Debates of March 15th, 1994

Canadian Foreign Policy

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member touched on many of the points I just made. I am not sure he understood very well what I said. As a matter of fact, I praised Canadian foreign policy in many areas without making any reservation or omission in that regard. I think I was fair in my remarks because I am here to speak in good faith of our foreign policy and tell the government what I think that policy should be. I will keep this same attitude for as long as I sit in this House.

There is another point on which I would like to comment. The hon. member seemed to imply that, among the very few reservations I had, I criticized the government for spending only a small percentage of our GNP for official development assistance. I was referring to a Liberal commitment in the red book saying that Canada would renew its promise to allocate 0.7 per cent of its GNP for ODA. That was the gist of my criticism: I simply said an election promise was broken. As to the rest, I feel I was very kind in my assessment of Canadian foreign policy.

As to what the hon. member labelled as the narrow nationalism of the Bloc Quebecois, I would say nationalism is not only a matter of language. He is the one who made a link between nationalism and language. I think nationalism is much more than that. It is a culture. The Leader of the Opposition was perfectly clear on that this morning. I will also point out to you that in his speech this morning, the minister of Foreign Affairs referred to nationalism, rather ultra-nationalism, which in my view is not consistent with the ideas of the Bloc.

If we look at globalization of trade and markets, despite this phenomenon of globalization, we still are confronted-the minister of Foreign Affairs said it this morning-by the nation-state, and you know that Quebec considers itself as a nation. It is in that sense that we talk about nationalism, because we consider ourselves as a nation, a nation with a culture, with a language, with a history which, from the outset, was different from that of English Canada.

It is in that sense that we feel that a nation-state may very well-and its has been clearly demonstrated recently-we feel, I repeat, that a nation-state, however small it may be, may very well survive among nations increasingly interdependent. This is, in my view, the idea that the Bloc has always been trying to defend. That does not mean a nation closed to the world, that does not mean that we are going to apply the geocentric theory which I mentioned earlier. On the contrary. In my view, Quebec has always been very open to the world, hoping to become a nation one day and to remain a nation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry but the period for questions and comments has terminated.

Business Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the vote on the budget scheduled for Wednesday, March 16, 1994 at 6.30 p.m. be deferred until Tuesday, March 22, 1994 at the conclusion of the time appointed for the consideration of Government Orders.

I have a second motion. I move:

That the ordinary hour of daily adjournment be suspended this day to permit continuation of the debate on a motion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to establish a special joint committee and on any amendments thereto, and during such extended sitting no quorum calls shall be permitted, nor shall any dilatory motions be received by the Chair, and when no further member rises to speak, and in any case no later than eleven o'clock p.m., the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion forthwith and without further debate.

A recorded division shall be deemed demanded and the division shall be postponed to the end of the time appointed for the consideration of government business on Wednesday, March 16, 1994 and thereupon the Speaker shall adjourn the House until two o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, March 16, 1994.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House has heard the terms of the motions. Does the House agree to adopt both motions?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motions moved and agreed to).

The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.

Canadian Foreign Policy

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the last few moments of debate. I believe Canadians are proud of the country's role on the international stage. They see it as a role of an honest broker, as a role of a middle power, as a role of a force of goodwill and civility. It is also a symbol that has acted as a beacon of hope to those who unfortunately find themselves displaced. We are particularly proud of the role our immigration and refugee policies have played in helping to establish our international reputation along the way.

Canadians have historically had a humanitarian response to people fleeing persecution, whether it was the open arms that Canada extended to the United Empire Loyalists or Hungarians fleeing communism, whether it was the innocent families escaping a murderous dictator in Uganda or most recently the helpless Vietnamese boat people who were cast adrift.

In a world of dramatic change, however, we can no longer view immigration and refugee policies simply as a sporadic domestic response to occasional international crises. Migration and refugee issues must be at the forefront of our foreign policy concerns for Canada and on the foreign policy initiatives agenda of so-called developed countries.

In addition, I believe we need to come to grips with and create a coherent international population policy to address the important issues and challenges raised on the floor of the House of Commons today.

I believe this foreign policy review is a very welcome initiative. It coincides with a national consultation on the future of our immigration program which we had occasion to launch on March 6 and 7. I believe that these two initiatives should not run on a parallel playing field, but rather at some point converge into one through the many inextricably linked issues.

It is very true that immigration programs must be developed with an eye to both domestic priorities and domestic concerns. That goes without saying. It must take stock of world conditions, world pressures and world changes. We cannot isolate our national programs from our hope for a saner, more gentle international community.

We also need a wide breadth of vision in recognizing that whenever we try to extend help to humanity in some corner of this globe, we are at the same time putting in the first footings of the foundations of bridges that will one day transport more than just goodwill, but be transformed into social and cultural and economic advantages for both countries.

I believe that in eastern Europe where the Berlin wall has come down that immigration can be one of those bridges, not to try to have a brain drain when those countries are trying to find a footing and develop a dynamic and exciting new society, but rather to try to meet some of the aspirations of those people who wish to immigrate to Canada where there is already a history and a proud tradition of that. I believe that it goes beyond just immigration.

With respect to eastern Europe and some of the countries therein, we need to show our support now during this difficult transition time and not later on in the next generation when obviously we will be seen to be trying to reap the rewards of a consuming society.

What steps then must a democratic, pragmatic, fair-minded country like Canada take to help find new answers in a new world? Recent years have seen a sharp rise in the number of global migrants. There are as many as 100 million migrants on the move around this globe. There are almost 19 million refugees, double the number in 10 years. There are almost 20 million individuals displaced in their own countries, including some four million individuals from the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Therefore, there are many root causes for all the migration. We need to understand and analyse the forces at play that mobilize this colossal movement of humanity.

My hon. friend from the other side touched on some of these: civil wars, deep and persistent poverty, mass violation of human rights, environmental degradation, lack of solid, viable long term economic opportunities, globalization, uncontrollable urbanization, better communication and easier transportation and, of course, the global recession that has touched both developed and developing countries.

There are some who would close their eyes and others who would want to close their borders. I suggest that neither of those actions will stop the problems nor the solutions from coming forward. As a modern society we cannot afford to have an international corridor of locked doors. We know that to be the case. An international corridor of locked doors will only reroute the traffic through our back doors and through our side windows.

Of course Canada cannot solve the problems alone. However, by working in co-operation with other countries, clearly we can help to find international solutions to what is an international phenomenon, that of migration. We as a country can offer that leadership because we are truly an international country if we stop to think about the kinds of exciting characteristics that define Canada.

