1987-08-11

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
36 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 11, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 5, being satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest required that the House should meet at an earlier time-

-I caused to be published in an extra edition of the Canada Gazette dated August 9, 1987, a notice calling the House to meet this day. In addition, on the same date I sent telegrams and electronic mail to each Member of the House containing the substance of that notice.

I now table a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) dated August 7, 1987, concerning that notice.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, the House has been recalled to deal with legislation containing the widespread abuses in the refugee system, the issue of smuggling, the needed response to our security system, and the whole question of the refugee process.
I would like to indicate to you that there have been discussions with the opposition Parties. A Bill will be introduced later in the proceedings in the name of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) which would amend the Immigration Act and the Criminal Code to deal with the issue of deterrence and detention. I submit to the House that this is a matter of grave urgency, and they are
strong measures to respond to the developments of the past two weeks.
It was our intention to deal with this issue today. My understanding is that the opposition Parties wish more time to consider this measure, so it will have to be dealt with later in the week. Perhaps they may wish to consider the efficacy of dealing with this measure in Committee of the Whole. We had some discussions yesterday, but perhaps it could be dealt with in Committee of the Whole, providing there could be some clear understanding with regard to the time frame.
I also wish to indicate that Bill C-55 will be the order of business called for today. It dovetails in an integral way with the new Bill that will be introduced. It is broader in scope, and it deals with the whole refugee determination process as well as other things related to it. It provides for a durable, longer term solution to the question of the refugee issue as it affects Canada.
I wish to indicate to the House the urgency of dealing with this matter as well. It is needed soon. Presently we are dealing with a six-month hoist sponsored by the Liberal Party. I would hope that they may reconsider that and attempt to get rid of it.


Mr. Gauthier:: Is this a statement on a motion?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is rather amazing in this opening deliberation of an emergency session that the Opposition is so sensitive. I find that rather strange.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are making a speech.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am merely trying to outline the order of business. If there are any difficulties with that, perhaps-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We can read just as well as you can.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -perhaps the Member may wish to talk to his House Leader.
Given the urgency of this matter, we may wish to consider extending the hours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I offer that suggestion in the interest of ensuring an adequate debate on this issue, the new Bill, and Bill C-55.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate-and I wish to do this to some extent in the form of an apology-that we did not hear from the opposition Parties in sufficient time to clearly designate the order of business. The Minister of Employment

August 11, 1987
Business of the House
and Immigration will be making a statement when you call Statements by Ministers. I know that perhaps there has been a shorter than usual notice given to the opposition Parties, but that is clearly because we did not receive a response from them as to whether they would be prepared to move with the new Bill or Bill C-55.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's nonsense.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With those few explanatory remarks, I hope that in the interests of goodwill, commitment and dedication to the welfare and the interests of the country, we can proceed in an orderly and effective manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski) was serious about approaching the recall of the House in the spirit of goodwill aimed at obtaining the co-operation of the Official Opposition, and the opposition Parties generally, he has shown a very strange and non-constructive way to go about it.
This morning at 7.30 the Deputy House Leader for the Government, the House Leader for the NDP, and myself were together waiting to do an interview on the program called Canada AM. At that time I told the Deputy House Leader for the Government that our caucus had decided that, in view of what they understood to be the length, the complexity, and the detail of the Bill the Government intended to introduce today, the ordinary and normal rules of Parliament providing for 24 hours between first reading and second reading should apply. Therefore, I told him that we were not willing to suspend the normal rules of Parliament and move directly today to second reading debate on the Bill the Government wishes to introduce today on refugee abuse. I asked the Deputy House Leader for the Government whether he-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 remind Hon. Members that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has made a lengthy opening statement, and quite properly so. Hon. Members gave the Deputy Prime Minister a good hearing. 1 know that all Hon. Members would want to extend that courtesy to the representatives of both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in the waiting room at the Canada AM CTV studio I said to the Deputy House Leader for the Government that the Government House Leader had asked me to provide an answer to his request with respect to beginning second reading debate immediately, contrary to the normal rules, before 9 a.m. this morning. 1 said to the Deputy House Leader for the Government: "I am conveying to you as Deputy House Leader the answer of the Official Opposition. We want the normal rules of Parliament to apply". I asked him if he would convey that information to
his Leader or whether I would have to call the Government House Leader directly. The Deputy Leader for the Government said: "No: I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. I am the Deputy Leader-"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: He said: "1 will be happy to convey that information to the Government House Leader. You don't have to do it". It is totally unjustified for the Government House Leader, who does not have the guts to stay and listen-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: He does not have the guts to stay here and take it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Absolutely impolite!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all Members realize that there is a great deal of business to which we must attend, something which will be more easily attended to if Hon. Members respect the fact that when a Member has the floor the appropriate courtesies should be extended to that Hon. Member.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is not justified in saying that he did not give the usual notice to the spokesmen for the opposition Parties concerning the intention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to give a statement because we had not told him before 9 a.m., as undertaken and promised, whether we would be willing to agree to suspend the normal rules and begin second reading debate immediately. Very clearly, I carried out that undertaking by conveying that information to the Deputy House Leader for the Government. If the Government House Leader and the Deputy House Leader are not talking to one another, then that is just another sign of the disorganization and incompetence of the Government. It is not justification for not extending to the opposition critics the normal courtesy of providing at least an hour or more notice of the intention of the Minister to give a statement and to provide an advance copy of that statement.
I now wish to make two other points. First, I think that it would be normal, even when the Government claims that a measure is urgent, a measure that will be seen to be complex, detailed and lengthy when it is presented in the form of a Bill, that we would warit to have the usual period of 24 hours between first reading of the Bill, its printing in official form, and the beginning of debate on second reading. This is not only so each and every Member of the House, including government members if they are really interested, can individually and personally study the Bill before they have to take part in a debate on second reading, but so that members of the public
August 11, 1987

can see the exact text of the Bill and be available to give their views and their reactions to all sides of the House.
It is for this reason we are saying that we want the usual rules of Parliament, which have worked to protect our democratic institutions for hundreds of years, to apply in this case. We are not approaching this issue on the basis of obstruction or filibuster. However, we think that the matter is serious enough that at least 24 hours, as provided by the rules of the House, should lapse before second reading debate begins. It is the Government which controls the agenda of the House. If the Government wants to call this Bill for second reading at the first opportunity presented under the rules, which I think will be tomorrow afternoon, then we will be ready to debate it.
With respect to the suggestion that the Bill might be considered in Committee of the Whole, I certainly want to consult my caucus on that. I would like to know why the Government is afraid to allow Members of the House to question witnesses directly on this measure. It has not given any explanation for proposing the departure from the normal rules of the House that Bills are studied in legislative and sometimes standing committees.
Finally, with respect to Bill C-55, which we are ready to debate today, the Government is shedding crocodile tears about the procedural amendment we made in order to show that we had serious doubts and questions about Bill C-55-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You want to kill the Bill!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -along with dozens of other groups from across the country. If the Government had been serious about wanting to make progress on the Bill, then it would have presented it to the House on more than one occasion limited to three hours.
That Bill was introduced on May 5 and the Government did not have enough commitment, enough conviction, or enough belief in it to call it for debate until a month later. And then it called it for only one day. I say to the Government that if it was serious about its commitment to the Bill then it would have presented it to the House day after day between May 5 and June 29 until it it came to a vote. The Government was in a position to do this.
We are here to do the business of the country because of your decision, Mr. Speaker. However, I do not think that we have to start off on the basis of discourtesy and inaccurate information about my carrying out an undertaking given to the Government House Leader as to when I would tell him if we would agree to suspend the ordinary rules with respect to beginning second reading. I gave that information to his Deputy at 7:30 a.m. this morning. If the two of them are not talking then that is their fault. They should not take it out on this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Business of the House


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, just a very short point of clarification.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member has given us a very weak but spirited defence.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My office was officially informed at 10 a.m. this morning; that is the fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will understand, of course, that the exchange that is taking place on the floor of the House at the moment is a normal and appropriate kind of exchange since it gives the Government a chance to indicate to the House what its order of business will be. Of course, there are the usual comments from the appropriate representatives of the Opposition.
I would ask of all those engaged in this informative exchange to consider that the exchange should be informative. We might come to a satisfactory conclusion of it more rapidly if all of those engaged in it would use the natural self-restraint which I know they all have to avoid getting into an extended debate on extraneous matters.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing that we have had to begin this sitting in the mood that has already developed in the House this morning. I do not think anything demonstrates more clearly the incompetence and the shambles of the Government than the way that this very important piece of legislation has been handled by it.
I remember distinctly that two weeks ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated there was an emergency, a crisis in the country, and then, as he went off to attend various picnics and so on, a week went past, then another week, until finally you, Mr. Speaker, were asked to call a special sitting of the House, which you did and to which we responded.
The Government House Leader has now asked that we set aside the rules, traditions and regulations of Parliament so we could begin this discussion a little sooner than we would do so normally. We were given an unofficial draft copy of the proposed new legislation. After a cursory glance, it became clear it was a very important piece of legislation. The Government was intending to take a whole variety of new initiatives. It was felt it would serve the House, the various parties and the country as a whole to give this legislation the usual thoughtful perusal and study before the debate began.


Mrs. Mailly:: To take forever.

August 11, 1987
Tabling of Documents


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member screams across the floor "To take forever". We are simply asking that we follow the traditions and rules of the House of Commons as we do with all serious legislation. We are asking for no more. I think the Government has accepted that we will begin the debate on this new legislation likely tomorrow which will give Members of the House of Commons a full day to study the legislation, to read, digest and examine the various implications of the clauses so that the debate which will take place will be a thoughtful and informed debate.
I simply want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we, as well, informed the office of the Government House Leader this morning that we would like to take a day to study the Bill. I do not think that should be considered to be holding up the legislation. In fact, it might even facilitate it in terms of thoughtful and productive discussions as opposed to debating a Bill which most of us would not have had a chance to discuss thoroughly.
I also want to say that I am somewhat offended in that we had a meeting of House Leaders yesterday to discuss the business of today and subsequent days and I am asked today to presumably respond as to whether or not we would be prepared to extend hours of debate or to entertain the request for a committee of the Whole to examine this legislation. I think the place to discuss the work of the House of Commons is between the House Leaders at the appropriate times and not on the floor of the House of Commons. I ask the Hon. House Leader for the Government, therefore, that he take advantage of the good nature of the opposition Parties in co-operating to see that the Bill before us receives thorough and complete study and examination, and carry out our meetings as we have done traditionally between each other and not on the floor of the House of Commons.
If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) would allow me to make a comment, I do want to register the fact that in respect of the address we will hear later by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), while presumably the intention was to get it into the hands of the opposition critics so they could respond again in a thoughtful and complete way, we really did not have sufficient time. I appreciate at least the thought of getting it to the critics ahead of time, but 15 or 20 minutes does not allow a very thoughtful response on the floor of the House of Commons.
Therefore, once again I would urge the Minister and the Government House Leader that whenever possible, in order to have the debate on the floor of the House of Commons as meaningful and thoughtful as possible, that we are informed as early as possible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I thought I tried to explain that fully.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate that this is the beginning of this particular sitting and perhaps this morning there were difficulties because there was a lot of business which had to be transacted. However, for the future, I make that request.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-2598, 332-2600, 332-2631 to 332-2635 inclusive, 332-2639 to 332-2677 inclusive, 332-2679 to 3322695 inclusive, 332-2697 to 332-2719 inclusive, 332-2721 to 332-2733 inclusive, 332-2737 to 332-2781 inclusive, and 3322783.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, Parliament has been recalled to deal with an issue of grave national importance. A serious problem-the growing number of migrants who are entering Canada by posing as refugees-has reached critical proportions.
The arrival of 174 migrants on the shores of Nova Scotia last month has created unprecedented public concern. And rightly so, Mr. Speaker, since organized attempts to evade the immigration laws of this country are absolutely unacceptable. They endanger the physical safety of the migrants, imperil the security of Canada, and-worst of all-jeopardize public support for our immigration and refugee programs.
But there is a much graver problem which has been highlighted by this latest incident. It concerns the growing influxes of undocumented persons who claim refugee status at ports of entry from one end of this country to the other.
These are persons who have not applied through normal channels. These are persons who in most cases have bought their way into Canada with forged documents, or who have destroyed their documents en route.

The number of persons making refugee claims in Canada has grown enormously in the past seven years, from 1,600 in 1980 to a projected total of 30,000 in 1987. The vast majority of these claims are ultimately found to be bogus. Most of these persons are not in need of Canada's protection.
Before I continue, I would like to remind Hon. Members, and this is important, that the United Nations defines refugees as people who flee their homeland because of a very well-
August 11, 1987

founded fear of persecution. To put it another way, the difference between refugees and immigrants is that refugees leave their homeland because they must and immigrants freely choose to seek a new home.
We all have a stake in these issues. Immigrants and refugees built, and every day renew this country. This is an integral part of our national identity. When the integrity of our immigration and refugee programs is cast in doubt, our sense of identity is weakened. When our willingness to help others is abused, our commitment to providing assistance is placed in jeopardy.
In the past 40 years some half a million refugees and displaced persons have found new homes in this country. Over and over again Canadians have responded generously to the plight of refugees. In recent years, however, this generosity has been brazenly abused by individuals posing as refugees.

In February of this year, we sent a strong signal of our intentions to curb abuse of our refugee program. This message was clearly understood by some, and the flows were reduced substantially.
In May, we announced legislative proposals for a new improved system. These proposals were widely welcomed. Our blueprint for a fair and effective system was seen as a reasonable balance. But in some quarters, our commitment to fairness was interpreted as weakness. And as the date of implementation draws closer, those who wish to profit from the misery of others have adopted increasingly dangerous methods of flouting our existing laws. And that is why we have recalled Parliament. Our first priority today is to send the clearest possible signal immediately to the unscrupulous smugglers who callously exploit the hopes of migrants around the world. We have before us two important pieces of legislation. The first proposes tough measures to deal in no uncertain terms with the most flagrant and dangerous forms of abuse. The second piece of legislation-Bill C-55-provides a blueprint for a completely new and streamlined refugee determination system which operates within the constraints of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are proud of the system of justice in this country. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees those values which we most cherish as a free and democratic society. Unlike most other countries, our Charter of Rights is not confined in its application to those who are citizens or permanent residents.
The Charter of Rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in the SINGH decision of 1985, extends to every person within Canada's jurisdiction the same rights to life, liberty, and the security of the person.
Statements by Ministers
Thus it is that every person who arrives in Canada and claims to be a refugee must be treated in accordance with the rights established under the Charter.
When this situation is combined with the inadequacies of a system designed in another era to deal with different needs, it creates an environment where the unscrupulous can flourish.
This combination created gaps through which people steal their way into Canada, confident that although they have broken our laws, we, the people of Canada, will not break our own laws.
Not only has the basic generosity of Canadians been abused, but the generosity of our entire system of justice has been abused. In these circumstances I urge all Members of the House to give rapid passage to the Bill tabled today.
It is a tough Bill containing responsible measures. It will deter those seeking to enter Canada illegally. It will protect the integrity of our immigration and refugee programs, and it will safeguard the security of the country.

Under this deterrent and detention legislation-
. Penalties against smugglers and their accomplices will be increased substantially: maximum sentences of 10 years in prison, and fines of a half a million dollars.
. The Minister's power to turn back vessels which disembark migrants in Canadian territorial waters will be reinforced;
. Authority to seize vessels and vehicles engaged in such activities will be confirmed in legislation
. People who arrive with no documents can be detained until their identities are established.
. Fines and penalties will be increased on transportation companies bringing undocumented people to Canada. Transportation companies will pay $5,000 fines for each undocumented passenger.
. And finally, Mr. Speaker, this Bill will empower the Government to refuse access to the refugee determination system to those people who are known criminals, or who pose a security threat. Not only will they be detained, but they will also be expeditiously removed from Canada.

We must act swiftly now to guard against the possibility that we might at some later date be forced to take even tougher measures. This Bill is tough on those who would break the law. It has been designed to dovetail with Bill C-55 to provide immediate and continuous protection from abuse. It is in Bill C-55 that we have the tools to deal with the circumstances which face Canada now and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

August 11, 1987
Statements by Ministers

Since 1945, Canada has welcomed over 500,000 refugees to our land. In 1986, the people of Canada were awarded the Nansen Medal by the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees-the first time a country has ever been so honoured.

While the debate over refugee determination has concentrated on refugee claims made within Canada, we must not forget that our first priority as a country is to help genuine refugees who are confined to camps overseas. These people are desperate. They have nowhere to go and no future ahead of them. They deserve our concern and compassion.
The federal Government's sponsorship of these refugees has increased substantially since we took office. This year we will bring 12,000 refugees directly out of refugee camps and settle them here in Canada.
In addition, Canadian citizens have responded generously. Private groups, families, and individuals are expected to sponsor over 5,000 refugees this year. The Government encourages and supports these resettlement efforts.
We shall continue to use our resources to increase the number of refugees brought directly from camps overseas under government and private citizen sponsorship.
Our immigration programs are second to none. Under this Government immigration levels have been rising steadily-
84,000	in 1985, 89,000 in 1986, and we will easily surpass our target of 125,000 in 1987. We intend to continue promoting this steady growth. I am announcing today that next year Canada will accept an even higher number of immigrants from around the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: In addition to increasing the levels of immigration, we have implemented almost all of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration aimed at processing immigration applications more quickly. We also intend to respond to the recommendations made by the standing committee concerning family reunification criteria.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: I am announcing today that regulations to include unmarried children of any age will be introduced. This news, I am sure, will be welcome to many Canadians who wish to bring their relatives to this country through the proper channels-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: I repeat, through the proper channels. They will now be able to do so.

Ultimately, the solution lies in the implementation of a refugee determination system that achieves the best possible balance of speed and due process. Such a system is embodied in bill C-55.
Bill C-55 will not be in place tomorrow. It requires, and it deserves, consideration not only by Members of this House, and members in the other place, but it deserves the attention of all Canadians.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians want a system that assures fair play. All Canadians want an end to the abuse and we will put an end to it because we all want to preserve Canada's reputation as a fair, open and generous nation.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed at the way the national Government has proceeded on an emergency basis. This Party was prepared to come back if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government deemed the situation to be of an emergency nature. However, what troubles us is that it took nearly 10 days from the time the Prime Minister announced that there was an emergency to the time we learned of the date of our return. Second, it was only late last night that we were able to look at the very legislation we as parliamentarians have been called back to debate. Third, we only received the news at 10 minutes to eleven o'clock this day that there would be a ministerial statement this morning.
1 am not trying to cry sour grapes and suggest that somehow the Government should not control the legislative agenda. However, if we are to take a look at the very urgent nature of the immigration and refugee policies, then Canadians would expect their representatives and parliamentarians to engage in a mature and enlightened debate, a debate into which we are prepared to enter with the Government and the NDP. However, it does not add to a mature debate when other Parties are kept in political darkness, because this only solicits reactionary comments that we wish to avoid. That is the first premise I wanted to raise for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, so that we may avoid this kind of process in the future.
The second matter that must be placed squarely on the floor of the House of Commons is the fact that this situation could have been avoided. This situation did not have to propel itself into a recall of Parliament for the second consecutive summer. We have urged for nearly three years, together with members of the NDP, together with NGO groups, together with the Plaut report and together with Canadians across the country, that we should begin to reform and overhaul the system. Why? Because there has been a transition in the situation facing refugees, not only those who come to Canada but as well those who are fleeing and are searching for a home throughout the world.
August 11, 1987

What was that transition to which I have referred? We are no longer experiencing the luxury we experienced in the 1960s and the 1970s of going abroad to select quotas of refugees in a very orderly and sensible way. In the early 1980s, the situation shifted so that people came to our shores to make application from here without waiting for visa officers to visit them in their camps. That is why the previous administration commissioned Rabbi Gunther Plaut to recommend a system that would evolve with the times and adapt to the new phenomenon. We did not want to have a system that continuously operated in the past but one that was updated, one that works.
We would not have allowed the Plaut report and its recommendations, the report of the Standing Committee on Employment, Labour and immigration and the reports made by countless NGOs and church bodies throughout the country, to have sat for three years without taking any action on them. The Government preferred to engage in public relations exercises in order to try to address public opinion rather than to deal in a substantive way with the matter of policy and the way the process would work. That is the aspect of this situation that is so troublesome. It is not the case that the Government discovered only this past summer that there was a problem with the refugee processing system. Those problems have multiplied since 1984 because our system has not been able to react fairly enough on the one hand and quickly enough on the other.
Therefore, we as a Party advocated separating the current system into four basic steps. There would be an inquiry at the border, an oral hearing, the possibility for a review, and, if that review was refused, then there would be the possibility of an appeal to the Federal Court. We were trying to suggest a system that would be able to deal with the numbers that were coming to our shores rather than to get Canadians hysterical and to undermine our traditions and international obligations.
The Government cannot say two opposite things. It cannot be more restrictive and regressive on one hand while on the other hand expect to live up to its international obligations under the Geneva Convention. The Government is trying to suggest that some opposition Parties or other Members of Parliament are in favour of abuse. For nearly two years we have been suggesting that the abuse must be cut out. Why is this? If we value the legitimacy of bona fide refugees, if we value the integrity of our system and the respect for it, then we need to curb abuse. We need to stamp out the practice of putting forward fraudulent claims.
More important, we advocated for two years that the Government clamp down on the growing networks of illegal and phoney immigration consultants and smugglers who traffic and trade in human lives and make huge and immoral profits. Communities provided names of such consultants operating in Toronto, but what happened? As we speak today those individuals are on the streets of this nation conducting business as usual. The RCMP did make raids on a number of consultants and their operations but without the full force of the law. There was no cease and desist order from the courts and
Statements by Ministers
therefore those individuals will not have to appear in court for perhaps another couple of years. In the meantime, they are conducting business with immigrants around the world. At that time, in the House of Commons, in committee and during Question Period, we were very much on the side of cutting out abuse.
We have looked at the new piece of legislation that was introduced by the Minister and we are prepared to consider the options the Government has tabled through Bill C-84. For instance, higher penalties for so-called consultants or smugglers is not something with which my Party has a problem. If it can be proven that con artists continue to carry out their schemes and their scams, then those individuals deserve to feel the full brunt of our law, and that will send out the right message.
Clamping down on the various transportation companies and having them begin to scrutinize the documentation of passengers much more severely is a provision that could be amendable through debate in Parliament. However, we cannot be so rigid as to suggest that anyone without documentation is suddenly and automatically a cheater. All parliamentarians have experienced in their own constituencies the cases of individuals who have fled certain regimes but who were not able to have the luxury of presenting themselves to consulates and embassies for fear of persecution, for fear that the secret police would monitor things, and Chile is a perfect example of this.
While we do not condone fraudulent or misleading documentation, we are not prepared to say holus-bolus that anyone who does not arrive with documentation is automatically perceived to be a cheater. That would be counter to the reality of legitimate refugees who run for their lives because of political, religious or other pressures. That is the reality of the world of disorder that the refugee lives in. Any legislation we propose has to deal with that reality and not the public opinion polls or the Government's 23 per cent popularity.
Canadians very desperately want the Government to get the message this time. The system needs to be reformed and improved so it will have the confidence of Canadians. That is why I suggested to the Government House Leader that we need parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation so that six months hence we will not have glaring loopholes staring us in the face. We want to avoid court challenges under the Charter based on some parts of the proposed legislation. That would lead to a system even more chaotic than the one we find ourselves with now. In those circumstances the confidence of Canadians is undermined.
Canadians have not been demonstrating bigoted or racist attitudes in the last several weeks. They are becoming impatient with a Government which has failed to come to grips with the problem of developing a system to help the bona fide refugee. After all, it was only with the support and confidence

August 11, 1987
Statements by Ministers
of Canadians that in the 15 to 20 years previous to the present Government this country brought in special groups of refugees and immigrants. In the late 1970s and early 1980s we settled approximately 106,000 Vietnamese boat people. They were welcomed by and integrated into our communities and today they are proud and loyal Canadian citizens.


Mr. McDermid:: Under a Conservative Government.


Sergio Marchi: The reality is that when 174 immigrants landed off the East Coast the first reaction by Canadians was to make them tea and offer them cookies. That was the reaction. Then the media came in and the Government undertook a number of very questionable procedures. Yet the first Canadian reaction was that if they are legitimate refugees there is a responsibility on Canada to honour its obligations and traditions.
What is the real solution? Bill C-55 cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be looked at in the larger context, and the real solution is to put in place a system that works, not an ad hoc system sufficient for the next week or two or the next month. We need a system in place that will work for years to come. That is why we, along with countless others, have advocated reform of the system. We have been prepared to lend ourselves to that end. It is simply intellectual dishonesty to suggest that the Opposition did not allow the Government to act.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about your amendment. Tell us about your six-month hoist.


Sergio Marchi: The Government has controlled the parliamentary agenda for three years. Yet no priority was given to this legislation by the Prime Minister or the four different Ministers responsible for immigration, and the situation has been allowed to reach the boiling point.


John Horton McDermid: Be honest, tell us about your six-month hoist. That was your response.


