job creation.
Despite our own problems and those that exist in all major industrialized countries, the outlook for a strong and durable recovery in this country is bright and encouraging.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have heard these predictions in the House for a long time. It is always like that: next year, next year and next year. The people of Canada know that the situation is very bad today.
Last night again the Prime Minister said that he always tries to do the right thing for Canada. In 1983 he referred in this House to: "that fundamental British tradition in this country, which calls for an election not in five years, but within four years, so that the people can judge the actions of this government".
When he want to Rideau Hall to announce the 1988 election, the Prime Minister said: "It has been the Canadian tradition to call an election after a government has completed four years of a mandate".
If it was right in 1983 and right in 1988, why does the Prime Minister not do the right thing and call an election? We are in the fifth year of the mandate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the tradition to which my hon. friend refers is four years and our four years was on Saturday.
My hon. friend may want to wait a few days before we give him some news. However, given the solicitude of my hon. friend for a four-year mandate, I wonder what his reaction was around the cabinet table when the first Liberal government from 1968 to 1972 went four years and four months. The second Liberal government, from 1974 to 1979, went four years and ten months.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member, who was then a minister, rise up at the cabinet table and say to Prime Minister Trudeau: "Prime Minister, this is wrong. You must call an election in four years or I am going to resign"?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is a strong tradition in Canada too, that when a government waits till the fifth year, normally it loses the election, because it is an admission that they are afraid of the people.
The Prime Minister yesterday referred to the possibility of waiting until next fall. He might be about to repeat the experience of Mr. Hatfield in New Brunswick where he waited until the last minute to call an election. He

November 23, 1992
Oral Questions
was waiting for something to happen, and something did happen: He got zero seats.
The Prime Minister was so happy with my statement that I thought he wanted to get up and announce the election right away. Now he says we have to wait a few days. Can he promise us he will make that announcement before Christmas?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can
assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when I get up to announce an election my hon. friend is going to wish I had sat down.
My hon. friend's knowledge of history is quite minimal, otherwise he would know that the party that violated the four years' rule more often than not was his. Of course, he was a member of the government and so-


Mr. Marchi:: You had the option.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says I had an option. Here we go again. I always feel comfortable, Mr. Speaker, with a Liberal leader who is sitting twenty points ahead about eight or nine months before an election, calling for an election, because when it comes he always regrets the result.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Let's do it right now.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Prime Minister. In his speech last night he said, in effect, that Canada's children would thank him and his government for its policies. Because of these policies 700,000 of Canada's children go to food banks; 700,000 children and more-a million children- live in poverty. There are record levels of unemployment among youth.
How can the Prime Minister honestly expect Canada's children to thank him for his policies since they mean nothing more for them now or in the future but the bread line, the unemployment line and the welfare line?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows full well that when he was first sworn in to government, the Government of Canada was spending 12 cents on the dollar to service its debt. When he left in 1984 it was spending 32 cents on the dollar, the worst record of any country in the industrialized world.
Had the Liberals remained in office and spent exactly the same percentage of the GDP on programs as they were then spending, the deficit this morning would be $82 billion on revenues of $128 billion.
What we are doing on behalf of the children and grandchildren of Canada is saving them from a future with nothing but debt, with no running room, with no flexibility. We want to provide them with a growing economy and we want to provide them with growing economic opportunities. The only way that we can do this is by managing the economy of Canada effectively today so that they


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister.
If Conservative government policies are so good for Canada, if they are the right ones for Canada, why are more than 1.5 million Canadians still out of work with little prospect of jobs for months and perhaps for years? Why is our economic growth so slow and so weak?
Speaking of deficits, why is this government's deficit for this year some $7 billion more than the Prime Minister's own Minister of Finance said it was going to be only last February?
In short, if the Conservative government's medicine is so good, why is the patient, the Canadian economy, still so sick?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to suggest that we are not going through difficult times here and around the industrialized world.
Obviously unemployment is too high, but unemployment today is less than it was when my hon. friend last served in government. The day he turned the government over it was 11.7 per cent.
My hon. friend asks about progress. I suppose it is all relative. Ten years ago, when my hon. friend was a member of the government, it was coming out of a serious recession as well. It was not easy.


Sheila Finestone: Not as badly as you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "Not as badly as we were". Let us compare.
Ten years ago this morning the interest rates were 22.75 per cent in Canada. This morning the interest rates
November 23, 1992

are 9 per cent. Ten years ago this morning the inflation rate was 10.9 per cent and this morning it is 1.6 per cent.
The unemployment rate, notwithstanding what my hon. friend says, was in point of fact worse. The combination of these rates brought about the misery index which was the worst in the history of Canada under that party.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that democracy in Canada was founded on the convention that an election will be held every four years.
As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister said that we should honour this fundamental British tradition in this country which call for an election, not every five years, but within four years so that the people can judge the actions of the government.
The Prime Minister will also know that during peacetime, only three times this century has a government extended its mandate beyond that four-year period. The Prime Minister will also know that during his time in office, the lives of Canadians are worse than when he assumed office. He knows that his program has essentially failed the people of Canada.
Would he do the children and the grandchildren of Canada the ultimate favour, give them a Christmas present by calling an election today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, only a deepest commitment to the fundamental precepts of Judaeo-Christian charity would prevent me from calling an election in the interests of the NDP today because there would not be one of them left if an election was called today. They do provide value to this House of Commons.


Mr. Martin:: Sometimes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The statistics of my hon. friend in regard to this government are of course quite false. The information that he has imparted to the House is misleading and I know that he would want to withdraw it in much the same way as he says that only three times in this century have governments gone beyond four years. They have gone six times beyond four years and many times have been successful.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, at our standing in the polls, we are quite prepared to go to the people today. I challenge him to do the same thing.
Oral Questions
On the weekend the Prime Minister said that for the sake of our children, we have to get the fundamentals in place. We have to stay the course. What does this course mean? It means we have a crisis in transport. We have a crisis in agriculture. We have a crisis in fisheries on both the east and the west coasts. We have a crisis in debt management. However, we have a growth in banking. Back in 1981 there was one food bank. Today under this government, we have 348 food banks across Canada. There has been a tremendous growth in food banks thanks to the government's policies.
The people have definitely lost confidence in this government. That is why we are in this crisis situation today in terms of the dollar and interest rates. They have lost confidence.
In the best interest of our children and our grandchildren, will the Prime Minister do the right thing, either change course or for goodness' sake, call and election?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that because of the polls people have lost confidence in the government and therefore this government should resign. Would he give the same advice to the NDP in Ontario?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am not suggesting he should. I am just wondering if he has or if he would consider it.
My hon. friend refers to the realities. I have indicated what the fundamentals are according to the IMF and my hon. friend should take some encouragement from this. Canada is expected to lead the G-7 in economic growth in 1993 with a growth rate of 4.4 per cent. We are expected to lead the industrialized countries with the lowest inflation rate in the neighbourhood of 2 per cent in 1993. But much more important, Canada is forecast to lead the G-7 countries in terms of employment growth. That means we have the fundamentals right, irrespective of the nature of the international difficulties and that Canadians will benefit from the programs we have put in place.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are getting sick of hearing this Prime Minister serving up Tory-light as a way to respond to these very serious

Oral Questions
concerns being raised by members of the opposition parties.
Not only are the New Democrats calling for a change of course, but members of his own caucus are as well. I have before me a letter from a member of his own caucus, in fact a previous cabinet minister, which says: "I believe that the government should not proceed at this time with some of the fundamentals, namely the North American free trade agreement, and should publicly commit itself and all its resources to the goal of full employment".
If the Prime Minister does not listen to the New Democrats, if he does not listen to the people of Canada, will he at least listen to members of his own caucus who are saying abandon NAFTA and turn his attention to creating full employment in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to listen to that member of caucus if my hon. friend will assure me that he will listen carefully to Mel Hurtig.
Mel has said, and he said this without having received a federal subsidy, that the NDP is through and that the Liberals do not have much of a chance. My fear is that he may wind up supporting me.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This weekend the President of Mexico said that he will be meeting in January with President-elect Bill Clinton to negotiate a solution to the problems of NAFTA, including new issues such as immigration and extradition. Contrary to what this tired old government has been telling Canadians, we are now in fact facing de facto changes to NAFTA.
Will the Prime Minister recognize there are deep problems with that NAFTA agreement? It is now time to put forward a Canadian agenda for changes to trade agreements to promote Canadian interests.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is of course quite wrong. There are no deep problems with NAFTA at all. NAFTA will be signed and implemented as it has been agreed upon.
The President-elect of the United States has indicated that for example with regard to Mexico there are some difficulties on the environment, particularly between Mexico and the United States. There are some immigration problems between Mexico and the United States that are widely known and that have nothing to do with the substance of NAFTA. In the course of negotiating this, apparently they feel it would be appropriate to conclude some parallel arrangements that might help them deal with these two or three specific problems. So be it, we wish them well. They have nothing to do with the fundamentals of NAFTA, which will remain intact.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is a sign of the total bankruptcy of ideas of this government that it does not recognize that the ravaging of the environment and the reduction of standards for workers are not part of a trade agreement because we already have seen a loss of 350,000 jobs in the manufacturing area for Canadians alone. Most of all we should know what a bad trade agreement can do to workers and to the environment.
I want to ask the Prime Minister again why does this lame duck government that has lost all credibility with Canadians persist in trying to ram through a trade agreement that will be destructive to the future of young Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, trade between Canada and the United States has increased by $16 billion since the free trade agreement was signed between Canada and the United States.
My hon. friend raises the question of trade. Trade has increased dramatically between Canada and the United States. The forecast on the first six months of this year indicates an increase of 10.5 per cent of trade between Canada and the United States raising our exports to $119 billion. That is the largest trade arrangement between Canada and the United States ever, and the most successful.


Lloyd Axworthy: Current account deficit.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is now talking about current account. I would be happy to discuss that. We are talking now about export trade. Our exports to the United States are at a record level. In light of this and foreign investments have increased-


November 23, 1992


Lloyd Axworthy: The largest current account deficit.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor and is answering the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Foreign investment has increased in Canada by $6.5 billion net, I believe, since the free trade agreement was signed. So we are very much in favour of the free trade agreement, as is President-elect Clinton.
My question to the hon. member would be: The NDP has the position that it is going to abrogate the free trade agreement. It is going to tear it up. What is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada in respect to the free trade agreement?


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear. We will negotiate a good agreement. We are not going to do like either the Tories in Ottawa or the NDP in Ontario. We are not the Bobbsey Twins of the apocalypse, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. The government persists in hanging on to power and doing nothing. For example, no industry is more affected by the government's inertia than the steel industry. No industry is in greater need of a good free trade agreement, which the government has not delivered.
That being so, and since the government refuses to reopen negotiations, what exactly does the government intend to do to give us what it says it supports, a real North American steel pact?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House just last Thursday, I told the hon. member and members opposite that we have had significant discussions with both the Canadian industry, management as well as the union leaders. We have raised this particular issue with the U.S. government, the Prime Minister with the President, myself with Carla Hills, and our embassy representatives with a wide range of people in the administration. We have been told that there is no support for this as far as the U.S. industry is concerned.
Oral Questions
We are seeking ways to try to encourage that support with the industry using the various contacts we have. If it is possible to get a U.S.-Canada steel accord we are very supportive of that. We have made that clear all along. But one cannot just turn the tap on and say we will have a steel accord. TTiere has to be agreement on both sides. That is what we are trying to build right now.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, if there were support by the U.S. industry then the Canadian industry would not need this government to go to bat for it. If you can understand that, that is when you are needed and then you should act and if not, then you have not acted.
On another subject, President-elect Clinton said last week that he would like to see the North American free trade agreement extended to Chile and Argentina as soon as possible. To extend the NAFTA with its current bias against Canadian exporters would only make a very bad situation worse. Why has the Canadian government not taken the lead with the governments of Mexico, Chile and Argentina? Why has Canada not indicated or demonstrated that it is in the common interest of all potential signatories to make the removal of U.S. harassment, the misuse by the United States of anti-dumping suits, a condition precedent to any further agreements?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed something in the exchange. I am trying to understand the position of the Liberal Party. On the one hand we have the critic from Winnipeg saying that he wants us not to go ahead with this deal, that he wants us to renegotiate the deal whatever that means. On the other hand, we have the critic from Montreal saying that he wants us to expand the NAFTA, that he wants to see it go to Venezuela and Chile.
What is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada? Are you for it? Are you against it? Are you right down the middle? Because it is very uncomfortable being right down the middle.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I finally agree with the trade minister on some comment in the House of Commons.

November 23, 1992
Oral Questions
This government talks about getting the fundamentals right. I have here dozens of free trade sector studies that were forced out of the government in 1986 under access to information. They provide the industry-by-industry cost comparisons which are needed to judge the effects of any trade agreement.
Will the trade minister tell us why he has not released similar sector-by-sector studies on free trade with Mexico? Does he not realize that one of the key fundamentals for all Canadians, their children, and their children's children is being open and honest with information?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, last week in committee I drew the attention of the committee to pages and pages of studies that have been done by this government and others within Canada, within the United States and within Mexico. There are studies after studies after studies if my hon. friend wants to spend the time dealing with them.
Let me just draw his attention to some specific facts, not studies about what the future might bring, but facts about what has happened under the free trade agreement which my hon. friend opposite says is such a disaster and which the member from Winnipeg says is such a disaster.


Steven W. Langdon: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend is having a hard time keeping his mouth shut and trying to listen to the answer at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: We will move on.



Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there have been no sectoral studies.
My question is for the Prime Minister who has said that his government has the fundamentals right and that it will stay the course. I am wondering what these fundamentals are. Is it the nearly 58,000 bankruptcies so far this year? Is it the nearly 400 plant closures in Ontario, the 3.5 million people on UI or welfare, the 405 new food banks, or is it the 20 per cent of the population that already has half the wealth while getting still more? Is this the dreadful path of fundamentals on which this
government will stay the course for the benefit of our children?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the fundamentals, if we are going to enjoy sustained growth, are low inflation, low interest rates, higher economic growth, all of which are forecast by the IMF, but more important high productivity growth and low unit costs. For the first time in many years Canada's productivity increase this year is twice that of the United States and higher than all of the other G-7 countries. These are most encouraging points even though-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: To whom?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, my hon. friend says to whom. All that indicates is a great deal of ignorance because it is to all Canadians.
The only way we are going to increase wealth is by enhancing productivity. That is the only way to sell products abroad, thereby creating jobs at home.