We are an international country. Canadians have roots in every corner of the world. Therefore we should take heart about that dynamism and ask ourselves what country is better poised in this new global village to try to seek to mobilize the leadership for such an international consensus. We should not sell ourselves short. One of the criticisms that we sometimes hear is that we are too meek on the international stage. Yet, on this issue of global migration, we have offered leadership. It is there, it is documented and it is a source of pride.

In my few remarks I do not wish to try to predetermine the outcome of the foreign policy review as it deals with migration pressures. Rather, I would like to raise some serious questions and issues which I hope will receive the careful reflection of this joint committee and of the speakers subsequent to my deliberations.

For instance, while Canada has been a forceful advocate of individuals' "right to leave oppressive regimes", can we go one step further and become a forceful advocate of people's right to stay in their homelands? What can we do to make emigration a matter of choice and not simply a matter of desperation and lack of options? How can Canada help strengthen the role of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees that is looking for assistance to strengthen its resolve?

When most refugees selected by our western world happen to be men, what can we do to recognize and balance the reality that most refugees in the world overwhelmingly are women and young children? How can we encourage international co-operation to address the root causes of involuntary migration? Can we find new means of fostering economic development, human rights, conflict prevention, population planning and environmental sustainability?

What role can international fora such as the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, the OECD, or the G-7 play in developing a much needed integrated population policy which currently has gone by the wayside and which leaves a large, large vacuum?

What role can and should our trade policy play in the reduction of migration pressures? What role can Canada's immigration program play in helping developing nations strengthen their own countries and develop their own human resources to the fullest of their potential?

What is the role that technology can play in this equation of migratory pressures? Have we reached the point where we must consider migration impact like environmental impact questions in the development of our foreign and aid policies?

These are some of the questions and issues that I would like to put on the table for further discussion because in the red book in the last election campaign we pledged as a party to adopt a more comprehensive strategy toward national and international security, including sustainable development, global economic prosperity, support for democracy and solving problems through multilateralism.

As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I increasingly see how critical our success in developing such a comprehensive strategy will be to the future manageability and success of our own domestic immigration programs.

I believe and I urge that migration issues and migration pressures must be a central focus of Canada's foreign policy agenda as we move together toward the next century. They will be on the agenda, for instance, at an important United Nations conference which will take place this September in Cairo, entitled the United Nations Conference on Population and Development.

At this particular forum, and at gatherings subsequent to this forum, we need to search and find new kinds of world-wide co-operation to ensure that migration is a positive force, not a destructive force, and an engine of development serving the interests of migrants as well as the aspirations of both the sending and the receiving countries alike.

We must seek co-operation to establish stronger international regimes and strengthen an international resolve to address the force of world migration, to encourage conditions to permit people to remain in their homelands and to ensure that when people are forced to seek refuge that there is an international community that is not oblivious or indifferent, but receptive to their plight.

It is through this working partnership to achieve this objective that Canada's foreign and immigration policies can indeed find common cause and common ground.

If one looks at public opinion surveys, and I think a few minutes ago my colleague touched on this nerve, Canadians are looking for symbols, institutions and initiatives that give a sense of pride, meaning and purpose to our country called Canada. I think the element of this debate is such a useful exercise because an exercise such as this, that goes beyond our own domestic borders and looks internationally abroad and talks about the dreams that the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke about earlier, is the vacuum that Canadians want us to fill. It is a unifying force.

We may have differences in how we approach these individual international problems, but it is a force that unites us as opposed to a force that divides. It is a reputation that not only would give us a sense of pride but would reinforce the reputation that we have developed as a caring and compassionate country. Those are not empty words or empty rhetoric when one tries to fashion a domestic policy that is in keeping with an international dream

or a more gentle version of a world that sometimes is more filled with disorder than order.

Every time we make a ripple in the world it sends out a signal and an example to other countries. That is what multilateralism is all about. What we seem to be doing on this issue is not only important domestically, but given that we have had a track record and a leadership role it becomes doubly important. What we do in this area, speaking quite modestly, can have an impact on how other countries view the problem.

It is not a question of trying to preach or lecture to other countries or try to say that we preach from a pulpit of perfection where we have a monopoly on virtue. Not at all. Some Canadians would say that we have our challenges from within. The poor, ravaged by the recession, would argue: "Why are you spending a day in Parliament talking about problems that seem so far away? Why do we not take care of the problems here at home first?" Other voices would suggest: "Why are we allowing the doors to still remain open for those seeking refuge when there are individuals here who are not meeting their own dreams and never mind the dreams of a very complex, confused world?"

We hear those voices. Those are tough questions. Those tough questions do not always have easy, ready made answers do they? I think we feel and we sense as members of Parliament that on the one hand we need to listen to those concerns because without being rooted in that reality we are lost in this place. This place means nothing unless this debate becomes realistic and people out there connect with us and through us.

In the other sense, we also feel that when we come together as members of Parliament in the institution of democracy in Canada and where our constituency all of a sudden becomes national, we have a responsibility to go beyond our riding boundaries and also consider the international plight of our fellow brothers and sisters. Do we not? Our work as members of Parliament would be less if we simply thought of what could be good parochially speaking for each of us or each of our ridings.

We have to go beyond that. We have to try to broaden and elevate the debate to see that the world's problems are really problems for us indirectly. We can reach out and build those bridges and seek those solutions. If we stop to think selfishly for a moment it is beneficial for this country as well.

Linkages in the world today are absolutely vital. McLuhan talked about the global village and it is certainly here. The rapidity of technological and communications change links us whether we like it or not.

The global marketplace will belong to countries that are forward thinking, that are creative in trying to come to grips with old problems. It will belong to countries that seek the pioneering work which is very difficult but reaps benefits.

As fellow human beings we owe it to the world to try to make it a better place. Most of those people on the move would rather not be. Most immigrants to Canada, including my parents, would rather have stayed where they were. However they were compelled and forced to pack their bags and move without really knowing where the train would take them.

However ask those individuals today what the best decision was in their lifetime. Nine out of ten will say it was packing those bags. As painful as it was then, the best decision was to pack their bags and to adopt a new country, Canada. Those individuals are prepared to line up to defend and to stand on guard for thee.

We should not forget that because those movements still exist. Individuals look to Canada, look to the United States, look to Australia, look to New Zealand and other countries that ought to be in this group for a beacon of hope.

I hope this foreign policy debate will view immigration and refugee policies as an extension of that foreign policy, in how we deal with those people on the move and how we position our country for the future.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was most interested to hear what the minister of immigration had to say. I am sure that the people of Chambly and the people of Quebec and Canada are thinking along lines that are not too far removed from the points the minister is trying to make.