Sergio Marchi: We have to allow Parliament to come to grips with the refugee determination problem. It is important not only for this month or next but for years to come.
The Government also has the responsibility to define much more clearly the differences between an immigrant and a refugee. That is why this morning I was pleasantly surprised to hear one of the reforms suggested by the Minister concerning family class immigration. I welcomed that because the standing committee made that recommendation. Yet it is simply unfair to try and manipulate public opinion-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: -so that someone cannot sponsor a member of his or her family because there are too many refugees already. That is not true. The fact is that in the last three years the immigration of people with family members already in Canada
has declined and that feeds the frustrations of many Canadians.
To summarize I would like to suggest the following. Canada is not the sucker a lot of people claim it to be. The world is rife with turmoil. This weekend Hong Kong received three boatloads of refugees from Vietnam. West Germany has received more Tamil refugees. Other countries are also receiving refugees. Yes, we must make sure that we allow legitimate refugees into Canada but we also should be playing a leading role in the international community. We have lost our leadership role and the respect of other nations because we have not come to grips with the problem. It is a world-wide problem and unless we have a world-wide solution we will continue to be afflicted by back door immigration consultants who seek to make profits on the trade in human lives. It is time we used immigration as a positive tool for greater economic prosperity.
Consider as well that we suffer a dwindling birth rate and aging population. Our economy needs certain trades that our education system does not produce. You know and I know that immigration has a big role to play in this country, as it did after World War II. Therefore, let us enter into the debate. Let us allow Canadians to participate in a mature, enlightened and unemotional debate so that we may utilize immigration as a nation-building tool rather than having to just accept immigrants or refugees, allowing the international and national situation to deteriorate to what are simply public relations exercises which do not attack the substance of the problem.
I appreciate your patience in allowing me to make these preliminary remarks and I look forward to that enlightened debate. We as a Party are prepared to simply say no to the illegitimate refugees but you cannot do that and at the same time say no to the legitimate refugees. We need to be strong on legitimacy and send out a strong signal that we are not prepared to allow the back door to become the entrance into Canada.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said the Government recalled Parliament to deal with an issue of grave national importance. I agree, it is and has been for several years an issue of grave national importance. I am glad the Government now recognizes it. What it does not acknowledge, of course, is how we got into this mess.
For years Canada has had a policy of welcoming immigrants and refugees. We have welcomed them according to procedures established by law. Those procedures were also intended to limit abuse since the abusers do interfere with the proper acceptance of those we consider to be justified immigrants or refugees.
It is true that our system broke down because conditions in the world changed. Instead of a flow of refugees from certain parts of Europe, we began to get large and increasing flows of
August 11, 1987

refugees from other continents. The increase of air travel in particular caused a need to re-examine our system.
As far as I know, it has never been true that anyone, in or outside of this Parliament, has advocated an absolute open door for immigration or refugees, although the Hon. Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) has alleged that. It is simply not true to say that anybody in this House is advocating that we have to accept anyone who sets foot on Canadian soil.
Some of us have said, in accordance with the Supreme Court, that anyone who sets foot on Canadian soil and claims refugee status has a right to be heard. I was glad to hear the Minister acknowledge that at last in his remarks about the Canadian Charter. I hope that when he goes to lunch he will reread both Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 and cut from them the parts which deny the decision of the Supreme Court and deny the Charter of Rights.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, this problem has been addressed by Parliament and by the all-Party committee of Parliament which was asked by the Government to respond to the Plaut report and make recommendations on it. The committee did make recommendations which were reviewed a year later. The original recommendations made almost two years ago were reviewed, improved and considered in consultation with many of the public groups and legal experts which had advised the committee during its deliberations.
During the nearly two years since November, 1985, when the committee's report was first presented, the Government never made the comprehensive reply to the committee's report which the rules of this House ordered it to make. It simply refused to do so. To this date it has not responded to the recommendations made in the 1985 fifth report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
Instead, we had Bill C-55 which does not, contrary to what the Minister tried to tell us, agree with the principal recommendations of the committee. It does not send the refugee claimant directly to the refugee board. Instead, it would stop the great majority of refugee claimants from ever coming near the refugee board. It would stop them by examining them, rather than on the individual's claim that he is in danger of persecution, on what country he came from or passed through and, in most cases, it would send him back to one of those.
In other words, contrary to Rabbi Plaut's excellent report and contrary to the drier legal recommendations of the committee, Bill C-55 denied the fundamental principle of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 which says that every person who is being persecuted has a right to seek and enjoy asylum under another government. It denied the basic principles of the United Nations Convention for the Protection of Refugees of 1951 which Canada signed about 20 years ago.
Instead, it introduced a screening system which not only did not send people to the refugee board, and not only created a refugee board which is in fact largely adversarial, contrary to the recommendations of the committee, but also denied an
Statements by Ministers
appeal which the Plaut report advocated and which, although not at first advocated by the committee, has since been supported by members of the committee. That is a very well known fact.
Instead, this summer there has been a sudden outburst of inflammatory statements by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). They have stated as a fact in the public media that the people who arrived on a certain ship are not refugees but are in fact illegal aliens. The kindest thing that can be said of the Prime Minister and the Minister in those cases is that they do not know what they are talking about. They have no way of knowing that every person on that ship is not a refugee because those people have not been examined under our laws.
Therefore, it is prejudicial to their case for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, of all people, to give judgment against them before they have even begun to be heard by the due process of our law. To use that premature judgment, and probably untrue judgment in many cases, to inflame public opinion, not only against those refugees and people of that particular national, racial or religious origin, but against refugee claimants in general coming to Canada, is certainly not the proper way to set the scene for legislation worthy of this House.
We now also have Bill C-84 which has been presented in a hurry. We are asked to pass it in a hurry. Fortunately, the rules of this House allow for at least one day's consideration. As a result of our examination of the Bill we are very glad that the rules do allow for that consideration.
As I said, the Minister's statement made much about what is in the Charter and how everyone who comes here must be treated in accordance with our laws. We heard the Minister talking that way in the spring. What he told us in that vein in public statements on Bill C-55 turned out to be with reference to a Bill which had nothing to do with the Bill C-55 which was tabled in this House by the same Minister. The statements he made about Bill C-55 were simply not true. When he was challenged on that he said that we would fix it up in committee, although he knows full well that we cannot change in committee that which is done in principle. The Minister of State for Immigration was very clear in making the point to the critics of the opposition Parties that those things cannot be changed in committee.
Therefore, bearing in mind how misleading the Minister's statements were in May with regard to Bill C-55, we are going to read Bill C-84 very carefully. We are going to deal with what is written in the Bill rather than with the fine sentiments that the Minister expressed in his statement or in any other propaganda he may issue.
For example, in his statement he referred to smugglers. We would like to know how he defines "smugglers" in Bill C-84. Does he mean, as he suggests by his rhetoric, those who make a regular and profitable business from the misery of people

August 11, 1987
Statements by Ministers
who are desperate to immigrate into Canada by some unusual and perhaps illegal means? Is he talking about people who do it primarily for money? If so, he should say so clearly and write the law accordingly.
Is he talking about people like Sister Bonnie Butler of Buffalo or other sisters of the Roman Catholic Orders on either side of the border who have been helping refugees because it is their religion to be committed to helping the ones they saw were poor, perhaps in the economic sense, but certainly in the sense of being afraid for their personal safety if they were returned to the country from which they were fleeing? There are those who have helped people come into this country although they did not have the proper documents. Does the Minister intend to imprison and fine those people, or people of the churches generally? Many thousands of people have helped refugees. Would he like to perhaps retroactively fine the people who gave tea, cookies and peanut butter sandwiches to those who came ashore from the Sikh ship? Does that constitute aiding and abetting smuggling? We want to know what sort of law the Minister is talking about. Thousands and thousands of Canadians in the last few months have been helping refugees get to Canada. They have been helping at the Ontario border, the Quebec border, in the Prairies, in British Columbia, in the Maritimes, and Newfoundland. Thousands of Canadians have been doing this. We want to know whether the Minister is attacking them or only a more narrow group of people who do this primarily for profit and who, as he suggests, may even endanger the lives, safety, or health of the people they are smuggling.
If the Minister is going to turn back a vessel because one person aboard has inadequate documents, will he turn back the whole boatload of people, including perhaps those who have adequate documents? We want to understand that very clearly. How will he find out quickly at sea who has adequate documents?
The Minister talks about a security threat. A "security threat" is a very widely and vaguely used phrase. Who is a security threat? Not too long ago the RCMP had dossiers on
800,000	Canadians, probably including people in this room, who at some time or other took part in a public demonstration for what they thought was human rights. Are all those 800,000 people security risks, and is that the kind of standard that is to be applied to people who come to our borders?
Will people who oppose the murderous Government of El Salvador or the racist Government of South Africa be fingered by the international contacts as security risks and therefore shut out from Canada without any possibility of a hearing? How will the Minister square that with our Charter of Rights and with our obligations to refugees under the United Nations?
I do not intend to comment on the Minister's rhetoric about the increasing number of immigrants he has brought to
Canada because his figures change so rapidly. He has stated that 97,000 came in 1986. I also heard him say 100,000 and, today, I heard him say 90,000. Until the Minister has his figures settled I think there is nothing to be said about that.
However, I want to comment with great pleasure on the promise he made today to enlarge the concept of family reunification. This is something on which 1, with members of my constituency, have been campaigning for several years. 1 am also happy to say that it is consistent with the position that the New Democratic Party took two years ago at our annual convention. We will give very strong support to the Minister if he carries through on that promise.
He promised last fall to respond to our family reunification report upon which our committee worked for six months last year. We have not heard a word since then about carrying out that promise, but it is very welcome today.
We will be examining Bill C-84 very carefully. We will also be examining and debating Bill C-55 and doing our best to see that it is replaced with a system that supports what the parliamentary committee advocated, and what church groups, the Bar Association, the labour movement, every public group and every informed immigration expert in this country has advocated, that when refugee claimants come to our border they be sent as soon as possible, with translation and legal assistance, to the refugee board which should be created. They should have a non-adversarial hearing there, and to remove a possibility of a disastrous error, there should be a quick review arrangement or appeal system. We intend to press for that until it is achieved in this country.
That is not only our opinion, it is also what the majority of Canadians support. Such a system will be efficient, allowing for a matter to be heard in two or three months rather than several years. It will be quick enough to do justice to our refugees as well as the abusers. It will notify commercial smugglers and racketeers that there is no more money in bringing people falsely to Canada because they will not be here long enough to earn enough to repay the money they spent on the racketeers' rates.
We will be debating these two Bills very carefully during the days ahead in Parliament. The country will be watching because Canadians whom I know and Canadians whom my colleagues know want to do what is fair for refugees.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 MEASURE TO AMEND

['Shall all questions stand?']
Benoît Bouchard: for leave to introduce Bill C-84, an Act
August 11, 1987

to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Canadian citizens who are concerned that Bill C-55 threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees and sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country rather than ensuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection.
The petitioners point out that Bill C-55 will result in many, perhaps most refugees who reach our border, being turned away without having their claims heard on the merits of their case, and that by limiting the right of appeal to points of law, this legislation ignores the reality that most refugee claims are questions of fact and credibility.
The petitioners go on to point out that a standing committee of this House has proposed a new procedure for refugees which, if adopted, would fairly and effectively solve problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims. However, the Government has chosen to ignore that.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board which is independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition under the provisions of Standing Order 106 on behalf of citizens of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and Edmonton, Alberta. The petitioners say that Bill C-55 threatens Canada's traditional commitment to
Petitions
assisting refugees and sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country as opposed to ensuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection.
The petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon the Government and Parliament to withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board which is independent of the Immigration Commission and universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact as well as law.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of my constituency of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, who are against Bill C-22.
In the opinion of those constituents, the Government's proposals will raise the already high costs of drugs, particularly for provincial health-care programs. They also deplore the fact that drugs will cost more to four million Canadian men and women who are not protected by private medicare programs.
They humbly call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase drug prices.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by residents of British Columbia as well as residents of Toronto and Ontario who raise concerns with respect to Bill C-55. The petitioners suggest that this legislation threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting bona fide refugees and sets out measures designed to keep out most refugee claimants from Canada as opposed to ensuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the refugee commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada and the right to appeal on the basis of fact as well as law.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition signed by an number of citizens of Windsor and Amherstburg, Ontario, expressing concern about the Government's proposal for Bill C-55. The petitioners point out their concern that the Bill will in fact lead to many refugees being turned away without having their claims heard on the merits of the case.

August 11, 1987
Order Paper Questions
The petitioners point out that a standing committee of Parliament has proposed a new procedure for refugees which would fairly and effectively solve the problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims. This alternative has widespread support among all parties, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Bar Association, the Jewish Congress and many other groups and individuals knowledgeable about refugee issues.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to withdraw Bill C-55 and put in its place the kind of proposals put forward by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is following the time-honoured procedure of presenting petitions. 1 wonder if the Hon. Member could tell us if it was his office which had the petition certified?


Svend Johannes Robinson: That has nothing to do with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any further petitions? There are no further petitions.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions on the Order Paper.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, a notice was circulated to Members of Parliament earlier today stating that questions bearing Nos. 134, 143, 148, 150, 152, 154 and 155 would be answered today. I wonder if, through your guidance, Mr. Speaker, we could get some sort of reasonable explanation as to why we are not receiving answers to questions pursuant to our Standing Orders because there is a requirement in the Standing Orders that my question, in particular, be answered today under the rules of the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's point which is a good one. I was not entirely happy with the documentation I had before me. I intend to submit those answers tomorrow once I am sure the documentation is complete.


Don Boudria: I do not want to beleaguer the point, but if there is one question which is not pro forma to be answered today, I would respectfully submit to you, Sir, that the Standing Rules of the House still apply. I would like to know which questions the Parliamentary Secretary cannot answer today, and why not answer the others? I am sure we could all agree unanimously to change a document which he is presenting to include the other questions. It is a rule of the House, just as there are other rules of the House which we observe regularly. As far as I am concerned, the Government has no excuse to breach this particular rule because that is what it feels like at this particular point. Why can we not receive the answer and receive it now?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I stand by my original suggestion. I would suggest to my hon. friend that I will check the documentation out and perhaps we could revert to the tabling of answers later on today and I will have the answers then.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions stand?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Marchi, (p. 7338).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise), I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended 50 minutes beginning at one o'clock. [Translation]


Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today to the amendment of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) concerning, of course, the refugee problem.
As you know, this Government recalled Parliament in the interests of Canada's security. Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here today because the problem of aliens entering Canada illegally by claiming to be refugees has become an extremely serious one.
I want to make it clear to Hon. Members present that the decision to recall the House was not taken lightly. We are aware of what this decision entails but it was absolutely necessary. It is our duty, as a Government, to take the initiative when the country is affected by events of a serious nature.
Unfortunately, ever since the Government announced its intention to recall the House, it has been accused of either overreacting or being irresponsible. They are never satisfied. Either we are going too fast or not fast enough. I am, of course, referring to comments by Opposition Members.
I believe it would have been irresponsible not to act in this kind of situation. If we had not taken action, it would have meant the steady deterioration of a situation that affects our system for determining refugee status. We cannot tolerate further occurrences. Doing nothing, Mr. Speaker, would have been telling the world that Canada allows its laws to be broken. Doing nothing would have aggravated the dissension reflected in public opinion and thus put our programs for refugees and immigrants in jeopardy.
August II, 1987

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Canada's humanitarian tradition of dealing with refugees may come to an end if we do not put a stop to the abuse of our system. To do nothing would be irresponsible and sound the death knell of an honoured Canadian tradition. I will not let that happen, nor will my Government. The Government will never let that happen. The Canadian people want measures to be introduced now, and we are going to do that.
The House was recalled for a specific task. We must stem the increasing flow of migrants arriving in Canada. We must put a stop to the organized and systematic abuse of our system for determining refugee status. We must take measures to put a stop to the exploitation of human misery by people who could be qualified as refugee traffickers.
Today, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-55, a vital piece of legislation which will introduce both fairness and control to the refugee determination process. It is the ultimate step in our plan of action to deal with a problem that has international implications.
For most Canadians the dramatic arrival of 155 Tamils in Newfoundland one year ago was their first inkling that we have a refugee problem. That is not surprising when one considers that just six years ago only 1,600 people came to Canada claiming refugee status. However, by 1986 the number had swelled to 18,000. This year we expect that it will reach 30,000. More important than sheer numbers is the fact that many of these claims are not genuine. Our studies show that last year 70 per cent of refugee claimants were not refugees at all, and that many others had already found safe haven elsewhere before seeking refugee status in our country.
The arrival of the Tamils reinforced our resolve to take action to stem the flow of phoney refugees. Quick action was necessary because of wide media interest in the Tamil boat people. The predictable happened-more and more illegal aliens poured into Canada.
We acted by improving measures to curb the flow of illegals to our shores. The control measures we introduced in February had a limited impact. Refugee claimant numbers which were averaging 1,200 a week in February have dropped to 500 a week today. The control measures and the expanded powers that we are now seeking will deal effectively with short-term solutions to the refugee problem. But a long-term solution will only be found through the passage into law of Bill C-55.

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows why we have been called to this place. It is because of a system already over-loaded by a backlog of applications which is being exploited by queue-jumpers who are not legitimate refugees in need of our protection. Unscrupulous racketeers are also taking advantage
Immigration Act, 1976
of the situation and misleading men and women into believing that they will be able to get them the papers required to gain admission to Canada. Those racketeers bring these people to Canada under conditions which are often intolerable, unacceptable even for animals, and absolutely shocking in the case of human beings. Legitimate refugees suffer from delays in the system and are put at a disadvantage because of the increasing number and cleverness of fraudulent claims. Mr. Speaker, Canadians are getting more and more concerned about the inequity of the present system, which they believe to be incapable of putting an end to these abuses.
The patience even the most generous and humanitarian of Canadians is running out. Too many people enter Canada without the required documents and constitute a threat to our security. We are obviously faced with a series of potentially explosive conditions which are unacceptable to the Canadian public and this Government. The situation requires that the Government take the necessary steps. We are determined to put a stop to this traffic in human beings.
I also believe it important to throw some light on another implicit component of this Bill. The purpose of the proposed changes is not to discourage legitimate refugees who need our protection. Bill C-55, combined with the other measures we have taken, will enable us to protect legitimate refugees. With this Bill, we shall establish a fairer, faster and more effective refugee determination system which will benefit all legitimate refugees. This system will respect the basic rights of all those who are entitled to claim refugee status.
Bill C-55 contains key provisions which will simplify the processing of claims, ensure faster rejection of unfounded claims and strengthen the powers of the Government. This will allow the Government to send back to third countries those whose claims are unfounded while respecting their fundamental rights.
We hope that the urgency of taking action and the increasing pressures throughout the word will convince this time the Opposition to be more objective about the importance of Bill C-55.
The temporary measures we imposed in February were indeed only temporary. Bill C-55 goes further. It constitutes the long-term solution required by this problem, and this solution is both fair and judicious.
This legislation allows us to regain control over our refugee determination system which past abuses have rendered ineffective. This is a valid solution, Mr. Speaker. The Bill clearly and concisely defines the new process which I repeat will be an equitable one.
As I have already said, we are here to conclude work undertaken several months ago, and Bill C-55 and the Bill on detention and deterrence are a result of this work. The two

August 11, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Bills complement each other. We must ensure that our system can put an end to abuses while allowing refugee claimants to present their views. These two Bills give us such an assurance. They guarantee the rights of everyone, but will deter many fraudulent applicants.
The two Bills will enable us to establish a fairer, faster and more effective refugee determination system which will benefit all legitimate refugees and respect the basic rights of all potential claimants.
Mr. Speaker, we are firmly determined to guarantee the rights of all claimants. However, we also want to limit abuses. The legislation on deterrence and detention will attack the very roots of the problem and give us the control we need over the process.
1 wish to make it absolutely clear that our commitment to genuine refugees is as firm as ever. In fact, Bill C-55 is a step that is consistent with the traditions of fairness and humanitarianism which saw the people of Canada awarded the Nansen Medal by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This was the first time that an entire country had ever been so honoured.
1 wish to remind Hon. Members that since taking office the Government has substantially increased the number of refugees taken from refugee camps around the world. This year it will sponsor 12,000 refugees from these camps, while private Canadian groups and families will sponsor approximately 5,000.
Canada has a long tradition of proving its humanitarian concern for genuine refugees who need its protection. The new determination system will uphold this tradition of commitment to true refugees. Our commitment goes back a long way. It is an essential part of a policy that, since the Second World War, has brought some 500,000 refugees to Canada for resettlement, and which has helped thousands of others through special humanitarian measures. On a per capita basis Canada's record of aid to refugees over the past few years has been second to none.

We provide refugee assistance under three specific formulas. First, direct financial assistance; second, the settlement in Canada of refugees selected outside this country; and protection given in Canada pursuant to a determination process carried out here. This three-prong approach is in line with the United Nations refugee policy.
For 1986-87, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government set more than $170 million aside for refugee financial assistance. One third of these funds-over $66 million-was given to international humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or to various countries in the form of food assistance for refugees.
In 1986 two-thirds of the refugees selected abroad received only financial help from the Government. Groups made up of private citizens and volunteer agencies sponsored more than
5,000	other refugees. In such cases the Government paves the way for refugee sponsors and makes transportation loans as well as language and vocational training courses available to refugees. Canada has also set up unique mechanisms to help victims of oppression even though these people do not necessarily fall within the terms of the United Nations definition because they are still in their country-for instance, political prisoners and other displaced personalities in Poland, Salvador, Guatemala, Chile and Uruguay.
Our aim in introducing Bill C-55 was to make the refugee status determination process effective again because, Mr. Speaker, this third prong of our refugee program is quite simply no longer operational. Right now this process no longer enables us to give protection to genuine refugees who need it because they are unable to sustain the pressure due to a sharp increase in the number of applicants. Thanks to the proposed process Canada will be in a position to live up to its commitments under the Geneva Convention, while at the same time honouring the principles of justice which are the very basis of our legislation. We will thus be able to maintain our humanitarian tradition. The adoption of Bill C-55 does not mean we will be turning our backs on refugees. On the contrary we want to make sure that those who really need help will be guaranteed our protection. However if we are truly intent on protecting genuine refugees we have to put a stop to abuses and reinstate an orderly process.

Canada's refugee program measures up to that of any country in the world. Our commitment to refugees is internationally renowned. Our best contribution is resettlement from camps abroad. Many of the people in these camps have been there for years and they have no other options. But, to do that, the refugee determination process must be changed as it is no longer workable. In its present form many people who are honestly entitled to refugee status in our country are prevented from attaining it. Canadians can no longer tolerate this situation. They want a new refugee process, one that is fair but tough on those who abuse it. We have the solution to this problem in hand. Now is the time to refer Bill C-55 to a committee.

I think that in conclusion you will allow me to say that it is clear we have not only the support of my government, but also my own support as President of the Quebec Conservative Caucus, and also the full support of the Chambly riding which I have the honour to represent in the House, to do the utmost to adopt this Bill as soon as possible.
The time has come for us to stop talking and take action. [English]
It is time to stop talking and start acting.
August 11, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who is also the President of the Quebec Caucus for his party, has said that "the time has come to stop talking and take action" on Bill C-55.
Could he explain to me whether there now exists a crisis and whether he feels the need to take action? Why is it that his Government has failed to follow through on Rabbi Gunther Plaut's report in 1985? Why has his government failed to follow through on the report which the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration tabled nearly two years ago in 1985 and which had recommended major changes in the refugee determination process which would both be fair and provide all those seeking refugee status the legal protection provided in Canada by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Why is it that the Government has procrastinated for nearly two years and has finally recalled Parliament in the middle of the 1987 summer recess, claiming that the time has now come to "stop talking and take action"?
How is it that Bill C-55 was tabled on May 5 for first reading in the House of Commons, but that nothing further was done on the subject, except holding three hours of debate before the session ended?
If the Government really wanted to act as in an emergency, how is it that it did nothing in connection with this Bill for nearly two months following its introduction in the House, except the three-hour debate held on June 18? Has the Government really demonstrated the urgency of this matter by procrastinating for nearly two years and now introducing a Bill which many who are involved with refugees feel is unacceptable?


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, listening to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), an opposition Member, a member of the New Democratic Party, we realize there is nothing new under the sun. They want to have it both ways, they want to please everyone at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, they suggest we have been delaying the process too long, we have not been active enough. But a few minutes ago, here in this House, the New Democratic Party House Leader asked our Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) for more time to review the parliamentary procedure over the next few days.
Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing a Liberal amendment that would delay by six months the decision on the Bill, the passing of Bill C-55, and that Liberal amendment is supported and endorsed by their life-long friends, the NPD old boys, Canada's socialist old boys. And they blame us as a Government for having summoned Parliament on an emergency basis so that we could explain the situation to Canadians and provide them with the protection they are entitled to, prevent
Immigration Act, 1976
any possibility of a terrorist invasion-and I emphasixe that- because of the mechanics of the current procedures. And this thanks to Bill C-55, and also Bill C-84 that was introduced this very morning by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) who, in agreement once more with the Liberal and the socialist opposition Parties, has decided to put off until tomorrow the decision as to how many hours the debate should last.
Mr. Speaker, on which side of the fence do they stand, those nice people? When will they be serious about the situation? First, as has been said, stop playing party politics with such serious legislation, stop playing party politics, Mr. Speaker, and provide better protection to the Canadian public. They are entitled to expect the best protection from this Government, and we have an obligation to do everything within the shortest time frame to secure and guarantee that protection for the Canadian people.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend who made an excellent speech. I want to ask him about the people in his constituency. My colleague will know that at the present time the House is debating the following motion by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) of the Liberal Party that "Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."
By the way, that amendment is supported by the New Democratic Party.
I want to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise). How will the people in his riding react to the suggestion of the Liberal Party, supported by the NDP, that the discussion of this very important issue be delayed for a further six months?


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, of course, I will be very brief in my answer to the comment made by the Parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis). The reaction of my constituents of Chambly is simple disbelief, Mr. Speaker-they find it absolutely unacceptable that, in this emergency faced by the Government and Canada as a whole, the Liberal Party come up with a motion to defer by six months the government decision, the implementation of the legislation. This means they are aware of the problem with the Canadian refugee policy. But not to worry.
They will let them come in for six more months, and then, after six months, they will consider whether the decision has any merits.

My answer to the Parliamentary Secretary is very simple. In no way will the population of the riding of Chambly, or the

August 11, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
population of the Province of Quebec which I am proud to represent as Quebec caucus chairman for my Party, support an amendment like that. They urge us, not only the Progressive Conservative Party, but as the Government to make a decision as soon as possible to settle the problem once and for all by adopting Bill C-55 and Bill C-84.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) is being debated at this time, it is because it was in order to make it two months or so ago, on June 18, the first day the Government felt it proper to call that Bill. There was one day of debate, one day of debate.


Philip Derek Lewis: How will you vote on it?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Bill was introduced on May 5, 1987. They had three years to study the problem, and as disorganized managers-those are the new words for Tories, "disorganized managers"-they did not put a Bill before us. Finally they presented it first on May 5, and then we had second reading on June 18. Surely Canadians are entitled to know what the Bill is all about. We have put the amendment because they failed to tell Canadians what they intended to do, what they had in mind to do. We will try to explain that, I must admit.
[ Translation]
Sure enough, Bill C-55 does have its positive aspects, but it contains a number of weaknesses as well: The concept of the third country where refugees will be sent back, the so-called refugees who will be coming to Canada, the preselection concept-the notion, I should say-of the safe third country.