FISHERIES
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It concerns the scientific evidence released by his department on Friday which recommends further drastic cuts to cod quotas in Atlantic Canada.
Obviously the advice cannot be ignored, but the minister knows that these quota cuts will lead to thousands of job losses in fish plants in communities across Atlantic Canada.
Will the minister inform the House what measures his government has in place to assist those individuals and communities and on what date this compensation program will be announced?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I made public the advice from CAFSAC, from our scientists with reference to the total allowable catches that should be put in place for 1993 in the Atlantic groundfish fishery.
With reference to most stocks their advice is that these stocks are under pressure and the total allowable catches should be reduced very considerably; in fact up to 70 per cent in the case of one of the stocks involved. This will have a serious impact on the Atlantic groundfish fishery, particularly in Cape Breton, eastern Nova Scotia, the
November 23, 1992

west side of Newfoundland, the south coast of Newfoundland, and parts of New Brunswick.
The next step is to meet with the industry again and with the provincial governments to get their advice on what they think of this scientific advice-it is advice that we can accept or amend if we wish-and how they think a reduction should be put in place.
If extraordinary assistance is needed for some fishermen, certain gear types or whatever that will not be able to make a living or meet their expenses because of these reductions, I have no doubt that some assistance will be put in place.
First a decision has to be made and that will not be made until the middle of December. Then we will have to see what 1993 brings.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, that is a tired answer from a tired minister of a tired government.
The minister of fisheries knows that these cuts will close entire communities in Atlantic Canada, including perhaps Petit de Grat in my constituency.
Restructuring the fishery over the long term is certainly necessary, but will the minister not admit that part of the task of rebuilding the fishery is to support the people who will depend on it when it is rebuilt?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel particularly tired, but if I am tired it has not stopped me from assisting 20,000 fishermen in the province of Newfoundland when we had to declare a northern cod moratorium. It has not prevented me from working so that the Grand Bank plant, the Gaultois plant and others have come back from certain disasters that they suffered.
We will continue to do that, but we cannot put a plan in motion until decisions are made as to what total allowable catches should be.
We have to recognize the fact that the unemployment insurance program is in place, that many fishermen and fish plant workers are on that program now, and that whatever the effects will be of the 1993 Atlantic ground-fish management plan there can be no effects until it is put in place. If there are effects then which cannot be
Oral Questions
met by regular government assistance programs I have no doubt that with the support of the Prime Minister, which I have had to date and which I am sure I will always have when it comes to helping people, we will put in place a plan that will help those who need that assistance.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, let us put the question to the Prime Minister who I know is not tired of or bored by the plight of Atlantic fishermen and plant workers.
Will he go to bat in cabinet for those people affected by last week's quota cut proposals? Does he condone the discrimination that is implicit in his minister's response whereby he gives compensation to northern cod fishermen but refuses to do it for other Atlantic fishermen and plant workers, including those in the plant at Ramea, for example?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows better, although we will never know in this House that he knows better.
The situation with respect to the northern cod fishery was that scientists recommended they found conditions unparalleled in any other fishery. They recommended that the TAC be reduced to the lowest level possible and that it should in no way exceed 50,000 tonnes of fish which was already just about caught for that particular year. They pointed out that there were two year classes, 1986 and 1987, which had to be saved so that they would reach spawning age, or the stock itself might very well not survive.
This is unparalleled in any of these other fisheries. In none of these other fisheries do the scientists recommend that there be a moratorium or that the stocks be reduced to the lowest level possible. Therefore we do not have similar situations. We have stocks with a spawning biomass about half the long-term average or higher.
I cannot close fisheries, unprecedented actions never before taken in the history of Canada, simply because the hon. gentleman represents an area which is not a

November 23, 1992
Oral Questions
northern cod area but where they are having difficulties with the fishery.
There have been good seasons and bad seasons in the fishery for 400 years. I am not going to close a fishery unless I have absolutely no other alternative. Where fishermen and plant workers require assistance I will do my best to see they get it. I have never been too tired to do that and I will never be too tired to do that.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister could expend some of that energy on the Ramea people. There is a case that he has skated all around but has not addressed, and I ask him to do that.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. Is the real reason he is not declaring a moratorium on the south coast of Newfoundland at 3PS and in the gulf that he will then have to provide compensation as he has done with the northern cod? Is that not the real reason he is hiding behind a partial closure to avoid the compensation?
Why does he not come clean with those fishermen? He can shout and bellow all he wants. Those people are hurting just as badly as those involved in the northern cod fishery.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, every government program involving the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars has to have rules and regulations.
With respect to the Northern Cod Compensation Program we made a very generous rule, that for fish plant to be eligible it would only need to have a throughput of 10 per cent, and that particular plant's throughput should be the northern cod in either the year
1990	or the year 1991. It was a very generous provision.
In the case of the plant at Ramea it did not have a 10 per cent throughput of northern cod in either 1990 or
1991	because the people managing that plant did not apparently choose to put northern cod through the plant. Therefore the plant is not eligible for northern cod. I cannot make it eligible for northern cod. It does not meet the rules of the program. I invite the member-


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to move on.

[ Translation}


GUN CONTROL
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil - Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The federal Minister of Justice is not unaware of the law enforcement problems faced by the Surete du Quebec on Mohawk reserves. Since the Mohawks have recently said through their leaders that they do not intend to comply with the new federal gun control law, what has the minister planned with the Surete du Quebec to enforce this law on Mohawk territory and can she assure us that there will be no exception and this law will apply to everyone?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the gun control laws apply to all Canadians. No exception has been made for native people or any other group. This was true before the recent amendments took effect and it is still true today.
As for enforcement of the gun control laws, the hon. member knows that the administration of justice is in provincial jurisdiction. It is not up to us to enforce the law in Quebec; it is up to the Attorney General of Quebec and the Minister of Public Security in that province. It would be presumptuous on my part and inappropriate to tell them how to do their job.
Nevertheless, the Government of Quebec has already asked the federal government for help, which has been duly provided. It is not our business to intervene in fields under provincial jurisdiction unless we are expressly asked to do so.
Unless and until such a request is made to the Government of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: I want to move on.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. At $500 a plate Conservative Party fund raisers the Prime Minister has been bragging about his government's
November 23, 1992

economic policies. He says: "We have got the fundamentals right. We are staying the course".
Yet with unemployment at over 1.5 million and growing, child poverty at 1.1 million and growing, and social assistance recipients at 2.6 million and growing, this is not the sort of progress we need.
For the sake of Canada and their children, will the Prime Minister finally admit his government's mistakes, change course and help make life better for Canadian families, not worse?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to unemployment and says it is growing. That statement is false. Then he refers to child poverty and says it is growing. That statement is false as well. The prefatory remarks by my hon. friend are misleading, inaccurate and bear no reflection whatsoever of the latest economic realties.
I have already indicated that the best way we can preserve economic opportunities for our children is to make sure that we do not burden them any further with debts to pay for today's programs. The best way to do that is to increase our productivity, to increase investment, to open new trading opportunities, and to invest in human resources to provide them with appropriate opportunities in the future. That is exactly what we are in the process of doing.


BREAST IMPLANTS
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he plans to stay the course and give us more of the same. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare can assure women in Canada that he will not be giving us more of the same.
There have been increasing reports that saline breast implants may be the host for fungus infection and their safety is in question. At the same time the six-month voluntary moratorium for silicone gel implants has expired.
Will the minister advise Canadian women what he intends to do regarding both the saline and the silicone breast implants?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the saline
Oral Questions
breast implants, the member knows that report came out very recently. Normally those implants were considered as safe and were even recommended to replace the silicone gel breast implants. The department is looking at the report to see if it is necessary to take action and, if so, we will do that.
In terms of the moratorium the member will understand that with the referendum we had to postpone some answers to the reports to the House on hepatitis b, on breast cancer and on the moratorium.
I will come forward soon with answers to their reports and give my answer to the moratorium on silicone gel breast implants.


ROUGE VALLEY
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch - Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Environment.
Last Friday the Ontario NDP government's Interim Waste Authority published its short list of three proposed sites in York region to handle 40 million tonnes of metro's garbage, and I was astounded to hear that site M-6 which borders on the Rouge Valley was on the short list.
On Friday I announced that if the NDP government were foolish enough to proceed with this site, my government would seriously consider terminating the $10 million financial commitment we made in 1988 to help create the Rouge Valley Park.
Does the minister agree that the IWA and the Ontario NDP government should be put on notice that we strongly object to site M-6 being on the short list?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the member's question.
There has been constant vigilance by our government and Canadians have worked to persuade successive Ontario governments of the need to protect and preserve the Rouge Valley in the national interest as a magnificent park in the greater metropolitan Toronto area.

November 23, 1992
Routine Proceedings
This latest NDP announcement certainly flies in the face of the position of the federal government and, indeed, of Canadians that the Rouge Valley be established with no expressways, no development and no dumps. Our government is working diligently to preserve its historic and natural aspects. We look forward to working with the provincial government in order to preserve this and we need to preserve its magnificence today.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Prime Minister said on December 9, 1983: "It does happen that a government sits too long. It does become exhausted and bankrupt of ideas".
Will the minister tell us how the government now proposes to provide Canadians with a stable, competitive and Canadian-controlled airline industry, or will he acknowledge that this exhausted government is bankrupt of ideas?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that last week I said many times in this House that we had received a joint proposal from PWA and its council of employees on either Tuesday, November 10 or November 17.
Since that time we have been working diligently with all parties to try and go over the different hurdles there are in this proposal. We are working to arrive at a solution that will assure the airline system in Canada of stability over a long-term period and the viability of the components.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health.
One of the most telling signs that this is a tired and old government has been in the placement and treatment of health care in this country for the last four years.
Last week the minister was asked to respond to the very serious issue of tainted blood in the Canadian blood supply system. The minister at that time refused to have a public and impartial inquiry. Today we stand again in this House and ask the government to provide for an independent inquiry to ensure that the blood supply system in this country is protected.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to change the decision that I gave to the House last week. I said at that time that from the information provided there is no reason to believe that what happened in 1984 should trigger the kind of inquiry he is referring to, except if there is any new evidence, any new information that would make this inquiry necessary.
I also said last week that I would be ready to do so. However, with the information we have, there is no reason for an inquiry. He knows that his colleague from Winnipeg, with two or three other members, has decided in the subcommittee on health to consider some kind of inquiry. We will collaborate and I believe should wait for the result of that inquiry at the parliamentary level.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by residents of Amos, La Motte, Landrienne, Senneterre, La Corne, Saint-Marc-de-Fi-guery, Berry, Villemontel, Saint-Felix-de-Dalquier and Preissac, in Abitibi. Your petitioners are of the opinion that films depicting violence on television are dangerous and should be banned because they generate more violence.
This petition says that toys that encourage violent games are unacceptable and that the manufacture thereof should be banned. It also points out that when acts of violence are reported, freedom of the press should be restricted, and that news about acts of violence, broadcast repeatedly on all channels and on radio, can lead to further, identical acts of violence.
November 23, 1992

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation dealing with the points mentioned, in order to eradicate violence in our society, provide better safeguards for our children and improve the quality of life of everyone in this country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several residents of Kingston and other cities, in Ontario and other provinces, who object to the goods and services tax, but especially to the tax as it is applied to books.

The petitioners are appalled that Canada is one of the few countries if not the only country in the western world, that taxes the reading of books, magazines and newspapers.
One might expect such a law in a totalitarian state but not in a free democratic country like Canada where the printed word is one of the cornerstones of our freedom and where magazines and newspapers and freedom of the press are considered one of our great freedoms and indeed, a very important freedom in Canada.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to repeal the goods and services tax in so far as it applies to publications. I am pleased to support and present this petition.


William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce a petition on behalf of many people in the Stewiacke, Nova Scotia area.
The petitioners request that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be vested with the statutory authority to enforce all existing and future safety regulations and provisions under the Railway Safety Act where currently they have no power or authorization to investigate or intervene on behalf of the citizens when a breach of the said act is committed.
This petition results from a series of accidents at the railway crossing at Stewiacke. The people there are most concerned that the provision is not properly enforced, in their opinion. Perhaps this petition will help get that enforcement.
Routine Proceedings HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the communist authorities of Vietnam vowed during the seventh congress of the communist party that it will use all means necessary to maintain the power of the party.
Some of my constituents, Canadians of Vietnamese origin, have signed petitions calling on the government first, to encourage and pressure the Vietnamese government to abandon its inhumane policies and restore civil and humane rights in Vietnam; second, that all Vietnamese regulations, codes and constitutional provisions prohibiting free expression or denying freedom of association or religious freedom be eliminated; and finally, that the Vietnamese government and the communist party of Vietnam make a formal commitment to permit free and fair elections under international supervision so that the citizens of the country may determine the future leadership and orientation of their government.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I wish to present. The first one is signed by several hundred members of New Westminster and my own riding. It points out that family class and assisted relative immigrants have been historically an important part of Canadian immigration policy and that assisted relatives and family class immigrants have people in Canada that can assist them with obtaining employment, housing, and learning Canadian customs and language.
The petition goes on to point out that the present proposals by this government will downplay assisted relatives and family class and calls on this government to develop a policy that gives first priority to family class and assisted relatives.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the second petition points out that approximately 75 per cent of all activity in the Delhi office in India comes from the Punjab, for visitors' visas and immigration cases. It points out that it is very difficult for people to travel within India from the Punjab down to Delhi and is often not safe.
The petitioners call upon this government to establish a consular service in the Punjab.

November 23, 1992
Routine Proceedings NARCOTICS CONTROL ACT


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the battle against drugs is being waged in virtually every Canadian community across our country. It is sad to see in many of these same communities that the battle is being lost to those who wish to spread this malaise across the country, particularly among our youth.
Therefore I am proud to present two additional petitions of a wider campaign. Petitioners of my riding of York West ask the government as one possible tool with which to aid those frontline organizations in the battle that the Narcotics Control Act be amended so that the assets from drug seizures can be shared with local police organizations and community associations.
In this way those funds would not only go into the general revenue fund at the federal level but would get reinvested, if you will, with organizations that are on the front lines of trying to combat this malaise that is afflicting all too many Canadians.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, issues of personal safety and security are high in the minds of Canadians these days as we hear many stories.
Today I stand again in memory of Rosalynn Dupuis, the nine-year old girl who was brutally murdered. People are signing the many petitions which are being circulated asking that the government reconsider its way of dealing with serious crimes committed by young offenders.
People from across Canada are signing these petitions asking that the government act and act quickly.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people from many provinces who are deeply concerned that Bill C-91, which has recently been in front of the House and is now in committee, seeks to end the licensing of no-name generic drugs in Canada.
Most observers have pointed out, including the government's own analysts, that this will result in significantly higher costs for consumers, for provincial governments, and therefore for taxpayers across this country.
The petitioners, on whose behalf I have the honour to present this petition, ask this House of Commons not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22 which was passed in 1987. It extended at that time the privileges given to the multinational drug companies, those brand name companies which have been so profitable in the past and which will be even more profitable in the future with this new legislation. I hope it is rejected.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege of presenting petitions signed by thousands of constituents. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children.
The petitioners ask and encourage and support women to report incidents of assault or abuse. They want this Parliament to develop legislation to provide assistance and support for women reporting assault or abuse. They want to make sure that we concentrate a special effort on the training of police, lawyers, court workers and judges to become knowledgeable about woman and child abuse and also to focus public attention on this very important and long ignored problem.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 344 and 391.