In this House and elsewhere, unfortunately, the minister is asking questions and I hope he is willing to hear the answers or at least our attempts at providing answers because in our society, there are some subjects that are taboo. Today, we cannot talk about capital punishment or immigration or other topics that are not considered politically correct in our society, even if we just want to obtain information and perhaps come up with the same solutions or objectives as the minister.

The minister asked us some questions. He said: "Canadians", and this includes Quebecers until further notice, "must take a position and do some serious thinking". However, when we do that, we are not always politically correct.

The minister approached this subject by tugging at our heart strings. Of course there are some sad situations in the world and there are people who really have a lot of problems. However, I would have appreciated it if, for once, the minister had not played on our emotions, because at times we have let our emotions go beyond what we could afford. I wish that, for once, the minister would show us some figures and prove his point this way, and I am sure he would succeed, but I wish he would stop playing on our emotions and use scientific and economic data to

give us some hard facts that prove what he thinks and what I think, namely that these are issues that will benefit Canada. There is no doubt that immigration benefits Canada. Our country is where it is today thanks to immigration.

However, to satisfy people who sometimes argue on the basis of false premises, I would have liked the minister to explain from the mathematical point of view how he reached this conclusion.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member raises an interesting point. The whole matter of immigration and refugee migration is a very emotional subject to start with. Some members have accused me of being over-emotional at times. I suppose I am at times but that is the nature of this federal public policy area.

I would go out on a limb and suggest it is probably the most emotional area of federal public policy. It deals with people wanting to come here. It deals with people being denied the chance. It means there is only room for so many individuals and family reunification individuals feel that very emotionally.

On the one hand the issue is emotionally charged. On the other hand the hon. member is right. Our challenge as government and as a Parliament when dealing with immigration and refugee migration movements whether it is to Canada or internationally is to divest ourselves as much as we can of our emotionalism and to talk about it rationally. That is very much the object of the exercise I launched on March 6 and 7.

What did I say when we announced the immigration levels for 1994 back in February? In addition to the numbers, we talked about a new way of consulting and engaging Canadians. It was not an attempt to superficially massage the issue. Rather it was to go beyond that and to engage Canadians on the facts and numbers and on what the member referred to as the mathematical or scientific equation of immigration refugee and migration. I welcome that thinking because that is what those consultations are about.

I was accused today for example during Question Period of calling people ignorant when they perhaps had a thought that did not agree with mine or with government policy. I made no such categorization of individuals. I repeat what I have said in this place before. It would be too easy to dismiss individuals who have concerns and we should not because those concerns are genuine.

I am not suggesting that we assume and accept any perception people have about immigration or refugee or migration movement. There is a middle ground. In a sense we can try to get to that common ground and try to learn from each other and allow the facts to be distilled. Let us put emotion, perceptions, myths and fiction to one side and let us talk hard numbers. I do not fear that kind of debate. That kind of debate brings to the fore the true values which have shaped immigration in the past. I am confident of that.

If I have one negative criticism of my predecessors in the last 10 years of Tory administration it is that they legislated on fiction rather than fact. They led with the negative only. They did not talk about the positive.

Sure there are problems and of course there are concerns. For example, it drives Canadians up the wall when a convicted murderer makes a refugee application at a Kingston penitentiary. It drives this minister up the wall too. There is due process. I am trying to make the system fairer but I am also determined to close the loopholes which make our tolerance the object of ridicule and undermines those who seek to come here legitimately.

I welcome a discussion based on fact and not fiction, one that is rational and not emotional. We would be doing honour to the subject matter at hand.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I listened to the hon. minister earlier, I was reminded of Martin Luther King many years ago. He spoke with a great deal of magnanimity and emotion, except that while Mr. King was a preacher, the minister holds a position of power. Yet, when a very honourable family asks to stay in Quebec , we see that even with all the power he wields, he has to tap dance around the issue. Clearly this is unacceptable, because he certainly has ways to get results.

Nevertheless, I do have a question for him. My constituency of Matapédia-Matane is as vast as an entire country. My question is this: Why is it that new immigrants to Canada usually settle in the large cities rather than in the regions? Is it because the unemployment rate is higher in our regions, or is there some other reason?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is rather unfair that the hon. member tried to categorize this government as being unfair with this case or another.

One of the realities of this portfolio I am trying to correct is I am trying to improve the system by pulling back the system from the hands of government and the minister. Right now all negative refugee claims whether they are through members of Parliament, NGOs, church groups or the media, land on the desk of the minister. I do not subscribe to the policy that the minister knows best.

When we get thousands of cases, how do we begin to intervene and make it rational and fair across the board? Do I react because an issue was simply in the pages of Le Devoir or the Toronto Star ? Keep in mind there are 700 other cases that could not get on the front pages of Le Devoir or the Star . Do I react when someone goes on a hunger strike? Do I move when

someone seeks refuge in a church? Or do we try to have a policy that is fair for one and all and that provides adjudication more by the system rather than the minister? I have the commitment from my caucus and cabinet colleagues to do just that.

The member touches on another issue. Largely speaking Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are seen as our chief magnets for immigrants and refugees. One of the challenges we can address is that if immigration is positive, then it flows logically that some of the economically depressed regions could certainly use the advantage immigrants bring. The challenge is how to encourage immigration to those parts of the country and balance that with the mobility rights they obviously enjoy under our charter. It is a challenge I hope we come to grips with.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that I did not get an opportunity to question the minister following his comments. It was a dynamic question. The minister is going to have to wait until another day.

Before I start into my main point, I believe no one party has a monopoly on love for Canada, for patriotism, for a concern for the improvement of the system. When we on this side of the House ask questions I hope the minister takes them in the spirit they are intended. We may not be as slick as some in the way we can present questions and we may not have the years and years of experience. However, the love for Canada and a belief that the system may need to be improved are part of what we hope to have in all our questions, comments and speeches in these debates and reviews.

There have been a few surprises since I came to Ottawa. I am surprised that it can be this cold. I have come during the coldest winter in living memory. I guess I could expect that. I am surprised that the salt stains on my shoes never come out. I am surprised at the cost of an apartment and I am surprised at the workload of an MP.

I am also surprised in some ways to find that there are many fine MPs on all sides of the House and I commend them for their concern in debates such as this as we review important policy and try to set the policy that will lead us into the 21st century.