I am referring to the safe third country concept. I want to ask a question about it, because the Government is putting forth an interesting viewpoint. We admit that a person, a human being, comes to Canada with rights; according to the Charter of our country every human being has basic rights. One of the rights he has is to due process. Another right he has is to be heard. The Government is saying "we will return him to whatever country"; the safe third country concept.

And 1 want to ask the Hon. Member whether he is prepared to wash his hands of-a la Pontius Pilate-of the problem of refugees in this world by telling a prospective refugee arriving in Canada: You will return to this third safe country. I should like to know what the Hon. Member thinks of this notion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) has 30 seconds to answer that question.


Richard Grisé: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, while we want to respect the international rights of refugees we must never ignore the rights of the Canadian
population, the men and women we represent. That is basic, Mr. Speaker.

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) mentioned that they made that six-month amendment two months ago. Do they need two months or four months? Perhaps the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is now suggesting to his colleague from York West to withdraw the amendment. Is that what the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier is suggesting?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Answer the question. That is why we need six months, because they won't answer questions.

Answer the question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be here. I think we all deserved a holiday, but because the Government has mishandled and bungled the whole issue of refugees, it is now trying to incite the public into fearing that somehow there is a need to act on a bad Bill, Bill C-55, which is currently under debate. The problems could have been tackled in a much more effective and humanitarian way beginning two years or three years ago.
We are not now talking about a Government which has inherited problems from the previous administration. We are talking about a Government which, on September 4, will have been in power for three years from the last election. Therefore, we are talking about problems which have been there for action by the Government.
I must say that I am very disturbed over the tone of the comments of the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise), because the Government is suggesting, fearing its very low position in the opinion polls, that it will somehow ride its way to popularity by inciting prejudice, by inciting feelings which may be racist, and by effectively trying to turn to Canadians to say, "We are going to be proud and strong and keep out those people coming into the country and therefore regain your support that way".
The Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) acknowledged that there are problems in the immigration process, that the immigration process needs to be opened up in Canada for reasons of family reunification and for other reasons. In citing their support for Bill C-55, members of the government Party will be saying at the same time that they are not opposed to having legitimate refugees coming into the country.
However, they mislead the public, they mislead Canadians, if they argue that Bill C-55 is an effective way of achieving
August 11, 1987

that particular goal. They mislead the public if they argue that now we have to act urgently and ignore the fact that the Government failed to act over the last 2.5 years.
It is a fact that virtually every individual and every group concerned with assistance to refugees coming into Canada are opposed to Bill C-55. It is a fact that a number of members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, including members from the government Party, are opposed to Bill C-55, and I suspect they will say so in one way or other, during the course of consideration of this particular Bill. It is a fact that the Government had an excellent report from Rabbi Gunther Plaut in 1985, some 2.5 years ago, which proposed a means of having a refugee policy that would be humanitarian, would be just, would be accessible, and would be quick.
It is important that we talk about speeding up the process for two reasons. First, the time the present process takes is unjust to legitimate refugee claimants who are left in limbo for periods of up to two or three years. Second, it is clear that there is an incentive to people who may not be legitimate refugees to seek refugee status in order to have two, three or four years' time in Canada during which they may be able to gain access to Canada for humanitarian or other reasons despite the fact that they were not legitimate refugees in the beginning. On the one hand, people who could be abusing the process benefit from long delays, but on the other hand legitimate refugees who happen to be in camps from where refugees are moved to Canada are disadvantaged by lengthy delays.
Two and a half years ago the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration considered the Plaut report. It came up with a set of proposals and those proposals have received approval and support from those groups that concern themselves with refugees. For example, I have before me the proposals made by the Canadian Council of Churches. It proposed a determination procedure that would be just and expeditious, a proposal which was supported by Amnesty International and the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees.
This proposal was that when refugee claimants arrive at the border, they would within a matter of a short time, perhaps two or three weeks, have access to an oral hearing before the refugee board, meeting the requirements of the Supreme Court by unanimous judgment in April of 1985 that people seeking to be refugees should in fact have an oral hearing and not just a paper hearing. It was proposed that if the determination at the oral hearing was negative, refugee claimants would then be able to make an appeal. They would know the reasons why they were refused and would make representations on those particular points but the appeal would be a paper hearing. In other words, it would not be unduly delayed. At the end of that, there would then be a yes or no decision. The appeal body could overrule negative decisions, could request rehearings or
Immigration Act, 1976
could confirm negative decisions. Therefore, within about two or three months, a decision would be made.
If people are seeking to abuse the process, they will not spend thousands of dollars in transportation costs or pay traffickers in refugee claimants thousands of dollars in order to come to Canada to be here for just two or three months. It will not pay. That will discourage many of the people who might, it might be felt, be illegitimate claimants. If people are genuinely desperate, they will continue to seek to come to Canada in one way or other. They will not be discouraged and that is as it should be. If a certain proportion of those people are still turned down by our rules, then we must regret that but we cannot accept everyone who believes legitimately that he may be a refugee.
The people concerned with refugees as well as opposition Party Members have indicated that they would support a proposal whereby there is a just determination made within a period of a couple of months. If such a process existed, then most people who might be potential abusers would not be coming to Canada under that process. That is the matter to which the Hon. Member for Chambly and others have been speaking. It would then be possible, according to these proposals coming from people who are concerned about refugees, to have appeals on points of law to the Federal Court of Appeal. However, that would be rare. There would probably have to be leave to appeal and this too would take a matter of maybe two or three months, a total of six months in all after which a final determination would be made.

Mr. Speaker, one wonders why, when the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration submitted to the Government a report made by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, a man widely respected and with distinguished credentials, who proposed a system that would be just and accessible, in line with the decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in April 1985, a process that would deal fairly with all those seeking refugee status, one wonders why the Government deferred its decision and refused the advice of the Standing Committee, instead tabling a Bill that ignores the recommendations and creates a situation where instead of genuinely examining claims for refugee status, we are actually trying to turn back at the border individuals who want to come to Canada?
That is the gist of what we read in Le Devoir of June 3, 1987. I would like to quote the comments that appeared in Le Devoir.
Contrary to the initial impression given by the new policy announced by the federal Ministers responsible for Immigration, the purpose of Bill C-55 is not to give refugees, either genuine or phoney, who knock at our door the right to have their case heard-a right recognized by the Supreme Court as fundamental-but to turn back the largest possible number.
It is therefore not surprising that the proposed legislation has met with massive and violent opposition across Canada.
It is not that Benoit Bouchard and Gerry Weiner-the two Ministers involved-do not sincerely want to make Canada a country of refuge.

August 11, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
Unfortunately, Bill C-55, a lengthy and complex piece of legislation that even experts have trouble understanding, is actually raising new barriers and, contrary to international law, has opted for a policy of turning back people at the border.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we object to.
The Hon. Member wondered why the Liberal Party proposed a six-month hoist on Bill C-55. The Hon. Member, who has been sitting here in the House of Commons for three years, knows perfectly well that this is a technique used in the House by an opposition Party to indicate it is fundamentally opposed to a Bill. We in the New Democratic Party say to the Government that we are prepared to accept a Bill that follows the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. We believe the committee has made valid and viable proposals that would respond to the concerns expressed by many Canadians since the July incident when 174 Sikhs, citizens of India, arrived on our shores in Nova Scotia, on board a German vessel.

Let us not be panicked by the fact that 174 Sikhs entered Canada a month ago. Let us not be panicked into saying that that proves that there are security questions which require that the House be called back at this time. We have known since the end of June that the Government was looking for one reason or another to have the House sit at this time. We have known as well that there are some serious questions as to whether or not the Government wants the House to be sitting around the first of October when the free trade negotiations reach their final stages. It has been suggested that the Government does not want to have Parliament around at that time because it does not want Parliament chiming in about what may occur at that time.
After listening to the Hon. Member for Chambly and the Minister of Employment and Immigration one must ask oneself this question. If there is a problem of illegal immigrants being brought to our shores in leaky lifeboats, then why did the Government not act a year ago? What was the reason for the delay at that time? Why is it suddenly beginning to act right now?
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) considered this to be an emergency two and a half weeks ago, why did he not call Parliament back immediately rather than going out in order to pose with his son Nicholas and his wife at all kinds of ethnic picnics and other events around the country for two and a half weeks before calling Parliament? When is an emergency not an emergency? To what extent is Parliament meeting right now because it is in the needs or interests of the Conservative Party, a Party which is desperate to find some way to get back into the good graces of Canadians, or to what extent is there a genuine emergency at this time?
It has been mentioned that Canada is a recipient of the Nansen Medal for its performance in accepting refugees. We
deserved that medal, but maybe we should consider giving it back if this Bill goes forward in its present form.
Those who are watching these proceedings right now should know what are the objectionable features of this Bill. If persons who were persecuted in their homeland because of race, religion, ideology, or some other reason, came to Canada's borders and said they would like to be considered for refugee status, they would face a series of new requirements which effectively make it more and more difficult for their case to be considered.
Canada takes in more than 10,000 refugees a year and that is something of which we can be proud. That is why we won the medal. However, we do not have an obligation just to take refugees in camps in southeast Asia, Africa, or on the borders of Afghanistan. There are people in Central America who are clearly refugees according to the UN definition. They have a well-founded fear of persecution. They make their way into Canada by all kinds of different means. The rules say that if they are judged at the border by the refugee board as having the opportunity to go back to a so-called safe country, they cannot come into Canada. If you are coming from Central America to Canada to seek refugee status, you have no choice but to go via the U.S. It is almost impossible to not travel that way. I presume the Cabinet is not going to say the U.S. is not a safe country. Yet the U.S. rejects 98 per cent of people from Central America seeking refugee status. Canada accepts half of those people who get to our borders seeking refugee status. In other words, the understanding in the two countries of what is a refugee is very different.
The reasons, of course, are very clear. It is because of the misbegotten policies, which most Canadians oppose, of the Reagan administration and its support of military and rightwing regimes in places like El Salvador, as well as its efforts to destabilize and overthrow the Government of Nicaragua. That in my opinion is in flagrant violation of international law.
If a refugee were to come from Sri Lanka prior to the apparent recent settlement, or some other part of Asia, they would have to travel through western Europe. The Government says if they were simply passing through western Europe on the way to Canada that would not meet the requirements concerning a safe third country and they could not be turned back. However, we are saying that if, for example, the refugee stopped in western Europe for a few days or a few weeks, possibly in order to acquire the resources necessary to continue, then they would have lost their chance of ever being a refugee here in Canada.
It is reminiscent of the rules in place before World War I which said anyone who wished to emigrate to Canada from the Indian subcontinent could do so provided they came here directly. A group of Sikhs did so in 1914 and they were turned
August 11, 1987

away because their ship had refuelled along the way. That was used as a pretext to turn them away.
Is Canada adopting legislation which theoretically may not be racist but which in practice effectively means refugees from countries other than eastern Europe have little or no chance of coming to Canada? I believe that is the result of Bill C-55 in its present form.
These parts of the Bill 1 believe most Canadians would find repugnant. They would say that is not what I meant. The polls show that most Canadians are in favour of Canada being a place of refuge for genuine refugees. Of course they do not want the system abused. No one does.
We have problems with some people who seek refugee status as a way of coming to Canada. However, as I said before, if they could only come to Canada for a few months and then be turned away, very quickly the word would get back to Brazil, Portugal, Turkey, or other places where things which may look like scams have taken place and these people would stop coming here. They would not spend their life savings just for the chance of being in Canada for two or three months. Their relatives or friends would tell them it was not working.
1 call on the Government to recognize the concerns of immigrants and refugee assistance groups who reject Bill C-55. It has to recognize that you cannot turn to people and say, if you do not announce you are going to be a refugee the moment you come into Canada you cannot claim that status again. Refugees are scared to death. That is why they left the countries from which they came. To turn around and say they did not meet the requirements and therefore we are going to turn them back to that regime is unacceptable.
There is a lot of passion and concern here, but Canadians should beware manipulation by the Government. We in this Party are certainly prepared to see measures which would ensure just, fair and expeditious handling of refugee claims. It is wrong that we have 20,000 people backed up in the queue right now when the Government had the choice of putting resources to work in order to shorten the queue. For three years it had the means of putting in place the legislation which would have ensured that we would not be facing a crisis now. If there is any crisis now, it is not because of the opposition Parties, it is because of the inaction and incompetence of the Conservative Government of the Prime Minister and his colleagues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. My comment relates to his remarks at the outset of his speech when he referred to the Government and presumably members of the Progressive Conservative Party inciting the people of Canada with respect to legislation to control the entry of refugees into Canada. 1 realize the Hon. Member lives in the insulated
Immigration Act, 1976
atmosphere of Ottawa Centre, but the people in my constituency of Halifax West, and my colleagues from across Canada with similar experience, tell me very clearly that the people of Canada were not incited by anything other than the sight of 174 people gaining illegal entry into Canada in apparent defiance of the law. That is what incited the people of Canada, not members of the Progressive Conservative Party or this Parliament.
We are all elected to this Chamber as representatives of the people and we participate in debate. We expect to be hit in the give and take of debate. However, the Hon. Member has no basis for insulting the intelligence of the people of Canada who read this situation very clearly and reacted to it. They said to their Members of Parliament, get back to Ottawa and do something about the situation. The incitement did not come from elected Members of Parliament.
There is a very real feeling among the people of Canada that something has to be done. 1 am shocked and ashamed that the Hon. Member would stand in this place and deny the feelings of the people of Canada, insult their intelligence, and claim they are merely being incited. Those people feel very strongly about this and the Member's defiance in standing in this House and insulting the intelligence of the people of Canada because of the attitude they honestly hold is ridiculous.
I want to ask the Hon. Member if he believes people should be allowed to enter Canada in the way these 174 Asians did when they landed on the shores of Nova Scotia? Does he believe that the law governing that situation should allow them to stay here, notwithstanding that they have not shown in any way, shape or form that they are legitimate refugees? Does he agree with that law? Does he want that law maintained? Is that the reason his Party supported a six-month hoist of Bill C-55? Is that why it wanted consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons delayed for six months and passed into oblivion? Members of his Party agree with the current state of the law. They want this to happen and they want it to happen again and again and again. Is that what they want?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond in a more calm way than that in which the Hon. Member has just spoken. We had a similar incident a year ago when a group of Tamils were deposited on the coast of Newfoundland by lifeboats. If the Government was as concerned at that time as the Hon. Member indicates that he is now, it had every opportunity to bring legislation forward.
There was a model put forward by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration which, as I suggested in my speech, had general support and would have ensured that people seeking refugee status would have been dealt with quickly.
In addition, at that time the Government had the opportunity, and failed to do so, of bringing forward legislation along the lines of what I understand is being proposed in Bill C-84,

August 11, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
that is, the imposition of heavy penalties for traffickers in illegal immigrants into this country.
Let us suppose that a group of people who genuinely suffered fear of persecution in El Salvador managed to find a fishing boat and persuade the captain of it to take them up the coast to Vancouver. Is the Hon. Member saying that the Navy should be sent out with guns blazing in order to sink that ship or send it back to a place where people would be subject to death squads? Is that what the Hon. Member is saying?
I do not think you can make a rule to cover every circumstance. I believe that people who are seeking refugee status are likely to be coming into Canada by all means. The transportation carriers and the passport control systems and so on are not such as to encourage or facilitate refugees moving from one place to another.
I am not happy about what happened on the coast of Nova Scotia. I am not insulated from it, as the Hon. Member has suggested. My office, like his, has received a number of calls. A number of people have spoken to me about this issue outside of my constituency during the last several weeks. People have expressed their concern that these people may be jumping the queue.
On a different point, the Hon. Member for Chambly said that we must have legislation no "*ecause of the security risk of people coming in in this partic iar way. An adjudicator has now processed all of the cases. The Government has put forward any evidence that it may have of a possible security risk. The adjudicator, who I assume the Hon. Member believes is a competent individual who would consider very seriously evidence from the Government, has judged that there was no substantive evidence that there was a security risk involved in this case.
We must look at this situation with some perspective. This was a rather dramatic case of 174 people made more dramatic because there was not a lot of other news at that particular time. It was perhaps dramatized as well because the people who came in happened to be Sikhs. They look different. They wear turbans and so on. The Hon. Member will be aware that Sikh Canadians right across the country are very productive members of Canadian society and make a great contribution to the country. We are not talking about people who will necessarily be prejudicial to Canadian society. We do not know that.
The question is whether we make law on the basis of a sudden, sharp reaction to one particular incident, or whether we make law in a measured way as was proposed by the standing committee more than two years ago. That is what should have happened. It is the mark of an incompetent and ineffective Government that it has panicked into action now when it should have acted a year and a half ago.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of brief questions for the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Toward the end of his speech he referred to the backlog of
20,000 people who are seeking entry to Canada. What is there in Bill C-55 which will ensure that we will have the human resources necessary to speed up the process in order to keep the backlog at less than 20,000 so that people can go through the process without having to wait months and even years?
Second, what is there in Bill C-55 which will assist in the speeding up of the process without hiring more counsellors and other people to handle the processing of paper in the immigration department? What is there to make this process more streamlined? Do we still maintain the same protection against security risks and ensure that this faster, streamlined process allows genuine refugees to enter?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) directed a question to me and I am sure he would rather use the time by listening to my answer.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member a supplementary question, but 1 would like the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to answer the question of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the question with regard to the security provisions in Bill C-55. However, I am sure that the question of resources is not adequately addressed. It is clear that if the Government believes, as it correctly should, that the backlog is too great and the process is taking too long, then this matter requires not only legislation but also a commitment of adequate resources.
As the Minister indicated, Canada devotes over $150 million a year to refugee resettlement and that kind of thing. I believe most Canadians support that. If we have to find an extra portion of resources, one which would be much smaller than that already allocated, in order to ensure expeditious handling of people seeking refugee status, I believe that most Canadians would also agree with that. I regret that the Government is seeking to turn public disdain on to people seeking refugee status rather than dealing in a compassionate and humanitarian way with persons seeking refugee status here in Canada.
It is also worth noting that under the present process there is provision which is often used whereby a person who does not meet the UN convention definition of a refugee is still allowed to stay in Canada for humanitarian reasons. Humanitarian reasons have no place in Bill C-55. I believe that is a matter for regret. In other words, persons who are now consistently being allowed to stay in Canada for humanitarian reasons would be rejected under the proposals of Bill C-55.
Are we wrong to accept them now? If we are not wrong, why does Bill C-55 in essence say that in the future we will not accept persons for humanitarian reasons which appear to be justified at this time?
August 11, 1987


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre asked me my view of the entry of the 174 East Asian migrants into the Province of Nova Scotia. I am unalterably opposed to that entry in that way. I will explain why. The migrants violated Section 95 of the Immigration Act by seeking to enter Canada through a place other than a port of entry, knowing well that had they entered through a port of entry they would have run into the formalities of our immigration laws and would have been required to identify themselves, state honestly under oath from whence they came, and meet the other requirements. Therefore, I am unalterably opposed to their entry into Canada because I believe that they purposely avoided the immigration laws of Canada.
I resent, and I think the people of Canada resent, the remarks of the Member for Ottawa Centre attributing, not to me and not to Members in this House of Commons, but to all Canadians the attitude that they are concerned about the entry of these East Asians because, in his words, "they look different and wear turbans". No one said to me, "I am against these people because they look different and wear turbans". I take Canadians at their word. When they tell me that they do not want law-breakers to enter the the country, when they tell me that they want everyone to observe the laws of Canada as they seek entry to the country, I take their word. I do not attribute malice or racial prejudice to honest Canadians who believe that all our laws should be respected. Canadians are law-abiding people. They pay income tax, they stop at red lights, and they resent people who do not abide by our laws. I am shocked and amazed that the Member for Ottawa Centre would attribute to law-abiding Canadians a racial prejudice that only exists in his own mind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow a very short rebuttal.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I thank the Hon. Member for his contribution and his assurances that that was not in fact the intention of the Government in its statements at the time of the entry of the Sikhs, and that it was not attempting to build up any kind of support in that way. If that is the case, I am glad to hear it.
I simply say that the concerns of Canadians about the refugee process were concerns to which the Government should have responded a long time ago. Sure, they were heightened and sharpened by the arrival of the Sikhs, but they were also heightened by the arrival of the Tamils a year ago. One must ask why the Government failed to act at the time of the Tamil arrival or when the House resumed in October of last year? Why did it not get on with the job at that time?


Howard Edward Crosby: You obstructed it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: There was a bad Bill which we are opposing. Why was there no Bill at all until May 5? Why was there no debate at all on the Government's response to more expeditious
Immigration Act, 1976
handling of refugees until June 18 when there was effectively no time-


Howard Edward Crosby: You were obstructing then and you are obstructing now.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is hardly obstruction when the Bill was not even before us between September and May.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today to have the opportunity to debate Bill C-55, unlike my colleagues opposite who seem to decry the recall of Parliament to debate this issue. I believe it is perhaps one of the most important issues that has faced Canadians in the past two years. Members of Parliament from all Parties have a responsibility to deal with it. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) indicated that he does not believe it is important to return at this time. The Member from the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), indicated that he felt the Government was trying to whip up hysteria on this issue. While I do not like leaving British Columbia, I returned from my riding of Capilano because I believe it is important to be here to deal with this vital issue.
I am very pleased that in addition to debating Bill C-55 today, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) has introduced additional legislation, Bill C-84, dealing with the deterrent and detention aspects of the refugee claimant situation. We will debate that legislation as well during this recall.
Let me trace what has happened in the past month. On July 12, 174 people arrived on the shores of Nova Scotia claiming refugee status. This particular event touched the nerve of Canadians and caused an outpouring of response like none other I have seen during the past three years I have served my constituency. Indeed, it reminded me somewhat of a movie which I am sure many recall seeing when, after reaching a certain level of frustration, the character said, "I am mad as hell and will not take it any more". That is what Canadians are telling us as their elected representatives. They are tired of being abused and having our borders abused by those who would seek to enter this country illegally.
That does not mean that Canadians are not generous. While we know that Canadians are generous, we also know that Canadians share a fundamental sense of fairness and will react if they feel they are being dealt with unfairly. We have seen such a response over the past three weeks because Canadians believe there are people trying to come into this country unfairly, by jumping the queue ahead of legitimate refugees and those who would come here through the regular immigration process.
Let me refer the House to a few of the comments I have received in letters and phone calls which number well over 1,000. These are the views of individual constituents who are concerned enough to call or write their Member of Parliament. While people may stop on the street to discuss such things as

August 11, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
the free trade agreement or the Meech Lake Accord, they do not ordinarily write to express their views as they have done on this issue.
Let me give some examples of the comments I have received. One states in part:
I am writing to you to express my displeasure at the way the Canadian Government is responding to the . . . migrants who are attempting to enter our country in an improper manner.
I have been fortunate to travel all over the world and it is heartbreaking to see people waiting at the doors of our embassies and consulates with desperation in their eyes trying to immigrate to Canada.
What distresses me about the current situation is that these people are just "queue-jumpers" and "system-beaters"-They are showing, by example, what kind of citizens they will make and if allowed in, will try to find a way around every law and regulation we have-
That is the feeling of many Canadians. Those trying to enter this country illegally or by lying are establishing an example of their future behaviour.
Let me quote another letter which I am sure is similar to letters all of us have received:
Send the boatloads home, and let them apply legally. There is no reason why the boatloads should be given preference over other people-who have applied through the regular channels and are awaiting processing.
Another states:
As an immigrant who came to Canada in 1969 having been subject to scrutiny, lots of paperwork, screening, delays, denials, and finally after many months acceptance into Canada, I want to know what policies we now have for people to enter the country.
-anyone who can somehow creep ashore at night, be left wallowing in our territorial seas or concoct any other plan to circumvent the normal entry process is soon housed, fed, given money and other hand-outs, lawyers, et cetera at taxpayers' expense, and then set free into the community.
Finally:
If it can be proven a person is a genuine refugee then yes, Canada has room for such desperate people, but the applicant must prove his case beyond a question of a doubt. Otherwise, people without a valid case claiming "refugee" status can enter Canada illegally, stay here for months or years while an investigation goes on, and thus make a mockery out of the entire immigration system.
Those are the kinds of concerns I have been hearing over the past three weeks. That is what led me to suggest that this situation must be addressed and why, on July 17, 1 wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) asking for the recall of Parliament. 1 want to share what I said in that letter because it was a culmination of what I was hearing from my constituents and how I wanted to represent their views to the Deputy Prime Minister. I wrote:
After several days of discussion with many of my constituents regarding the arrival of 174 persons last weekend by boat to Canada claiming refugee status, and much personal reflection, I am writing to you to urge the early recall of Parliament for the consideration and passage of Bill C-55 (amendments to the Immigration Act).
I believe that this is a matter of national urgency and importance calling for action by our Government.
Canadians in Capilano, and across the country, are deeply concerned about this matter. They are angry and frustrated by what appears to be the inability of government to act swiftly to determine whether or not recent arrivals have a
legitimate claim to refugee status and where they do not, to be removed from Canada.
The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-55 would give us the tools to be much more effective in dealing with refugee claims while ensuring fairness and justice.
I believe Canadians are generous of spirit and are willing to accept a fair share of genuine refugees who wish to contribute to this country; however, they cannot accept persons who enter this country by illegitimate means, or make false claims, while many others must wait their turn through established immigration channels.
We must show our support for the generosity of Canadians but not allow it to be abused. Lack of action will lead to unacceptable levels of frustration and cynicism.
By moving to put in place the proposed legislative changes quickly, rather than waiting until the fall, we will exhibit our good faith by discouraging those who might seek to enter our country illegally.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
1 must compliment the Government for responding favourably to the request, which I know was made by other Members of my party as well, which brings us back here today to deal with the situation. We will be dealing with Bill C-55, which is the process by which claims are judged, as well as new legislation to much more effectively deter by tough penalties, up to $1 million and 10 years in jail, for those who would seek to bring in people to this country illegitimately. There is a right to seize and sell the vehicles, the boats, planes and, 1 guess, perhaps even a train which might be used to transport such people illegally, and there is a right to detain those who would enter the country until such time as their identification can be verified. Where there are any questions of serious criminal background, we will have the right to remove that person quickly from Canada.
Those measures are important given the reality in which we now live. It is not a happy global reality, we all recognize that. There are many millions of people, many millions of legitimate refugees, who are seeking to leave these countries. However, there are also many others who wish to seek access to a country where they might have a better life, a greater economic advantage. Certainly we all understand the motivation of these people who would like to come to Canada. However, we also recognize that immigration procedures must be done in a fair way, and that we as Canadians must have control over our immigration policy so that we have control over our destiny.
Bill C-55 will help to give us the tools to deal with those claims quickly and I believe that is what Canadians want. We all know the problems in the existing system which was developed 10 years ago in a different era when these kinds of global movements did not occur as they do now. We now need legislation to deal with the reality in which we live today.
Certainly Canadians to whom 1 talked, who are not professionals or lawyers, but ordinary Canadians, want to be sure that the system is fair and that it is expeditious. So we see in Bill C-55 a new and streamlined system. Within a period of 72 hours of a person entering the country and claiming refugee
August 11, 1987