Mr. Wood: Since 1988, with respect to logging on federally owned land, (a) how many licences have been awarded (b) who received these licences (c) for how long were the licences in force (d) what is the allowable harvest for each licence (e) how much land has been reforested as a percentage relative to the land logged over this same period?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Since 1988, with respect to logging on federally owned land:
(a)	Licences have been awarded for three properties.
(b)	The licences were awarded to:
November 23, 1992

(i)	Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Canfor), for Timber Berth 408 in Wood Buffalo National Park, Alberta.
(ii)	Cariboo Indian Enterprises Ltd, for a property owned by the Department of National Defence and managed by the B.C. Ministry of Forests: Lot 7741, Chilcotin Military Block at Williams Lake, British Columbia.
(iii)	Crestbrook Forest Industries, for lands owned by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and managed by the B.C. Ministry of Forests: Dominion Coal Blocks-parcels 73 and 82, near Cranbrook, British Columbia.
For each property the following table indicates, respectively:
(c)	The duration for which the licence is (was) in force.
(d)	The allowable harvest or annual Allowable cut (AAC).
Duration of Date of	AAC
licence	expiry	(m3)(i)	Wood Buffalo	21 years (*1)	year 2002	4000,000	(*2)(ii)	Chilcotin	IS years	year 1997	31,000	(*3)(iii)	Cranbrook	3 yrs +	April 1993	21,2000
8 mths
Notes: * 1 The licence was declared invalid on June 12,1992 *2 Due to controversy surrounding the licence, no logging has occured since 1990. Actuel havest levels were roughly 50 per cent of the AAC.
*3 In response to native land claims no logging has occured since 1989.
(e)	The estimated percentage of land reforested relative to land logged for each property is as follows:
(i)	Timber Berth 408, Wood Buffalo National Park: approximately 20 per cent of the area harvested has regenerated naturally. There has been no artificial reforestation.
(ii)	Lot 7741, Chilcotin Military Block: Natural regeneration is the prescribed method of reforestation, but the extent of land regenerated is not known since no surveys have been taken in the last five years.
(iii)	Dominion Coal Blocks: An estimated 100 per cent of the land harvested is reforested as a condition if the terms of the forest licence.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Caccia: Was there a decision made to install a new set of advanced short-range radars as part of the SI.3 billion North Warning System and, if so, what were the reasons motivating that decision and, specifically, who are the potential enemies that would warrant the construction of this radar system?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, the 1985 memorandum of understanding between the Governments of Canada and the United States sets out the parameters for the construction of the North Warning System (NWS) and outlines the terms of a decision to install a set of short-range radars as part of the NWS. As part of the North American Air Defence Modernization Program, the NWS will assist in providing comprehensive coverage of aerial approaches to the North American continent. With the end of the cold war the importance of such coverage for Canada has become less a question of potential enemies than of being able to conduct effective surveillance over the approaches to Canadian airspace. The maintenance of this capability is an important aspect of Canadian sovereignty and security-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 355, 393 and 409 could be made Orders for Returns the returns would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 355, 393 and 409 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Whittaker: With respect to board meetings of the Canada 125 Corporation,
(a)	what amount has been spent to date to hold them, (b) which directors attended each meeting, (c) who else attended them, (d) in what province, city and resort or hotel were they held, (e) what was the transporation cost of each attendee, and if) which attendees travelled first class or business class?
Return tabled.

November 23, 1992
Government Orders

Question No. 393-Mr. Karpoff:
With respect to Goods and Services Tax refunds, (a) how much has been rebated in each calendar month since January 1, 1991 (b) how many refund claims have been accepted and rejected in this period (c) what is the estimated amount of fraudulent or illegal refunds (d) what is the dollar amount of illegal refunds that have been recovered (e) what steps have been taken to reduce the amount of illegal refunds?
Return tabled.

Question No. 409-Mr. Barrett:
Does the Minister of International Hade have a computerized list of opponents of the North American Free Trade Agreement and, if so, what are the names on the list and what is the distribution of the list?
Return tabled.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 374.
I ask that the answer to Question No. 374 be made an order for return and this return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

*


Mr. Saint-Julien: Has the government since 1964 forgiven any loans made under the Canada Student Loans Program and, if so, what are the amounts forgiven since 1964 (a) per year (6) per province (c) per financial institution (cl) per university (e) per student, and what are their names?
Return tabled.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 32, 40, 41, 68 and 80.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The vote is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion is deferred.
The next vote is on Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
November 23, 1992


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion is deferred.
The next vote is on Motion No. 18. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion is deferred.
I remind hon. members that the vote to be held on Motion No. 18 will apply to Motions Nos. 19 and 20.
The next vote is on Motion No. 32. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 40. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 41. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 41 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 68. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 68 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 80. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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

November 23, 1992
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (for Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved:: Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-86 be amended in the French version of Clause 15 by striking out line 32 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) A moins que l'agent d'immigration ou l'arbitre n'en decide autrement par ecrit, la duree de l'autorisation de sejour".


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is simply to make sure that we amend the French so it is consistent with the English. This was an amendment that we moved and was accepted in the legislative committee. It is important that both languages reflect the same intent.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 15 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: We will now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 64, 67 and 71, as well as Motions Nos. 31, 34, 36 and 66, which are grouped for the purposes of debate.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out line 16 at page 45 and substituting the following therefor:
"an appeal from that order has been allowed or unless the person satisfies an adjudicator, upon application, that there are good reasons why the claim was not made prior to the issuance of the removal order, and that the claim is not obviously unfounded".

Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 35 by adding immediately after line 19 at page 45 the following:
"(2) A person who expressses a fear of persecution shall be advised by the immigration officer of the availability of the refugee determination process."
Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 36 by striking out line 6 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"be returned and where the person can remain, unless the person satisfies the Refugee Division that the person has a well-founded fear of persecution in that country;".
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 36 by striking out lines 7 to 13 at page 47.
Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 36 by striking out line 13 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"graph 114(l)(s), and that is a country that has undertaken by means of a bilateral agreement with Canada or by means or a multilateral agreement to readmit and determine the refugee claims of persons who are returned to its territory from Canada;".
Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 36 by striking out line 13 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"graph 114(l)(r), and the person has no immediate familial ties to Canada that would make Canada the logical country of first asylum;".
Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 36 by striking out lines 16 to 21 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"by a competent person or body not to be a Convention refugee, or not to be eligible to have the claim determined by the Refugee Division, unless the person can satisfy the Refugee Division that there has been a change in circumstances that justifies a reconsideration of the original decision;".


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I would like to move Motion No. 31 separately.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 36 by adding immediately after line 36 at page 47 the following:
"(1.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (lX*ita*ro), a person is eligible to have a claim determined by the Refugee Division if, in the opinion of the Senior Immigration Officer, the person has a credible basis for a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or
November 23, 1992

Government Orders
political opinion in the country that recognized the person as a	referred to such committees as may be designated or established by
Convention refugee."	each House of Parliament."


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, with the same permission Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, with the same permission of the House I would like to move Motion No. 34. of the House I would like to move Motion No. 66.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: With the same The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois): Is there unanimous unanimity.	consent?


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 34.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 36 by adding immediately after line 15 at page 48 the following:
"(c) there must be a bilateral or multilateral agreement specifying that the country to which a person maybe returned is responsible for examining the person's refugee claim and guaranteeing the admissibility of such persons recognized as refugees."


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the same unanimous agreement on Motion No. 36.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: With the same unanimity.


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 36 by adding immediately after line 15 at page 48 the following:
"(3.1) Where there is a claim in accordance with section 53(1) that a person's life or freedom is threatened, the Senior Immigration Officer shall immediately inform the person of the rights available under that section and assure that the person is not removed to any country where such threat exists."


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 64.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 98
(a)	by striking out lines 21 and 22 at page 102 and substituting the following therefor:
"108.1 (1) The Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may, subject to ratification in accordance wilh subsection (2), enter into"; and
(b)	by adding immediately after line 31 at page 102 the following: "Ratification
(2) The Minister of Employment and Immigration shall lay or cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, for ratification, at least sixty sitting days before its effective date, every agreement that is proposed to be entered into under subsection (1), and it shall stand


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 66.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 102 by striking out lines 21 and 22 at page 110 and substituting the following therefor:
"countries that have acceded to and comply with the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and have a refugee determination system that complies with Canadian principles of fundamental justice;".


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 67.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 102 by striking out lines 21 and 22 at page 110 and substituting the following therefor:
"countries that are parties to and comply with their obligations under the Convention and international human rights law; and that have agreed to accept back on their territory persons who came to Canada through that country, and to ensure that those persons will have their refugee claims fully determined and, if accepted as refugees have all the rights afforded under the Convention;".
Motion No. 71.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 102 by striking out lines 16 to 32 at page 113 and substituting the following therefor:
"(8)The Governor in Council shall only prescribe a country under paragraph lfy) or renew any prescription under that paragraph if the country:
(a)	ensures respect for the human rights of refugees and refugees claimants as established by the Convention and international human rights law;
(b)	has instituted a procedure to identify and protect Convention refugees which meets the standards set by the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and
(c)	has undertaken by international agreement or otherwise to re-admit and determine the refugee claims of persons returned to its territory by Canada."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Debate is on all the motions that have just been moved.

Government Orders
[English)


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the pressure from the government has given us 10 minutes to debate 15 motions and these motions cover some of the most important points of difference.
The great majority of the 40-odd groups that appeared before our committee was opposed to the harsh restrictions placed on the entry of people into Canada to claim refugee status, restrictions harsher than in the previous law. I have several motions dealing with this but I probably will not be able to deal with all of them in 10 minutes, let alone with the ones from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I would say I do support the motions from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace as well.
My first motion, No. 23, is to replace part of clause 35 with these words: "unless an appeal from the order has been allowed"-that is an order to depart-"or unless the person satisfies an adjudicator, upon application, that there are good reasons why the claim"-that was the refugee claim-"was not made prior to the issuance of the removal order, and that the claim is not obviously unfounded".
I am trying to plug a hole in the process created by the government's abolishing the requirement that when the person who might be a refugee claimant comes to an inquiry, he be asked: Do you wish to make a refugee claim? That is in the present law. That has been crossed out, abolished.
There is a danger that a genuine refugee claimant will not know at what point he should say that he is a refugee or a refugee claimant, or that he is afraid of persecution if he returns. He might talk about things that happened back home but not clearly say that he is afraid of persecution and he may never be considered to have made a refugee claim.
I have asked in the motion that that hole be filled with this requirement, that if he does say he is a refugee and if at some later stage he explains why he did not make it at the beginning as required-because he was not asked- that he be allowed to proceed with the claim.
Motion No. 24 would add in: "A person who expresses a fear of persecution shall be advised by the immigration officer of the availability of the refugee determination process". This addresses the same point in a different way. If an immigration officer understands that a person has expressed a fear of persecution the officer has the
duty to tell him what the steps are by which he can apply to have that claim properly adjudged.
Motion No. 25 is a clause that sends a person back to a country through which he passed where he can be returned, a so-called safe country, of which the government proposes to make a list. It says he can be sent back if it is a country to which he can be returned. Then I wish to add these words: "and where the person can remain".
Countries have sometimes accepted a refugee claimant back and then shipped him on to the country he originally fled from. It has to be a country where the person can remain and it shall not be done unless the person satisfies the refugee division that the person has a well-founded fear of persecution in that country.
In other words, the person claims that he is afraid. If he is a Sri Lankan or a black African and is afraid to go back to Germany because of the race riots there, that should not be adjudged by the senior immigration officer at the border. The senior immigration officer should send that question for decision by the body that is specially trained, specially appointed and empowered to adjudge that question: the refugee division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
I will skip Motion No. 26 and go on to Motion No. 27. Again this is to describe the country to which Canada intends to send a person back on the grounds that he should make and should have made a refugee claim there. Some countries have a very sloppy, superficial treatment of refugees partly because they do not have the money-very poor countries-or partly because they do not agree that much with it.
This is to be a country in the words I have here: "that has undertaken by means of a bilateral agreement with Canada or by means of a multilateral agreement to readmit and determine the refugee claims of persons who are returned to its territory from Canada". It is not enough to readmit him; they have to agree to determine the refugee claims.
Skipping Motion No. 28, I will go to Motion No. 29. This deals with a person who had decided in Canada not to be a refugee, had left the country and then came back again. The question is: Does he have reason to come back that he was considered not to have the first time he came? My motion inserts the words: "If that person has been decided by a competent person or body not to be a convention refugee or not to be eligible to have the claim determined by the refugee division, he can be sent away, unless the person can satisfy the refugee division that
November 23, 1992

there has been a change in circumstances which justifies a reconsideration of the original decision".
In Sri Lanka the Indian army came in and for two or three months and there was so-called peace. The refugee board decided it was all right to send Sri Lankans back to Sri Lanka. War broke out again and the refugee board would not send them back then, or almost none of them, during that war time. The circumstances had changed. That should be available to a person who went out and came back again, if he can convince the board, not the officer at the border, but the expert refugee board is the one that should be convinced of that and the officer should send him there.
Motion No. 64 would substitute on page 102 a much better approach for making these bilateral agreements. 1 am going to read it, although I might run out of time: "The minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may, subject to ratification in accordance with subsection (2), enter into these agreements"-that is, for burden sharing, for sharing the work of supporting, examining and perhaps entertaining refugees and the ratification that is required". Subsection (2) reads: "The Minister of Employment and Immigration shall lay or cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, for ratification, at least 60 sitting days before its effective date, every agreement that is proposed to be entered into under subsection (1), and it shall stand referred to such committees as may be designated or established by each House of Parliament".
The question of whether a country such as Germany is fit to have black refugee claimants returned there is a matter that should be debated within this House and not just done behind the closed doors of cabinet. That is the purpose of this motion.
Motion No. 67 is a motion to describe countries that we consider adequate with their refugee policy. It would amend clause 102 by inserting these words: "Countries that are parties to and comply with their obligations under the convention and international human rights law"-which goes far beyond the convention in many ways-"and that have agreed to accept back on their territory persons who came to Canada through that
Government Orders
country, and to ensure that those persons will have their refugee claims fully determined, and if accepted as refugees have all the rights afforded under the convention". That is a very complete definition which I think we should be using.
Finally Motion No. 71 concerns countries from which the refugee might have come, or claims to have come: "The Governor in Council shall only prescribe a country under paragraph (l)(s) or renew any prescription under that paragraph for that country if; (a) the country ensures respect for human rights of refugees and refugee claimants as established by the convention and international human rights law; (b) has instituted a procedure to identify and protect the convention refugees which meets the standards set by the executive committee of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees"-by the way Canada is on the executive of the High Commission for Refugees-"(c) has undertaken by international agreement or otherwise to readmit and determine the refugee claims of persons returning to its territory by Canada".