I have also experienced one of my greatest surprises during the last few days while sitting as a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I want to pass on some of this astonishment to the House and to anyone else who listens today. Hon. members will be more than a little surprised to hear some of the things that have come up in the last few days in this important committee.

Our committee is undertaking a sweeping foreign policy review. Part of that is happening here today. Over the next few months we will begin comments on foreign policy from this side of the House, talking about an agency I would like to focus on today, integral to Canada's foreign policy.

This agency is responsible for delivering 80 per cent of Canada's foreign aid and dozens of other nations shape their concepts of Canada through their contact with this agency. Its budget is huge and the very lives of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people depend directly upon it. CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, is a very important agency, an organization in our foreign policy.

Let me say a little bit about CIDA. It falls under the authority of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It began in 1968 with a budget of $279 million. Today its budget is over $1 billion. It has 1,300 employees and is involved in 115 countries around the world. These facts do not surprise me.

What I find truly incredible are the very basic things that we do not know about CIDA. What is the mandate of this organization? We do not know. How many and what kind of countries is it supposed to work in? We do not know. What kind of aid is it supposed to deliver? We do not know. Is it doing a good job? We do not know that either, we have no idea.

The few answers we do have are just as surprising. What legislation brought CIDA into existence? There never has been any legislation. CIDA is a creation of cabinet. Is it directly accountable to Parliament for the billion dollars it spends every year? Not at all. Is there the political will to make it accountable? The answer is a simple no. I found that out from the minister last Thursday.

The minister appeared before the foreign affairs standing committee to present the estimates and I asked him if he felt it was a problem that there was no legislation spelling out CIDA's mandate. With some characteristic, political caution he said that laws are useful but not necessary. Then he added that laws could become an impediment.

I could read between the lines of these statements. I think he meant the government may not want to bring CIDA under the direct control of Parliament because legislation by its very nature is restrictive. It says that there are some activities that we cannot do or that we cannot take part in. Or it could mean if we create legislation that gives CIDA a humanitarian mandate, for instance, we will not be able to use the organization as a political tool of foreign policy or an economic tool of Canadian commercial interests. We would restrict our freedom to manipulate CIDA by introducing legislation.

This would be a bit more acceptable if there were not grave problems with CIDA, problems that can only be solved by legislation. The Auditor General included an entire chapter on this organization in his last report and he exposed fundamental shortcomings which could be mitigated by enacting appropriate legislation.

The Auditor General says that the first problem is one of conflicting objectives. Some see CIDA as an instrument of Canadian business, others as an agent of humanitarian aid. CIDA does not know what it is supposed to do. It stumbles along trying to please both sides but pleasing neither very effectively.

CIDA, very simply, is overextended. Its activities are spread too thin, we are in too many countries doing too many things to be much help in any one place. We need to have a sharper focus to our foreign aid.

The Auditor General says that CIDA is also too bureaucratic; is it any wonder when we realize that it has 1,300 employees but only 125 actually work overseas? I was astonished to learn this. That is an average of only one CIDA representative per country that we are represented in.

CIDA's management style is also inappropriate. In the past it undertook more physical projects like building bridges or building roads. Its project managers knew a lot about how to build bridges and how to build roads. Today CIDA is involved in a far wider range of activities such as policy advice and human resource development. Its managerial expertise, though, has not changed to match its new activities and the result is that CIDA has not been able to properly dovetail its current staff to the new and evolving tasks which it has been asked to accomplish.

The Auditor General says that CIDA needs to be more accountable. I could hardly believe it when I read that when CIDA signs an agreement with a foreign government to complete a project there are no required results set out in the agreement. There is no independent on site monitoring of the project and there are no clear budgetary limits. There is no legislative requirement to evaluate CIDA's involvement and report those results directly to Parliament.

These are all very theoretical. In a practical sense what kind of problems result from these types of inadequacies? I will cite just one example.

The Auditor General took pains to tell us about Bangladesh where Canada has spent approximately $2 billion over the last 25 years. In one village officials counted more than 80 separate international aid groups and the Auditor General said: "That country could not possibly absorb and use in a cost-effective way all the development assistance it was already getting from the multiple donors".

Bangladesh still receives 40 per cent of all CIDA funding. It is no closer to being self-sufficient than it was 25 years ago, and there seems to be no process for deciding if it should remain Canada's top priority.

These are very significant problems. If they were ever to be resolved we as Canadians should consider a deeper, more philosophical question about CIDA, one that goes to the heart of our national character. Before we enact legislation to enable CIDA to solve its own problems we must answer this basic question or it will be impossible for CIDA to become effective.

For a quarter of a century CIDA has been the arena of a great struggle within Canada, a struggle about Canada's motives for giving foreign aid. The problems exposed today earlier in my speech are just symptoms of this greater struggle. Should our motive be to help poor people, with no strings attached, or should our motivation be to profit commercially in some way through aid for trade arrangements?

If our motives are to help the poor, we must realize that we will not be repaid in an economic sense. If we want to benefit Canada's economy through foreign aid, we will likely turn away from the poor and divert those resources to richer nations with potential for increased trade with Canada, thereby increasing our own wealth.

In 1987 the standing committee on external affairs authored a very popular report called the Winegard report which recounted many of the administrative problems that I have already discussed and also tackled this deeper question about CIDA's role. The report was entitled "For Whose Benefit?", which implies the question who are we helping. Do we really want to help others, or is giving aid just another way of helping ourselves?

That same committee in 1987 made it clear where it stood on the humanitarian versus the market orientation question. Its very first recommendation was that the government adopt a development assistance charter as part of a legislative mandate for Canada's development assistance program.

It recommended legislation and stated as the first principle of that legislative charter that the primary purpose of Canadian official development assistance is to help the poorest countries and the people in the world. The committee acknowledged and upheld that humanitarian concept of foreign aid and the government of the day, the Conservatives, paid lip service to 98 of the 115 recommendations found in the Winegard report.

During the last election the Liberal Party also spelled out a continuing commitment to humanitarianism. Government seemed to be consistent in its support of humanitarian goals and, to that end, consistent in its desire to reform CIDA. Nothing is

ever actually accomplished because the underlying question has never been resolved through legislation.

The continuing struggle was echoed just one week ago and addressed to our standing committee by the president of CIDA. I sympathize with her. She is trying hard to please two masters here. On the one hand she attempts to please the humanitarians in the crowd by telling about CIDA's accomplishments with the poorest of the poor, and there are some very positive accomplishments and achievements there. On the other hand she also tries to please the more market oriented people by noting with some pride that 60 per cent of CIDA's foreign aid is actually spent right here in Canada to support Canadian businesses. That is a direct contradiction and that is where this needs to be settled.