status their case can be determined by a member of the refugee determination board and a member of the Immigration Department. If, in certain circumstances, it is very clear there is no legitimate claim to refugee status, that person will be removed from Canada.
There are criteria by which cases would not proceed to a further hearing; "persons recognized as refugees by another country, persons who can be returned to a safe third country and persons under a removal order, those who have made repeat claims or those whose claims have no arguable basis", and there are lots of those. In fact we know that over the past few years the number of those coming to Canada who claim refugee status has increased from 1,600 in 1980 to 18,000 in 1986 and for the first seven months of 1987, they totalled 16,500. Seventy percent of these claims have been unfounded.
I believe we should look at this problem as reasonable men and women with a responsibility for making laws and think through how they should be implemented. A reasonable person would recognize that what we are trying to do is put in a system by which we can weed out that 70 percent or least deter therfi from coming to Canada in the first place because they will know they will not get through the system. With that in plded, the legitimate refugees will be dealt with expeditiously, so they can quickly enter into the fabric of Canadian society. Thbse kinds of tools are available in the Bill before us.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre expressed a number of concerns which I believe are really not quite fair when we look at the situation carefully. 1 have talked to a number of people involved in refugee determination work. These people actually hear the cases. They have told me that once one is involved, one quickly can appreciate and understand the difference between legitimate and illegitimate claimants. There are people who claim refugee status who are Very quickly known not to be refugees. It is not a big deal. That can be done quickly and safely and they can be sent back to the country from which they came.
At the same time we must have a system where there can be a fair hearing when there is any doubt at all that a person may be a legitimate refugee. Bill C-55 provides for the due process of law. Where either one or two of the persons receiving the information to begin with have any doubts, it will go on to the next stage. The new refugee determination board, will be able to hear the case in a matter of weeks so that possibly within a period of seven to 12 weeks there will be a final determination and the claimant will either be returned or will be able to stay in Canada to start to build a new life. In the present situation it can sometimes take a year, two years and even up to four years before a person's status is finally verified. As politicians we all know the problems that involves. Once a person has been in Canada for four or five years and has established ties, it becomes very emotional and very difficult to remove that person. It is really not fair to any of us.
Bill C-55, taken in conjunction with Bill C-84, will give us the tools and the system by which we can genuinely determine
the refugee status of those who would seek to enter Canada legally and deal effectively with those who would try to come here illegally. It will deal with the concerns of Canadians who want us to have that kind of control over our borders and our future.
There are other longer term issues which need to be addressed. Obviously much work needs to be done on the international scene in our role and responsibility in the movement of refugees around the world. Much work needs to be done in order to familiarize and involve Canadians in immigration policy in terms of its goals, objectives and numbers. In this way they can take a greater part in that discussion.
These are issues which my colleagues and I will work on over a period of time. 1 would like to ask now for the cooperation of all Members of the House in terms of moving quickly and expeditiously on Bill C-55 so that it can finally become law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski);: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but her time has expired.
It being 1:50 p.m., I will now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. After Oral Question Period the Hon. Member will have 10 minutes for questions and comments.
At 1:51 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the report that the Government is again withholding information about toxic chemicals and human health is only the latest in a series of events that demonstrates that the Government does not see Environment Canada playing an advocate role to protect the public.
It started with the St. Clair River "blob" in 1985 when the Minister criticized his scientists for being open and honest with the public. Then a pamphlet entitled "Storm Warning" was withheld from distribution for one year. Communication between Environment Canada and the public has been centralized in Ottawa in an attempt to avoid further embarrassment to the Minister. Scientists are no longer allowed to give opinions that differ from his. In 1986 the Deputy Minister

August 11, 1987
apparently went so far as to tell Environment Canada managers that the department is out of the advocacy business.
These changes are a serious blow for all Canadians. Our pollution laws and regulations need public support through the advocacy role Environment Canada plays in defence of the public. By removing the advocacy role, the Minister has removed the soul of the department. By withholding information, the Minister is muzzling scientists who are working to protect the public interest.



PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SPECIAL AWARD

Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to inform you and Members of the House about a new and special award to be given to a parliamentary intern each year.
The originator of the parliamentary intern system was the former Member of Parliament from Guelph, Mr. Alfred Hales, a man much respected across Canada. He served the Guelph riding and his country for almost two decades and was recognized as a thoughtful but tough politician. His name is synonymous with service in my riding.
Mr. Hales has agreed to allow his name to grace this award, and an "Alf Hales Plaque" will be presented by the Speaker of the House of Commons to the person judged to be the best allround intern in the eyes of the Members of Parliament and the director of the program.
I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will enjoy presenting the Alf Hales Award. I hope Mr. Hales will be present as you do so. He was a man with an idea that grew.



WAR CRIMINALS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on June 30, the last day the House sat before adjourning for the summer, the Government devoted a mere five minutes to dealing with Bill C-71 which would provide for the prosecution in Canada of war criminals. Five minutes was not much time, but within that time the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) made a promise to the House. He stated, and I quote from page 7903 of Hansard:
-I will call on my House Leader to make arrangements to have this matter brought up at the earliest date when this House reconvenes. It will be a priority-for us.
The House reconvened today, the Government has put forward the list of legislation that it intends to deal with, and Bill C-71 is not on the list.
On behalf of my Party I indicated that we were prepared to take all steps to give rapid passage to this Bill in order that it could enter into effect quickly. The Government has not brought it forward. 1 wish to renew the commitment that I made during that debate and before to assure rapid passage. Let me urge the Government to keep its promise and have this matter dealt with. War criminals are a problem which, because of the biological clock, is disappearing. I think this matter should be dealt with soon.



THE LATE FRANK BEBAN

Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the men and women who work in the forests of British Columbia lost a friend with the passing of Frank Beban. Like his father, Jack, and his grandfather, Frank, before him, Frank Beban will be remembered by the people of Nanaimo, the Queen Charlotte Islands, and indeed all of British Columbia, as a first-class logger, and a first-class guy.
Canadians knew of him as the man who fought with determination to protect his employees. Those of us who knew him called him "one in a million". As his business partner, Bill Verchere, has said: "Frank was no ordinary man, and he put the welfare of others before his own. Those who worked for his company were not employees. They were his friends."
Now that the South Moresby region is to become a new national park, Mr. Speaker, it would be fitting to remember the man and the family who did so much for the people of that region. Frank Beban cared for the Queen Charlottes as much as he cared for his crew. I think it would be fitting for the Government to rename Lyell Island Beban Island in tribute to a man we will miss.



SOFTWOOD LUMBER TAX-USE OF REVENUE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when the federal Government decided to impose a special 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber exports to the United States, many experts predicted that this extra tax would place many Canadian lumber companies in an uncompetitive position in the U.S. lumber market. Of course, the United States requested such a tax in the first place to cut Canadian companies out of its market.
August 11, 1987

A recent casualty is the Ainsworth Company sawmill at Savona, British Columbia. This company has announced the August 15 closure of its stud mill. It states that it can no longer compete in the United States market. The result will be 120 employees laid off in a region of extremely high unemployment. For these 120 people to end up on unemployment insurance is unacceptable and unnecessary.
In 1987 the softwood tax revenues collected from the British Columbia companies will be more than $200 million. This money was intended to be used to promote new job opportunities for the displaced workers, such as those at Savona, British Columbia, through intensive and extensive silviculture programs, new market and production development, economic diversification, and special support for single-industry towns. This $200 million should be targeted for jobs, and not a general revenue fund as the British Columbia Government intends.



REFUGEES


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that Canada's refugee determination process must be changed to block the flagrant abuses taking place. Canadians have demonstrated a remarkable generosity over many years to welcome warmly genuine refugees from all corners of the world. In recognition of this long-standing generosity, the people of Canada were awarded the Nansen Medal through the United Nations last fall.
However, many Canadians are outraged over the events of the past year, and more particularly the arrival of 174 persons on the shores of Nova Scotia a few weeks ago. These people obviously schemed with foreign and domestic immigration brokers to exploit the weaknesses of our current system. Many Canadians and landed immigrants had to wait years to obtain legal approval to create a new life in this wonderful country.
Canada expects to welcome at least 20,000 persons under legitimate refugee and humanitarian programs this year, and will assist them to settle in our communities. However, when it is estimated that over 70 per cent of persons claiming refugee status are not valid, then clearly changes must be made.
I urge the two opposition Parties to stop playing politics and listen to Canadians who want fair, responsible action now. I am confident that the legislation will not diminish our caring attitudes towards the very real needs of genuine refugees, but it will deal harshly with bogus refugees and the unscrupulous brokers involved. Let us get on with discussion and amendments, if required, and the passage of Bills C-55 and C-84.



S. O. 21 INDUSTRY FIRESTONE PLANT IN HAMILTON-REPORTED EXPORT OF MACHINERY

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the last question on the last sitting day the House of Commons dealt with the issue of Firestone in my riding of Hamilton East. There are 1,400 jobs at stake. The Minister has now agreed to allow the machinery from that company to leave Canada, without asking for the repayment to the federal Government of a $13.5 million grant which was paid by the taxpayers of Canada.
I have asked for a meeting with the Minister. I have received no reply. I have asked the Minister to conduct an inventory of all equipment sitting on the Firestone premises. The Firestone Company in Akron, Ohio, is in the process of closing the most productive plant in North America.
If the Government and the company expect the workers of Canada to believe our word when we say we will fight for them when we have a corporation which has the most productive workforce in the country and it is closed down, well, that is the result of free trade. That is the result of a Minister who has washed his hands of his responsibility. That is the result of a Government which does not care about 1,400 jobs in Hamilton East.
We are going to keep fighting. I think the Minister's treatment of this dossier is disgusting. It is incredible, and he should resign.



WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his cabinet colleagues-


An Hon. Member:: Are you serious?


Mary Collins: That's right-for the announcement last week in Edmonton of the $1.2 billion Western Diversification Fund. I refer not only to the fund but to the establishment of the new Economic Development Agency for western Canada.
In Pacific Canada, in British Columbia, we certainly welcome this initiative. We are excited by the prospects that many of our small and medium-sized businesses will benefit from these funds. We will be encouraging our basic industries of forestry, fishing, and mining to add value to their products and will be looking toward new industry, tourism, high-technology and other kinds of industrial manufacturing to take advantage of these new funds.

August 11, 1987
Equally important is the role that the new Western Diversification Agency will play in ensuring that the interests of western Canada are clearly represented in the development of national economic policies and programs.
As a Member of Parliament from British Columbia I look forward to working with the new Minister responsible for western diversification to promote economic prosperity for British Columbia and all western Canada.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, since March 1 have been in correspondence with the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) about conditions at Stony Mountain Penitentiary, and so far the Minister has been unwilling to change policies that are endangering the lives of guards and inmates. I have recently met with constituents of mine who work there, and 1 am convinced that unless action is taken we may well have another incident like the one in July, 1984, which led to the deaths of two guards.
The policies which most need review are, first, the contracting out of health care services, teaching services, and construction or repair jobs; second, reductions in post standards and security staff; and, third, the closing of the segregation unit and consequent mixing of inmates who should not be put together. This latter policy is all part of what is called management by risk. The only problem is that all the risk is borne by line staff, not by management.
At the management level, all that is happening due to reorganization is that more management positions are being created, while the burden and the stress on those who actually work with inmates are being increased.
What is happening in Stony Mountain is happening elsewhere in Canada, in Prince Albert for example, and the Minister should wake up before it is too late. The risk may not be his, but the responsibility will be. He and his officials have been warned by CSC employees. He has now been warned in Parliament. We hope that he will take heed, and soon, before an explosive situation is detonated.



IMPORTANCE OF MANITOBA'S EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, in 1986 Manitoba exported $1.7 billion worth of goods, of which 82 per cent or $1.4 billion went to the United States. In
the face of growing American protectionism, Manitoba needs to maintain and improve its access to the U.S. market.
Manitoba is five times more export oriented in manufacturing than any other prairie province. The province accounts for one-half of Canada's exports of agricultural machinery with 90 per cent going to the U.S., a third of bus and bus chassis, a quarter of outerwear clothing, and approximately 10 per cent of aerospace exports.
The bilateral discussions with the United States on a comprehensive trade agreement are vital to the economic future of our province. Events have shown that the status quo is not acceptable to either Canada or Manitoba.
New rules to guide trading practices between Canada and the U.S.A. will provide the security of access and the potential for trade expansion to enable Manitoba to develop its manufacturing base and invest further in its natural resources.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, last night some 500 people protested the proposal to build a garbage incinerator at Walkley Road and Russell Road in Ottawa.
I want to take this opportunity to express my disagreement with any plan which could result in the using of National Capital Commission land to be turned from the Greenbelt into a garbage belt. It is the responsibility of the NCC to protect and maintain the Greenbelt surrounding the National Capital.
We are proud of the Greenbelt, and we are proud of our city. Therefore 1 ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) to state clearly that under no circumstances would he allow or permit the Greenbelt lands of the National Capital Commission to be used for a garbage incinerator or any other purpose, like a U.S. embassy.



DISASTERS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in a few twisted, roaring, smashing moments much of Alberta's capital city, Edmonton, was transformed to rubble. Lives and homes were shattered. A city grieved, a province and a nation were stunned in unprecedented disbelief. A tornado had scoured a major Canadian metropolis. What lay behind was wreck and ruin. The results were tragic. In some cases lives were lost. In other instances nothing else remained except life itself.
August 11, 1987

The awesome power of nature and the staggering levels of loss of life and property are exhibited in a special supplement of the August 7 edition of the Edmonton Journal. Copies are available for all Members of Parliament. I thank the Edmonton Journal for making these supplements available for distribution.
The magnitude of tornado power is beyond comprehension. Loaded semi-trailer trucks are flung about like children's toys, multi-storey steel I-beam buildings are flattened in a few seconds, and people's homes and lives lie crushed and shattered.
If there is a silver lining in all tragedy, surely in this case it is the blessing of being Canadian. In the wake of the July 31 tornado, which shredded the lives of so many, there exists a specific characteristic that binds us all-we have again acted out the fact that we are the keepers of our brothers and sisters.
As powerful as a cyclone can be, which tears apart homes, makes swizzle sticks out of steel beams, and lifts and smashes oil tanks, it has not daunted the Canadian spirit of generosity. Albertans in general and Edmontonians in particular are forever thankful for the warm assistance received from Canadians everywhere.
The outpouring of assistance from all parts of Canada has been overwhelming and, as chairman of the Alberta caucus, I wish to express our heartfelt thanks for the generosity of Canadians and for the fortunate fact that we are Canadian.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, early last month the head office of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada directed its Ontario regional office to close seven of 10 district offices next spring, overruling that office's recommendation of a gradual phase-out. The transfer of program administration and delivery to band governments and tribal councils is of course a process which we in the New Democratic Party support and promote as a fundamental move toward the eventual self-government of aboriginal communities.
However, the transfer of responsibilities in a unilateral, hasty, and simultaneous fashion will not meet the needs of aboriginal governments for a smooth transition and could instead disrupt services to aboriginal people as drastically as it will affect the careers of public servants.
What is required is a phased, co-ordinated, and carefully paced transfer of resources and responsibility which will allow the fair and equitable resolution of problems as they arise and give displaced public servants every opportunity to accept internal transfers, to initiate career moves, or to enter the
Edmonton Tornado
service of aboriginal governments with appropriate arrangements for continuation of their benefits.
Ontario's aboriginal governments are willing to accept far wider responsibility, but not without the proper identification and allocation of resources adequate to their newly acquired tasks.



NEW MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificates of the election and return of the following Members:
Ms. Marion Dewar, for the electoral district of Hamilton Mountain.
Mr. John James Harris, for the electoral district of St. John's East.
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin, for the electoral district of Yukon.



NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Marion Dewar, Member for the electoral district of Hamilton Mountain, introduced by the Hon. Edward Broad-bent and Ms. Pauline Jewett.
John James Harris, Member for the electoral district of St. John's East, introduced by the Hon. Edward Broadbent and Mr. Rod Murphy.
Audrey McLaughlin, Member for the electoral district of Yukon, introduced by the Hon. Edward Broadbent and Mr. Nelson A. Riis.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government of Canada, and I am sure on behalf of all Members of the House, our deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and families of those who suffered during the Edmonton tornado on Friday, July 31. Tragically, 27 people lost their lives as a result of the tornado and approximately 200 were injured.

August 11, 1987
Edmonton Tornado
To those bereaved, our thoughts and heartfelt sympathies are with you at this sorrowful time. To those injured, we offer our best wishes for a full and speedy recovery.
Immediately upon hearing of this disaster, the Prime Minister of Canada telephoned Premier Getty expressing the condolences of the nation and offering the resources of the Canadian Government in providing whatever assistance was required. As well, the Prime Minister and I had the occasion to visit personally the area struck by the tornado, and witnessed directly the power and the fury of this terrible storm.
It is indeed difficult to find words that adequately describe the extent of the damage and the destruction caused by the tornado. The Prime Minister and I saw homes, trailers, rail cars and steel and wooden buildings twisted almost beyond recognition. Yet, in our conversations with those who endured the storm, we found that one thing had not been broken, the human spirit and the resilience of those determined to rebuild and to renew.
Mankind has not the means to prevent such natural disasters. However, we do have the ability and the responsibility to assist in the recovery when a disaster strikes.
Immediately following the tornado, the emergency planning teams from the civic, provincial and federal Governments swung into action. Resources were mobilized in an unprecedented, co-ordinated and co-operative manner.
For the federal Government's part, on-site actions were coordinated by Mr. Jim Hoffman, the Regional Director of Emergency Planning Canada. Numerous federal departments played a part including Canada Post, the Department of National Defence, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Health and Welfare, Employment and Immigration, Industry, Science and Technology, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Specifically, the federal Government made Department of National Defence helicopters and ambulances available to provincial officials to assist the medical response. As well, emergency housing was provided by Canada Mortgaging and Housing and immediate accommodation was provided in a quick and orderly fashion. Some 62 families were given accommodation in this manner.
A victim assistance centre involving all three levels of Government was opened on August 3 as a single-window centre to help individuals and families. The centre registered losses and property damage, assisted with housing needs, provided immediate clothing, food and emergency financial assistance, and arranged distribution of various federal payments such as family allowance, UIC and Old Age Security, as well as unemployment insurance registration.
A second centre was opened in Leduc on August 4 and a special centre to assist employees and employers whose businesses were damaged also opened on August 4. Federal financial assistance will be provided under the disaster financial assistance arrangements and through Industry,
Science and Technology to help businesses re-establish and rebuild.
Throughout, co-operation with the provincial Government and civic officials has indeed been excellent. I want to express our gratitude to the Premier and the mayor and I also want to compliment the Hon. Dr. Ian Reid and the Hon. Ken Kowalski, the Alberta Ministers involved, for their efforts in ensuring a quick and co-operative response.
Canadians from coast to coast who saw the effects of this disaster on their television screens and in their newspapers have truly opened their hearts to the victims in a Canadian spirit of generosity and compassion. Whether it be those many volunteers who assisted in the immediate aftermath or those Canadians who have generously donated money, food and clothing, the response of individual Canadians has been truly remarkable and in the best tradition of Canadian generosity.
In closing, I wish to convey once again, on behalf of all government Members, our sincere and deepest sympathies to those who lost loved ones or suffered personal injury in this tragedy. I pledge, on behalf of the federal Government, to continue to provide all possible assistance to those rebuilding their lives, their homes and their businesses. We have already seen evidence of the determination and courage of Albertans in dealing with this tragic disaster. This Government will be there to help and assist in their efforts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians feel great sympathy for the people of Edmonton. We grieve particularly for those who lost family and friends in the disaster. In large part our country is formed psychologically by our climate and geography. As much as any people in the world we have reason to respect the awesome power of nature. While over the years Edmontonians have endured the challenge of severe winters, they could not have expected at that northern latitude that, out of nowhere, a violent, unpredictable tornado could lay waste part of their community. No amount of experience ever quite prepares any of us for a disaster of that magnitude.

Mr. Speaker, we find a measure of comfort in the fact that Canadians from coast to coast reacted generously to this situation of which the people of Edmonton were the victims.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) will of course have our support in any measures the federal Government takes to help alleviate the suffering of the people of Edmonton. We also want to assure Mayor Decore of our full support.
While we know that as human beings we can repair and rebuild our homes, and restore our roads, we can never recover
August 11, 1987

those whom we have lost. Our hearts go out to those who lost family and loved ones and we pray that memories of happier times will sustain and console them in the very difficult moments which lie ahead.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today on behalf of members of the NDP caucus to express our deepest sympathy and condolences to those who suffered during that very tragic day, July 31, in Edmonton. We feel for the families who suffered losses and for those who today lie injured in hospitals, as well as those trying to put their homes and families back together again.
One of the very impressive things which occurred as a result of the disaster was the way Albertans responded with an unprecedented amount of generosity and compassion to the victims of this disaster. That response was something to behold. 1 believe all of us were moved when we heard through the media about the generosity of individuals, families, communities and agencies coming together to assist those in need as a result of this tragic and violent natural phenomenon.
We are reminded by this disaster how violent nature can be and the rack and ruin which can occur to communities in a very few moments. While it is of course impossible for man to stop a natural disaster like this, we are able to respond and provide assistance for those who suffer. In this respect I would like to think that we will one day soon hear specific financial commitments by the Government so that those who are suffering as a result of this tragic situation will know that the federal Government will provide full financial support to help them get back on their feet.
I think this also points out the tremendous need for legislation to establish a fund which will automatically cost share with provincial or territorial Governments during these crises so that there is no question that immediate financial support is made available to assist those who have experienced tragic losses.
1 also want to use this moment, and I am sure I speak for all Members of the House, to refer to the tragic situation on July 14 in Montreal. We are well aware of the tremendous flooding that occurred there which caused $229 million in losses. We again look forward to a commitment by the federal Government to provide funds to assist the 21,000 people who were victims of that serious flooding.
Again, to those in Montreal and in Edmonton, on behalf of the NDP caucus 1 extend our deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families.


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members would want to rise for an appropriate minute's silence.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, for two years now the federal Government has been selling out our country bit by bit, sector by sector, in the course of its free trade negotiations with the U.S. Leading American Senators are now reminding us once again that there will be no binding mechanism to solve trade disputes between our two countries, and there will be no exemption from American trade remedy law in order to satisfy Canada in these negotiations.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Will he again guarantee to this House that there will be no trade deal with the U.S. unless there is a binding trade dispute mechanism and Canada is given meaningful exemption from trade remedy laws under the Act of 1974 and under current legislation now before the U.S. Congress?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my right hon. friend would acknowledge that 1 have set out that view on many occasions in and out of this House regarding those kinds of provisions. We are working towards that end. Obviously there are different points of view concerning this among members of the U.S. Senate, as there are among Members of this House of Commons. The Government is pursuing the negotiations very actively attempting to secure a comprehensive agreement which will meet all the required provisions.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's voice is so soft that he does not really have an answer.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has dismantled our regional development programs to accommodate American interests during the free trade negotiations. We now find ourselves without a national program of regional development. The Government has totally abandoned Quebec. Is the Prime Minister prepared to sacrifice the development of Abitibi, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean or Beauce just to please the Americans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in the Quebec regions mentioned by my hon. friend has been declining ever since this Government took office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 11, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: The current job creation rate is better than it was in the past, from 1980 to 1984. So I would suggest that in co-operation with the Quebec Government we are creating jobs at a relatively impressive rate, not fast enough but impressive still. As to policies of regional development, we are firmly convinced that regional development must be geared to regional needs. In the Atlantic and Western Canada regions, for example, our policy is such that instead of having bureaucrats in Ottawa who impose their will on the regions, the regions are now working with the federal Government to draft policies which apply directly to them.


RECALL OF HOUSE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, after peeling off the Western Rediversification Program, the Atlantic Opportunities Program and the Northern Ontario Program, we have a Minister with no department left.
1 will give the Prime Minister another example of shaping legislation in order to satisfy our American friends in the course of these trade negotiations. We all know that the real reason Parliament was recalled was to pass legislation to inflict higher drug prices upon Canadians. That is the real reason.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister was not able to convince you three or four weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, and he tried another tack.
Are these trade negotiations really so important to the Prime Minister and his Government that he is willing to sacrifice our elderly and our sick and inflict upon them higher drug prices merely to keep these trade negotiations going?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 think a couple of more weeks at the lake would have done the right hon. gentleman a lot of good.


An Hon. Member:: A couple more years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Someone says "a couple more years". Who knows?
The reason for the recall of Parliament is that Canada's immigration and refugee system, which is held in such high regard, was in the process of being abused. When it is abused it is diminished and unfairness creeps into the system. That unfairness then destroys what is an otherwise very valid national apparatus and international attraction.
We have asked parliamentarians to come back to deal with this very, very serious matter. We do not agree with those voices which suggest that we should turn ships away. That is
unacceptable to us. However, the system itself must be cleansed of abuse.
1 know that my right hon. friend will join with us, not in dilatory measures, in agreeing to conditions which will allow us to expedite this important piece of legislation through the House of Commons so that all Canadians can have the assurance that those abuses which diminish our system cease.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Give him a copy of the Bill.