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk to Motions Nos. 31, 36 and 34 and 66 which are amendments I put forward on behalf of the Liberal Party.
Under the present law, there is a two-stage process for admitting refugees to this country. At the first stage they determine questions of eligibility to proceed to a full hearing before the refugee board and they deal with questions of credibility.
The overwhelming number of experts in this field and the overwhelming number of witnesses who came before committee agreed with the government's move to get rid of the first stage hearing because a great percentage of the cases that went to the first stage hearing were agreed to and went on to the second stage. Therefore it was a waste of time and a waste of resources.
However, it was our view if you get rid of the first-stage hearing dealing with eligibility that you transfer those matters to the full hearing of the board as a preliminary question. You do that before the board

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
because there is due process before the board. There is a right to representation, the right to interpretation and so on.
Elowever that is not what the government has done in Bill C-86. It got rid of the first stage hearing dealing with questions of eligibility where there was due process and the right to a lawyer and so on. But it has given the decision making on eligibility to a senior immigration officer, to an official who will make a decision on these matters. This will be done without any due process, without any right to be heard by the refugee applicant, without any lawyer or any interpreter or whatever. He will make a decision just by looking at paper.
We say that is absolutely wrong. In effect, what the government is doing in Bill C-86 is placing a barrier between the refugee applicant and the refugee board where his case will be heard because it will allow, under Bill C-86, a senior immigration officer to turn away certain refugee applicants on the basis of five criteria. This is one of the principal objections to this bill.
Here we are, a signatory to the Geneva convention where we agree to accept refugees who are fleeing from countries of persecution and so on, but we are not giving them a right to be heard in all cases. We are giving a senior immigration officer the right to turn them away without a hearing and without due process which is against the legal traditions of this country.
In my amendment I am saying that one of the grounds on which the senior immigration officer can turn the applicant away is if the senior immigration officer believes that the applicant has been recognized as a refugee in another country. The government is saying that it is a black and white issue. There is no need for a hearing.
That is nonsense. All the experts before us have said it is not a black and white issue. Very often refugees come from one country. They flee into a neighbouring country. They stay there for a few weeks or a few days, maybe in a refugee camp. They get fed, clothed and many live in a tent, and then they go on maybe to Europe and finally come to Canada. The question as to whether they are recognized as refugees in those countries is a very difficult and complex one. Many countries do not have very clear-cut processes as we have in Canada which
finally do say: "Yes, you are a refugee" or "No, you are not a refugee".
We believe that that issue should not be left to a senior immigration officer who can decide that without any hearing or right to be heard. What we are saying in Motion No. 31 is that in that particular case, there would be referral for a hearing and the senior immigration officer would have to inform the refugee applicant of such a hearing especially where he or she would qualify under section 53. Section 53 is an exception to that rule, that where the person's life or freedom would be threatened for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or for political opinion, should be allowed to stay in this country and not sent back to one of those countries, even if that person was recognized as a refugee in those countries. The other thing we are saying is that the senior immigration officer should refer those cases for a hearing when there is some doubt as to whether the applicant is eligible or not.
Another reason or the major criterion on which the senior immigration officer can turn people away is if the senior immigration officer believes that the applicant comes from what is called a safe third country. We say that the definition of a safe third country is too narrow. We totally agree with the report of the Senate committee. The Senate did a pre-study of this bill and with a Conservative majority and with the Conservative chairman, Senator Kinsella, they criticized the safe country provision on the following grounds.
They said that in order to return a person to a safe third country there must be a bilateral or multilateral agreement specifying which state is responsible for examining a refugee claim. It should be a precondition that we have either a bilateral or multilateral agreement with other countries so that they will treat people who are returned to them in a fair and judicial way. They go on to say that the country to which we return individuals must comply with the total convention relating to the status of refugees and not just simply article 33, as is provided for in Bill C-86.
In other words, we do not return the person to that third country unless we have a convention with that country. That country must agree with the entire international convention on refugees, and finally that country must have a refugee determination system equivalent to
November 23, 1992

the Canadian system that complies with Canadian principles of fundamental justice.
We are saying in these amendments that there must be due process in the decision with respect to eligibility and if we are going to return people to a safe third country, the safe third country must be defined in the way that was set out in the Senate report. Our amendments are totally in accordance with the Senate pre-study report. We are also saying that there must be greater access to section 53 which would prevent an applicant from being returned to another country where that person's life or freedom would be threatened for reasons of race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular party or social group.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make some short remarks in support of the amendments by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace. From time to time in Toronto we are experiencing a situation where many of our public servants who are dealing with these immigration matters at the border crossing are telling us that they are so overworked that there is absolutely no way that they cope with the workload that is put on them. At times we have had situations where their stress has caused a reaction which has not served the process or the spirit of our refugee system very well. We have always had the judicial process to rely on.
It is not only wrong to leave this decision to the bureaucrat or to the official in charge, it is also unfair because we are putting them in a position where their judgment from time to time can be clouded. It is not a question of us saying that people should not be deported if they constitute a threat to the security of Canada. That is sometimes the position that is being presented to us by opposition, that we are just opening our doors to anyone and everyone.
There is a fine line. We are taking a very strong stand on anyone who is a threat to security or someone who has a criminal record. It is very important that this amendment be supported to make sure that we keep our judicial process in place.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to reply on this grouping of amendments. It is important though to point out first, and I know my friend from Trinity-Spadina did not
Government Orders
really mean this, that to suggest that there is anything the government has done in terms of the allocation of time that each speaker has in this debate, or the grouping of the amendments. This of course is not the case.
Those are the rules of the House and they have nothing to do with time allocation or anything else. That is the way this process works. I am sure he did not really mean to suggest that the government had caused him to have only 10 minutes or that the government had grouped these amendments. That simply is not the fact. I know he would want me to correct that impression which has been left.
Both my colleagues, the members for Trinity-Spadina and Notre-Dame-de-Grace, have rightly said that this group of amendments addresses a very important section of this piece of legislation.
As has been pointed out there was much concern around the two levels of hearings. The suggestion was that the first level be removed.
What is left though is obviously the concern that the process allows, as it must, for the question of determining eligibility.
The legislation provides that the senior immigration officer must be able to say to anybody who claims refugee status that they have access to the refugee determination system unless five conditions exist. Without going into detail, the primary concern is whether that refugee has found the protection he or she seeks in another country and whether that refugee in coming to Canada is bringing with him or her something that will provide a threat to the security of the country, a serious offence.
What has been very clear from the evidence in the committee is that if the senior immigration officer cannot simply and clearly show that the refugee applicant is breaking one of those five conditions then the refugee applicant has access to the determination system.
Quite simply put, if the applicant is not ineligible he or she is eligible. It is not a question of discretion. It is not a question of judgment. It is the obligation of the senior immigration officer, or in one case it gets referred to an adjudicator, to be able to show that this person is a convention refugee or has come from a country where protection is provided or has committed serious offences.

Government Orders
The second concept that we must deal with is the question of shared responsibility. Canada's very strong history in this area is such that we have become a very favoured nation. I think it is something we should be proud of and that we need to encourage. However, we also must recognize at a time when the number of refugees around this world is increasing that we all, particularly in the west or the north, in the industrialized world, have a responsibility.
It is incumbent upon us collectively to work to ensure, through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, that we have a system in place that can deal with refugees.
An added burden of responsibility falls on Canada. We have to lead the rest of the world to the level of fairness and equity in our determination system. This process of shared responsibility, formally signing agreements, will increase the responsibility of other countries. That is particularly important.
Without going into the specifics of all of these motions, because a number of them come together, it is very important to recognize what section 53 of the legislation does. It is known as the non-refoulement provision. That says that we cannot send people back to a country where their freedom is threatened.
If we are in a position where perhaps that exists, section 53 says that a refugee shall not:
be removed from Canada to a country where the person's life or
freedom would be threatened for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group or political
opinion unless
It cannot happen. There are two exceptions. They are people described as inadmissible under paragraph 19(l)(c). It also refers to paragraph 19(l)(e), (f), (g), (j), (k), or (1), which involves security for the most part.
There is an added provision, which is that if that question arises the minister must show that the person constitutes a danger to the public in Canada. That is a condition that says that there may be reasons to remove them but they can only be removed under certain conditions and if they are a threat to Canada and the place to which they are removed will offer them the protection that is important.
I remind members again that there has long been a discussion about the charter. Many people do not agree
with this, and to me it is very fundamental. The charter governs how governments relate to people. The charter says that the Government of Canada must apply its laws to people whether they are in this country or outside. Some have argued that the charter should not apply unless one is physically in Canada. Some would argue that the charter should not apply unless a person is a landed immigrant. Some would argue that the charter should not apply unless the person is a citizen of this country.
I reject all of those positions fundamentally. The bill reflects that. The mood of the people who came before us reflected that the charter should apply to anybody who Canada deals with anywhere, that we cannot make decisions based on race, on nationality, country of origin or ethnicity. To do so would be fundamentally wrong.
Without addressing the specifics of all of these amendments I have addressed most of them in terms of their intent and what they deal with.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The vote is on Motion No. 24.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
November 23, 1992


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Further to the Speaker's decision, given the result of the vote it will not be necessary to vote on Motions Nos. 27 and 28.
The next vote is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard you say that the vote on Motion No. 26 made it unnecessary to vote on Motions Nos. 27 and 28. Is that what I heard? What I read on page 37 is that a negative vote on Motion No. 26 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 27, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 27 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 28, and a negative vote on Motion No. 27 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 28.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I thank the hon. member. The member is right, and it was according to the decision by the Speaker.

November 23, 1992
Government Orders

The vote is on Motion No. 31. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I believe in accordance with what is written by the Speaker on page 37 we should take a vote on Motions Nos. 27 and 28.1 believe we did not do that. My request is that we return to Motion No. 27 and vote on it and to Motion No. 28 and vote on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: This is just a reminder that the division on Motion No. 26 has been deferred and therefore we cannot vote on Motions Nos. 27 and 28 until we know the result of the vote on Motion No. 26.

The next question is on Motion No. 34. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 64. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 71. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
November 23, 1992

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Pursuant to the Speaker's decision, we will now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 38, 54, 57, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 which have been grouped for debate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I would like to move Motions Nos. 38, 54 and 57, standing in the name of the member for Thunder Bay who is absent.
I would ask the permission of the House to move the said amendments.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 37 by adding immediately
after line 33 at page 48 the following:
"(2) Where a Senior Immigration Officer determines that a person is not eligible to have a claim determined by the Refugee Division, the decision of the Senior Immigration Officer on the eligibility of a claim shall be referred for review to the Refugee Division.
(3) Where a decision of a Senior Immigration Officer has been referred to the Refugee division pursuant to subsection (1), the Refugee Division shall review the Senior Immigration Officer's decision in a summary hearing and either confirm or reverse that decision."


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 48.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 59 by adding immediately after line 2 at page 67 the following:
"(1.1) In any proceedingbefore an immigration officer or a senior immigration officer, a person who claims to be a convention refugee may be represented by a barrister, solicitor or other counsel."


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: 
William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 54.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 60
(a) by striking out line 15 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor:
"(10) In the"; and

C-86 those provisions which require two votes rather than one.
Finally, Motion No. 57 provides for an appeal or a review of any decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board that is based on questions of fact or questions of error.
For years now, ever since the Immigration and Refugee Board was set up, churches, NGOs, lawyers, experts who work with immigrants and refugees have said there must be an appeal process on the substance. The government has never agreed to that, although there have been many bad decisions. In every other area of life where the courts are involved or where there are quasi-judicial bodies, there are always appeals.
The government has allowed an appeal in law and that appeal on law can go to the Federal Court and right up to the Supreme Court of Canada in some cases, but it has never allowed an appeal on the facts, on the substance of the case, and we say that is wrong.
It is impossible for a system to be perfect and when you are dealing with human lives, with people fleeing from oppression, people who are fleeing from totalitarian governments, from civil wars such as in Yugoslavia or Somalia, or some of the situations that took place in Latin America, you cannot put these lives in danger. You simply do not have a system which provides for a corrective process, a review process.
In our amendment, amendment 57, we are saying there can be a review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board in which the chairman orders such a review when there is new evidence that was not before the board in the first place, when it has been determined some of the evidence was wrong, or in general when there has been an error in the decision that was made. These are questions of fact, not questions of law, and we believe very strongly that there should be an appeal there as well.
The three matters before the House now as far as the Liberal Party is concerned are, first, that all questions of eligibility should be finally decided by the Immigration and Refugee Board, not by senior immigration officers.
Government Orders
Second, there should be no requirement for a unanimous decision of the board. The present system in which only one out of two is sufficient should remain. Third, there should be a review or an appeal process on the substance of our refugee system.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with my five motions here. I want to deal with four of them very quickly and on the three motions of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, my party and I are in agreement with him.
Motion No. 48 is extremely important because of what I mentioned before about the gap at the border. It is lovely if the refugee gets to section 53, which the hon. member for St. John's East mentioned, but how does he get there? That was not clear in the discussions we had in committee. It may be clear to the government but it is not clear to me and to a lot of the public.
Until about seven years ago lawyers were allowed to meet potential clients right at the border, for example at Pearson Airport, and assist them while they had their first examinations by immigration officers. This government stopped that six or seven years ago. Now people are examined by an immigration officer and perhaps by a senior immigration office who takes notes which can be used against that person later on. However, that person has no witness, let alone legal advice.
We raised this question with the government and it said of course they will be allowed to have legal counsel if it is available. That has not been put in writing anywhere, except that it is recorded in the transcript of the meeting.
The government said it was going to change the regulations it adopted seven years ago which prevented lawyers from having access to any person arriving to enter Canada.
My party and I want to write in section 48 that in any proceeding before an immigration officer or a senior immigration officer, a person who claims to be a convention refugee may be represented by a barrister, solicitor or other counsel. This is a need that has been confirmed by the experience of not having that opportunity. No longer will the person have legal counsel provided by the federal government. That is abolished. I am not raising that issue. I am saying that if a lawyer is there, he or she should be able to assist the refugee claimant at the very first interview, not farther down the road when there

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
could be a dispute about what was said or whether the questions were properly asked.
Motion No. 49 concerns whether the hearing will be held in camera. The government has met us part way on this, saying that it will be in camera if it can be shown that there is any danger. It will be in camera unless there is an application to make it public. In that case, if the claimant can show that there is danger to the claimant or other persons, it should not be held in public.
There is a further need that was in the previous law. They should also be satisfied that the conduct at the proceedings in public would not impede the subject of the proceedings. That is the refugee claimant; he or she is the subject. When she is the subject it is even more important because many female refugee claimants have had dreadful experiences getting through borders to get to Canada. Because of cultural taboos which are stronger in some places than others, they find it very hard to tell what was done to them as women in such and such a place, even to an officer, let alone to a battery of journalists or other strangers.
Therefore it has been found that they sometimes fail to tell what has happened and that seriously damages their credibility later on, even though it was true. I want it in here that it will not impede the subject of the proceedings and no member of that person's family would be adversely affected. It is impeding the subject that we need to get in there.
Motions Nos. 50 and 51 refer to the minister's intervention. Motion No. 50 would delete what is at present at the bottom of page 68: "That the panel may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, give the minister a reasonable opportunity to question the person making the claim and any other witnesses, and to make representations concerning the claim".
I believe that is highly improper when the whole basis of the hearing was that it should be non-adversarial. This is not a criminal; we are not talking about proof, for proof is almost impossible to get from the old country at these hearings. We are talking about trying to find out whether the person has a claim, and to cross-examine
him in an adversarial way, as has sometimes happened in a minister's intervention through his deputy, is perhaps necessary in certain cases, which I will deal with, but as a generality is grossly unfair to the refugee claimant.
Coming now to Motion No. 51, I would like to see it reworded if it can be agreed that: "The Board may, if it considers it that legal issues of general importance, including issues of constitutional interpretation, application or validity, are raised in the proceedings, may give the minister an opportunity".
In other words, it is to limit the occasion in which the minister, through an adversarial prosecuting attorney approach, can cross-examine the claimant.
Finally, I want to deal with my motion, Motion No. 52, which I consider, in the light of the many deputations that we have heard to which the member for St. John's East has referred, perhaps the most important one apart from the questions of eligibility at the border.
If they do not get to the Immigration and Refugee Board, this question does not arise. If they do get to the Immigration and Refugee Board, the key issue is that it has been experience now that certain refugee claimants were rejected by the IRB and later it was found that there was information, maybe old information, which did not come to light in this country, or information based on changed country circumstances. It was not available in any documented form; for example, a warrant for arrest, which was not available at the time of the hearing.
As I mentioned before, the war in Sri Lanka, which ended when the Indian army intervened and then broke out again within two or three months, is still going on two or three years later.
My motion is:
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, if the Chairperson is satisfied that:
(a)	sufficient new evidence exists which was not available at the time of the Refugee Division hearing, or
(b)	conditions in the country of origin, or of habitual residence, as the case may be, have so changed, such that a different decision by the Refugee Division might be warranted, the Chairman may cause a new hearing of the claim to be held.
November 23, 1992