It is no wonder that members of the global aid community shake their heads in disbelief. Obviously there are internal pressures to make CIDA an instrument of Canadian commercial interests.

The so-called Carin paper leaked from the Department of Foreign Affairs in late 1992 saw CIDA as a means to promote Canadian interests and values abroad. It advised the government to shift aid toward richer nations like Russia where we might have the chance to develop stronger economic ties. This report was never implemented but the trend is clear.

This problem and the administrative ones I have highlighted are obvious and long standing. The problems and many of the solutions were clearly laid out in the Winegard report nearly a decade ago. When one reads the latest Auditor General's report much of it sounds like the reiteration or the reinvention of that same Winegard report.

There is a continuing lack of political will in the government, as revealed by my conversation with the minister last week, because of the competing philosophies about CIDA's most basic role, aid or trade. I have heard that two successive ministers, the past two, have tried to change CIDA and have failed. I have also heard that numerous, well intentioned and influential people have run into a brick wall trying to reform the system for the sake of the Canadian taxpayer and the sake of hungry people abroad. We need leadership or the problems will continue.

The Reform Party of Canada is willing to offer leadership in this respect. I want to clarify the Reform position. The Reform Party of Canada, as members know, has called for a reduction in foreign aid funding simply because Canada no longer has the money to spend like it once did. Reformers are concerned about the poor but they are unwilling to ignore the larger context of our ability to pay and they are unwilling to overlook the reforms that CIDA so urgently needs.

The Reform Party is well aware of the plight of a full third of the world's nations. In them, 34,000 children die of hunger or illness each day; 800 million people are malnourished. On the opposite pole, we are all well aware that on the United Nations index of human development Canada sits second out of 172 nations. This position of privilege carries with it a unique weight of responsibility and we as Canadians must not close our eyes to the grim realities faced by others.

It is therefore our recommendation that CIDA be clearly mandated to assist-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. We will proceed with his debate once the House resumes its business.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Criminal Code

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

moved that Bill C-214, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda-age group), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured and privileged to have the opportunity today to present to my colleagues in Parliament and to commend Bill C-214, the purpose of which is to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to render it impossible to import a product known as the serial killer board game.

I would like to start by describing the serial killer board game for all hon. members. This is a Monopoly-type game that comes in a child-size body bag. It contains 25 baby figures and four killer figures. The purpose of the game is, of course, to commit as many murders as possible to tally up the largest number of baby corpses and win the game. The winner is the best killer.

The game also includes a map of the United States where the states without capital punishment are in a different colour. For a big murder, the killer gets three baby corpses and, for a smaller murder, only one corpse.

Here are some of the cards a player can get in this game.

"Hitch-hiking is dangerous. Someone should have told this girl". Here is another quote from one of these little Monopoly-style cards: "The quiet dorm could turn into a house of horrors when you visit. This campus is crawling with cops though. Beware".

This game is based on the actions of John Wayne Gacey, who was found guilty of 35 murders in the United States.

I would like to say a few words about public opinion on this game. I humbly submit to this House that Canadians do not want this product. Most Canadians are reasonable people and want to ban this game. I have presented over 105,000 petitions in this House in recent days. Several other members have also presented such petitions. In Quebec, in particular, many teachers and school boards are passing around the petition I drafted myself two years ago.

I have several more petitions in my office and I intend to table them as soon as the Clerk of Petitions has had a chance to review and approve them for presentation in this House.

At this time, there is nothing preventing the importation of this game into Canada. In 1992, after complaints in this House and demonstrations by many Canadians, Diamond Comic Distributors, the company that distributes the serial killer board game in Canada, decided to stop distributing this game or to give up its distribution rights. I think the reason for this is obvious. After all, it would be unwise for a distributor of comic strips to antagonize parents. So, in the face of controversy, the company decided to give up all rights to distribute this product. But you just wait and see. If there is a profit to be made, sooner or later another distributor will show up to ensure the large-scale distribution of this product here in Canada.

The former Minister of National Revenue, Otto Jelinek, even admitted in a letter-as I told the hon. member of the Official Opposition-that nothing in the Criminal Code now prevents the importation of this product into Canada.

Customs officials have no law that would allow them to stop the game from crossing the Canadian border. Therefore I humbly submit to this House that there is an urgent need for a law to stop imports of this game.

On February 11 I tabled in the House Bill C-214, an act to amend the Criminal Code of Canada. That is the bill we are debating this afternoon. It is through that bill I propose to ask my colleagues to take the necessary measures to prevent the importation of the serial killer board game.

The bill that I offer to the House is very simple. Basically it adds one word to the Criminal Code. I will explain that in greater detail. Bill C-214 proposes to amend the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code. Presently-and this is no surprise to anyone-if the serial killer board game advocated to destroy, physically harm or murder people on the basis of race, colour of skin, religion and so on, obviously it would not be allowed to enter our borders.

However, because babies by definition come in all races, colours and everything else, that particular criterion does not work to stop the importation of the serial killer board game. By definition right now the hate propaganda provision says that hatred cannot be promoted against an identifiable group. Identifiable group is then further defined as a group that can be distinguished by sex, colour of skin, ethnic group, religion and so on. Obviously there appears to be no way at the present time to stop the importation of the serial killer board game.

My bill would add another category. It would add an age group as an identifiable group. The word age would be added. In other words babies by definition are relatively the same age. Otherwise they would not be babies. This age group would then become identifiable and jurisprudence would develop when a baby is a baby for the purpose of the bill. Nevertheless, jurisprudence would determine when this criterion could be used.

In any case advocating violence, promoting violence or glorifying violence against babies would be prohibited under the measure I am proposing to the House this afternoon.

Now, as I said, section 318 of the Criminal Code forbids anyone to promote genocide, and that is what we are talking about. If hon. members have a copy of the Criminal Code in front of them, they will see that subsection 318(2) reads:

• "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, ( a )killing members of the group; or ( b )deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

"Identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. Of course, as I just said, I propose adding another category to this section of the Criminal Code, namely age group.

In conclusion, because I would like to make my comments a little shorter than the 20 minutes allotted to me so that more members can speak, this is not a partisan issue today but an important social issue and I think that as many parliamentarians as possible should be able to speak on this subject.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to you and to my colleagues that on many occasions I have told the House of Commons my opinion on importing the serial killer board game. I say and I repeat that I find the idea of this game, which is to collect the largest number of baby corpses, repugnant.

Not only I, but all parliamentarians and all Canadians are disgusted by this game.