EFFECT OF FREE TRADE ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question with the Prime Minister, but I will first offer the kindly suggestion that after his last statement he might be well advised to read Bill C-84 which his Minister of Employment and Immigration introduced this morning. He may find out exactly who wants to turn the ships away.
Officials in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. before their demise, produced a report which has now been released, or found out, which suggests that in every region of the country the free trade arrangement with the United States will substantially undermine key industries, resulting in enormous job losses in every single region and that, furthermore, the ability of both the federal and provincial Governments to deliver regional development programs will be undermined by a free trade deal.
Taking into account that that is the conclusion of federal officials, can the Prime Minister promise that before any deal is signed with the Americans the Government will properly divulge what the costs of all those job losses will be and what the impact upon all the regional development programs will be so that Canadians will know what to expect by way of a free trade arrangement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not think 1 needed to add, in my response to my hon. friend with regard to turning ships back, "without lawful authorization".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Once the House has granted its authority, if it does, that will, of course, become an entirely appropriate gesture for the people of Canada to exercise. However, without that authorization that, of course, is a different matter.
With regard to the specific question, my hon. friend will agree that all of the documentation which has been established so far, from the Economic Council of Canada, the C.D. Howe Institute, the research institutes and think-tanks, concurs in the judgment, as best we can see, that a comprehensive free trade arrangement would result in more jobs in virtually all sectors of the economy.
August 11, 1987

As I recollect, the Economic Council of Canada is of the view that some 350,000 new jobs would result from a comprehensive agreement. 1 think most people would agree that that is the case. There may be divergent minority opinion from time to time to which we will be happy to listen. Elowever, the Government of Canada is clearly of the view, based on objective data, that a comprehensive agreement would result in many more jobs for all Canadians.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF INFORMATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question will deal with one of those divergent views, that being a divergent view produced by federal officials in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. They have gone through a list, province by province, detailing a substantial number of industries which will experience loss and require major adjustments to deal with those losses across the country while, at the same time, losing the power to do so because of a free trade deal.
Before a deal is signed we are trying to get the Government to provide Canadians with their own information, to give Canadians the kind of information which the Government itself has.
If the Government has information which details the costs and prices which will have to be paid, why will it not publicly table that information so that Canadians will know what is going on before the Government signs a deal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated many times that if the Government of Canada concludes that there is a trade deal which is in the national interest, we shall bring it forward for the consideration of Parliament. That has always been the view. I have expressed that many times.
If, at that point in time, my hon. friend has a divergent point of view or an objective study on which he would care to base his opinion, that would be the appropriate time to bring it forward. However, we are in the process of entering the last two months of negotiation and we believe that a deal can be concluded if it is a good one in the national interest. Otherwise, as I have indicated many times, it will not be brought forward. If it is brought forward for consideration, there will be ample opportunity for debate.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know that yesterday in Alberta the Principal Group declared bankruptcy. This follows on the heels of the bankruptcies of two other financial institutions affiliated with
Oral Questions
Principal. The major problem is that literally thousands of Canadians, most of whom are in western Canada but spread as far east as Nova Scotia, will be terribly affected by these bankruptcies.
Considering that literally thousands of these Canadians thought they were protected by insurance similar to what they would have had if their deposits had been in one of the chartered banks, and considering that two provincial Governments in the west have begun an inquiry into this situation, will the Minister tell us what the federal Government is doing? Is it participating jointly in these inquiries? Is it taking some kind of independent action?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's question. I want to join him in expressing my concern with the plight of the investors who are being affected by the bankruptcy. Earlier, we expressed sympathy for the other tragedy in Alberta. These types of tragedies are equally burdensome and worrisome.
The CDIC has done everything it can along the way to be helpful in this situation. I am very pleased to tell the Hon. Member that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation hopes to be able to reimburse all depositors in Principal Trust within a few weeks, in terms of those covered by insurance.
In terms of the two investment companies, the Member will know that these were investment companies under provincial jurisdiction. They were not deposit-taking institutions and were not covered. The CDIC has offered administratively to help them in any way and that offer still stands.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. He chose his words with care. He knows very well that no matter what action is now being taken by certain federal institutions, there are thousands of Canadians of moderate income, and indeed many of low income, including boy scouts in the country, who will be affected very disastrously by these failures.
The Government is moving toward more deregulation which could exacerbate the problem rather than improve it. The Attorney General of Nova Scotia has said that there is a need for consistency in securities legislation across the country. What will the Minister do to bring about that desirable consistency to protect average Canadian families?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, there are not enough occasions in the House for me to remind Members of the policy announcement of December 18. That announcement put in place a regime of corporate governance and investment rules for federally-regulated financial institutions which, if followed, I suggest would virtually prohibit this sort of tragedy. If the provinces, under

August 11, 1987
Oral Questions
their jurisdiction, would follow the lead that we are taking, 1 believe that would answer his question. They would see that very few cases of this nature would occur if they would follow the guidelines that we will set by example at the federal government level.
Let me add that financial institutions are custodial as far as I am concerned. They have other people's money, deposits, and policies. Therefore, the Government's role is to be very careful in a custodial relationship toward those institutions. I hope all provinces will do their best through their consumer protection to follow the lead that this Government is trying to establish not only with the legislation currently before the House but with the rest of its policy of December 18.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETINGS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, again the Minister chose his words with care. He said that if the provinces put in place the kind of legislation that the federal Government is proposing all will be well. However, the problem is that they may not do so.
Canadians in the provinces which are covered by provincial jurisdictional concern do not want wishful thinking from the federal Government, they want concrete action that will protect them.
Therefore, just as when the federal Government took initiative on the question of medicare to get all provinces to come together to agree on a national program of medicare, will the federal Government take some initiative and request a meeting with its provincial counterparts and try to develop the kind of legislation on a national basis that is relevant in provincial jurisdictional areas that the Minister himself has talked about? Why not show some leadership at the federal level?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we had this meeting on December 5, 1986. We had another meeting in the spring, and we will be having another meeting in the fall.
The federal Government has been holding very important meetings with the provinces on these very questions.
Second, if the Hon. Member is suggesting that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation should be in charge of all provincially-regulated institutions-


John Edward Broadbent: That is not what 1 said.


Thomas Hockin: If you are suggesting that, you are making an effacable change in terms of party policy and this Government's policy.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION'S ANALYSIS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister has chosen his words very carefully and will know
that the Principal Group Limited owns First Investors, 100 per cent of Principal Savings and Trust, the Associated Investors. In turn, all were owned by Collective Securities Limited and 80.5 per cent of those shares are owned by one individual.
Will the Minister confirm that in the last 12 months CDIC did an analysis and a financial administration study of Principal Savings and Trust? Will he confirm that this audit has been done, and produce the record for the House?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Inspector General of Banks do an ongoing analysis of financial institutions, especially those that are having difficulties. I would expect that a close and regular analysis has been done every year, not just in the past year.


David Charles Dingwall: I hope the Minister will table that report by CDIC because the linkages to First Investors, Associated Investors with Principal Savings and Trust are obvious and clear.


ROLE OF DEPARTMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister. Was the CDIC so blind in its investigation of Principal Savings and Trust that it did not bother to look at First Investors who stamped on the bank accounts of various investors:	"Member of Canada Deposit Insurance
Corporation"? Is this not gross negligence by his department and CDIC with regard to this investigation?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, nothing is more fundamental for the Hon. Member to understand. As far as we know, each of these investment contracts made by those investment companies was stamped and indicated that they were not insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Company. We have not had an example otherwise. These are not deposit-taking institutions. These are investor institutions and they were so stamped.


DISASTERS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In his statement to the House earlier this afternoon he said that federal financial assistance will be provided under the disaster financial assistance arrangements and through the Ministry of Science and Technology to help businesses re-establish and rebuild. Will the Minister indicate how much money the federal Government is prepared to make available to the people of Edmonton to rebuild their homes and communities?
August 11, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 think at the first indication of the disaster the Prime Minister offered the resources of the federal Government to assist in any way, shape or form. There is a formula under a disaster fund emergency arrangements Act which clearly provides funding from the federal Government.
In addition, in consultation and co-operation with the Alberta Department of Economic Development, we are assessing the magnitude of the damage with the business community and determining what type of assistance would be available. That has not been completed, but the Government stands prepared to work out in a co-operative manner such assistance that might be helpful in terms of re-establishing those businesses.


MECHANISM FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ASSISTANCE
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, we wait with interest to hear what the value of the assistance will be because I think the people of Edmonton want to know what is available to them. Is the Government prepared to reevaluate the mechanism for providing disaster relief for areas like Montreal, Edmonton, Hornpayne or wherever to ensure that there is a permanent fund put in place and money is immediately available under established rules so that people will not have any further anxiety about what is facing them?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer this question as the Minister responsible for emergency preparedness. There is an agreement between the federal Government and all of the provinces which guarantees to any province affected by a disaster like this that, after the province contributes more than $1 per capita in disaster relief, the federal Government will contribute as well. As soon as more than SI per capita is spent, between $1 and $3 per capita, the federal Government contributes some 50 per cent, between $3 and $5 the federal Government contributes 75 per cent, and if it goes over $5 the federal Government contributes some 90 per cent. That formula is there for everyone.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
According to many constitutional experts, including the National Association of Women and the Law and LEAF, the
Oral Questions
Meech Lake Accord contains a serious flaw that could be fatal to equal rights for women and minorities in this country.
Mr. Speaker, 1 wish the Minister of Justice would let us know whether today, on behalf of Canada's women and minorities, he would be willing to move and defend an amendment that would clarify an ambiguous text that puts the equality of women and minorities in this country in jeopardy.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Hon. Member which allows me the opportunity to deny categorically the implication of the question. Our legal advice is just to the contrary. The rights of women in this country are not in any way diminished by the provisions of the Meech Lake Accord. Indeed, there is unanimity with the respect to the desires of all Canadians to make sure the rights of women in Canada are fully protected. This Government has been giving leadership in that area.
I say to the Hon. Member that while the committee is going on, as we are now sitting, there is an opportunity for Members of Parliament and Canadians generally to participate in a very important process, to understand fully the implications of this particular Accord. I conclude by saying to the Hon. Member that her assessment with respect to the rights of women is not correct.


TRIBUNALS' POWERS
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying he does not want to take this step and that it is the Government's policy to be ambiguous?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Justice could inform the House whether it is government policy to let the courts determine and decide whether women and minorities in Canada are entitled to equal rights in this country. Is it the Government or the courts that are going to decide?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of our country does provide for the equality of women. The Meech Lake Accord does nothing at all to diminish the rights of women in Canada. I ask the Hon. Member if she is indicating the position of her Party with respect to this matter that this Accord should be rejected?
Is it not an important principle that Quebec should be brought into the Constitution,-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -that we should in fact be urging acceptance of this Accord? I ask the Hon. Member to consider her position.

August 11, 1987
Oral Questions


DISASTERS
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, following the rainstorm in Montreal which caused nearly $230 million worth of damage and took one human life, the federal Government promised to contribute about $17 million.
Considering the extent of the disaster, could the federal Government show some leadership and increase the amount it is willing to commit to compensate the people of Montreal?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is well aware, an agreement exists between the provinces and the federal Government which provides for federal funding in such circumstances. In July I wrote a letter to Mr. Gilles Rocheleau, Quebec Minister of Supply and Services, informing him of our intention to provide the necessary funds.


EEFECT OF AGREEMENT ON QUEBEC
Robert Toupin: Finally, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister guarantee before the House that the people of Montreal will not receive less, proportionally, than the people of Edmonton? Could the Government, could the Minister guarantee that the agreement concluded with the provinces is equally fair to Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the agreement is the same for all Canadians. It provides the same treatment for all Canadians across Canada. We have an agreement with all the provinces, and the terms are the same for each province.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
This morning the Prime Minister swore in his MIST, or mess I should say. I should like to ask the Prime Minister- given the fact that he has announced a plan for Western Canada, a plan for the Atlantic, a plan for Northern Ontario-how he can justify leaving Quebec in a vacuum, leaving Eastern Ontario without a program? What is the policy of this Government with respect to regional economic development? And why was Quebec ignored?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Quebec was not ignored at all. My friend mentions the Province of Ontario.
Unemployment figures were released last Friday and they indicate among other things that the unemployment rate in the Province of Ontario has now dropped to 6 per cent, which is quite a remarkable job creation effort. So I should think that the situation is relatively good in the Province of Ontario
Quebec as well did experience a rather significant economic upswing. We have been holding important discussions with the Quebec Government over the past three years, discussions which involve the new Minister whom I commend for his excellent work. We intend to continue working with the Quebec Government at an unprecedented rate to speed up the job creation process in all regions of Quebec.


SITUATION OF QUEBEC
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. He says he is going to co-operate with the Government of Quebec. But does the Prime Minister realize that as federal Prime Minister he must make sure that the fight against regional disparities continues? His own DRIE Minister at the time had announced last June 5 that DRIE had sufficient funds, both to honour commitments made during the previous year and to make new ones for this year.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ought to know that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion misled industry leaders and various interest groups in Quebec. The President of the Association des commissaires industriels du Quebec . . .


Mr. Speaker:: Please. Would the Hon. Member ask his question, please?


Jean-C. Lapierre: I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he does not show any concern for regions like Beauce, the Eastern Townships, Chateauguay, Valleyfield, Saguenay, Lac-Saint-Jean? Why does the Prime Minister have different standards? Some regions are favoured while others are completely ignored.


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister responsible for Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely appalling and even disgraceful to hear comments on this subject, particularly from this colleague who implies that Quebec has been ignored, when we can recall for instance that a regional economic development agreement of nearly $800 million was signed with Quebec, an unprecedented initiative. In addition, more than 1,300 projects have been approved since September 1984 under regional industrial development programs.
Mr. Speaker, I am not mentioning the assistance we gave Petromont, Domtar, Canadair, GM, Sainte-Therese, Hyundai and a lot of others. When I am told that Quebec is being ignored, that Quebec is badly represented, Mr. Speaker, 1 think the people of Quebec will understand.
August 11, 1987

As to his latest remarks, Mr. Speaker, over the weekend when we were in fact accused of lying, I wish my colleague would rise in the House and deal with that just so I might respond. 1 can tell him that more than 220 projects valued at $240 million have been approved since June 1987. Now let anyone tell me that the Department of Regional Economic Development is dead.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-EFFECT ON ONTARIO INDUSTRIES
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Is the Minister aware of a DRIE report which states that free trade will cost the jobs of ordinary Canadians in Ontario in the areas of automotives, tires, automotive parts, major appliances, construction and material handling, industrial electrical equipment, electrical wire, textiles, wine, beer, household furniture, toys and games, motion pictures, sound recordings and publishing-the list goes on-and that the effects will be worse in southwestern Ontario? If the Minister is aware of this report why has she not informed the people of Ontario and the Members of the House of the severe implications of free trade for Ontario?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Department has answered that question. I have not read the report. It has no official status with the Government.
I have read the reports of the Economic Council of Canada, Informetrica, and the University of Toronto, all of which have indicated that the benefits to Canada from a free trade pact with the U.S. by far outweigh the problems we face with increased protectionism down there. The people who will benefit the most will be the people of southwestern Ontario.


ONTARIO MIN ISTRY OF AGRICULTURE'S REPORT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister will see the following as benefits. Has she read the report of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture which states that farm cash receipts in Ontario will decline by 50 per cent: $170 million for dairy farmers; $127 million for poultry and egg farmers; $45 million for fruit and vegetable growers; and $24 million for grain and oilseed producers, for a total loss of $500 million? Does that not say to the Minister that it is about time to stop the lunacy of the free trade negotiations?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think the House can take into account that in the
Oral Questions
final two months of the free trade negotiations there will be rumours, election speeches, leaks, innuendoes, and just plain mischief of the kind we have just heard from the Hon. Member. I do not intend to comment on that kind of loose allegation at a time when we are in crucial negotiations.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is probably off travelling some place, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns government waste. Does the Prime Minister approve of the behaviour of his Minister of Energy who went to Washington and Vienna in September, Cannes in October, Washington and Caracas in November, California in January, Switzerland in February, Bogota in April, and he spent $13,000 going to Paris in the month of May of 1987? Does the Prime Minister approve of that type of expenditure? If not, what is he going to do about it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware I am sure that the Minister is obligated to travel in his capacity as Chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Energy Agency which he has chaired. He met with the International Atomic Energy Agency after the Chernobyl disaster. He has travelled extensively to defend Canada's multilateral and bilateral interests, particularly with respect to the very volatile petroleum market.
I am sure that the Hon. Member would want our Minister to take an active interest in world energy affairs. I think he has done so with a great deal of competence and leadership. I think that the Hon. Member should be complimenting the Minister rather than hurling cheap shots across the floor at him.


PAYMENT OF EX-MINISTER'S LEGAL FEES
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question also relates to government waste and in particular to the Government's legal aid program for ex-cabinet Ministers. Last month Canadians were outraged to learn that the taxpayers of Canada are paying a total of $650,000 in legal fees for the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. That relates to $7,831 per sitting day. How can the Prime Minister justify this outrageous decision of his Government, this rip-off at taxpayers' expense? Can he indicate whether this means that the Government of Canada will be paying the legal fees of the ex-Minister, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean?

August 11, 1987
OraI Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question has been answered in the House before. The precedent to which the Hon. Member has referred was long established by the previous Government, the Liberal administration.


BOW VALLEY CORPORATION-PROPOSED PURCHASE BY BRITISH GAS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has surely given new meaning to the phrase "mass transit". In his absence I will ask my question of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will be aware that British Gas proposes to buy Bow Valley, a very important Canadian energy company. The press secretary to the Minister of Energy said that the deal runs counter to the Government's policy that healthy oil companies may not be bought up by foreigners. Is that still Canadian government policy? If it is, how does the Government propose to treat this proposed deal between British Gas and Bow Valley?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, we are of course aware of the facts described by the Hon. Member. However, we have yet to receive all the details of the proposed transaction. In any case, as the Minister responsible for Investment Canada, we must ensure that the transaction will provide a net benefit for Canadians, in terms of the energy policy announced by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. He will be aware that Investment Canada, which was mentioned, recently approved the takeover of a Canadian utility. West Kootenay Power, by an American utility. We have sold out oil companies, gas companies, water rights and electricity rights. I want to ask the Prime Minister who saw the results of the by-elections the following question. Does he want to go down in Canadian history with the political epitaph: "The man who presided over the sell-out of the Canadian energy industry"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when I became Prime Minister we had witnessed a period in which the energy industry in western Canada had been devastated by the National Energy Program. The NDP
and the Liberals will go down in history as the authors of that devastation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can tell my hon. friend that he should have learned a long time ago-and I know that my right hon. friend will agree with me on this-that by-elections do not general elections make. The Leader of the Opposition and I agree fully on that.
1 want to tell my hon. friend that although his NDP colleagues are trying to squeeze him out of his seat it is a good time to leave since, when we issue a writ, we will curl his hair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. It also concerns the Principal Group which filed for bankruptcy yesterday.
One of the group's companies, Principal Trust, was insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Since the group's financial difficulties were well-publicized over the last six weeks, can the Minister assure the House that his officials moved quickly enough to avoid loss to the CDIC? Or has there been a run on the financial institution over the last six weeks leading to a substantial deterioration in the quality of the company's assets, with tens of millions of dollars of losses to both the CDIC and to depositors?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the Hon. Member's question as precisely as I can.
As far as the timing of the bankruptcy is concerned, deposits at the Principal Savings and Trust Co. Ltd. had decreased 7 per cent since the failure of the investors groups.
In further answer to the Hon. Member's question, I also should tell him that there has been no increase in insured deposits since that time. Therefore, the CDIC's exposure has not changed at all. It is too early to determine the final cost to the CDIC, as the liquidation procedure has not yet begun.
As I stated earlier, it is hoped that the CDIC will be able to start reimbursing depositors within three weeks for those that they cover. I remind the Hon. Member that these two investor groups were under provincial jurisdiction, and they have had their response from the provincial authorities.
August 11, 1987


SOVEREIGNTY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of Transport, I have a question for the Prime Minister. He may recall that last March in reply to a question by the Hon. Member for Windsor West, the Secretary of State gave a rather evasive reply as to whether or not Canada would oppose the flights of plutonium radioactive material from France to Japan across the Arctic.
Will the Prime Minister give a clear and conclusive commitment here today that Canada will register a strong opposition to these proposed flights, as we are getting very close to the deadline?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: In short, Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure my colleague opposite that there will be no overflights of Canada without the full permission of Canada, and the full application of international and domestic law that may affect those flights.


PATENT ACT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In defending the Government's action to amend Canada's drug patent laws, the Minister has referred to generic drug manufacturers as, among other things, thieves, et cetera. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Government issued a policy bulletin dated June, 1987, which will continue as government policy to use Section 19 of the Patent Act, not only to steal people's patent inventions, but even to the extent of assigning them to other manufacturers who have applied for a government contract? I would ask the Minister to explain to the House who is stealing what, and where is that government policy consistent?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, what 1 was quoting yesterday at the press conference were remarks by Dr. Polyani, Canada's newest Nobel Prize winner. Dr. Polyani stated on the Morn-ingside program on CBC radio that for Canada to adopt a policy that other countries do the research and that we simply import and duplicate that technology is equivalent to being a burglar. Those were Dr. Polyani's words. He further stated that, to be a good burglar, some research still has to be done so that you know the real gems from the false ones.
1 am asking the NDP if it is their policy that Canada should continue to be a burglar-to use Dr. Polyani's words-and let
Oral Questions
the rest of the world do the research, or does the NDP wish to see Canadian scientists do that research here in Canada?


DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
Neil Young: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. After making that statement, could the Minister tell the House why in June, 1987, a government Department issued a policy bulletin which instructed its Department to continue using Section 19 of the Patent Act to use other people's inventions totally arbitrarily? Could the Minister explain that to the Canadian people?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: If the New Democratic Party has now come to the view that we should increase patent protection for Canadian inventors, I welcome the change of heart. If the Member would pass over the document in question and would like to participate in an amendment to the law that will strengthen the protection that we provide to Canadian scientists, I welcome this remarkable change on the road to Damascus, and would appreciate his assistance in making the change.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior. In view of the hour, I would request that the Hon. Member ask only one question.


SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
In July the Minister of State announced a six-month consultation process with native people across the country concerning native economic development, and I say to him well done. However, a briefing note prepared for the Minister of Indian Affairs in that same month called for recommendations on native economic development to be in the hands of the Prime Minister by October. That is a full three months before the consultation process is to be completed. Therefore, native leaders are referring to a bogus and a meaningless consultation process. 1 ask the Minister of State, is not this elaborate announcement of his nothing more than a sham, an empty gesture, and just a phoney PR pitch?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: That is probably what the Hon. Member would like natives in this country to believe. It is not at all a sham. This consultation process had been promised by the Government. The Prime Minister stated clearly in 1984 that these programs would not be touched without full consultation with natives in Canada. We have engaged in that

Order Paper Questions
process. We have the full co-operation of the native groups across Canada. That process will take place.


MINISTER'S POSITION
B. Keith Penner: It is not myself that is trying to convince the native people about the sham of this process. They, themselves, have asserted this through their various organizations.
1 turn to the Minister of Indian Affairs. In that same briefing note that I referred to earlier, the Minister reveals that the amalgamation of native economic programs is to go forward almost immediately. Last Friday the native leadership described the Minister as being untrustworthy for not advising them of this new scheme. Why is the Minister proceeding with this approach without taking into his confidence and trust the native leadership of the country?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware of the Task Force on Economic Development from DIAND and I am sure he is also aware of the recommendations that were put forward. I wish to refer to one of them.
One was the single agency concept proposed by the Ontario Indian Advisory Board in February, 1985. In June, 1987, an AFN National Assembly resolution contained the following assessment, that "federal initiatives to date have further entangled the First Nations in a complex web .... shortsightedness and jurisdictional disputes-federal Departments responsible for supporting First Nations' economic development are unable to effectively col-ordinate their activities."
I assume. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to a briefing note prepared for myself. 1 have not seen it, and I do not know what he is talking about. I can tell the Hon. Member that, along with my colleague and other colleagues, we have to address the desires and needs of the Indian people in economic development. That is exactly what the Government is going to do.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that there will be one more question.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the House on Justice and Solicitor General. Regardless of where they stand on the question of capital punishment, all Canadians are interested in seeing immediate reform of our criminal justice system, and in particular reform of sentencing and parole. The Chairman has indicated that his committee will be studying these issues and making a recommendation.
In the light of the concerns that have been expressed in the House and across the country in the capital punishment debate, and in the light of the comments of the Hon. Minister of Justice that Canadians have lost faith in our criminal justice system, will the Chairman give the House his undertaking to commence those hearings and that study immediately?


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and his interest in this important area, as he says, an interest which is increasingly shared by many Canadians.
Last month I wrote to hundreds of individuals and groups active in the criminal justice field. 1 invited them to submit briefs to our committee by the end of September.
Certainly if it becomes apparent that the House will be sitting for some weeks this summer, I intend to call a meeting of the committee soon in order that we can start the important work which the committee has before it.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the permission of the House to revert to Routine Proceedings and Questions on the Order Paper.
At the time this matter was called earlier today my documentation was not complete. I appreciate that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) was upset in that he waited around for the answer and 1 was not able to deliver it. However, as I undertook to do, I am prepared to answer the questions now if the House would give its consent to revert to Routine Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 148, 150, 152, 154, and 155.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	For the fiscal year 1986-87, were funds allocated to assess the impact of pesticides on the environment in the budget of the Department of the Environment and. if so, in what amount?
2.	For the fiscal year 1987-88, was the budget increased and, if so (a) by what amount (6) in what manner will it be spent and. in particular, will the number of person years be increased and what are the specific positions.
August 11, 1987

rcsponsbilitics and numbers (c) is the increase (i) new money (ii) internal reallocation of existing funds and, if so. what programs and person years will be affected (d) in what manner will the increase be spent on (i) research (ii) scientists' salaries (iii) support (iv) travel (v) other items?
3.	For the fiscal year 1988-89. will the budget be increased and, if so, by what estimated amount?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: 1.
Yes, $3.5 million.
2.	Yes. (a) $900,000 (operating funds).
(b)	The budget will be spent to:
Evaluate the environmental impact of pesticides submitted for registration under the Pest Control Products Act;
Undertake the re-evaluation of in-use pesticides under the Pest Control Products Act;
Conduct environmental monitoring of in-use pesticides to determine their presence, levels, trends and effects;
Undertake research on the environmental impact of pesticides used and the transport of fate of pesticides in the environment.
The number of person-years will not be increased.
(c)	(i) Yes (ii) No.
(d)	(i) Critical review of public literature on pesticides; analytical work; protocol and guideline development, (ii) N/A, (iii) N/A, (iv) N/A, (v) N/A.
3.	The 1988/89 budget has not yet been finalized.