This does not increase the appeals to the courts, which have been a matter of concern on the government's side; overloading the courts and perhaps causing delays. This might cause a delay but of a very limited sort since it is not an adversarial type of hearing; it is an inquiry into the person's status, whether or not he or she is a refugee.
The chairman has the responsibility under this motion, if it is adopted, to be satisfied that there is reason to reopen or to have cause for a new hearing of the claim to be held.
I want to quote just one example from one of the witnesses who had documented many cases, about 50 cases out of 100 or more, that the vigil group examined; 50 cases it felt should have been re-examined. In one of six examples it gave us, it said: "Mr. E. is a Sri Lankan Tamil who fled Sri Lanka in 1989 after two of his friends were killed for providing equipment to the Tamil Tigers. He too had unwillingly given equipment to the Tigers and feared for his life. From 1974 to 1989, Mr. E. had been detained and repeatedly tortured brutally by the Sri Lankan army and the Indian peacekeeping forces. On the occasion, he was also detained by the Tigers. As a result of this treatment, Mr. E. continues to have flash-backs of his experiences of torture. He suffers from insomnia, nightmares, digestive problems and anxiety. The Immigration and Refugee Board refused Mr. E. because it misunderstood his testimony and believed he only feared the Indian army which had left the country. It gave no recognition to the cumulative effect of the numerous detentions and extreme persecution that Mr. E. endured at the hands of various armies, especially the Sri Lankan army which is still engaged in the bitter civil war against the Tigers".
If any such evidence should be brought before the chairman, I hope this Parliament would allow the chairman to use his judgment to reopen the case.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like first to comment on the three motions of my friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace. The first motion, No. 38, deals with the fact that all eligibility hearings be referred to the IRB. Motion No. 54 deals
Government Orders
with what has come to be known as the split decision question. The third motion is the question of appeals.
I talked earlier about the senior immigration officer and his responsibilities in determining eligibility for access to the system. What the senior immigration officer does not do is deal with the credibility of the case. He does not talk about the nature of persecution. He would not talk about whether this person is a refugee or would have a valid refugee claim. The two levels of hearings are something we have tried to move away from because of the pressure it puts on the refugee claimants. We also have the problem of the pressure that it puts on the system and that in turn impacts on our ability to respond judiciously and quickly.
The question of the split decision, as it is referred to, has caused some concern and we have had a lot of discussion about it. Quite clearly it is one that responds to a current situation that has created concern in a number of areas.
The area that has created most debate and has worried most of us more than any other is the question that applies to documents. There is a misconception abroad that if anybody arrives with false documents or no documents, they automatically are in a position in which they must have a unanimous decision, remembering that in our system today if you appear before two members of the IRB and one says that you have a valid claim then that claim is accepted.
What the legislation says is that if you were in possession of documents-and remember we have amended it to respond to the some of the concerns-and you destroyed those documents without good reason, you will then need two people, not one, on the board saying that you have a legitimate claim. It is not whether you have false documents, it is not whether you have destroyed your documents for good reason, it is not whether you somehow got on a plane with no documents; rather, it is that you had the documents, you destroyed the documents and you had no good reason for doing so.
For those of us for whom that was a great concern in the beginning, this goes a long way in addressing that problem. The documents had to have been in the person's possession and they had to have been destroyed.

Government Orders
On the question of appeal, the law today does not allow for appeals on anything but questions of law. The question therefore is what do we do about it if we need to do anything about it?
I think it was Dr. Guy Goodwin-Gill who came before the committee and said: "Be careful now if you start getting into appeals on the basis of fact. What you end up with is a first level system that is not as responsible and as thorough as it should be, not that that is wanton or willing. It happens, it is human nature".
Clearly the process of appealing in law continues and is to be provided for in a different court but it is still there.
What is important and in my view a very major step is that the government has said that it understands that the process of appealing on humanitarian and compassionate grounds has not been effective. I would argue that is exactly the case, that it needs to be visible and that there needs to be real criteria against which people can measure what they do and how successful they can or cannot be.
As a result, the government has asked the former first chair of the IRB, Mr. Gordon Fairweather, earlier a member of this institution, to set up the regulations on this. They will consult on that process as well so that we do have an H and C process, as we call it, humanitarian and compassionate grounds, that is visible.
All of us who deal with refugees who appeal under the H and C provisions do not know what we are shooting at, do not know what the targets are, do not know what criteria the case that we present will be judged against. I think that is important.
It is important as well in a couple of other provisions, not the least of which is the one covered in Motion No. 52 by my friend from Trinity-Spadina, where he talks about changed circumstances.
We discussed earlier a proposed amendment that dealt with a 12-month ban for reapplying. I pointed out at that time it does not apply to refugees. Someone can come back in 90 days. However, in the interim, it is important to recognize that the humanitarian and compassionate provisions will provide for and take into account the questions of changed circumstance.
Most of the early discussions or arguments or debates I had with the IRB were over changed circumstances. We had to apply these against humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It has been very difficult. We have not been successful in that area. My friend is right in pointing out that we must take into account changed circumstances, not changed circumstances in Canada or necessarily with the refugee, but particularly how that refugee relates back to changed circumstances in his or her country.
I want very quickly to comment on his proposal in Motion No. 51. I am not sure I completely understand this section about the minister appearing, particularly when we are dealing with big legal issues. I would think that the answer is that we would want some of these big cases that deal on those issues discussed in a court where perhaps it is more appropriate.
One of the problems we have with confidentiality is what is known as the Pacific Press case. We are not particularly happy with the amendment we brought forward because it is not complete. My friend from Trinity-Spadina is right when he says that the ability to have a confidential hearing is something that needs to be protected. For the refugee, it needs to be protected. For the refugee's family, it needs to be protected. For those that are left behind, it needs to be protected. Obviously if someone has fled their homeland, they are fleeing persecution and that condition continues.
The government has gone as far as it can in recognizing the decision of Pacific Press which says that the media should have access.
The assumption is that the cases will be closed, however, if there is an application to the IRB, then a decision is to be taken.
The initial government proposal under Bill C-86 was that they would not be closed. That was unacceptable for a lot of reasons. The amendment that was brought forward in the committee was an attempt to find a balance between the judgment of the court and a desire to keep the hearings confidential.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.
November 23, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 38. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 48. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 49. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 50. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 52. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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

November 23, 1992
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Pursuant to the Speaker's decision, we will now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 38, 39, 54 and 55. That should be we will proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 43.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed something in this complicated procedure. I did not think that you called Motions Nos. 54 and 57 for voting purposes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: You are right. I will now call the motions.
The question is on Motion No. 54. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 57. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Motion No. 43.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out line 9 at page 58 and substituting the following therefor:
"exceeding five years, but may be removed".
Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 50
(a)	by striking out line 24 at page 60 and substituting the following therefor:
"61.(1) Subject to subsection (1.1), each member of the Refugee Divi-and
(b)	by adding immdiately after line 28 at page 60 the following:
"(1.1) The appointment made under subsection (1) is subject to the approval of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons to which matters of immigration and refugee status are referred.
(1.2) An appointment that is subject to the approval of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons to which matters of immigration and refugee status are referred under this section shall be deemed to have been approved if the Standing Committee has not voted to withhold its approval of the appointment within thirty days after it has received a request for approval."
Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 50 by striking out line 28 at page 60 and substituting the following therefor:
"exceeding five years."


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, these three amendments put forward by the Liberal Party have to do with appointments to the board. The first two amendments would have appointments to the board limited to five years. Bill C-86 provides that the appointment of the chairman and the board members can be for up to seven years. Considering the government's record with these appointments we do not think that is acceptable.
The other amendment is one which would require all nominees for appointment to the Immigration and Refugee Board be approved by the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration.
November 23, 1992

Why are we making these two proposals? We are making these proposals because the majority of appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board have been too political. They have been for individuals who are unfamiliar with immigration and refugee matters. As a matter of fact, they are not only unfamiliar but insensitive to immigration and refugee matters. There have been some, what I would call, horror stories with respect to incidents happening before the board.
It is true that in Bill C-86 the government is giving the chairman certain authority to discipline members of the board who do not carry out their functions properly or who misbehave, but we do not think that is enough.
We had incidents last winter where members of the board ridiculed claimants before the board, laughed at them, made fun of their cases. We had other incidents where members of the board fell asleep while refugee applicants were making their cases. Recently a member of the board resigned because of what he called widespread racism among certain members of the board.
I acknowledge immediately that there have been some very good appointments to the board. I give credit to the past chairman of the board, Mr. Fairweather. Although he was a Conservative member of this House, he was an outstanding appointment and did a good job; but he was not responsible for the appointments.
As I say some of these appointments were very ill advised. As a matter of fact they proved to be an embarrassment to the government. The most recent one is the case where a member resigned and stated that he resigned because he felt there was widespread racism with respect to certain members of the board and he could not work in that atmosphere.
We propose two things: First, that the appointments of the chairperson and of members be limited to five years. We feel five years is enough. It gives them enough time to develop in their work, but on the other hand it is not too long if they are bad appointments. Second, we are suggesting that with appointments of this kind, as I said earlier in this debate, people are dealing with questions of life and death with respect to people fleeing from countries of oppression. If the wrong decision is made or
Government Orders
if this is not taken seriously, they could be returned to countries where they would be imprisoned or would even be killed.
We have recommended something similar to what they do in the United States where senior appointments are approved by committees of Congress. We are suggesting that the appointments be approved by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
That may not be the best answer, but it will be an improvement over what is presently in place where the government unilaterally and without any consultation makes these appointments and too many of them have been bad. There might be other methods of reviewing appointments.
A few years ago when the Liberal Party was in government we set up a system for reviewing appointments to the bench with the Canadian Bar Association. There might be a better way of getting approval for individuals to be appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board. I was hoping that my amendment would push or press the government to come up with a better answer, but it has not. It is quite content to continue along the lines it has already proceeded so I am putting my amendment that these appointments must be subject to approval by the parliamentary committee.
One must remember that the government has a majority of members on these committees, but the very fact that the appointment would have to be reviewed would deter the government from making silly appointments as it has done from time to time. I think it would encourage the government to make better appointments knowing that those appointments would have to be reviewed publicly.
There are the three amendments. The purpose of them is to improve appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of these three amendments. I listened very carefully to my colleague, our critic for immigration. He made excellent points, but I want to reiterate them as a member from metropolitan Toronto who has had many people come into his riding office over the last four years to complain about the nature of the

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
process and how their claims were being dealt with, particularly by the people listening to the claims.
I note one of the amendments would limit the appointment of the chairperson from seven to five years. I think that is a very good idea. There is no demonstrable reason to have an appointment for seven years. In other appointments such as the chairman of the National Parole Board we have all kinds of different things. There is no reason to have them appointed for beyond a period of five years.
That is also coincidentally the maximum mandate of a particular government. It only makes sense that when there is a change of government there might be a change of focus, there might be a change of approach, and therefore there might be a need to change a particular person, in this case the chairperson.
However, my colleagues were being charitable in connection with the length of time that members can be appointed. Five years is exceedingly generous, never mind seven years. However that is fine. It is better to be generous than not so. Certainly the chairperson must be there for a period of time to establish a stamp of his or her own method of operating the particular department.
What is most important it seems to me in this triplicate of amendments is this notion that we get the people involved through the Parliament of Canada. How do we do that? By getting the House of Commons standing committee involved.
It is a very reasonable proposal. We have just recently seen over the last little while in 1992 how the United States has a situation where various appointees can be examined and can in fact be turned down depending on the rationale. That is not so much the point because we are not going a witch-hunt in committee. Anybody brought forward as a proposed person by the government is not automatically going to be wrong. No, on the contrary.
It is to give Canadians and the people who are involved with that particular system-the lawyers, the refugee claimants and the various other people-a sense of empowerment if I can put it that way. Canadians feel they are not empowered. They feel that too many things are being decided without their input.
Another perfect example is the Governor in Council. Who is that? That is the Prime Minister. He is going to make all these appointments. Nobody is going to be consulted, at least no one in terms of what the ordinary Canadian on the street can possibly understand to be a person who would be consulted. No, it is going to be the Prime Minister making decisions.
If we bring this matter before the House of Commons through one of its committees, it gives Canadians an opportunity to feel that their government is open, is not hiding things, is not subject to patronage. Rather it welcomes the opportunity to have the impact and input of Canadians on who these people will be.
I hear all sorts of dinosauric grumblings on the government side because they do not want openness. They are perfectly willing to have their little patronage plums and have people hand little gifts out for doing certain things for their party. We do not take that approach on this side. We think there should be more power in the House of Commons, not less power in the House of Commons. We think parliamentary committees should have more power, not less power.
We make a reasonable suggestion, a reasonable amendment in which we suggest the House of Commons committee review these appointments. We go one step further because we know there might be someone who would say it would be dragged on for political purposes. On the contrary, it says right in the amendment that in 30 days the decision has to be made.
It is interesting that there is all kinds of carping over there from various members, but I would be very surprised if any of them had the courage to stand up on their hind legs and tell us why this amendment was bad.
Precisely what is wrong with it? Why should Parliament and parliamentary committees not get involved in the political appointments that are presently being done behind closed doors? I challenge someone over there to get up and tell Canadians for householder use and for the next election, if necessary, that they should not be involved in the appointments to this board.
November 23, 1992