Finally, I want to leave you something to think about. Madam Speaker, imagine that you are a parent of a newborn child and your next-door neighbours are having fun playing the serial killer board game and collecting baby corpses. Would you not want the government to ban this game!

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, hate propaganda is one of the most despicable forms of human foolishness. Those who use it without thinking have not learned anything from history, while those who spread it wilfully commit a crime against humanity.

Hate propaganda can easily be concealed in the most seemingly harmless comments; it goes against the constitutional protection afforded to freedom of expression, and those who use it do not care about public opinion, which disapproves of its use.

In fact, you cannot define hate propaganda; you see it, you hear it, and you measure it by the provocative effect of the words and actions of those who use it. It defies definition under our democratic law. Every time we legislate to combat hate propaganda, it resurfaces in a new, unsuspected, active form.

Our Criminal Code has included a few minor provisions on hate propaganda since 1970. Sections 318 and 319 deal with advocating genocide and with public incitement to hatred against groups which the law calls "identifiable". The Code currently defines the offence based on the group to which the victim belongs. This does not take into account historical and social realities.

Any form of hate propaganda against any social group, by anyone, should be strenuously opposed. The current Criminal Code only includes acts against certain groups, distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

For example, the age, language, sex, sexual orientation, social environment and condition, political convictions, profession, marital status or lifestyle of individuals forming a social group are not elements of identification of victims of hate propaganda.

I think that restricting potential victims to a few groups is not justified when we are dealing with a crime against humanity as a whole. Instead of designating a few "identifiable" groups, the law should prohibit any form of hate propaganda against any group. Public incitement to kill women, welfare recipients or homosexuals is no different than inciting people to kill Jews, Catholics or Muslims. Social hatred, in its expression and in its effects, is akin to universal hatred.

Consequently, I agree with the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on the spirit of his proposed amendment to Bill C-214. However, I cannot support the bill itself, because it implicitly recognizes that the law would only protect certain groups of people, when it should include everyone.

This bill is similar to Bill C-204 tabled on December 18, 1988, and Bill C-207 tabled on April 7, 1990, which also provided for the inclusion of age as a distinguishing factor. Bill C-326, tabled on June 27, 1990, also added sex and sexual orientation to the list of factors.

The bill tabled by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell adds age as a distinguishing factor for a group of victims, but what we have to do is abolish these restrictive designations of "identifiable groups", in order to extend the protection of the law to society as a whole. Again, this bill confirms the restrictive nature of the current legislation.

On the other hand, this bill gives us an opportunity to debate in this House the effect our legislation really has on hate propaganda in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the Zundel case, last year, and the Keegstra case, in 1990. As we know, the Alberta Court of Appeal was scheduled to hear another appeal from Keegstra on February 2, 1994, and has not yet issued a ruling.

While Keegstra was charged under the hate propaganda provisions, Zundel was charged under old section 181 on spreading false news. As we all recall, Zundel denied the Jewish holocaust ever happened and his comments were tinged with racism.

Zundel's motives could have been examined as part of mens rea determination. However, in the majority jugement of the Supreme Court, section 181 was invalidated by the Charter and, whatever his motives, Zundel had to be acquitted. In its ruling, the court mentioned it had ruled a few years earlier, in the Keegstra case that hate propaganda was protected under section 2(b) of the Charter, and added that all communications that convey or intend to convey a message fall under section 2(b) of the Charter, with the only proviso that the material transmission of the message be otherwise acceptable.

Unfortunately our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is protecting fanatics and eccentrics like Zundel who can spew out their insanities with complete impunity. As the law now stands, how would the Supreme Court react to section 318 which has not yet been tested, as we know?

I also know that this bill is premised upon the alleged impending importation in Canada of a game I prefer not to mention. No one has seen this game yet. I think that the panic stirred up by certain watch groups is actually playing into the hands of the game's promoters who are benefitting from an incredible amount of publicity. If there is such a game, it is shameful and should be stopped at the border or seized by the

police. I think that other provisions of the Criminal Code, if amended, could in fact allow such action.

Without getting into a legal debate on notions which elude the public, I want to call the attention of the hon. member and of this House to the fact that the Code contains provisions which prohibit the distribution of crime comics under offences tending to corrupt morals.

Pursuant to section 163(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, a person who circulates a crime comic commits an offence. However, I would agree with the hon. member that the definition of the scope of the offence is far from perfect and that customs officers and the police would not be able to act easily.

The game targeted by this bill depicts through drawings or photographs the serial killings of children. I would propose, as an alternative, that the definition in section 163(7) be amended to include any material that depicts pictorially the commission of criminal acts. I think that, from a constitutional standpoint, these provisions would be more effective and more valid in terms of stopping the distribution of this kind of game than the addition to the restricted categories of clauses respecting hate propaganda messages, as these categories are already protected under the Charter.

Finally, I am by no means convinced that even with the amendment put forward by my colleague, this type of game would fall under the definition of hate propaganda covered in section 318 or section 319.

For these reasons, and although I agree completely with the spirit of what the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is trying to do, I cannot support the amendments he is proposing and I fail to see how they would be useful from a practical standpoint. Since the legislator cannot pass legislation for no reason, I think that Bill C-214 should, quite simply, be deferred.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of private member's Bill C-214. My hon. colleague who just spoke may be accurate in that there are some deficiencies in this bill. At the same time we cannot amend the total Criminal Code and rectify the problems within the criminal justice system in one fell swoop.

I support the private member's bill. However I do so with a degree of regret. It saddens me to think that we would have to debate such an issue, whether or not we should amend the Criminal Code to stop the proliferation of what I consider to be obscene and immoral.

I would like to briefly describe what I know about the serial killer board game. It was invented by Tobias Allen of Seattle, Washington, and inspired by John Wayne Gacey, a serial killer on death row for the murder of I understand 33 children in the United States. The object of the game is to kill as many children as possible. The game comes in a body bag and the pawns to play the board are in the shape of dead babies.

In my mind there is no debate. The answer is a given. I believe from the volume of mail and petitions received by past and present members of this House that there is no debate in the minds of Canadians on this issue. We should stop the serial killer board game from reaching Canadian stores and the impressionable minds of our children.

I will never understand what kind of sick mind devises such a despicable and horrifying game, one that glorifies the killing of babies, the most vulnerable and precious treasure we have in this world, innocent victims of some of the most heinous crimes committed in this and other countries.