Mr. Howie: In 1986. were any military personnel released from the Canadian Armed Forces and. if so, how many?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Yes, 5,980 military members.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Did the government offer a grant to the City of Halifax or any other group in the Halifax area for the specific purpose of preparing a proposal to attract the 1994 Commonwealth Games to that city and, if so, what was the amount and to whom was the grant given?
2.	Did other cities receive similar benefits and, if so, which cities and in w hat amounts?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: 1. The 1994 Halifax Commonwealth Games Society, the incorporated group seeking to bring the 1994 Commonwealth Games to Halifax, applied for assistance under the Canada-Nova Scotia Subsidiary Planning Agreement, which allows cost-sharing between the two Governments on studies related to economic development in Nova Scotia. Inasmuch as the application met all the criteria for funding under the program a postitve recommendation was given by DR IE and the provincial Government.
Order Paper Questions
In order to ensure that the federal Government would not be favouring any one candidate over any other through programs accessible only to certain regions of the country, Fitness and Amateur Sport officials, upon hearing of the application, intervened requesting that no federal support be given. DRIE officials agreed with the position of FAS and the application for assistance was not approved and no federal funds were given.
2. Fitness and Amateur Sport has made no financial contribution to any of the bidding municipalities. To the best knowledge of FAS, no other federal government department has made any grant or contribution to any of the nine candidates.


Mr. Howie: In 1986, did the government pay production assistance to dairy farmers in New Brunswick and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes,


Mr. Howie: On January I, 1987, by rank, what number of persons were serving in the regular force of the Canadian Armed Forces?
Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence):	
Total Strength	
All ranks	86,302
Total Strength Officers	17,795
General	2
Lieutenant-General	10
Major-General	31
Brigadier-General	88
Colonel	365
Lieutenant-Colonel	1.066
Major	3,362
Captain	6,696
Lieutenant	2.164
Second-Lieutenant	1,214
Officer Cadet	2,797
Total Strength	
Non-commissioned Members	68.507
Chief Warrant Officer	920
Master Warrant Officer	2,440
Warrant Officer	4,925
Sergeant	10,410
Master Corporal	12,017
Corporal	21,267
Private (Trained)	4,451
Private (Basic)	11,045
Private (Recruit)	1,032

August 11. 1987
Immigration Act, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 134 and 143 could be made Orders for Returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 134 and 143 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stackhouse: For each of the years 1985 and 1986. did the Department of Public' Works award contracts over $10,000 to firms within metropolitan Toronto and, if so (a) how many contracts (b) what were the names and head office addresses of each firm?
Return tabled.


Mr. Caccia: In (a) 1985 (b) 1986, were any charges laid as a result of the violation of federal pollution legislation and. if so (i) how many (ii) under which Statutory authorities and what was the number of separate charges under each (iii) how many led to successful prosecutions and, in each case, what was the penalty?
Return tabled.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Marchi (p. 7338).
Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). I am sure that she, like the rest of the Members of Parliament in this Chamber, has been very busy answering the telephone and her mail over the past couple of weeks regarding the immigration policy, especially as it pertains to refugees.
I think the message we received, especially in my area of Essex-Kent, was that our constituents want the policy tightened up and tightened up reasonably fast. Of course that is why we are back in the Chamber today.
The Hon. Member will know that we are now debating an amendment at this time which calls for the policy not to be debated at the present time but to be debated six months hence. I am wondering how her constituents would react if we waited for six months.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague has brought that matter to my attention. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, we are actually debating the motion put forward by the Opposition that Bill C-55 should be hoisted for six months. My constituents in Capilano find that incredible, totally incredible. Most people do not follow the proceedings of this Chamber very carefully. In most cases I would have to mention to people that this had happened, that the Liberals in the first part of the debate immediately asked for a six-month hoist on this legislation, and that the NDP apparently supported it.
That is not what Canadians want. I think my colleagues across the House must be totally out of touch with public concerns on the issue. Canadians want action now. They want fairness, as I discussed in my speech earlier, but they want action and they want the legislation to be passed expeditiously. This is why 1 ask my colleagues in all Parties to work quickly to get this piece of legislation through all stages.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). As she probably knows, the United Nations Commission on Refugees has given an aide-memoire to the Government suggesting that Bill C-55 contravenes the convention on refugees. Amnesty International, the Canadian Bar Association, and all refugee organizations and church organizations in Canada have said the same thing, that the pre-screening provisions and appeal provisions of Bill C-55 are in direct contravention with the international obligations we have signed. They are in direct contravention with the Charter of Rights. Those statements have been made by anybody who knows anything about the business itself. Those statements have been made publicly.
The Hon. Member will also know that members of our Party have said that if the Government was prepared to make amendments to those two key items in Bill C-55 it could gain immediate acceptance and quick passage.
The Hon. Member should take into account all the evidence and weight coming from the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Commons committee including a majority of
August 1 1. 1987

Members from her own Party, the Plaut Commission, the churches, and the refugee organizations, which say that with one or two amendments to Bill C-55 it would then be acceptable. There could then be a consensus in the country; the Opposition has said that it would agree to it. Would the Hon. Member also agree that those amendments should be made and that therefore we could give total, quick, and immediate passage to the Bill within the next 24 hours and meet the requirements she says her constituents want?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my understanding that the United Nations Refugee Agency has not said that it would violate but that there is a possibility that it might.
I think one should look at the international comparison. If all these people are so upset by what we are proposing, in my mind it is far more fair and generous than the systems in place in Sweden, West Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
We are providing for the initial screening. We are providing for the possibility of hearings, due process, and return only to a safe country, which is determined by Order in Council. There are lots of provisions to make changes to meet differing situations.
Good heavens, 1 cannot think of any more safeguards which need to be in a Bill like this one, while at the same time ensuring that we get rid of illegal immigrants, people who abuse the system and try to enter the country illegally.
I am satisfied with the Bill, and certainly a comparison with every other western industrialized country would show that we are doing a tremendous job.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) after recognizing the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in her remarks before lunch the Hon. Member indicated that she had written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) some time ago, that she urged him to call Parliament together to deal with this question, and that she welcomed the fact that we had been brought back. If the matter is so important, if the issue must be dealt with so quickly, why did the Government not introduce the Bill before May 5? Why did we get one part of a day, three hours of debate on June 18, if it is so important? Why was there delay on the part of the Government?
1 also want to ask the Hon. Member a second question. Just over a year ago a group of Tamils came to Canada in exactly the same way as the Sikhs about whom she and other people are so upset. When they came to Canada the Prime Minister welcomed them and said that they would be treated fairly, with compassion, and in a humane way.
Immigration Act, 1976
What has changed? We see here that the Government has no policy at all. It will go in any direction which it thinks the public will, because it is so concerned about doing what it hopes people will support.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my colleague and some of his colleagues want to keep talking about the past when 1 am here to talk about what we need to do right now.
It would have been nice had the legislation come through more quickly, but I know there was a long process of consultation with all the groups my hon. colleague mentioned earlier and with the lawyers to ensure that it was legally correct and complied with the Charter of Rights. Obviously all this took time.
When it was introduced in May, as has already been indicated, the first response was a six-month hoist. It was evident that the co-operation of the opposition Parties was not to be forthcoming in the limited time we had.
In terms of the Canadian public, it was upset last year when the first boat load came. I remember it well. However, what has happened now is that they are even angrier. There is a fear that this can happen over and over again, that we do not have the tools in place to remedy the situation. They are demanding, as 1 am demanding, that we get those tools in place, that we get Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 in place so that we have control over the borders of the country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) that there was a time when Canada took pride in its leadership on refugee matters. Canada provided new standards to which the world would respond. For that reason, we were awarded a prize for exemplary conduct. To compare Canada with other countries does not impress us because there was a time when we felt Canada showed leadership in this area and did not follow.
The Hon. Member said that the Bill took time because of the consultation process. Does consultation not also mean listening and responding? If time was taken to consult with all the groups I mentioned, why were they not heard? Why were their objections not responded to? Why were the changes recommended by every single reputable organization involved in refugee matters totally rejected by the Government? Why did the Government take the perverse, reactionary way it has taken when the weight of opinion around the world and in Canada was that we could solve the refugee problem expeditiously within three months and still retain our rights and obligations under the covenant? Why did the Government go so wrong?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, first, Canada does have a good reputation with respect to refugees and it will continue to have a good reputation.

August 11, 1987
Business of the House


Lloyd Axworthy: It used to have.


Mary Collins: In fact, this year we will be accepting up to 12,000 government-sponsored refugees, and of course refugees are sponsored privately through churches and organizations. There is no limit on privately sponsored refugees and these refugees go through the proper channels for dealing with refugees. Indeed, we are and will continue to be one of the most generous countries in our response to real refugees and refugee-producing situations.
In terms of consultation, this Government and this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) listen to Canadians. Is that not a surprise? We do not simply listen to special interest groups. We do not simply listen to people who have a particular interest. We listen to a broad cross-section of people and we need to respond to the concerns they have. In fact, we have incorporated-


Lloyd Axworthy: So the Citizens' Coalition isn't what you would call real Canadians?


Mary Collins: I am answering the question. We did respond. We incorporated many of the recommendations and we responded to the basic concerns of Canadians who wanted us to deal with this issue and deal with it quickly and effectively right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among Parties and I think you would find that there would be unanimous consent for my proposal. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) had a private Member's item scheduled for today, but unfortunately he cannot be in the House. We have discussed this with Opposition House Leaders and it has been agreed to suspend Private Members' Hour for today and continue with the business before the House prior to that hour until 6 p.m., at which time the adjournment proceedings will take place. We have also agreed that the Hon. Member's item should be dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I can indeed confirm that there have been negotiations. I would just like to remind the House that this cannot be considered a precedent for any future time when a Private Member's Bill is not proceeded with. 1 do not want to create any precedents at all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say that there have been extensive consultations on this matter. As my hon. friend has indicated, we do not want this to set a precedent. However, I think it does indicate the spirit in which opposition Parties are trying to facilitate sensible and thoughtful debate on these very critical issues. We look forward to hearing the next
speaker with a great deal of anticipation. Again, we as opposition Parties are trying to make this place work. In that respect, when the request came, our first response was to cooperate as fully as possible.


IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Marchi, (p. 7338).
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, why has Parliament been called back into emergency summer session? Where is the emergency? Where is the crisis? The Government is using the smoke-screen of the refugee question as a pretext for quick passage of the Bill providing for changes to our drug legislation. This legislation has been demanded by the Americans as part of their required agenda in the free trade negotiations with our country.
It is no coincidence that the Chairman of President Reagan's advisory board on trade also happens to be the Chairman of Pfizer Corporation, one of the large American multinationals. The Americans have kept no secrets from us. Unlike our Government, they have been open with their priorities and their wish list. At the top of that list, of course, is this legislation which would open up more patent protection for American multinational pharmaceutical companies in Canada. That is the real agenda and the reason we are here.
We are here because Your Honour refused to grant the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) the privilege of recognizing it to be in the public interest to recall Parliament only for the drug legislation. Your Honour quite justifiably refused that request.
The Deputy Prime Minister, on the instructions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), returned with a better subterfuge. It was not good enough to be direct about it and to state the priorities of the Government, so be indirect and choose the refugee question which has inflamed Canadian public opinion during the summer.

Mr. Speaker, it is probably the first time in history that the Parliament of a sovereign country like Canada is convened for an emergency session to adopt legislation at the behest of the government of another country. The Conservative Government is using the refugee question as an excuse to push through quickly the amendments to our drug patent legislation requested by the Americans in the course of the free trade talks. The new legislation will cause the price of drugs in
August 1 1, 1987

Canada to increase by hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The poor, the sick, the handicapped, the elderly and low-income families will be worst hit by these price increases, and all because the Government caved in to the Americans.
The Prime Minister is of course hoping that with the uproar about the Government's bungling of the refugee question, Canadians will not realize that his real purpose in reconvening the House was to adopt this Bill. This is one of the most cynical and most desperate acts of a cynical and desperate Government.

Why then has Parliament been recalled? Does the public interest demand that the House of Commons sit merely to deal with the issue of the 174 Sikhs, particularly in view of the fact that there is already legislation before the House dealing with the issue? The Government had advance notice of this. It was given weeks of warning. It should have taken control of the situation. Instead, it allowed it to happen the way it did.
Why wait to declare an emergency session of Parliament when, in the previous three years, the Government failed to reform the refugee determination system despite the urgings of the commission under the chairmanship of Rabbi Gunther Plaut, despite the urgings of the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, indeed despite the urgings of the two opposition Parties as well as NGOs and Canadian churches? Why did the Government wait until May of this year, almost a full year after the boatload of Tamils landed last summer, to introduce Bill C-55 before the House of Commons? Why did it bring Bill C-55 before the House for second reading debate only in the dying days of the June session? Why did the Government allow a total of only three hours of debate? Where was the urgency? Where was the crisis? Where was the need to deal with it now?
The Government's record and the Government's actions clearly demonstrate an indifference to and a low priority for the issue. Now, in a desperate attempt to cover up its inaction, as a pretext to recall Parliament, the Government is trying to send a message to Canadians that it is in control, when the very opposite is true.
Deep concern has been expressed to me by Canadians all over the country. In my own riding of Vancouver Quadra the phone has been ringing off the hook. When I was there for two or three days two and a half weeks ago, my constituency office received 190 phone calls on this subject on one day, July 24. I have confirmed with the other constituency offices in the Vancouver area that our situation was not unique. Capital punishment paled by comparison. Perhaps that is what influenced His Honour to recall the House. He shares the boundary of 41st Avenue across the centre of Vancouver.
Public opinion on the refugee issue has been manipulated by the Government. There have been selective leaks that there may be terrorists among the recent arrivals off Nova Scotia.
Immigration Act, 1976
There was a massive phoney search for a mysterious vessel reputedly carrying more people to this country. It turned out to be not true and a farce. It reminded us very much of an old poem by Samuel Coleridge. We had the colourful rhetoric of the Prime Minister on his recent visit to rural Manitoba. 1 see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) sitting here. He was the host to the Prime Minister in the Town of Steinbach, which I passed by yesterday.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Great reception.


John Napier Turner: He got a great reception but he did not have the guts to go to Winnipeg. He floated around rural Manitoba because he wanted to be shepherded by the Minister and his colleague, the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board, to where he could be assured of a manicured, controlled and friendly reception. It was a miniature election campaign. As a personal note to the Minister let me say that he must have felt proud walking down the main street of Steinbach, the automobile capital of Manitoba.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Of Canada.


John Napier Turner: 1 have the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) in such a buoyant mood today, I do not want to interfere with his domain of Oshawa.
Can we blame Canadians for being confused? The Government has bungled and mismanaged the refugee issue ever since it assumed power in September, 1984. Of one thing I am sure. Canadians are a reasonable, fair and tolerant people. They want a fair resolution of this issue.

A large majority of Canadians support a non-discriminatory immigration policy. We must welcome immigrants and refugees because we need them. Canada needs a bigger population to help develop this vast country of ours, to create new markets and new jobs.
We want to promote family reunification, and our generous immigration policy has enjoyed the support of Canadians throughout this century.

Canadians believe in an expansive, non-discriminatory immigration policy. It has made us the rich country we are today. It has given us the broadening heritage and spirit of tolerance we enjoy today.
Canadians also believe in an open and compassionate refugee policy. Historically we have received with open arms people from all over the world who are genuinely fleeing the threat of death, torture, persecution, intimidation or imprisonment. We have always given the benefit of the doubt to those who are genuinely seeking a haven and a new home in Canada. This was true of Hungary in 1956, Poland in 1972, people from Uganda or the boat people from Vietnam. Canadians have always opened their hearts, their doors and their homes when the issue is clear and beyond question. At the same time

August 11, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
they do not want to see the system abused. They do not want commercial trafficking in the lives of desperate people. They do not want manipulation of lives in hopeless transit. They do not want commercialization of those seeking refuge. They do not want manipulation of a system that they believe should be fair and orderly. Jumping the line and cutting the queue does not meet the test of fairness. It calls into question the credibility of our refugee policy and tests the legitimacy of our immigration programs. Canadians, usually open and tolerant, become suspicious. Each of us in this House have people in our constituencies we have been trying to help to reunite their families. This is particularly true of those of us who live in the large metropolitan centres of Canada. Those people have been trying to reunite their families for years and they resent the arrival of those who appear to be bypassing the system.
Why has this happened? The Conservative Government created a refugee backlog and the resulting backlash against refugees and immigrants, this despite the fact that over the past three years we in this Party have repeatedly called for the Government to bring in a more efficient refugee claims system. The Tories have seemed incapable of doing so despite the promise of action by several Tory Ministers. The current Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), when she was Minister of Employment and Immigration, promised legislation as early as November, 1985. That statement is on record before Your Honour.
The number of refugees landing on our shores went up from 7.000 in 1984 to 18,000 in 1986 and 16,000 in the first six months of 1987. Not only did the Government fail to introduce legislation earlier, it compounded the problem by granting administrative reviews or amnesties. In the long run that action to clear up the backlog had the opposite effect. It stimulated the growth of a new industry, immigration consultants, manipulators and exploiters in human traffic. This resulted in a large increase in the number of people landing on our shores in 1986.
Furthermore, despite the fact that under existing law the Government has the authority to deport refugee claimants whose appeal process has run out, it has repeatedly refused to do so. resulting in a further loss of credibility for our system. Worse, the Government has adopted what can only be called a selective approach to immigrants and refugees. Consider these facts. The total number of immigrants admitted to Canada in 1974 stood at over 200,000, compared to only 87,000 in 1986. Not only has the Conservative Government put a higher priority on the immigrant entrepreneur than past Liberal Governments did-note that the number of entrepreneur immigrants rose from 3,500 to 5,400 in 1986-but it has replaced the standards for qualifying in that category. Under Liberal Governments immigrant entrepreneurs needed more than just money to get into this country. They needed the appropriate skills which would allow them to contribute in a meaningful way to the growth of our economy. The Government has taken a different approach. It has moved to the top of the list anyone with enough money to invest. If you have
enough dough, you can buy your way in. Contrast that with the number of immigrants approved from the family class which dropped by 10,000 between 1984 and 1986.
We want improvements to the refugee system. The process is too long and too complicated. The long delays are unfair to genuine refugees. The long delays, prolonged by the Government, have led to the massive abuses and attempts to bypass the system. Bill C-55 does not improve the system. It makes it less fair.
We have proposed a reduction of steps in the process from eight to three. My colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), who responded admirably to the Minister this morning, set out our concerns. Our first concern with Bill C-55 is that in the pre-screening process proposed the crucial first step, the right to an oral hearing, is denied. That is the primary reason we oppose the legislation. It may mean that up to half of all claimants to refugee status may be denied refugee status without ever being able to present their case fully.
Our second concern is that Bill C-55 allows the Government, under the so-called third country concept, simply to deport claimants to that country without considering how that country may treat such individuals. The Government does not care if it ships someone to a third country from which that person could immediately be sent back to his or her own country to face persecution, death, torture or imprisonment. Our proposal is that we would not return anyone to a third country unless that person had refugee or landed immigrant status in that country.
[ Translation]
The third concern of our Party and of our caucus relates to the appeal process. Provision is made only for appeals pertaining to purely technical questions. During this process the claimant must leave the country while waiting for a ruling. That is unfair.
The fourth concern: the refugee board is inadequate. Since it is now provided that a Government lawyer will submit elements of proof it is false to claim that there will be no confrontation.

Our fifth concern is how this affects our international responsibilities. We know that we cannot take in 10 million or 15 million refugees looking for homes, but we do want to do our share. What if every country were to adopt the same third country concept? All the doors would be closed to legitimate refugees.
This Bill has now been subject to public gaze for a number of months. What do other people think of the legislation, the people who deal with refugees? The Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) implied that they do not have any special hearing before this House, but they are the people to whom I believe we should look for some advice, particularly Rabbi
August 1 1, 1987

Gunther Plaut, the author of a study on this very question. With regard to this Bill he says:
It docs not do justice to our international obligations to protect refugees. Nazi Germany would qualify as a safe country under Canada's proposed new refugee rules. I don't think that I would have been let in. I came in the 1930s from Nazi Germany. The Government is building a Berlin Wall around the country.
Tom Clark of the Interchurch Committee for Refugees says:
Instead of access, there is a screen. Instead of bringing Canada a notch ahead of European countries, the Immigration Minister has brought it down to their level. It's despicable.
Michael Schelew of Amnesty International says:
It's an about-face on Canada's humanitarian record that may place people fleeing persecution in jeopardy.
Lome Waldman of the Canadian Jewish Congress says:
A long-term aim of the Immigration Department is to eliminate all refugee claims within Canada. The Government has spent millions of dollars and innumerable hours consulting on this problem, and everyone's recommendations have been ignored altogether.
That is the verdict on Bill C-55 which is now before the House. That is the verdict of people to whose opinions we should pay attention.
There was a new Bill introduced this morning labelled Bill C-84. The Government attempted to introduce debate immediately without an opportunity for the country, and the Opposition in particular, to look at it. We received, on a so-called confidential basis, a draft at 5.30 last evening. It was not a complete draft at that. We got official copies just before the House met and were then required by the Government to respond to this very difficult and complicated Bill on this very vital human question.
We will study it. My colleague, the Member for York West, has already given an initial response. We will examine whether the remedies are enforceable. Are these procedures appropriate? Is there sufficient due process? Are existing remedies under existing statutes already sufficient? What sort of legislative duplication have we here? What sort of judicial complications have we here? What sort of constitutional doubts are we raising here?
For example, will we give the same treatment to those individuals, church groups, and so on which bend the rules to bring in legitimate refugees as we do to those unscrupulous commercial operators who exploit illegitimate refugees in order to circumvent the system?
Bill C-84 needs the careful scrutiny which Bill C-55 has already received. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-84 cannot be read alone. It must be read with Bill C-55. Why were there no abuse provisions in Bill C-55 which is now before Your Honour? Why have one Bill with the procedural remedies and enforcement provisions and another with the substance of the law relating to refugees? You cannot study the remedies or enforcement procedures without reviewing the substance. Until we are satisfied with Bill C-55 we will not feel comfortable with Bill C-84 because they are one package.
Immigration Act. 1976
We are in favour of tough measures against profiteers and abusers. We want to examine carefully whether the measures in Bill C-84 are targeted properly. We must have a fair system in place before we design measures against abuse of the system. The system is in Bill C-55 and we are not satisfied with it. The remedies in Bill C-84 must be read in conjunction with the substantial measures contained in this Bill. We do not favour jumping the queue or cutting the line, but we do not favour closing the theatre either.
[ Translation)
We do not favour jumping the queue, we do not favour cutting the line, but we do not favour closing the theater either.

1 believe that Canadians want a larger population to help develop our vast land, create new markets and new jobs. The low fertility rate in the country and the aging population will become a real concern for our country by the year 2000, particularly for maintaining productivity and providing a tax base adequate to support our social programs. I do not have to deal with the phantom issue that immigrants and refugees take jobs away from other Canadians. That does not happen. The entrepreneurship, the work, the ideas and the resources have historically provided more jobs than were ever replaced.
We continue to hold that liberal view on immigration. As I said earlier, we also deplore the abuse of our refugee system by unethical consultants and other profiteers. We will support any reasonable measures designed to crack down on the abusers of refugees and of the system. Contrary to what the Government would have the public believe, there are already legislative measures in place to allow the Government to detain and deport people who may be a threat to the security of Canada. There are also measures on the books already aimed at consultants which the Government has refused to use. We will want to ensure that the new measures are better than what we already have. Why the duplication? Why the failure to use what is already on the statute books of the country?
Sections 19 through 32 of the Immigration Act, 1976, declare persons with a criminal record or those likely to engage in criminal activity, inadmissible to Canada.
In order to be deported under those sections, persons must first be given an oral hearing. There is also Section 95(1), (j) and (n), which allow for prosecution of consultants and other profiteers.
Section 95(n), which was used to prosecute the captain of the Amelie, provides, on an indictable offence, for a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both; and, on a summary conviction offence, for a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both. As well, the fraud sections of the Criminal Code have always been available to the Government. What are the effects of this cumulative remedy?

August 11, 1987
Adjournment Debate

We have constantly urged the Government to implement the changes recommended as early as in 1980 by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and formally proposed in 1984 by Ed Ratushny and in 1985 by Rabbi Plaut, well before the refugee problem grew worse.