I commend the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon for bringing three well thought out amendments to this act which give people empowerment, which give Canadians the realistic belief that they are having some impact on what is going on behind closed doors in the Prime Minister's Office. I support the amendments whole-heartedly.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of finishing our work before the deadline, all I have to say is that I support the three motions moved by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I will not take the full time allotted to me, but I just wanted to make an intervention after my colleague from Scarborough West and our critic from Notre-Dame-de-Grace made recommendations on these motions.
I should say at the outset that we had some discussion on our side as to whether the appointments should be made for the five-year period or the seven-year period as recommended by the government. These are some of the most highly sought appointments that any government can make.
I had opted for something less than five years. My colleague convinced me, with his wealth of experience and time spent on immigration matters, that five years was a good compromise between what we were proposing and what the Conservatives were proposing. Five years is a very long time, particularly when a bad appointment has been made and that person is kept on the bench, as I call it, for five years.
We have already seen some of those. There are very good appointments and f compliment the government for making them. Unfortunately there are some bad appointments. It is unfortunate there is not a mechanism within the structure so a bad appointment can be corrected immediately. Once a bad appointment is made, according to this particular statute there is very little that can be done about it. If we do not want the person that we are paying somewhere around $85,000 or $100,000 a year plus expenses for sitting on and hearing cases because he is not good at what he is doing, we must retain him and still continue to pay him. It is almost as if we have to remove him by way of a judicial hearing or
Government Orders
something approaching the judicial inquiry process on appointments to the bench.
I did not want to dwell too much on the length of time. We agree it should be shorter. However, I did want to mention the quality of the appointments and try to impress upon the government across that they are a little different from regular appointments made to different boards. These are people who are making quasi-judicial decisions concerning the future of people's lives.
As a result of these quasi-judicial decisions affecting the lives of people, they are considered to be statutory powers given to them under the act. As a result of the statutory interpretation of these powers, as my colleague knows, they are all subject to the rules of natural justice and at least to the doctrine of procedural fairness that is so necessary.
That is why it is so important for every appointment made in the future that these people be brought before the parliamentary committee so that we can test whether they have some knowledge of the rules of procedural fairness or the rules of natural justice. It is fundamental knowledge on behalf of these appointments that they should have an inherent knowledge of that particular legal framework. When we talk of the rules of procedural fairness we are talking about the fundamental rules of the right to have counsel present when one is making one's case, the permitting of a transcript to be made during the hearing, and the ability of the people who are calling the hearing to state their position prior to the hearing date so that the person making the application knows the case which he has to meet.
Other procedural requirements are the care that must be taken to make sure that those who make the decisions are those who hear the evidence. We have seen instances where those who have heard the evidence have not necessarily made the decisions. In the last six to eight months we have been able to see predetermined judgments where one fills in the blanks and that certainly flies in the face of procedural fairness or natural justice that should be afforded to every person pursuant to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I see my time is getting short. Our side believes that one thing we should be trying to do to stay out of the court system and the appeal process on these hearings that take a considerable amount of time is those persons who are going to be charged with the responsibility of hearing these cases should at least have some knowledge

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
of the rules of procedural fairness, some knowledge of the rules of natural justice so that when they are hearing these cases there can be no appeal if these cases are heard properly in the first instance.
I support this motion whole-heartedly. I hope that the government will reconsider its position and endorse this proposal and have every person who is considered to be or is under consideration to be a quasi-judicial officer for the immigration appeal board appear before an independent group of members of Parliament so that they can at least be questioned on those matters that are absolutely relevant to fairness in procedure on behalf of the cases that the refugees will be claiming to it.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief on this point. I think we have heard a lot of discussion on the matter.
I would take exception to perhaps a little bit of the cynicism. I think members of this House know I try to be fairly non-partisan. I do sometimes get upset in this House when I consider the source of comments to be a rap against government or a particular member. When I hear the source of some of the comments on appointments in this House, sometimes it makes me chuckle a little bit. However, enough said.
To me, the key components or the key attributes for an appointment to the IRB should be first of all, compassion, second, common sense and third, enough intelligence and capacity to deal with the tremendous amount of work, the tremendous amount of pressure and the very confusing and often conflicting evidence that leads to a very difficult and sometimes very heart-wrenching decision.
In respect of that, the IRB has set up a very detailed and comprehensive process of training and education. It has developed a whole series of guidelines which help board members to make their decisions and has set in place a series of systems that will provide for review of performance and discipline where it is warranted and necessary.
As we look at Motion No. 43, we should recognize that yes, we can debate whether the chair should be there for five years or for seven years. I would argue that the chair
should be there for seven years to allow for the continuity that is important in order for the chair to become familiar not just with the day-to-day goings on, but the over-all direction of what the board does and to ensure that he or she can carry out the job efficiently in that time.
It is important to recognize that as is the case with normal board members, at any time the chair can be removed for cause. The Order in Council can be rescinded and the person can be removed from that position as can any board member if there is good reason to do so.
Now for the question of allowing the standing committee to review the appointments. I think one of my colleagues across the way mentioned how it may not be the right solution but it may not be a bad idea. I do not argue that it may not be a bad idea, but I agree that for us now in this piece of legislation to suggest that the tribunal appointments all of a sudden be reviewed by a standing committee would get us into a position that this bill would create a precedent that may not be suitable in relation to other legislation that does the same thing. As I said, I am not convinced that it is perhaps not a good idea to look at, but I would argue that to move this amendment now is not the thing to do.
As I look at the board that has operated in St. John's for the last number of years, the person that is seen I suppose as the chair, Lisa Gilad, has a background in immigration. She has written books on the process. The three people who are with her, one of whom has been transferred in from Stephenville, Jim Sparks, along with Tom Rideout and Tom Murphy have shown that their ability and willingness to work hard has led to the belief in many quarters in this country that one of the best places to have a hearing heard for fairness and equity is St. John's, Newfoundland. That is not something I am just saying. It is something the system recognizes because they have taken their jobs seriously and they conduct themselves very conscientiously. They have received the respect of the community because of the work they have done and, in particular, if I may say so, because of the leadership of Lisa Gilad.
November 23, 1992


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 43. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 48. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Government Orders
The question is on Motion No. 45. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed with the consideration of Motions Nos. 58, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 58.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 73 by striking out lines 23 to 42 at page 81 and substituting the following therefor:
"peal only if
(a)	the Trial Division has, at the time of rendering judgement certified that a serious question of general importance is involved and has stated that questions; or
(b)	the Federal Court of Appeal has granted leave to appeal.
(2)	An application for leave to appeal pursuant to paragraph (1 )(b) shall be made within fifteen days after the pronouncement of the judgement from which leave to appeal is sought, unless a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal for special reasons provides for a longer time.
(3)	An application for leave pursuant to paragraph (1)(6) shall be determined by a single judge of the Federal Court of Appeal without an oral hearing, unless the judge directs that an oral hearing be held.
(4)	Where a judgement of the Federal Court Trial Division is appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to paragraphs (l)(a) or (b), the appeal shall be commenced by filing a notice of appeal within fifteen days after the pronouncement of the judgement or the granting of leave as the case may be, unless a judge of the Court of Appeal extend the time for special reasons.

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
(5)	For grealer certainty, neither a decision by a judge of the Federal Court-Trial Division whether or not to certify that a serious question of general importance is involved in any matter, or by a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal whether or not to grant leave to appeal, is subject to appeal."
Motion No. 81.
That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 82.
That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 114.
Motion No. 83.
That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 115.
Motion No. 84.
That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 116.
Motion No. 85.
That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 117.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this group of amendments is really only two amendments. One is Motion No. 58 amending the procedure for applying for a certain kind of appeal. The other really is amending the responsibility for appeals, but because of the rules of procedure we follow the second one has to be done five times, that is to say, deleting five clauses which are all essentially part of the same action.
Motion No. 58 is important because it would protect some of the rights of appeal not just by refugees but by anybody in Canada under any section of the Immigration Act. In other words, it affects Canadian citizens if they do not think they have been given the right decision about sponsoring a relative. It can affect a Canadian permanent resident. It can affect an ordinary immigrant and of course it can affect a refugee claimant.
What we have in the Canadian justice system generally is that a decision can be appealed. Even a convicted criminal has the right to appeal in case the judge may have made a mistake. However, the 1987 amendments to the Immigration Act very gravely restricted this appeal right for refugee claimants and immigrants and permanent residents and Canadian citizens, everybody in the country. It prohibited the appeal on the merits, that is to say an appeal to decide whether the Immigration and Refugee Board or any other body, adjudicator, even an immigration officer, had made a mistake about the facts. It permits only an application for a judicial review that is
to decide whether the decision maker failed to follow the lawfully required procedures.
This is quite unfair since refugee claimants, immigrants, Canadian permanent residents, Canadian citizens, as such, are not common criminals. They should not have fewer rights than common criminals. In particular refugees should not have fewer rights in a matter that could be a life-and-death decision for them.
Bill C-86 restricts this right still further by prohibiting an appeal of the decision of a judge of the Federal Court trial division. If a question has been appealed to the Federal Court and the appellant is not satisfied, he cannot appeal it unless the judge who gave the negative decision to him or her, while rendering the judgment has certified that a serious question of general importance is involved and the judge has stated that question.
That is ridiculous. Nowhere else in the Canadian justice system is the right to appeal made to depend on a judge saying that maybe he was wrong in the decision, and it is an important matter and an appeal to a higher court would be allowed. We are told it is done somewhere else, but nowhere in Canada.
Motion No. 58 would at least protect the universally existing right of the refugee claimant, immigrant, permanent resident or Canadian citizen to ask the Federal Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal the lower court's decision.
That is the present law. The federal court can grant that.
What I would like to do with this motion is restore that right to refugees, to permanent residents, to citizens and to any immigrant as the case may be.
My motion is supported by the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Refugee Lawyers Association, and the Ontario Law Union. They all support this right to seek the leave of a higher court to appeal a lower court decision.
There are not many appeals now because each level of the court denies most of the applications it gets for judicial review. Therefore the courts can defend themselves from being overloaded. It is important in our Canadian, and British, system of justice that there be the possibility of a case going to a higher court and that it should not be so ridiculously restricted as it is by Bill
November 23, 1992

C-86 because the higher courts do have a responsibility for interpreting, evaluating and testing lower court decisions. That is the first action.
The second action concerns the other five motions. These five motions of the bill will further restrict the right of appeal in immigration matters at the time of transition from the present act to when the amended act comes into force. It will retroactively move cases that were before the court of appeal, at the earliest stage, back to the trial court. That means that instead of three experienced judges evaluating the work of a less experienced judge another less experienced judge will be evaluating the less experienced judge or perhaps even a newly appointed judge, appointed specifically for that purpose as is provided elsewhere in the act.
There is the further problem that the court of appeal at present has the power to set aside the decision of the lower court and substitute for it the decision of the court of appeal. That gives a final answer to the matter and saves time, trouble and uncertainty for everybody.
Bill C-86 takes away that power. By sending it back to another judge of the trial division it creates a situation in which the other judge can only say to the first judge: "Well, you were wrong, try it again". It leaves the matter dragging on, using up time and creating great uncertainty-
I am asking the House to restore that part of the right that the present act provides for appeal by permission of the court of appeal and to restore it for those who may be just acquiring that right but might lose it in the transition. It still does not give, under the Immigration Act, the rights that Canadians and all others in Canada enjoy in other matters but at least it would not take away the small right that they have now.


Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I support these amendments by my hon. colleague from Trinity-Spadina because, as he said, the grounds for appeal are already very limited. I spoke a few minutes ago in favour of an amendment that I was putting forward which would allow the chairman of the board to order a review of decisions of the board. That will be voted on later.
Government Orders
Here the hon. member for Spadina is dealing with the situation in which the judge of the federal court must produce a certificate before his own decision can be appealed. This is an unusual provision in Canadian law. Usually in Canadian law if someone wants to appeal to an appeal court they beg leave to appeal at that very appeal court. They ask it if they can appeal a lower court's judge and the higher court, the court of appeal, decides whether their case is subject to appeal to their court or not.
However, in Bill C-86 the government is saying: "You can only appeal to the higher court if the judge whose decision you do not like certifies that you can appeal his judgment", which is not the tradition of our legal system.
When we discussed this in committee the minister and his officials said: "They do something similar in one situation in Great Britain". They may in Great Britain in one situation but the general rule in Britain and Canada and in most democratic countries is that people apply for leave to appeal to the court of appeal. They do not ask the judge whose decision they do not like to provide a certificate saying that they can appeal his judgment. For these reasons I support the hon. member.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just have a comment on this question of appeal. It is important to first recognize that what we are doing is moving from the appeal division to the trial division of the Federal Court.
The real effect of that as much as anything is to move from a panel of three to a panel of one. The impact there, quite simply, is that with more judges and more justices of the Federal Court the system can move along. I would hope that nobody would question whether-


William Warren Allmand: That's all right. We agree with that.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I am delighted to know that my friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace agrees.


William Warren Allmand: With that part.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: With that part. The second question refers to the appeals question. It is important to point out and to recognize that there is nothing in Bill C-86 that takes away a level of review or appeal.

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
You can argue, and quite justly so, that Bill C-86 may not grant another level of appeal. As we try to make this system more efficient and more effective, particularly for those who are in it, it surely makes no sense when taking away a level of hearings on the refugee side to add levels on the other end.
I do not want that to be construed to say that it should be at the expense of justice. It is important to recognize that we have not taken away an existing level of appeal.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: You have taken away a level of appeal.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I am making a mistake by engaging in a conversation with my colleague opposite.
I think what he would argue is that in changing the system we are taking away a level of appeal. I would argue that we have changed the system but we have not taken away a level of appeal. What we have is a justice making the decision as to whether it is in the general interest that it carry on.
It is not a question of his decision being questioned. He is not being asked to say: "I have made this decision. On the other hand, I do not know that I have made the right decision". He is being asked to say: "I have made this decision, but there remain questions of general interest or questions of the law". It is not an unreasonable decision to ask someone to make.
I think of the quality of the people who are on the Federal Court, I need not list the names because they are familiar to many of us. I think they are people who are regarded as very capable. I do not think it is a situation in which we are asking someone to criticize their own decision. The appeal is on the basis of general interest and matters of law, and not on whether the decision is a good one or a bad one. It is important that we remember that.
I say to my friend opposite in terms of the next five motions to remove clauses 113, 114, 115, 116 and 117, that frankly I am not sure of the intent and I have consulted with others. I have heard my colleague talk about why he wants to do something, but I am not sure that if we were to do this we would be in a position from which we could really carry on.
I would just like to talk about clause 116 alone. It says:
- had been set down for hearing before that date and for which no
decision has been rendered before that date, shall be heard by the
Federal Court of Appeal as though section 73 of this act had not come
into force.
I must say I am just wondering, as are those I have consulted, where all this has come from and the impact. We are quite concerned. These are transitional provisions. We would all be at a loss were they not there.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 58. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 81. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the
nays have it.
November 23, 1992