Are we not here to protect our children from the senseless hate and violence that exists throughout the world and which is increasing in our own country? How anyone finds entertainment in playing a game that depicts the slaughtering of babies is beyond me and everything I have ever held dear in my life. How anyone could condone the importation and sale of such an outrageously immoral game is beyond comprehension.

I stand here today to support an amendment that demonstrates to the U.S. originator and manufacturer of this game that there is no place for it in a country whose standards in regard to morality will not tolerate the exploitation of children and to reinforce the commitment I have made to my constituents to help put some sanity back in the justice system that no longer protects our most valuable possession, our children.

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has tabled private member's Bill C-214 to amend the Criminal Code to include age which appears to be the only effective means to stop the importation of the serial killer board game as it would constitute importing hate propaganda.

Currently under subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, children or seniors are not protected because they do not constitute an identifiable group. Within this section the application of the Criminal Code only applies to hate propaganda that advocates or promotes the physical destruction of persons distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

This serial killer board game which establishes the winner as the person who collects the most dead babies would not be permitted in Canada if the babies were of a particular race or colour. Obviously white Anglo-Saxon is not included in the definition of race under subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code

and has an awful lot to say about the state of our Criminal Code. Otherwise Revenue Canada officials could have prohibited entry of this game into our country.

I would like to point out that similarly women would not be protected under this section of the Criminal Code as gender does not fall within the confines defining what constitutes hate propaganda.

Therefore if the dead bodies were that of white Canadian women the game would also be acceptable to pass through our borders under subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code. How have we regressed to the point where we have no equality before the law? It is no wonder this country cannot eradicate the problem of violence against women and children when sections of the Criminal Code such as 318(4) provide no protection for them.

I understand that under tariff code 9956 of schedule 7 to the Customs Tariff, Revenue Canada can prohibit the importation of certain material into Canada. Material suspected of being treasonable, seditious, obscene or hate propaganda is inspected by Revenue Canada officials and if it is determined to come within the terms of tariff code 9956, its importation is prohibited.

According to the Minister of National Revenue, his officials have reviewed a version of the serial killer board game and determined it did not fall within the confines of tariff code 9956 which has necessitated private member's Bill C-214.

I do not know what obscene means to revenue officials but to me and as is defined in the dictionary it means highly offensive. If the game depicting the murder of babies is not highly offensive, I do not know what is. Anything that glorifies killing and depicts serial murders as victorious is very offensive to me and the people I represent. I really do not understand what is happening in our country, what is happening to the sense of decency and morality that was once so indicative of a country whose values were second to none.

What kind of a message are we sending people when we allow a game of this nature to enter our country? It is the same message we send when we allow a murderer serving a life sentence to be eligible for parole after 15 years, when we give a convict a day pass to rape and kill again, when we pay a serial killer handsomely to provide law authorities with information regarding the location of his victim's bodies or when we permit a person in prison who was a partner of one of the most horrific sexual slayings in this country to own a microwave, a television set, take university courses and to decorate her cell with whimsical cartoon characters when law-abiding Canadians struggle to obtain similar assets.

Another major area of concern, of course, is the Young Offenders Act which is currently ineffective in stopping the growing number of youth engaged in criminal and violent activities. There has been considerable discussion regarding this area of law and private member's Bill C-217 is currently before the House. The purpose of this bill is threefold. To lower the age limits that define who is a young person for purposes of the Young Offenders Act, to allow the publication of the name of a young offender who has been convicted of an indictable offence on two previous occasions and to increase the maximum penalty in the Young Offenders Act for first and second degree murder to 10 years.

I commend the hon. member for York South-Weston for his initiative in this area. I cannot say at this time that I agree 100 per cent with the suggested amendments, however I do believe they warrant discussion and analysis.

Stopping the importation of material such as the serial killer board game or serial killer cards is a necessary component in providing the proper environment for our children to grow up in. How can we expect them to adhere to a prescribed set of rules and moral conduct if we have games or literature that are contradictory? How will they ever understand wrong from right if we say one thing and our store shelves are filled with games or literature that defies what we have told them?

We know a world of corruption lies beyond our front doors. Every day in this country Canadians are warned of the unspeakable things that can happen to their children and they are urged to make their children street smart.

Allowing the serial killer board game into this country goes against the moral conscience of Canadians and everything we as parents are trying to do to raise our children to be morally correct human beings.

Our job as legislators is to provide leadership and direction through our laws. If we do not amend the Criminal Code we will be telling our children that we believe killing babies, killing innocent and defenceless members of society, is all right even if it is only in a game.

In conclusion, when we do this we are allowing violent and immoral behaviour to further proliferate in this country. I stand in support of this bill.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to speak to Bill C-214 introduced by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

This bill proposes to amend the existing Criminal Code definition of identifiable group which is found in that part of the code dealing with hate propaganda so as to include the term age. The new definition would apply to all of the hate propaganda offences.

The search for the proper role of the law in respect to hate propaganda is especially difficult because it forces us to review

the conflict between freedom of speech and the interest of the state in criminalizing speech injurious to the public.

Before proceeding to speak to the bill it is important to say a bit about the current law. At the present time the Criminal Code prohibits, first, advocating or promoting genocide against any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. That is section 318.

Second, it prohibits inciting hatred against a protected group by communicating in a public place statements which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace. That is subsection 319(1).

Third, it prohibits communicating statements, other than in private conversation, which wilfully promote hatred against a protected group. That is subsection 319(2).

Fourth, the Criminal Code provides for the seizure and forfeiture of hate propaganda kept on the premises for sale or distribution. Those are subsections 320(1) and (4).

Fifth, it provides that a person charged with advocating genocide is liable to five years imprisonment if charged with the offence of public incitement, or hatred, or the offence of communicating statements which wilfully promote hatred. A person is liable to two years imprisonment if prosecuted by way of indictment or to six months and/or a $2,000 fine if prosecuted by way of summary proceedings.

The Criminal Code also provides for four special statutory defences which an accused may raise if prosecuted for wilfully promoting hatred: if the statements communicated were true; if the statements expressed or attempted to establish by argument in good faith an opinion upon a religious subject; if the statements made were on a subject of public interest which on reasonable grounds were believed to be true; and pointing out in good faith for the purpose of removal matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred.

Except for the offence of public incitement to hatred, the consent of the provincial attorney general is required to obtain a seizure or to initiate a prosecution under the Criminal Code's hate propaganda provisions. The hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code were examined by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Regina v. Keegstra. The judgment was rendered in December 1990.

The Supreme Court of Canada determined that communications which wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group conveyed a meaning and were thus an expression within the meaning of paragraph 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court further noted that the prohibition set out in subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code was directed at words that have as their content and objective the promotion of racial or religious hatred.