We also have sought an expanded definition of the family class which corresponds more accurately with many immigrants' notion of extended family living. We will examine very carefully the action announced by the Minister this morning.
At the same time we must make it abundantly clear to the immigrant community that an immigrant who does not have sufficient points to get into Canada does not lose his spot in line because his place is taken by a refugee. We are talking about a new stream of admissions to the country. The refugee is admitted to Canada on an entirely different set of criteria, namely, genuine fear of political, religious, or racial persecution.
Finally, we call upon the Government of Canada to seek actively, by way of a United Nations conference or Commonwealth conference, the participation of other countries confronted with similar strains on their refugee systems. This is not an isolated problem, this is a global phenomenon. We need to work with other countries toward a mutually satisfactory solution. Refugees are on the conscience of Canada, but they are also a global responsibility.
We must stress a co-operative attitude toward solving this international problem. 1 say to the Prime Minister and the Minister, give us a fair system. Canadians will support that. Canadians will be generous and open, but target the abuses carefully and do it in a spirit of firmness, reasonably, with openness and generosity.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Pharmaceutical industry-Committee Proceedings-Hearing of witnesses-Minister's position; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Harbourfront- Moratorium on Toronto waterfront construction projects; the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry)- Regional development-Northern Ontario-Alleged transfer of public service jobs-Request for freeze on job transfers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Marchi (p. 7338).
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on this very important issue and to speak to this vital piece of legislation.
There has been a tendency by some to read the worst into the new provisions. One of the most important points for us to understand is that in devising strategies and policies that address the needs of refugees, we always need to look beyond the immediate and domestic solutions. More and more, countries are coming to see that addressing the problems of refugees is an international endeavour. As a Canadian delegate to the 106-country international parliamentary union recently, I proposed that the question of refugees be addressed at the fall conference in Bangkok, Thailand. This proposal was adopted due to the urgency of this world-wide problem of refugees.
Refugee problems can only be resolved by finding solutions to their root causes, by long-term efforts to promote development, self-reliance, and respect for human rights.
Initially, the primary need of every refugee is a safe haven. Without access to a country of safe haven and without an ability to uphold the principle of safe haven as a primary need, none of the approaches or solutions advocated by the international community will work.
Initially, a refugee needs to find a place, any place, where he or she will be free from torture or the threat of death, and where basic needs for food and shelter will be met.
The search for a safe haven was not, as we all know, what motivated the tens of thousands of bogus refugees who have overburdened our system in recent years. The decision by refugees to leave the safe haven provided by another country in order to ask for safe haven in Canada, while understandable, is not a refugee matter.
While we understand the preference for this country over another, individual preference cannot dictate national policy. We welcome, however, their applications as immigrants. Our convention refugee determination system must remain open for those who really need it.
At the request of the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration, the number of refugee processing officers, both at home and abroad, was increased due to the higher demand. However, the processing of immigrants and refugees must be done in an orderly fashion. We cannot have chaos,
August 11, 1987

whether it be at home or abroad. Third country nationals cannot decide for Canadians who should jump the line or who should have priority.
Canadians have rights too, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise), mentioned earlier this afternoon. Through our laws, and with the assistance of very competent officers both at home and abroad, they can decide who will be allowed into Canada and under what conditions.
My constituents especially favour family reunification and do not want to tell their relatives to jump the line. As Eli Weisel, the Nobel Prize laureate reminded us not too long ago: "A society can be measured and judged by its attitude to strangers". I believe we have measured up to these humanitarian standards time and time again. This legislation will allow us to continue to open our doors to strangers, and more particularly, the neediest among them.
Let us look at the principles of the new system. Let us examine how this obligation is honoured in the structure of the new system.
The new system will deal quickly with claims. That is, it will deal quickly with those submitting bogus claims and will attend quickly to those whose claims have real merit. This is what hundreds of my constituents in Willowdale have told me over the past number of weeks: deal with the problem quickly and do it now.
My constituents understand that the current immigration and refugee processing system was set in motion some time ago by the previous Liberal regime, reinforced by the Charter of Rights. This system has gone haywire and is now abused.
My constituents in Willowdale want a fair and open system. This is an open system. Everyone will have the opportunity to make a claim to Canada's protection at home and also abroad. No one will be turned away without having an opportunity to appear before a member of the refugee board.
It is a system which establishes the highest standards of fundamental justice. First, proceedings are oral. Second, the claimant is entitled to be represented by counsel. Third, in many cases, legal representation is provided even free of charge. Decision-making on arguable cases will be made by an independent quasi judicial panel and, once again, individuals will present their claims in a non-adversarial and oral hearing. Those awaiting their hearings before a refugee board will be allowed to work and attend school. Welfare and health care benefits will be provided through federal-provincial costsharing programs, which is not the case under the current system. Successful claimants will be entitled to apply for permanent residence. These are the principles and the benefits delivered in the body of the Act.
To date we have heard many arguments. We have heard criticisms and demands that the Bill be withdrawn or postponed. Some have argued that the Bill does not say what we
Immigration Act, 1976
think it says. If there is a legitimate doubt about all this, let us talk about it and consider amendments if necessary. There are other criticisms. However, what is abundantly clear is that this system will stand up where the current system does not. The existing system is based on principles which just do not work in practice, for instance, full access of all claimants to the refugee board for refugee determination, and there are two levels of review.
It does not really matter how you arrange the steps of the process. This is a system which just does not work for everyone because the principles are wrong. They were wrong when the system was conceived, and 1 referred to that earlier, and their inability to stand the test of events and time has been shown again and again.
We are not the first who have come this route. Other countries have tried and failed. I say to those who still criticize to look at what is being proposed under the new system as a whole, as it has been designed. Look at the insistence on quality, on fairness above all and on the benefit of the doubt being given at every stage. In short, I believe Bill C-55 will provide the solution to the problems which have been plaguing us and that it will allow our refugee determination system to distinguish between the genuine refugee in need of our protection and all other claimants who are not in need of our protection.
The principles behind Bill C-55 are right for Canada. They are right for the present and they will be right for the future. My constituency of Willowdale, and the country, support these principles. I would hope, therefore, that during the course of this debate we could focus on improving the Bill, smoothing the rough edges and clarifying the ambiguities. Further delay is not going to solve anything. It is not going to benefit anyone, least of all the people in need of our protection.
I urge all those who would still be a dissenting voice to keep in mind the objective, which I believe we all share and which this legislation honours, which is to support the genuine refugees in need of help regardless of number and without limit. But the economic migrants and the queue jumpers must obey our Canadian laws. They cannot continue to lie and cheat their way into this country.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of my colleague who is on the multicultural committee, namely, the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom). He has endeavoured in his comments on Bill C-55 to provide the right rhetoric required for the Government to put this Bill forward. He talks about it being fair and open and so on. He suggests it is going to provide for our future needs. Yet I sense in his comments as he talked about bogus refugees, his last observations on people who supposedly come to Canada primarily for economic reasons, a certain aversion to refugees and perhaps to immigrants generally.

August 11, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
I want to ask the Hon. Member how in his defence of Bill C-55 this afternoon, with all his rhetoric, he can reconcile these observations with the fact that practically everyone concerned about refugees in Canada opposes Bill C-55? How can the Hon. Member reconcile what he calls this fair system in which people have to make their case very quickly when they arrive and can be turned away by an administrative decision? How can he reconcile his sense that Bill C-55 will protect refugees with the conclusion of those who work with the present system that Bill C-55 would have the effect of turning away 50 percent, perhaps 90 percent of people who make claims on Canada as refugees? Surely we do not have that many people making bogus claims. How can the Hon. Member reconcile his defence of the system with the rejection of Bill C-55 by everyone across the country who is concerned about Canada maintaining its record of providing a refuge to persons in danger of their lives elsewhere? How can he reconcile this with Canada's receipt of the Nansen Medal?


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have resorted to rhetoric. 1 have only expressed the views of my constituents. 1 trust the judgment of my constituents in Willowdale.
With respect to generosity, Canada allowed in about 18,000 refugees last year and it looks as if we are going to have at least 20,000 this year. This is why we received the Nansen Medal. And this will continue. The generosity of Canadians will continue in the future. This administration has increased immigration year after year and we will continue to do so. As we do so, the levels of refugees will rise. Canadians are generous. We are humanitarian and will continue to be. 1 think the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) is giving us a bit of rhetoric himself.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the House that we are presently debating an amendment of the Liberal Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). He moved that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence. It is the position of the Liberal Party that debate and discussion on this Bill should be delayed for six months. This amendment was made by the first speaker on the Liberal Party side. It was supported by the New Democratic Party.
I ask the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom), how will the people in his constituency, those people who stand by law and order and the queue, take to the suggestion of the Liberal Party, supported by the NDP, that this Parliament not even discuss the Bill for six months? How do the members of the constituency of Willowdale feel about that suggestion?


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, the feedback 1 have received over the past month is that we definitely should deal with it now. My constituents wanted me to come back. They phoned me while I was on a trip for a few days to the United States and asked me to come back. They will not stand for any postponement. They want us to deal with it right now. There
will be ample opportunity if we are here for one week, two weeks or three weeks. 1 am willing to stay for the whole month. There is no problem at all. Let us deal with this matter now. We have a large number of members here. We have members of the employment and immigration committee here. 1 think we should deal with it now and not later.
One of my constituents, Mr. Van Noord, has been waiting for 17 years to bring his sister-in-law here from Jamaica. He told me to deal with it now because this whole question has to be settled. He also mentioned that he would like the Minister to increase the family reunification program in the coming years. I am very happy to note this morning that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) has given some indication that this may be the case.
.10)


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since the Parliamentary Secretary seems to rise after every speaker to bring the attention of the House to the fact that we are indeed debating an amendment to the main motion, I would like to make the point that the so-called main motion was part of a process that the Government initiated on May 5 last. After three years in power it decided to do something about this important problem. We do not disagree with the actions being taken by the Government. It left this matter sitting there from May 5 until June 18 when it called the Bill for all of one day's debate-some emergency! In approximately nine and one-half months of sitting time last year and after three years of being in power, disorganized as it is, that is all the time the Government could find to come to grips with this problem.
My question to the Hon. Member is this. The third country concept, the friendly third country concept, is in my view and in the view of my constituents one of the most important parts, and perhaps even one of the serious weaknesses, of Bill C-55. How does the Hon. Member feel about the safe third country concept? Does he feel comfortable with the fact that refugees, possibly bona fide refugees, will come to Canada and be told to go back to a safe third country? Will he wash his hands of the problem as Pontius Pilate did? Does the Hon. Member feel comfortable with that?


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I feel very comfortable indeed with it. I recently travelled through Holland and Germany. The Governments of Holland and Germany are very pleasantly surprised that Canada will take people from their countries, that Canada is willing and has even increased its staff in these countries to process genuine refugees. They give their full cooperation in this regard.
1 am also pleased to note that the United States has given its assistance to us in that if there are genuine refugees in the United States who are in our stream, whether they be at border points, at consulates or embassies in the United States, it will not deport genuine refugees. I am very grateful that these countries co-operate with Canada to process refugees.
August 11, 1987

This Bill was in place in May. Our priorities in the past have been with respect to getting Canadians working again. As we got Canadians working, other problems cropped up. But this Bill was in place in May. There was ample opportunity in the month of May and in the month of June-even during the last days of Parliament-to help us process it. However, there was no willingness on the part of the Opposition, which is why we are back here today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak on Bill C-55. 1 do so because I would like to direct my remarks to many of my constituents who have telephoned my constituency office in great numbers and who have written to us here in Ottawa. I wanted to do so at the earliest possible time. This being the afternoon of the first day that Parliament has been recalled I am proud to be able to get up to speak.
1 wish to acknowledge that this has been a good debate thus far. It is shaping up to be an excellent debate. It is a very important one. The public has a great deal of interest in it. 1 am pleased to be back in Ottawa to face this issue.
I wish to acknowledge the excellent speech made by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who spoke in reply to the Minister this afternoon. I also wish to acknowledge the speech given by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) who represents the constituency next to mine in Vancouver. Many of the things he said in his speech rang true to my ears.
I said that we have had many telephone calls. Indeed, my constituency assistants, Mr. Adrian Dix and Mrs. Sharon Olsen, have listened patiently to a number of people who have been very angry when they have phoned on this matter. We have probably had more calls on this issue than on any other issue, even more than on the capital punishment issue.
My riding is a multicultural riding in the southeast part of Vancouver. Indeed, my riding receives something like 2,200 new citizens a year. 1 think that is certainly the largest number of new citizens of any riding in British Columbia, and perhaps it is the largest in Canada. Thus there are many people who have a great deal of concern about immigration and who may be recent immigrants themselves or who may want to bring in their families. There is no doubt that no one wants queuejumping in Canada. Hon. Members have mentioned that already. People want a fair immigration process, as do families who want to bring their brothers and sisters into the country but who cannot. 1 am pleased that the Minister announced some lessening of the restrictions concerning these people.
This is a Government that has cut back on immigration, contrary to what the Hon. Member who just spoke said. I believe it has cut down on immigration. It has also encouraged other types of immigration. It has encouraged people to buy
Immigration Act, 1976
their way into the country as opposed to bringing in people through the area of family reunification.
As I have said, there is a great deal of concern out there about queue-jumping from people who are immigrants themselves and who want to bring in their families. There is also a concern, and one which 1 have to deal with in the Vancouver context, and 1 will deal with it honestly, about violence in the lndo-Canadian community. They see Sikhs coming into Canada and, in some instances, the presence of representatives of revolutionary organizations in the Sikh community. Right across from my constituency office, a lawyer, Ujjal Dosanjh, was beaten up because he was an outspoken moderate. That incident occurred right across from my office.
After that incident there was the assassination of Mrs. Ghandi. There were demonstrations in celebration of that in the streets of Vancouver by a very small group of people. There was also the blowing up of the airline, which resulted in the tragic loss of many families and especially children who were on their way back to India for vacations and family visits.
1 ask Hon. Members to make no mistake about it, that has inflamed the people in the country, and partly those in Vancouver.
The majority of people in the country do not want the Kalistan issue fought in Canada, or fought from Canada. The great majority of people want to make their lives here in Canada. It is the same with other issues, not just the Kalistan issue. For example, with respect to the Irish issue, we do not want fights in Canada. We want peace in Canada where people can live together in a multicultural society. We all believe in that. Everyone in this House believes in that.
I heard from a colleague of mine from up North who has a Sikh friend who is a postmaster. This man has been a postmaster in a small town for 20 years. Twenty years ago he used to hear comments about a Sikh being a postmaster. Of course, he was accepted into the community because he is a good postmaster and a good person. Now, today, he is hearing comments again in the same vein. So we must be careful with what is happening in the country.
I want to say to the people who have called my office, many of whom have said: "I am not racist but-", that they do not have to apologize. They are not racist when they call in about their concerns. One can have concerns about this issue and not be racist. However, one can also have concerns about it and be racist. But people have called with genuine concerns. 1 want to acknowledge that.
I think that there is a feeling out in the country that the genuine refugees should be let in and the phoneys should be kicked out. But that is easier said than done when the matter has to be put into law. 1 want to remind my constituents and Members of the House about some matters which I think are important. First, we are bound by international law. As the Minister said earlier today, refugees are defined as people who flee because of a well-grounded fear of prosecution. We are

August 1 1, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
signatories to those conventions. We have to deal with refugees who come to our borders. 1 get the feeling that many of our people do not understand that, that there is this refugee law to which Canada is a signatory. We received an international award, as an Hon. Member just said, for our treatment of refugees. I am told that since World War II we have accepted
500.000	refugees: 40,000 Hungarians, 7,000 Ugandans,
100.000	Vietnamese, and many others. We have always accepted many refugees. Let us not panic that we have refugees. Let us try to deal with the problem within the international context.
My mother once said that your reputation is everything. That applies to an individual, and it also applies to a country. Canada's reputation is everything in the international scene. We have one of the best reputations in the world. We do not wish to lose that reputation. We have to be very careful when we deal with this Bill C-55. Therefore, I am telling my constituents to remember our United Nations and world obligation to refugees, and let us not be stampeded into passing a bad Bill. It is important to examine this law very carefully. 1 will not go into all the pros and cons of the Bill. It has already been dealt with in debate. I think there have been instances in the House where, by proceeding rapidly with a Bill in a fit of panic, a bad Bill can be produced. There can be another War Measures Act. I do not think that we wish that.
1 wish to remind Canadians that we are a nation of immigrants. I am an immigant from Scotland. There are other people from many different countries of the world. The immigrants coming into this country helped to create jobs and made this economy hum after the Second World War. We should not forget that. We should not have the mentality that once we are in will pull up the plank. Let us remember that we still need immigrants. We need honest, good immigrants in a fair system.
I will be a little more partisan here in reminding my constituents that they should not trust this Government. It knew two years ago of the Rabbi Plaut report on refugees. In 1985, in its fifth report the House of Commons committee brought forward recommendations. These abuses have been going on for a number of years. In the House in 1982 1 asked a question about immigration consultants. 1 had recently returned from Hong Kong where 1 saw and heard about some unscrupulous people who were milking helpless, desperate people who wanted to emigrate to Canada. This problem has been around for a long time. For Members opposite to say that it is the Opposition that has stopped them from acting on this is patently nonsense. The Government has 209 Members of Parliament to our 73 in the Opposition. It is misleading the people to say that the Government could not have done anything with this Bill before and it is all the fault of the Opposition. I think that the Government wanted Parliament recalled to pass the drug patent Bill. In my view, that Bill means that prices will go up for people. The drug patent Bill is
a pay-off to Ronald Reagan and the American administration for favours on the free trade negotiations. That is why it is there. The drug Bill is not a popular Bill in this country. It is to pay off the drug lobby and its friends in the United States. 1 ask my constituents to remember that when they are judging the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) Government in recalling Parliament.
We will remember that a few months ago the Prime Minister welcomed the Tamils and stated that they were welcome in Canada. Suddenly we have another boatload, this time of Sikhs, and Parliament is recalled. We send the Navy out on a wild goose chase for some other boat that was coming which was found somewhere else. It was a ridiculous situation.
1 see this Government recalling Parliament to try to inflame public opinion on this issue to show that it is decisive, so it can try to recover from its abysmal showing in the public opinion polls. My constituents are not fooled by that. They are not stupid.
1 wish to say a couple of other general things. Angus Maclnnis, who represented the riding of Vancouver- Kingsway. is somewhat of a hero to me because in 1944 he stood up in the House when the Canadian Government was deporting the Japanese Canadians, putting them in concentration camps, and taking their property. He spoke out against what his wife, Grace Maclnnis, later told me was a tidal wave of public opinion. 1 am afraid that sometimes the opinion of our people can be whipped up so that there can be a tidal wave of public opinion that would force us into passing a bad law. As Edmund Burke said 200 years ago, my job is to give my electors my judgment. My judgment is that we should change the immigration system. We must have a fairer system that is quicker; the delays are too long. We have to go against the people who are smuggling. As the Hon. Member for Spadina said, we must watch how that is defined. Are we dealing with sisters of the church who are helping Central American refugees at the border in Buffalo, or are we dealing with guys who are making a buck off a cheap boat from Germany, or unscrupulous immigration consultants? That must be looked at very carefully.
The other thing that Canadians must remember is that this problem will not go away. It is a new type of problem. We now have airlines that take us very quickly from one country to another. TV is around the world, and people can see how wonderful Canada is. There is a Third World debt crisis. Those economies are losing wealth, and they have precious little to lose. There is a lesson here in the sense that maybe through this Canadians can understand that debt problems and Third World development problems are not problems that do not touch Canadians, because they do. They mean refugees and people flowing into our country. In other words, I am trying to say that problem will not go away. We have to pass a Bill. Personally, 1 am in favour of passing a Bill, but Bill C-55 is not the answer. As the Hon. Member from Spadina stated. Bill C-55 does not send refugee claimants to a refugee board. It denies some principles contained in the UN treaties that we
August 11, 1987

have signed, and there is another way of doing it. I think that Bill C-55 will be an unworkable Bill.
On February 3, 1987, the Leader of our Party, Ed Broad-bent, wrote to the Minister of Immigration supporting a proposal of the Canadian Council of Churches for a refugee determination process. At our national convention in Montreal, the NDP passed a resolution calling for "a refugee determination process that is speedy, fair, and accessible to all, and which ensures the safety of those who seek refuge in Canada". There has been no lack of recommendations: the Robinson task force; the Ratushney report; the Gunther Plaut report; the fifth and sixth reports in November and December, 1985 of the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration; and the proposal of the Canada Council of Churches. The Government has ignored all this and brought in a bad Bill. It has now brought us back here in a panic because the refugee system is not working.
Our NDP proposal would include a process that could be completed in three months. All claimants would receive an oral hearing before an independent review board within two weeks of arriving. There could be a review of unsuccessful claims on the merits and on the facts perhaps to another board that is right there and that could be called soon. There would be an appeal to the Federal Court only on a matter of law which could be cleared up on another matter in at most three months. Therefore, unscrupulous lawyers would not delay the process and keep delaying it, because that is what lawyers would do. That is the way to have a system. The speed of the process would be a disincentive to frivolous, time-buying, false claims. It would comply with our international obligations, and it would prevent the deportation of legitimate refugees.
1 will conclude by saying that this is a weak Government which is trying to gain by appealing to some of the worst fears out there in the country. It has brought in a weak law. Our job is to make it better. That is what we will do in this particular Bill.
1 will remind Canadians that we are a charitable, thoughtful, and a civilized people. We are people from all different parts of the world. We have tried to adopt the best of the other countries in the world. We have always had a fair process for refugee claims. At the same time we are listening to what our people are saying on the telephone and in letters.
They want a fair process. They want to kick out unscrupulous people and keep genuine refugees. They do not want the battles of other countries to be fought in Canada; we have enough of our own problems here. They want Parliament to deal with the matter in an expeditious but fair way. That is what we will try to do.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on my hon. colleague's remarks. 1 disagree with most of his speech, but 1 should like to deal with only a couple of remarks. He is trying, like his colleagues earlier today, to come forward
Immigration Act, 1976
with the pretence that the Government has actually come back to deal with the Patent Act. That is patently nonsense. As 1 am sure the Hon. Member realistically knows, we are back here to deal with the refugee determination legislation.
Another comment he made-and I have also heard it from other Members on the opposition benches-is that somehow the Government has inflamed public opinion or that we somehow influenced the public to come forward with these concerns. My hon. colleague knows that that is nonsense. Was he out there phoning people, telling them to phone other people about this issue?
The feeling on this issue came from Canadians. They are inflamed and concerned about dealing with refugees. Nobody imposed that on them. 1 think it came out of their real, honest concern, which leads me to one area where I agree with my colleague.
What he was hearing from his constituents was exactly what I was hearing from mine, that we should let genuine refugees in and kick the phoneys out. That is what we will do with Bill C-55. The very first stage is the pre-screening stage. Those for whom there is no arguable claim-and there are many of them-will be kicked out. We will kick the phonies out. The genuine refugees will have the chance to go through the proper system of hearings, review, and appeal to the court.
We know we are dealing with a six-month hoist, the amendment to Bill C-55 brought forward by the Liberals, which would put it in limbo for six months. When this amendment comes to a vote, would the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) tell me whether he is going to vote for a six-month hoist and no action, or whether he is going to vote against it and let us get on with further discussion on Bill C-55?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me reply to that, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Edward Crosby: You are going to vote for it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member wants to read my mind. Sometimes I have trouble reading my own mind. 1 am glad he is so adept at doing it.
The Government tried to recall Parliament before. 1 do not want to get too deeply into this debate-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a fool's game, because Parliament is already recalled. 1 do not trust the Government, and I do not think the public trusts the Government. It tried to recall Parliament before for the drug patent Bill. It is dying to get that Bill; it has to get the Bill to satisfy the Americans. We are going to deal with the Bill as Parliament is sitting, so I think it is quite convenient for them to recall Parliament on this matter.
They could have sent a number of officers down there, every officer they had, and dealt with the 174 claimants very

August 11. 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
quickly. That was another alternative. Of course they did not do that.
There are allegations that the Department has been leaking documents. 1 believe the Hon. Member for Spadina has been talking about that.


Abram Ernest Epp: There have been no allegations.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, there have been allegations. Let me just explain, Mr. Speaker, that they are confidential documents of refugees who have given statements, in hearings, as I understand it, and suddenly the statements have come out. How have they come out? Who has leaked them? The only people who had access to them were basically government authorities. I call them "allegations", but nevertheless they are there.


Abram Ernest Epp: How about lawyers with retainers of several thousands of dollars a day?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister is talking about lawyers with several thousands of dollars a day-


Abram Ernest Epp: Think about that before you say those things.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: May I interrupt the Hon. Member and say that he is answering the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). 1 hope he will answer that question and then, if anybody else would like to ask questions or make a comment, I will recognize them accordingly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: With reference to other comments, there has been a phoney sea search which the Government seemed to orchestrate and which fell flat. We all thought another boat was coming with a lot more people. Where is it? That turned out to be like the Keystone Kops.
With respect to Bill C-55, we both agree with the principle, that the genuine ones come in and the bad ones go out quickly. However, I do not understand how the Hon. Member can explain why so many people-and I am not talking about immigration lawyers-who are fairly objective, have experience in immigration, and have dealt with refugees, think that Bill C-55 is a bad Bill. We have received telegram after telegram from groups saying that it is a terrible piece of legislation.
Finally, with respect to the six-month hoist, it is normal as a procedural move to propose a hoist, so the hoist is a no big deal situation. It is normal to do that when we want to oppose a Bill and want more debate on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That happens in the House of Commons. With respect to my vote, 1 will let the Hon. Member know which way I will vote when the matter is called for a vote.