And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The vote on Motion No. 81 also applies to Motions Nos. 82, 83, 84 and 85.
We now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 59, 60 and 61.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 59.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 78 by striking out lines 21 to 30 at page 85 and substituting the following therefor:
"Act or the regulations."
Motion No. 60.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 80 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 86 the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding this section, a transportation company is not iiable to pay, in respect of a person, any administration fee fora period of more than six months after the date of entry of the person in Canada."
Motion No. 61.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 82 by striking out lines 24 to 35 at page 89.
He said: Mr. Speaker, these three motions, Motions Nos. 59, 60 and 61, concern transportation companies. In the 1978 bill there were penalties provided for transportation companies bringing in undocumented aliens. The penalties were greatly increased in size and scope in the 1987 amendments and they have been further increased in size and scope here.
Some of these motions were suggested by the representatives of the transportation companies, particularly air and sea transportation, who appeared before our committee.
The focus of this part of the bill is to attempt to discourage transportation companies from bringing in undocumented aliens, that is to say people who do not have a valid passport with a visa. The present act provides heavy penalties to the owners of ships, airplanes or vehicles that bring in these undocumented aliens if the owner and the employees fail to exercise due diligence in examining the passports and visas of members or in stopping stowaways. Bill C-86 would both
Government Orders
increase the size of the penalties and add an unfair procedure.
Motion No. 59 amends Bill C-86 by deleting lines 21 to 30 of clause 78. It requires that the transportation company either ensure that all passengers have the required documents from the time they embark until the time they are presented to the immigration officers in Canada, or else collect the documents and hold them for presentation with the passengers to the immigration officers.
This is an unreasonable requirement. It would put some ship agents, for example, right out of business. It is close to doing that under the present act but would do it more so under the proposed bill.
After all, false visas and passports which can be obtained for a price are being so well forged that even immigration officers sometimes get fooled. It is unfair to penalize transportation crews for not doing the immigration officer's specialized job better than the immigration officer himself may be able to do it.
The government did go part way by putting in the word knowingly. Transportation companies are at fault if they knowingly bring in an undocumented alien. That was a very good move which we strongly support, bringing it back to the wording that was used in the 1987 legislation. It still has an unfair procedure for penalizing them if it thinks that due diligence was not used; in other words that it was done knowingly.
In the second place the problem further is that the passport is the property of a foreign government and it is to be kept in the possession of the person who is identified by it. Ordering transportation crews to seize passports, with the visas in them, infringes the sovereignty of another government and ought not to be done without the express approval of that government.
Here is the sting: Motion No. 60 amends page 60 after line 33 by adding "notwithstanding this section, a transportation company is not liable to pay in respect of a person any administration fee for a period of more than six months after the date of entry of the person into Canada". This says that the matter cannot be dragged out for years and years, and then stick them with the fine.
The problem is that Motion No. 61 has to do with the power of the minister to take the fine out of the deposited money. The bill provides that the minister can require the transportation company to deposit the equivalent of money in an account, and then when the minister has decided that the company improperly allowed an undocumented alien to enter the country, the

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
deputy minister can order that the fine be taken out of that account. That is very convenient for the government; it does not have to do the work of going to court to prove that the transportation company was negligent in having allowed that undocumented alien to slip through. It just takes the money.
I suppose the transportation company can go to court and try to prove that the government was wrong in taking the money, but that is not the normal way of carrying on business, to take the money first and then have somebody else do the proving afterward. Shoot first and ask questions afterward is not in our Canadian tradition of justice.
Therefore, I ask that these three motions be adopted so as to restore a measure of fairness. I have not talked about the size of the fines, which are bigger, but I have simply requested a measure of procedural fairness for the transportation companies.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we support these amendments. They are similar to ones that we presented in committee which would have alleviated the heavy burden that the government is putting on the transportation companies.
The government is applying very heavy penalties to the airlines and to the shipping companies even when these transportation companies use due diligence and do everything in their power to prevent illegal immigrants coming aboard their aeroplanes or ships. This does not seem fair. There are penalties now but this bill greatly increases the penalties.
The airline and shipping executives came to us and told us that they are at a period in their history when the airlines are going bankrupt all over the world, when their costs are exceedingly high and the government is putting this new burden on them at this time.
It is an interesting matter when the NDP and the Liberals are going to the support of the large airline companies which employ a lot of Canadians and provide a lot of employment and the bad Conservative government is putting a very heavy burden on them and shifting them closer to situations of financial impossibility.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being facetious and getting myself in trouble, I certainly hope if we have problems in the airline industry the government does not get blamed for the demise of one of the companies because it did not pass an amendment to Bill C-86.
As I pointed out in committee, I am the one standing up saying we should get tougher with the companies, and my two friends opposite are there loyally and I have to say diligently defending their interests.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is your problem. You are on the wrong side.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Many have said that before. I would argue the points they make are not entirely invalid, but I would also suggest that the impact of Bill C-86 as it applies to the transportation companies is not going to be as horrendous as my friends portray.
The current act empowers companies to hold documents. As a transporter of people they are responsible for ensuring that if they bring those people to this country, those people have to be able to be accepted in this country.
If those people are not being accepted because they do not have the correct documents, and this obviously does not apply as much to refugees as it does to immigrants, then they are partly responsible for the situation and therefore they must share some of that responsibility by covering the cost.
As my colleague from Trinity-Spadina has pointed out, we did put the word knowingly in so that it cannot be an innocent situation. There is no question that the amendments we brought forward in the committee to the bill are responding to a very real change and a very real need that exists today.
I have to say that the performance of Canadian transportation companies, particularly the two airlines, has been very good. The relationship between the department and those companies is very strong because there is an understanding on what each other needs and what the problems are.


Mr. Angus:: That is because they are in your back
pocket.
November 23, 1992


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I am not standing here defending them and that has proved to be very productive.
Quite clearly the regulations we have in this country are nowhere near as strenuous as the obligations placed particularly on air transport companies in countries like the United States where pilots literally travel-I hope I do not get any of them in trouble-with large amounts of cash accessible to them so they can pay fines and penalties and get out of countries if it is necessary.
Motion No. 60 limits the period to six months. It is recognized that part of the penalty is being responsible for the removal costs and transporting people back. It is not simply an airline ticket. It involves all that has gone on at the time. It may take some period of time to compile those costs and they are there.
We did move an amendment earlier that reflects the fact that prescribed costs can be laid down. Clearly what I hope my colleagues recognize is that there has been a genuine effort made and there is a real relationship there. The penalties are not going to be arbitrary and if one person gets through a company is not necessarily hit with this big fine. That simply will not happen and the relationship with Canadian companies has been very good, and we have seen that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being five o'clock, pursuant to the order made earlier today and in accordance with Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The vote is on Motion No. 59. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Government Orders


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next vote is on Motion No. 60. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The vote is on Motion No. 61. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

November 23, 1992
Government Orders


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Motion No. 63.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 84 by striking out lines 26
and 27 at page 90 and substituting the following therefor:
"ganizes, induces or abets or attempts to organize, induce or abet the coming into".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 63. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 72.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 102 by striking out lines 37
to 46 at page 113 and lines 1 to 45 at page 114.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 72. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Motion No. 76.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 102 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 114 the following:
"(13)(o) The Minister shall lay or cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, at least thirty sitting days before its effective date, every regulation that is proposed to be made under this Act.
(b)	For the purposes of paragraph (a), "sitting day" means, in respect of either House of Parliament, a day on which the House sits.
(c)	Every regulation that is proposed to be made under this Act is subject to the examination of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons to which matters of immigration and refugee status are referred and the said committee may recommend that all or part of the said regulation be approved, changed or rejected."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 76. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Motion No. 78.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 107 by adding immediately after line 38 at page 116 the following:
"121.1(1) After January 1, 1996, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons or of both Houses of
November 23. 1992

Parliament as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as Parliament may authorize, submit a report on the review to Parliament including a statement of any changes the committee recommends."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Motion No. 79.
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 109 by striking out line 44
at page 116 and substituting the following therefor:
"provision in respect of procedure of the Immigration Act as enacted".


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed
will please say nay.
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof. We will vote on the deferred motions as listed in the Order Paper.
The first vote will be on Motion No. 3.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not certain of the mood of the House, but perhaps there might be a disposition to apply the vote which has just been taken to Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are a bit disappointed tonight. We were hoping to have an opportunity to debate these various motions. Since the government has precluded that option, I think we should at least vote on those motions, even if we cannot debate them.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, had I been here, it would have been my pleasure to vote with my party yes, and against the government's insensitivity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since there is no unanimous consent, each motion we voted on separately.
The question is on Motion No. 5.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 6.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 7.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think everybody is aware that we are going to be here for a while. Perhaps the House would agree to let the pages head off to their studies and get ready for their exams.


November 23, 1992

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I realize we need the pages more when there are more members in the House. With unanimous consent, the Chair is willing to give them permission to leave.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.

The next question is on Motion No. 9.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 10. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 13.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost. Therefore Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are declared lost as well.

The next question is on Motion No. 14.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 17.



[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Andre		
Atkinson Belsher	Beatty Bertrand
Bird	Bjornson		
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkarn		
Bosley Boyer Browes	Bouchard (Roberval) Brightwell Cardiff	The Acting Speaker motion carried.	(Mr. DeBlois): 1
Casey	Chadwick		
Champagne (Champlain)	Chartrand		
Cole Cooper Couture	Collins Cote Crosbie (St. John's West)	The next question is on Motion No. 18. motion also applies to Motions Nos. 19	
Crosby (Halifax West)	Darling		
Desjardins	Dick		
Dobbie Dorin Fee	Domm Duplessis Felt ham

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried. Therefore Motions Nos. 19 and 20 are also carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 22.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 24.



[Stage Direction]
Cadieux	Chretien
MacLellan	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 25.



[Stage Direction]
Cadieux	Chretien
MacLellan	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 26. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 26 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 27 and 28. A negative vote on Motion No. 26 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 27.

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 27 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 28. A negative vote on Motion No. 27 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 28.



[Stage Direction]
(Division No. 256)
Cadieux	Chretien
MacLellan	Winegard [DOT]
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Belair
Blaikie
Caccia
Dingwall
Finestone
Gaffney
Gardiner
Heap
Hunter
Karpoff
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex - Windsor)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
McCurdy
Milliken
Pickard
Rideout
Rocheleau
Skelly (North Island-Powell River) Speller-43
Angus
Baker
Bellemare
Brew in
Comuzzi
Ferguson
Fblton
Gagliano
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Jordan
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Marleau
Mifflin
Nault
Plamondon
Riis
Romp key
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Anderson
Atkinson
Beatty
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blais
Bosley
Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Cole
Cooper
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Boyer
Browes
Cardiff
Chadwick
Collins
Corbeil
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 27.



[Stage Direction]
Cadieux
MacLellan
Chretien
Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Considering that we are only about a quarter of the way through the voting and recognizing that all of the pages have exams to write, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to send some of the pages home.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, we concur with the sentiment that pages would be well served by spending the balance of the evening studying for their exams. There is a very easy way to do it, which is to start to allow votes we are taking now to apply to other items down the road. We have no objection to them being read so that the Canadian public knows what we are voting on, but I think Canadians find it rather ridiculous that we are holding up a lot of young people from their examinations simply
to repeat voting patterns which are already well established.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the people of Canada should be reminded that it was the government that decided we would do this tonight. It was the government that decided that under time allocation the votes would be tonight, and so we are simply following the rules.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I said, we could dispense with these votes certainly within a half to three quarters of an hour with a little co-operation. It does cost on average something like $200,000 an hour to run this place.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The next question is on Motion No. 28.



[Stage Direction]
Cadieux	Chretien
MacLellan	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: I rise on a point of order.
I am certain, Mr. Speaker, were you to test the House you would now find unanimous consent to allow the pages to leave. We get paid to stay here and do this stuff and they do not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. There is no unanimous consent.
The next question is on Motion No. 29.



[Stage Direction]
Cadieux	Chretien
MacLellan	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 31.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the .(2020) motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 32.

tt	.	.	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 34 obviates the


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We can vote through tonight into tomorrow morning until the cows come home, but the pages' shifts normally end at this hour of 8.30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time and many of them have exams in two weeks. I do not believe these young people should be held hostage to lengthy marathon votes.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke, that the pages be dismissed forthwith and give them a break. They have got exams coming up. Let us go-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member cannot move a motion unless he has unanimous consent.

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think most of us have eaten so I wonder if there would be unanimous consent, if we are not prepared to let them go home, at least to let them have some of the dinner in which we are participating.
Reid
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski
Sparrow
Thacker
Thorkelson
Turner (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle White
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Reimer
Robitaille
Saint-Julien
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Wenman
Wilbee
Worthy-70



[Stage Direction]
Cadieux	Chretien
MacLellan	Winegard
An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is a no.
The next question is on Motion No. 36.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if at this point there would be unanimous consent to release the young people to go back to their studies tonight.
I wonder what kind of bitter twisted human beings would keep these young people here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 38.
Allmand
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Baker
Boudria
Caccia
Fontana
Gaffney
Gardiner
Heap
Karpoff
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Murphy
Rideout
Rompkey
Speller
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-33
Angus
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Blaikie
Butland
Comuzzi
Rilton
Gagliano
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hunter
Kindy
Langdon (Essex -Windsor)
McCurdy
Nault
Rocheleau
Skelly (North Island -Powell River) Whittaker


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the	Skelly (North Island-Powell River) Speller	Skelly (Comox-Alberni) Waddellmotion lost.	Whittaker	Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-42
The next question is on Motion No. 40.



[Stage Direction]
Cadieux	Chretien
MacLellan	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
++YEAS
Members
The next question is on Motion No. 43. A vote on this motion will apply to Motion No. 47.
Anderson	Andre	The House divided	on Motion No. 43, which vAtkinson Belsher	Beatty Bertrand	negatived on the following division:	Bird	Bjornson	Blenkarn Browes	Brightwell Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	(Division No. 267)	Chadwick	Champagne (Champlain)	Chart rand	Cole	YEASCollins	Corbeil	Cote	Couture	Crosbie (St. John's West)	Crosby (Halifax West)	MembersDarling	Dick	Dobbie	Domm	Allmand	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)Dorin	Fee	Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	BakerFelt ham	Fretz	Belair	BellemareGreene	Grey (Beaver River)	Black	BlaikieGustafson	Halliday	Boudria	BreaughHawkes	Hicks	Butland	CacciaHoltmann	Hudon	Comuzzi	FergusonJames	Joncas	FUlton	GaffneyJourdenais	Kempling	Gagliano	GardinerKoury	Larrivee	Harvey (Edmonton East)	HeapLeblanc (Longueuil)	Littlechild	Hunter	KarpoffLoiselle	Lopez	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
November 23, 1992
Government Orders
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -	-Canso) Leblanc (Longueuil)
Marleau	McCurdy
Mifflin	Milliken
Murphy	Nault
Pickard	Plamondon
Riis	Rocheleau
Rompkey	Skelly (North Island-Powell
S kelly (Comox -Alberni)	Speller
Waddell	Whittaker
You ng (Beaches - Woodbine)-43 Anderson	NAYS Members Andre
Atkinson	Beatty
Belsher	Bertrand
Bird	Bjornson
Blenkarn	Bosley
Boyer	Brightwell
Browes	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cardiff	Casey
Chadwick	Cole
Collins	Corbeil
Couture	Crosbie (St. John's West)
Darling	Dick
Dobbie	Do mm
Dorin	Edwards
Fee	Felt ham
Fretz	Gibeau
Greene	Grey (Beaver River)
Guilbault	Gustafson
Halliday	Hawkes
Hicks	Hudon
James	Joncas
Jourdenais	Kempling
Koury	Larrivee
Loiselle	Lopez
Marin	Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Merrithew	Mitges
Oberle	O'Kurley
Paproski	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Scott (Victoria -Haliburton)
Siddon	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Turner (Halton - Peel)	Valcourt
Van De Walle	Vincent
Weiner	Wenman
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Worthy-86
	PAIRED-MEMBERS
Cadieux	Chretien
MacLellan	Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost. Therefore Motion No. 47 is also declared lost.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the time I wonder if the House would be disposed to apply this vote to the next motion, Motion No. 45. Would you see if there is unanimous consent to do at least that if nothing else?