Inasmuch as the purpose of the provision was to restrict the content of expression "by singling out particular meanings that are not to be conveyed", the Supreme Court of Canada determined that subsection 319(2) infringed the guarantee of the freedom of expression in paragraph 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court ruled that the presence of hate propaganda in Canada was sufficiently substantial to warrant concern. The court recognized that hate propaganda could cause two types of injuries: first, harm done to the target group by for example provoking a retaliatory response or causing the target group to avoid activities and withdraw from participation in activities with non-group members and, second, influence upon society at large by attracting individuals to hold these views and to create discord and disharmony among these groups in society at large.

The court upheld subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code which deals with wilfully promoting hatred. It upheld it as a reasonable limit on the guarantee to the freedom of expression within the meaning of section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Subsection 318(4) defines the expression identifiable group as meaning "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin". Expanding the definition would broaden the type of speech that would be caught by the hate law and therefore could potentially put the hate propaganda provisions at risk. This is very significant.

The Supreme Court of Canada noted in the Keegstra case that subsection 319(2) was designed to extend a measure of protection to visible and religious minorities so as to prevent their being exposed to hate messages and to promote racial and religious tolerance.

Expanding the definition of identifiable group to include another characteristic such as the one proposed in Bill C-214 would undoubtedly broaden the narrow purpose of protecting visible and religious minorities approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Keegstra case. It is not clear to me whether adding what is proposed in Bill C-214 would have the effect of protecting children from killer cards and board games as there must be shown an incitement to hatred or promotion of hatred.

The proposed change here would broaden the definition of identifiable group without succeeding in its attempt to protect children from nefarious materials. As a result, the hate propaganda provisions as amended by Bill C-214 could be more

vulnerable to a finding by courts that they constitute an infringement of the charter guarantee of freedom of speech and that they are not a reasonable limit prescribed by law in a free and democratic society.

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is attempting to do something which should be supported. We all support his aim. The problem is how best to do it. Is it with Bill C-214? We have to be careful, as I have stated, that we do not weaken the law as it exists at the present time and that we perhaps find another way of dealing with if.

The Department of Justice at the present time is looking into the matter. Hopefully it will have something to recommend. I say this with all deep appreciation to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. With the co-operation and work of all members of the House, we will find the best way possible to deal with this despicable practice, which certain people are using to make considerable sums of money at the expense of our young people.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House will stand suspended until 6.30 p.m.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.10 p.m.)

The House resumed at 6.30 p.m.

The House resumed, from March 14, 1994, consideration of the motion.

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the recorded division on the supply proceedings.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Canadian Foreign Policy

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see that after the short break to reconsider their position members are coming in droves to hear the end of my speech.

Before the break I had been talking about an important part of our foreign policy review. That is the position we should take as we study and review the position the Canadian International Development Agency should have in this foreign policy review.

I have heard that numerous well-intentioned and influential people have run into a brick wall trying to reform CIDA's system for the sake of the Canadian taxpayer and the sake of hungry people abroad. We need leadership or the problems will continue. The Reform Party of Canada is willing to offer leadership in this respect. I want to clarify the Reform position.

The Reform Party of Canada has called for a reduction in foreign aid funding simply because Canada no longer has that money to spend. Reformers are concerned about the poor, but they are unwilling to ignore the larger context of our ability to pay. They are also unwilling to overlook the reforms that CIDA so urgently requires.

The Reform Party is well aware of the plight of one-third of the world's nations. In them 34,000 children die of hunger or illness each day. Eight hundred million people are malnourished.

On the opposite side we are well aware that on the United Nations index of human development, Canada sits second from the top out of 172 nations. This position of privilege carries with it a unique weight of responsibility. We as Canadians must not close our eyes to the grim realities facing others.

It is our recommendation that CIDA be clearly mandated to assist the poorest of the poor to become self-sufficient. We recommend that this mandate be enshrined in legislation. This would be legislation that protects CIDA from the political pressures that divert its energies toward other tasks. It would be legislation that includes a project by project evaluation mechanism and budgetary sunset clauses. It would be legislation that controls CIDA by requiring it to justify its actions to Parliament on a regular basis.

A scaled down CIDA should concentrate on working at the grassroots level with the poorest of the poor. It should give less bilateral or government to government assistance, because that is where the corruption and the greed too often frustrate our

efforts. It should concentrate instead on its efforts to forge more partnerships with community based non-governmental organizations where help goes directly to needy people. Currently only 9 per cent of our foreign aid budget is used in that way.

CIDA should follow, as an example perhaps, Sweden's lead and reduce its focus from 115 countries to just a handful, making a significant impact on poverty and health in each one of them. An example of this can be found in the latest years for which figures are available.

The statistics show that Indonesia which is classed by the UN as a middle income developing country received $40 million in aid under CIDA. Haiti, sitting at the bottom rung of the world's ladder, received just $6 million. By shifting priorities we could have a real impact on a country that is the poorest of the poor through our non-governmental organizations.

CIDA must take a long term view by making the poor self-sustaining rather than allowing them to become dependent on continuing foreign aid.

Canada enjoys an unprecedented position of respect in the world today. Other rich nations do not enjoy the same level of international esteem. Why is this? In large measure it is because Canada has reached out with benevolence. We have given generously to nations like Bangladesh and Pakistan knowing they may never be able to repay us.

The world has recognized that our motives for giving are generally altruistic and for that we are rewarded with global goodwill. At the world table we have substantial bargaining power for a nation of our size. This is possible because we back up our words with tangible assistance.

The vehicles for enhancing Canada's trade already exist. The industry and international trade departments are well suited to serve Canada's commercial interests. However we ought to separate our economic interests from our humanitarian motives. The overt promotion of Canadian trade is a worthy and necessary endeavour best left to he departments of industry and international trade. I believe our integrity is somehow diminished in the eyes of the world when we quietly couple commerce with humanitarian relief.

It is impossible to estimate the value of our good international reputation in monetary terms. The good seeds we have sown in the fields of the poor may well bear the future harvest of increased trade. Whether this happens or not let us move now to enact legislation recreating CIDA as a vehicle that can deliver aid with efficiency and purpose.

In case the government is not contemplating such legislation at this time, I intend to introduce a private member's bill in the coming weeks that will incorporate the principles I have addressed. It can serve as a starting point for a non-partisan effort that I believe all members could support.

Within our ability let us give freely to the poorest of the poor without ulterior motives but in the spirit of generosity and compassion that marks each member in this House as truly Canadian.