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is not unanimous consent. The next question is on Motion No. 45.



[Stage Direction]
Cadieux	Chretien
MacLellan	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare motion lost.
++NAYS
Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Beatty
Belsher	Bertrand
Bird	Bjornson
Blackburn (Jonquidre)	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Boyer	Brightwell
Browes	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cardiff	Casey
Chadwick	Collins
Cote	Couture
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling	Dick
Dobbie	Do mm
Dorin	Duplessis
Edwards	Fee
Felt ham	Fretz
Gibeau	Grey (Beaver River)
Guilbault	Gustafson
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks	Holtmann
Horner	James
Jelinek	Joncas
Jourdenais	Kempling
Koury	Loiselle
Lopez	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	Merrithew
Oberle	O'Kurley
Paproski	Reid
Reimer	Richardson
Saint-Julien	Siddon
Stevenson	Tardif
Thacker	Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Dimer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Van De Walle	Vezina
Weiner	Wenman
Wilbee	Worthy-78
The next question is on Motion No. 48.



[Stage Direction]
Cadieux	Chretien
MacLellan	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 49.
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Bellemare
Boudria
Caccia
Duhamel
Fulton
Gagliano
Hovdebo
Jordan
Kindv
Langdon (Essex -Windsor) Leblanc (Longueuil)
Martin (Lasalle - Emard)
Mifflin
Nault
Plamondon
Riis
Rompkey
Skelly (Comox- Alberni)
Stewart
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-41
Baker
Blaikie
Butland
Comuzzi
Fontana
Gaffney
Heap
Hunter
Karpoff
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Marleau
McCurdy
Murphy
Pickard
Rideout
Rocheleau
Skelly (North Island -Powell River)
Speller
Whittaker



The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
Cadieux
Chretien
Rideout
Casey
MacLellan
Winegard
The next question is on Motion No. 50. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 50 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 51. A negative vote on Motion No. 50 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 51.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 51.



The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 54.



[Stage Direction]
Cadieux
Chretien
Rideout
Casey
MacLellan
Winegard
Allmand
Angus
Baker
Bellemare
Breaugh
Caccia
Dingwall
Finestone
FUlton
Gagliano
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) Martin (Lasalle - Emard)
Mifflin
Nault
Rompkey
Skelly (Comox- Alberni)
Althouse
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belair
Blaikie
Butland
Comuzzi
Duhamel
Fontana
Gaffney
Gardiner
Heap
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Marleau
McCurdy
Murphy
Riis
Skelly (North Island -Powell River) Waddell -36
++NAYS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Ms. Hunter:: Mr. Speaker, if I had the opportunity to Vote-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Lynn Hunter: -before you called for those voting opposed to our caucus, I would have voted with our caucus.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not here when the amendment was actually read and so I could not vote-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. [Translation]
The time for debate has passed.
Anderson Beatty	Atkinson Belsher	[English]	
Bird	Bjornson		
Blais Bosley	Blenkarn Boyer	The next question is	on Motion No. 57.Brightwell	Browes	The House divided	on Motion No. 57, whichCardiff	Chartrand	Collins Corbeil	Cooper Cote	negatived on the following division:	Couture	Crosbie (St. John's West)	Crosby (Halifax West) Dick	Darling Duplessis	(Division No. 275)	Fee	Feltham	Friesen	Gibeau	YEASGray (Bonaventure-iles-de-	-la-Madeleine) Greene	Guilbault Halliday	Gustafson Hawkes	MembersHicks	James	Allmand	AlthouseJelinek	Joncas	Angus	Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)Kempling	Layton	Baker	BelairLeblanc (Longueuil)	Littlechild	Bellemare	BlaikieLoiselle	Lopez	Breaugh	ButlandMarin	Martin (Lincoln)	Caccia	ClancyMazankowski	McCreath	Comuzzi	DingwallMcDougall (St. Paul's)	Oberle	Duhamel	FinestoneO'Kurley	Paproski	Fontana	FbltonPlamondon	Reimer	Gaffney	GaglianoRicard	Richardson	Gardiner	Harvey (Edmonton East)Robitaille	Rocheleau	Heap	HovdeboSaint-Julien	Scott (Victoria -Haliburton)	Hunter	KaplanSiddon	Soetens	Karpoff	KindySparrow	Stevenson	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	Langdon (Essex -Windsor)Tardif	Thacker	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) Leblanc (Longueuil)	Thompson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MarleauTremblay (Lotbiniere)	Himer (Halton -Peel)	Martin (Lasalle -Emard)	McCurdyVan De Walle	Vezina	Murphy	NaultVincent	Weiner	Pickard	PlamondonWenman	White	Riis	RocheleauWilbee	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Rompkey	Skelly (North Island -Powell River)Worthy-79	Skelly (Comox-Alberni)	Waddell-46
November 23, 1992

NAYS [DOT]
Members
Anderson	Atkinson
Beatty	Belsher
Bird	Bjornson
Blais	Blenkarn
Bosley	Boyer
Brightwell	Browes
Cardiff	Chartrand
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Crosbie (St. John's West)
Darling	Dobbie
Duplessis	Edwards
Fee	Feltham
Ferland	Friesen
Gibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Greene	Gustafson
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hicks
James	Jelinek
Joncas	Kempling
Layton	Littlechild
Loiselle	Lopez
Marin	Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)	Mitges
Oberle	O'Kurley
Paproski	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Robitaille
Saint-Julien	Scott (Victoria -Haliburton)
Siddon	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Thacker
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
TUrner (Halton - Peel)	Van De Walle
Vezina	Vincent
Weiner	Wenman
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Worthy-7S
PAIRED	-MEMBERS
Cadieux	Casey
Chretien	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 58.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare
motion lost.	

Government Orders
The next question is on Motion No. 59.



[Stage Direction]
Casey
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Horner
MacLellan
Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 60.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 61.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Allmand
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Dlaikie
Brewin
Caccia
Comuzzt
Du ham el
Fulton
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Kindy
Langdon (Essex -Windsor)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Marleau
Milliken
Nault
Riis
Skelly (North Island - Powell River) Whittaker-37
Members
Alt house
Be lair
Boudria
Butland
Clancy
Dingwall
Finestone
Gagliano
Heap
Hunter
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
McCurdy
Murphy
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Waddell
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Atkinson
Beatty	Belsher
Bertrand	Bird
Bjornson	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Chadwick	Chartrand
Cole	Collins
Cooper	Corbeil
The next question is on Motion No. 63.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 64.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 74.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is Motion No. 76.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is	Motion No. 78.
The House divided	on Motion No. 78, which was
negatived on the following division:	
(Division No. 287)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Althouse
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Baker
Belair	Bellemare
Blaikie	Blondin-Andrew
Butland	Caccia
Comuzzi	Dingwall
Fulton	Gardiner
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Heap
Hovdebo	Hunter
Jordan	Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Mifflin
Milliken	Murphy
Nault	Pickard
Plamondon	Rocheleau
Skelly (North Island-Powell River) Whittaker-33	Waddell
 NAYS Members
Atkinson	Beatty
Belsher	Bertrand
Bjornson	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn	Bosley
Boyer	Brightwell
Browes	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cardiff	Chadwick
Cole	Collins
Cooper	Cote
Couture	Darling
Desjardins	Dick
Dobbie	Dorin
Duplessis	Fretz
Gibeau	Grey (Beaver River)
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks	Hudon
James	Jelinek
Kempling	Langlois
Layton	Littlechild
Loiselle	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	McCreath
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Merrithew	Mitges
Moore	Nicholson
Oberle	Paproski
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski	Sparrow

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
Tardif	Thacker	Jordan	KouryThompson	Thorkelson	Langlois	LarriveeTremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Layton	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)Turner (Halton -Peel)	Valcourt	Littlechild	LoiselleVan De Walle	Vezina	Lopez	MarinWenman	White	Martin (Lincoln)	McCreathWilbee	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)Worthy-73	Merrithew	MifflinMilliken	MitgesMoore	NaultPAIRED-MEMBERS	Nicholson	OberleO'Kurley	PaproskiAnderson	Cadieux	Pickard	PlamondonCasey Crosbie (St. John's West) Gray (Windsor West)	Chretien Gaffney Horner MacLellan	Reid Ricard Rocheleau Scott (Victoria -Haliburton)	Reimer Richardson Saint-Julien SobeskiRideout	Winegard -Woodbine) -79	Sparrow Thompson	Thacker Thorkelson[Translation]	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)TUrner (Halton-Peel) Van De Walle	Valcourt VincentWenman	WilbeeThe Acting	Speaker	(Mr. DeBlois): I declare the	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Worthy-96motion lost.	PAIRED-	-MEMBERS[English]	Anderson Casey	Cadieux ChretienCrosbie (St. John's West)	GaffneyThe next question is	on Motion No. 79.	Gray (Windsor West) Lee	Horner MacLellanRideout	Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
Althouse
Blaikie
Fulton
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) Murphy
Skelly (North Island -Powell River) Whittaker -17
Members
Angus
Butland
Gardiner
Heap
Hunter
Langdon (Essex-Windsor) Riis
Waddell
++NAYS
Members
Alima nd	Atkinson
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belair
Belsher
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
BIondin-Andrew
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick
Cole
Comuzzi
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West)
Desjardins
Dingwall
Dorin
Edwards
Finestone
Gibeau
Grey (Beaver River)
Halliday
Hicks
Baker
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blenkarn
Bosley
Brightwell
Caccia
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Collins
Cooper
Couture
Darling
Dick
Dobbie
Duplessis
Ferland
Fretz
Gray (Bonaventure -Iles-de- la-Madeleine) Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Jelinek

The next question is on Motion No. 80.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation)
The next question is on Motion No. 81. The vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 82, 83, 84 and 85.
The House divided on Motion No. 81, which was
negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 290)
Althouse
Blaikie
FUlton
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) Murphy
Skelly (North Island -Powell River) Whittaker-17
++YEAS
Members
Angus
Butland
Gardiner
Heap
Hunter
Langdon (Essex-Windsor) Riis
Waddeler)
++NAYS
Members
Allmand
Atkinson
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Beatty Belle mare Bertrand Bjornson Blais
Blondin-Andrew
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick
Chartrand
Cole
Comuzzi
Corbeil
Couture
Darling
Dick
Dobbie
Dorin
Edwards
Ferland
Fretz
Gray (Bonaventure - Iles-de- la-Madeleine)
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hudon
Jelinek
Jourdenais
Koury
Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loiselle
Marin
Martin (Lincoln)
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mifflin
Mitges
Nault
Oberle
Paproski
Plamondon
Reimer
Richardson
Roche leau
Scott (Victoria -Haliburton)
Siddon
Sparrow
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle Vincent
Andre
Attewell
Baker
Belair
Belsher
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Bosley
Brightwell
Caccia
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Clancy
Collins
Cooper
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West)
Desjardins
Dingwall
Domm
Duplessis
Fee
Finestone
Friesen
Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
James
Joncas
Kempling
Langlois
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Littlechild
Lopez
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mazankowski
McDermid
Merrithew
Milliken
Moore
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Pickard
Reid
Ricard
Robitaille
Saint-Julien
Scott (Hamilton -Wentworth)
Sobeski Stevenson Thacker Thorkelson Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt
Vezina
Weiner

Government Orders
Wen man	White
Wilbee	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Worthy-121



[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost. Therefore Motions Nos. 82, 83, 84 and 85 are lost as well.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-86, an act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.



[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard
November 23, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the
motion carried.
M *
*


PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 19, consideration 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, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The first question is on Motion No. 1.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the other side. I gather there have been consultations with members of all parties. I think you might find disposition for unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken to the remaining report stage amendments on Bill C-26.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be 42 amendments yet to deal with. I think it is important that members recognize that when the government decides to use time allocation to curtail debate it is appropriate that we vote on all the amendments put forward.

November 23, 1992
Government Orders
However, the point has been made tonight. As a result we will certainly give our concurrence to proceed.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that I be shown as voting with my party on the remaining amendments.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motions Nos. 3, 5, 9,11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38,40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 73, 77, 79, 81 are lost.
Motions Nos. 7, 49 and 75 are also negatived.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	GaffneyGray (Windsor	West)	HornerLee	MacLellanRideout	Winegard
The House divided on Motion No. 27, which was
negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Members
Alt house	Angus
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Baker
Belair	Bellemare
Blaikie	Boudria
Breaugh	Butland
Caccia	Clancy
Comuzzi	Dingwall
Duhamel	Finestone
FUlton	Gagliano
Gardiner	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Hovdebo
Hunter	Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)	Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Manley
Marleau	Martin (Lasalle-£mard)
Mifflin	Milliken
Murphy	Nault
Pickard	Plamondon
Riis	Rocheleau
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Speller
Waddell	Whittaker-44
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blais
Bosley
Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick
Chartrand
Collins
Corbeil
Couture
Darling
Dick
Domm
Duplessis
Fee
Ferland
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure -iles-de-la-1 Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Hudon
Jelinek
Jourdenais
Koury
Larrivee
Littlechild
Lopez
Martin (Lincoln)
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mitges
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Reid
Ricard
Robitaille
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Sparrow
Tardif
++NAYS
Members
Atkinson
Belsher
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Boyer
Browes
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West) Desjardins Dobbie Dorin Edwards Felt ham Fretz Gibeau ne) Greene Guilbault Halliday Hawkes Holtmann James Joncas Kempling Langlois Layton Loiselle Marin
Mazankowski
McDermid
Merrithew
Moore
Oberle
Paproski
Reimer
Richardson
Saint-Julien
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski
Stevenson
Thacker
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
*Rimer (Halton - Peel)
Van De Walle
Vincent
Wenman
Wilbee
Worthy-105
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt
Vezina
Weiner
White
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson
Casey
Crosbie (St. John's West) Gray (Windsor West)
Lee
Rideout
Cadieux
Chretien
Gaffney
Horner
MacLellan
Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson
Casey
Crosbie (St. John's West) Gray (Windsor West)
Lee
Rideout
Cadieux
Chretien
Gaffney
Horner
MacLellan
Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLeilan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Gaffney
Gray (Windsor West)	Horner
Lee	MacLellan
Rideout	Winegard
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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



[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Cadieux
Casey	Chretien
Crosbie (St. John's	West)	GaffneyGray (Windsor	West)	HornerLee	MacLellanRideout	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
*Jf. *
*


ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 81-REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Boudria (p. i3691).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the opposition motion relating to the business of supply.


MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Cadieux
Chretien
Gaffney
Horner
MacLellan
Winegard
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
Before we adjourn I would like to say a word of thanks on behalf of us all to the pages who, as usual, gave us an excellent service despite the late hour.

It being 11.28 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 11.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tliesday, November 24,1992