Mary Collins: 1 will be watching.
[ Translation]


Mr. Ferland:: Mr. Speaker, 1 will give the Hon. Member a chance to use our interpretation services.
The Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party referred earlier to the fact that he was pleased with the support he received from the Liberal Senators on Bill C-22. 1 may remind him that this is a direct attack by the Liberal Senate against two governments in Quebec, the Bourassa Government and the Levesque Government, that each voted unanimously to urge the Liberal Government to pass legislation protecting drug patents. As 1 understand it, the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party supports this attack against the Government of Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 1 know the Hon. Member is a fairly new Member, but 1 should like to bring to his attention that he should not reflect upon the decision or what is happening in the other place. 1 think it is important that he realize that.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, regarding the subject before the House, which is the migrant problem, the Hon. Member said earlier that he felt the Government had been pretty ridiculous when it detailed ships to patrol our shores and prevent other vessels from landing illegal aliens.
He thinks all our measures were ridiculous. He thinks the Minister's Bill is ridiculous. He told us he did not know whether he would vote for or against the amendment.
1 would like to know his real position on Bill C-55. Will he be for or against, will he vote for or against the amendment? Could he be clear and precise and say whether it will be yes or no?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the Hon. Member for his question, but I did not say 1 supported the Senate, and I did not even mention the Senate and what its reaction was to the drug patents legislation.
However, 1 can say now 1 think the Senate is right. This is not a good Bill. The result will be higher prices for drugs for Canada's consumers and for my constituents. I am entirely against this Bill, and I say it is a Bill for the Americans, not for the average Canadian.
As far as the Navy is concerned, it was rather confusing because the Government and the Minister said there was a ship out there, but 1 didn't see any ships, and finally they found one in England. This is a ridiculous situation. 1 don't know the French expression for Keystone Cops, but in English, it means a situation that is ridiculous and idiotic.
As far as Bill C-55 is concerned, I am opposed to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming

debate. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer).
[English\


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with close attention to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Being a product of the Lakeshore, the area that I represent, I am always interested.
I agree with the Hon. Member when he says that we are having a good debate here today on this fundamental question that has seized the concerned minds of so many Canadians, but 1 fundamentally disagree with him when he contends that Parliament has been recalled this summer in order to fulfil some design of the Government to whip up public frenzy and concern over this issue.
I think the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has it completely backward. Parliament has been recalled in order to respond to the pre-existing public concerns, so adequately demonstrated from coast to coast, over the failure of Canada to have at its disposal adequate legal provisions to deal with those who would take advantage of Canada's very generous refugee determination provisions.
One of the things I have learned since being elected to represent Etobicoke-Lakeshore and after listening to people talk about a great many issues is that when one listens to discussions about issue after issue, one begins to appreciate the fact that Canadians are a tolerant people, a very fair people. This is so almost to the point of frustration. One sometimes thinks that Canadians can be pushed to any limits, that they can take almost anything and not respond. However, 1 have discerned that there is a certain flash point which occurs on an issue when one element emerges, and that element is the perceived double standard.
One quick example of the double standard can be seen in the tax laws. When someone who pulls into a gas station driving a Cadillac has paid less tax than the fellow who pumps the gas, that is seen to be inequitable. That is why Canadians got upset about the tax system. That is why the Government enacted a minimum tax and is introducing a thorough reform of the tax system.
The present example has to do with the refugee determination system. My constituency of Etobicoke-Lakeshore is composed of people from many different backgrounds. A great many of them are to this day still seeking to have family members join them. They are still spending months and indeed years complying with all the formalities and the detailed regulations of the immigration laws of Canada. They, like me, detest the double standard that can operate when others can come to this country and jump to the front of that queue in which they have been standing for months and years. Through distortion of the process, these people seek status here through what is in effect a parallel immigration system.
Immigration Act, 1976
The figures show that of those who have fraudulently claimed refugee status, next to none have ultimately been deported. In fact, we are looking at an alternate immigration system. It is not the kind of fair and equitable system that Canadians want. That is why legislation has been proposed. It has taken this Government and the previous Government some time to come to grips with how to deal with so difficult an issue as this.
I listened to the Right Hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Turner) deliver in this Chamber this afternoon a speech that I thought was very befitting of a former Prime Minister. It was balanced and dealt with these concerns, but even the right hon. gentleman was not able to avoid partisan lapses on this issue. He said, for example, that the Conservative Government has created a backlog in deciding refugee claims. That is very, very interesting. Why then was it a Liberal Government that appointed Rabbi Gunther Plaut to study the refugee determination problems which were already in existence long before September of 1984?
No, this is not something about which we can be partisan, no more than the Leader of the Opposition was when he said on July 17 on national CBC television that that boat might well have been apprehended and could have been turned back because this is not a legitimate refugee process. Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition and I wonder how he could say that on July 17 and make the comments he made today in this Chamber.
I believe all of us should draw back somewhat from partisan temptations to draw this issue too narrowly. Canadians are not looking to Parliament today to be partisan about this issue. Canadians are looking to Parliament today to settle once and for all something that has profoundly disturbed men and women of good faith, men and women who believe that the laws of Canada have some meaning.
Those who obey the laws of Canada, people who worry about getting their tax returns in on time, people who obey speed limits, people who are law abiding, look somewhat askance and, if we are not careful, will soon look with cynicism upon a system that cannot differentiate between those who willingly, knowingly abuse our system and are not being apprehended and dealt with in the way that they should and those who are not. That is why this legislation is before the House. The Government is seeking to respond to this concern.
I believe that the size of this problem should not be underestimated. Just this last week, someone asked me what difference 174 people would make in a country as large as Canada. Quite apart from the legal process and the manipulation of our refugee determination system which is involved in that particular episode, let me address that question.
We are not talking about 174 people. The fact is that so far, this year alone, 16,500 people came to Canada claiming refugee status. While every now and then there may be a bus entering Montreal or a boat landing off the shores of Nova Scotia, the daily reality is the touching down at international

August 11, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
airports of aeroplanes bearing up to 16,500 such people as of August of 1987. There were 18,000 such people last year. We are addressing a situation that is more serious than those numbers would suggest.
1 support the Bill because the legislation will protect the genuine refugee. The process will see claims dealt with fairly and quickly. It will prevent abuses.
Some of the features that 1 find attractive in this legislation include the existence of the independent refugee board, the quality oral hearings, the simplified process and the appeal to the Federal Court. 1 also welcome the fact that persons who will be excluded from that process under the new legislation will be those who have received refugee status elsewhere, those who may be returned to a safe country, those whose claims are clearly unfounded, those who have previously been rejected by Canada and those who are subject to removal orders.
I am also supporting this Bill because of the safeguards it contains. They include the agreement of a refugee board member, leave to appeal to the Federal Court, and provision of legal counsel. All those requirements of this Bill speak eloquently about the traditions of this country in dealing with refugees in a fair-minded and humanitarian fashion. I do not think any Government has to apologize at any time for trying to ensure that tradition continues.
1 was attracted to the suggestion by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he spoke of this as a global phenomenon and called for a Commonwealth conference on the issue. That idea should be looked at beyond the passage of this Bill because we are dealing with a long-term world-wide situation. The world has definitely changed in many respects since the UN convention on refugees was signed. Since World War II, Canada has welcomed 500,000 refugees. We have a preeminent leadership role to play and we can do it by taking up that larger and longer-term question.
Let us return to another element of Bill C-55 which is of concern to some people. With this legislation in place, we will be able to deal swiftly and fairly with those seeking refugee status. They will not be able to stay here for two or three years, during which of course a child might be born or other things happen so that by the time the case is finally heard it is practically impossible to deport them even if the case warrants it. However, the concern is that the invoking of the Charter of Rights by those who have come here seeking refugee status may cause a confounding of the will of Parliament.
As a former chairman of the parliamentary committee on equality rights and having worked closely with the Charter and its provisions, 1 recognize that it is a safeguard for the rights and freedoms of Canadians in times like this when the winds of passion and political turmoil blow. What concerns Canadians is the consequences of the Supreme Court decision in the Singh case where it was held that any person physically present in this country had access to all the rights and
remedies of the Charter. Of course, the wording of the Charter is not that these rights are accorded only to Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. It says they accrue to any individual, to a person. The Supreme Court took an understandable, legally correct, and in fact very broad interpretation of that clause. Yet to see someone come here intending to manipulate fraudulently our refugee determination process and then take full advantage of those guarantees, seems to be more than most Canadians ever bargained for.
I know the Bill does not contain wording that would qualify the Singh decision. That is perhaps a broader issue. However, as parliamentarians we must examine it in that context and it may be appropriate for the Government to refer the question of status and standing under the Charter, and specifically the Singh decision, to the Supreme Court of Canada, it may well be that our Supreme Court justices will welcome the opportunity to clarify the circumstances under which access to the Charter can be had by those who are neither citizens nor landed immigrants. The issue could be given a more complete examination than was possible in the specific fact situation of the Singh case.
1 have always summed up my political credo in a very simple way: Fair shares to all, special privileges for none. In that way I try to convey my strong feelings that a double standard is something Canadians do not want, should not tolerate, and must be ever vigilant in fighting against. I have tried in my remarks today to avoid a narrow, partisan approach. I have drawn attention to positive suggestions from both sides of the House. I am here to be the mouthpiece for the men and women of Etobicoke-Lakeshore and also to express my own conscience as someone who is determined to see that refugee determination in Canada continues to meet adequately the needs of those who come to Canada as a homeland for freedom. Those groups who are too quickly critical of this Government's response to the difficultie must sincerely reexamine their positions to see if they are not trying to maintain a system which will sooner rather than later come crashing down.
Such a refugee determination system must, first, last and always, have at its core public support. Once the refugees are in this country, they must be and will be welcomed as Canadians when they are bona fide refugees who have complied with our very generous requirements. To safeguard a bona fide system we must pass legislation such as Bill C-55. We must see that legislation such as its counterpart introduced in this House earlier today is also passed so that we can ensure that the future of this country follows in the tradition which all of us feel is fundamental to what Canada is all about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I realize there is a great desire to ask questions of my friend from Etobicoke-Lakeshore so I shall be brief. He has endeavoured to suggest there should be careful consideration of certain
August 11, 1987

matters. He suggested that the Supreme Court of Canada might be asked to reconsider the Singh decision. In his concluding comments he suggested on the other hand, that it is just as well to have a generous attitude and allowing the Charter to apply to all is not such a bad thing, and that we may want to back the suggestion of asking our Supreme Court justices to rethink the question. He also suggested that he was not endeavouring to be too partisan this afternoon and wanted careful consideration of the issue.
Has he given any thought to the possibility of Bill C-55 being given lengthy and very careful consideration by the standing committee under the able direction of his colleague from La Prairie, who I know will not be partisan about this Bill in giving it critical consideration? The committee, which was under the chairmanship of his colleague from Calgary, has done very good and careful work and it might well be trusted to do exactly that with Bill C-55 when the House has concluded second reading consideration.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, there were two questions. Regarding the first, 1 will not change what I said with respect to a further examination of the Singh decision. The time to reexamine that is at hand. I can assure the Hon. Member that my remarks today were well thought through and well considered. I fundamentally believe that, although the legislation before the House does not in any way directly raise Charter questions, that is very much in the mind of Canadians as they view this. They wonder how far, to what extent, and under what circumstances the Charter of Rights applies to people who come to this country. That is why I submitted that one suggestion. It is only one idea.
With regard to the Member's second question, I feel very strongly that both Bills should be considered promptly right here in Committee of the Whole. We have all heard from our constituents on this issue, perhaps more than on any other issue.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, formerly of the Lakeshore, referred to Edmund Burke and the obligation of Members to use their best judgment for the benefit of their constituents. Each of us had heard loudly and clearly from our constituents and we are quite capable of representing those views here in Parliament. The distilled wisdom of the collective people of the country can be brought to bear here. I do not think we need protracted hearings. 1 believe Members of Parliament can deal with this. My own personal view is that both Bills should be dealt with right here in Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a comment and perhaps a question to the Hon. Member. He stated that he supports the exclusion of certain refugees from the refugee determination process, namely those who come from safe third countries and those with unfounded claims. He is, therefore,
Immigration Act, 1976
against the idea of universal access to the refugee determination system which was supportd by Rabbi Plaut and the standing committee. Both those reports were in favour of universal access.
Rabbi Plaut's report reflects the broadly established consensus in the community of people who are knowledgeable about refugee law that if we have a process which turns claimants around within three or four months, abusers will not come. It would not be worth their while. The cost to come to Canada would be prohibitive if they knew that three or four months after arrival they will be sent back home.
Rabbi Plaut recommended that we ensure that everybody have access to the system and that there be procedural safeguards to ensure that cases are properly understood and that claimants have the opportunity to prepare their case adequately.
Does the Member think it is fair that Bill C-55, which he states he supports, would require refugee claimants to establish a credible basis for their claim within 72 hours of their arrival in Canada? They are in a new country, the language of which they may not speak and the laws and procedures of which they may be unfamiliar with.
I remind the Hon. Member that Rabbi Plaut studied the question of manifestly unfounded claims and rejected that concept. He said that we should not be screening people out on the basis of the fact that they cannot establish a credible basis for their claim, if you will, within a short period after their arrival but that they should have full access to the refugee determination system. Why does he not support that proper and appropriate principle?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, first, I do not believe that one element alone makes a good response to this problem. It may be, as the Member says, that Rabbi Gunther Plaut, representing a consensus on that one issue, felt that determination within a three-month period would largley deter others from coming here and abusing the system. That is not my view.
My view is that that is one element, combined with several others, such as features in this Bill and the counterpart legislation introduced earlier today dealing with detention, determination penalties, and so on, which together provide a package of responses which over-all will have the desired result which we both want, which is that the system not be abused.
On the point that the Hon. Member raised, 1 have no hesitation whatsoever in recognizing the appropriateness of the safe third country approach. That will be decided by Cabinet. Cabinet will look at such matters as the human rights record of those countries involved and the records of those countries in protecting refugees. These matters are well documented by independent sources such as Amnesty International to which the Cabinet will have access. Indeed, the Cabinet would be receiving advice on these matters from a credible source. That is another reason why I am fully supportive of this.

August 11, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
In addition to that, the screening process about which the Member is concerned will prevent repetive claims. It will ensure that claims from persons who have had an opportunity to obtain the protection of the convention in other countries are not being brought up in this forum yet again.
Although the Hon. Member asked the question, 1 see that he is now busily engaged in discourse. It may be that on this matter, unlike most others, the Liberals already know what they think and are not interested in listening.
The adjudicator and the refugee division member may also reject a claim where both determine that there is no credible basis for it. This, by any standard, is a relatively low standard. Any arguable claim will be afforded a further hearing before the refugee division.
Those are but a few of the reasons which the Hon. Member, in his quest for further intellectual understanding of this matter, may want to consider further. These have been thought about and are being responded to in the two Bills which are before Parliament and deserve passage now rather than the six-month hoist proposed by the Hon. Member's Party.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the House will know, and I want everyone to know, that we are presently debating an amendment moved by the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) which reads as follows:
Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, and to amend other
Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that it be read
a second time this day six months hence.
1 have a very short, precise question for my colleague. How do the people of his riding react to the Liberal motion, supported by the NDP, not even to discuss this Bill until 1988? How do the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore react to that firm position of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties not even to discuss this Bill until 1988?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, this question has not completely caught me by surprise because I have heard the point raised earlier in debate today. In Etobicoke-Lakeshore people are generally very concerned about this and want to see some action. They are not concerned about paliamentary niceties.
I have stressed two things concerning Parliament. I say that the Opposition has filibustered, that the Hon. Members for York West (Mr. Marchi) and Spadina (Mr. Heap) have been filibustering. I assist my constituents by providing the phone numbers of those two Toronto Members so they can phone directly and register their feelings there.
Furthermore, 1 believe that many of these people in my riding and elsewhere are those who wanted very much to see Parliament address the capital punishment issue. When 1 am asked why, in view of our majority in Parliament, we do not use closure even if the Liberals are so out of touch that they introduce a six-month hoist and the NDP blindly support that,
I say that there is only so much that can go through Parliament at one time, even with closure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for a short question or comment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, when 1 hear the definition of a filibuster as three hours of debate, 1 thank you especially for the chance to reply. First, the Bill was introduced on May 3 at first reading and, on June 18, there were three hours of debate. The amendment was moved on June 18.
The Sikhs came in mid-July and we are now in August. What is the Hon. Member talking about? He is trying to be what 1 would call dishonest with the Canadian public. I suggest that he stick to the facts. The motion was made in good faith on June 18, one month before the Sikhs came to this country. Those Members are exaggerating beyond all belief and scaremongering as they usually do. They are telling us that we should believe what they say. There is no way we can do that.
The Hon. Member did make a positive comment about my Leader's speech when he said that we should ask the United Nations or Commonwealth group to sit down and talk about the international problem of refugee movement across this great planet of ours.
If the Hon. Member supports that view, will he tell us how soon he could convince his Leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to convene that Commonwealth conference and get on with this very acute world problem of migrants and to discuss with our friends how we will come to an agreeable solution to settle the issue?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, in the brief bi-partisan moment of this debate, 1 would suggest to the Hon. Member that 1 believe the earliest opportunity would be this fall in Vancouver when the Commonwealth leaders gather there.
1 never repeat what goes on in the Conservative caucus meetings because we are not supposed to do so. I always tell my wife that I cannot tell her what goes on in caucus, but she says she does not have to ask because she can read about it the next day in the newspaper. However, without telling the Hon. Member what was said by our Leader in caucus, 1 can tell him that there is enough on the public record that must clearly make it evident to any discerning Canadian that, above all, the attribute that singles out the Prime Minister is a sense of tolerance and concern for the wellbeing of people. 1 make that not as a partisan comment but as a very sincere observation of the man.
I believe the suggestion raised on the floor of the House late this afternoon is one that he would find most attractive, most commending and compelling. If he does not read about that suggestion in Hansard, 1 will personally bring it to his attention as an item that might well be on the agenda. It is another issue on which our country is uniquely situated to play
August 11, 1987

a leadership role. It is a role that must be played because the problem we are facing with these two small pieces of legislation are but the tip of a very significant global iceberg.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what is so remarkable about questions being asked today by members of the Progressive Conservative Party is that they seem to be labouring under the impression that Canada has a minority Government that is in the hands of the Opposition or, alternatively, they seem to be labouring under the impression that only a few months have passed since they took office. These two strange notions must be put to rest.
Canadians know that there is a majority Government which is not in the hands of 73 members of the Opposition. The Government has the power to act and has exercised that political will on a few occasions. I suggest that 208 Progressive Conservative Members certainly have a strong weight when it comes to a vote against 73 opposition Members.
Second, when one considers almost three years of inactivity, it is peculiar to hear questions raised about the need for action. After all, it was not September, 1986 or September, 1985, but September, 1984 when Canadians gave a majority mandate to the Government. It has had the time to develop its measures and move them through Parliament.
One finds it very peculiar, to say the least, to hear the line of questions by Conservative Members who seem to be oblivious of these two major factors.
It is exactly one year today, on August 11, 1986, when 155 Tamils landed in Newfoundland. It is a very strange coincidence that this debate is taking place today. I find it very interesting and educational to see two pages in today's Toronto Star devoted to biographies of some 65 of those Tamils. I will read only the first biographical sketch accompanying the picture of Annamalai Kamaleswaran. It states that Annamalai Kamaleswaran had to leave his family to save it. In Sri Lanka, the 23-year-old Tamil refugee was preparing to study commerce in university but he said that the civil war forced his family to depend on relatives for support. Now Kamaleswaran operates a dyeing machine in a Montreal textile factory 12 hours a day, 72 hours a week, and sends about S500 a month to feed four brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents.
Page after page and picture after picture provide a very interesting human story about the sublime and the difficulty that a newly arrived person goes through when settling in this very hospitable and generous country of ours.
Against this context, it is difficult to understand why the Government would like Canadians to believe that until June, 1987, Bill C-55 was to be the answer to a problem and, second, that the Government would like Canadians to believe that we have a crisis on hand.
I will briefly try to deal with both assumptions by the Government and prove that both claims are inspired by incompetence, confusion, and by near panic.
Immigration Act, 1976
Let me first deal with the Bill before us today for debate. Between September, 1984 and May, 1985 the Government did nothing. As other speakers have indicated, the Government came to power with the benefit of a number of reports on the question of how to handle the flow of refugees. Individuals and institutions have produced documentation and studies for the benefit of Government, but not until May 5 of this year did the Government bring in a piece of legislation and not until June 18 of this year, if I remember correctly, did the Government decide to put forward for discussion in this House this measure, a measure which certainly raises a lot of questions. We received cables, letters and telephone calls. We made appointments on weekends in our constituency offices to speak to people who expressed their opposition or at least their concerns about Bill C-55. I am sure Members on the Conservative side have received the same kind of signals.
Why did that happen? It happened because in the Bill as drafted certain international obligations of Canada were denied, overlooked or ignored. The appeal procedure was faulty. It was an initiative which really upset and frustrated a lot of people in this field, including church organizations and volunteer organizations which help immigrants and refugees. They all said they did not approve of the notion that Canada should return a person who claims the status of refugee in Canada, after having visited for a while in another country, to a country which is not his or her own and where that person has no hope whatsoever of starting a new life. Therefore this procedure was not acceptable. It was on these three important grounds that our immigration critic asked questions and fought the measure, and then, in understandable frustration, put forward a motion for a six month hoist. That was very understandable.
We have here a credibility gap. It is a gap which reinforces the notion among Canadians that this Government cannot be trusted in what it says. It cannot be trusted when it claims it cannot pass legislation. It cannot be trusted when it tries to make Canadians believe that the Opposition can stop the legislation it puts forward. That is the substance of this credibility gap. There is a credibility gap both in the process and in the content of the measure this Government has attempted to put forward.
The Government has been in power for almost three years and, as I said, the measure it is proposing is being objected to by church organizations and voluntary groups, and it flies in the face of international commitments that Canada has made over decades to other countries.
It was not for nothing that the Governor General of Canada on November 13, 1986, received on behalf of Canadians from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees the Nansen Medal in recognition of what Canadians have done to help refugees in previous years. Under the Tory administration I doubt very much we will ever qualify again to receive such an

August 11, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
honour. Her Excellency, on accepting the medal, said, and 1 quote:
In accepting the Nansen Medal on behalf of all Canadians, I would like to thank those who made the decision to honour an entire nation for its openness, tolerance and generosity-I must praise the governments, charitable organizations, groups and individuals who have demonstrated the value of sharing and international solidarity . . . Each Canadian taxpayer has had a slake in this process and might view their contribution towards the reestablishment of refugees as an investment in the welfare of humanity.
These are the words of Her Excellency the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauve, Governor General of Canada. We certainly would not have received that kind of recognition had the Tories been in power in the preceding years, of that 1 am quite sure.
Let me refer to this notion of a crisis which compels this Government to call Parliament together. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) earlier punched that inflated balloon down to its real dimensions. In my opinion, if there is a crisis, it is a crisis because of the Government's mismanagement, delays, ineptitude and indecision over almost three years. The Government delayed because it could not act upon three reports and because it yielded to the exploitation of fears in and outside of its own ranks. It is very interesting to learn today about the conflict within the Tory ranks of two Members, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. On the one hand, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North sent out a letter to his constituents informing them he is angry because he feels that his Government acted responsibly to change the law and, on the other hand-and listen to this, Mr. Speaker, because this is extremely revealing-the Progressive Conservative Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in a press release yesterday is quoted as saying, and i quote:
In May 1987, the Government tabled Bill C-55, a Bill to amend the Immigration Act. It proposes a series of changes to the refugee determination process which would make it almost impossible for many genuine refugees to make a claim, and is in probable violation of both the U.N. convention on refugees (which we have signed and ratified) as well as our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms-
This is not an opposition Member saying this. It is the Progressive Conservative Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration commenting on Bill C-55. How do you like that, Mr. Speaker? In a press release issued by the Chairman of that committee, a member of the Conservative caucus, he shows he has seen through the smoke and has at least called it the way it is. That is quite an indictment. It points to quite a sham. I congratulate the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration for his courage. He unmasked the real substance of Bill C-55. He took seriously his own task and his own commitment as Chairman of that committee.
The crisis is not one engendered by 73 Members of Parliament. It is caused by the measure itself. It is built into it. It has
not been criticized by us; it has been criticized by the Chairman of the committee who happens to be a member of the government Party. How do you like that, Mr. Speaker?
I ask myself what the Government's reaction would have been if the boat had been full of Europeans. Have you asked yourself that question, Mr. Speaker? Suppose that boat had been full of people coming from any European country, white people without turbans, without daggers, and without anything with which we are not familiar. Would there have been such a panic? Would there have been such a crisis? Let us be honest. Let us try to ask ourselves that question. Let us try to face that type of intellectual and necessary exercise. If instead that pathetic boat had been a liner full of people with $1 million each applying to be accepted into Canada, what would have been our reaction? Just let us ask ourselves that question. Would there have been a sense of crisis? Would there have been a recall of Parliament to deal with 177 millionaires, white, asking to be admitted?


Philip Derek Lewis: What was the Liberal reaction in 1943?


Mr. Caccia:: Come on, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, be honest. Ask yourself what your reaction would have been. Get up and speak in this debate. It would be interesting to hear what the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary would be.
I submit to Hon. Members that Canadians should not be misled. It is a valuable service that The Toronto Star is playing by informing and educating the public as it does today with respect to what happened exactly one year ago.


Bill Attewell: Did anyone telephone your office?


Charles L. Caccia: Of course I received telephone calls. We all received telephone calls. We received telephone calls with respect to Bill C-55, something that the Hon. Member would have heard me state when I first started my intervention if he had been here. Of course we did.
Ali Hon. Members will remember how successful the Ugandans were, how successful the Vietnamese people were and how successful the Tibetans were. We all know' how successful subsequent waves of refugees will be if admitted to our country. But we cannot prejudge them. We cannot prejudge people before they have had the opportunity to make their cases. Their cases must be made.
In informing Canadians and in ensuring that they are not misled the Government has failed on a very important front. That is to say that it has not made sure that Canadians know and understand that the flow of immigrants is one flow and that the flow of refugees is another. When one refugee is admitted, we are not denying one immigrant entry. That is the task, the duty and the obligation of the Minister of Immigration. He must ensure that this is fully understood. He must diffuse public opinion in this regard in order to remove the fears and to ensure that refugees are not perceived as being competitors to the normal flow of immigrants.
August 11, 1987

The solution is there, as all Hon. Members know. There is the Plaut report which has been around since the winter of 1984-85, if the Government had had the political will to deal with it. In its recommendations the Plaut report takes into account Canada's international obligations. It emphasizes the importance of a speedy process. It also emphasizes the importance of remembering that in this game there has to be fairness.
I will now conclude my remarks. It was very popular to imprison Japanese Canadians at one time. We do not want to make a similar mistake with the type of legislation that the Government is proposing for speedy adoption at this time. That applies both to Bill C-55 as well as to Bill C-84.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. I have given him an extra two minutes, but his time has now expired. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) on a question or comment.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have to say that I was in my office when I heard the hon. gentleman making his intervention. I hastened down to the Chamber to identify myself with every word that he has uttered.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my great-great-grandfather on my father's side was one of those who brought not shiploads but row-boats full of refugees from the United States. Among them were my maternal great-great-grandmother and grandfather. When I look at Bill C-84 it is perfectly clear that I would not be standing here before Hon. Members today if this Government had been in power at that time.


Philip Derek Lewis: That is nonsense!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is also clear that in its haste to correct its public image the Government has hastened to identify itself with those who have not given very much thought to the issue of immigration or of refugees as they affect the country. They have deliberately attempted to confuse the two for no other reason than political opportunism.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer). I was amazed at the intellectual contortions that he went through in order to justify the absolutely unjustifiable. How can the Government ignore everyone in the country who has been involved with the question of refugees? There has been report after report. A parliamentary committee has studied the matter. Does the Government do this for no other reason than political opportunism?
I stood in this House and congratulated my country with pride because it won the Nansen Medal. I am ashamed of what the Government is attempting to do. Canadians have legitimate concerns about the abuse of the refugee process. But that is an abuse, as the Hon. Member indicated, that could
Adjournment Debate
have been corrected a long time ago without having premised its action on political opportunism and panic.
My question to the Hon. Member is very simple. Can he see any reasonable basis, apart from political opportunism and panic, which would justify, give any intellectual basis or any principled basis to what the Government will do by the introduction and passage of Bill C-55 and Bill C-84?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) can either answer tomorrow or take 60 seconds in which to answer now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I can't wait to hear it, Mr. Speaker.


David Berger: If you can't wait, then stick around, Ray.


Charles L. Caccia: I can understand why the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) feels compelled to leave the Chamber. Evidentally, it is getting too hot in the kitchen for him.
There is no reasonable basis, no reasonable argument, that can be made for Bill C-55. That is the reason why, after questioning and after the three-hour debate, our immigration critic put forward his motion with respect to hoisting the Bill for six months. That represents our position. It represents a well thought out position, a position which the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) arrived at slowly and gradually in a reasoned and patient manner after having exhausted all the alternatives. At that time that seemed to be the only possible solution to a situation in which a majority Government would not listen to our pleas to make at least two changes. If I remember correctly, two changes would have permitted the passage of the Bill very speedily. But we were faced with a stone wall. That is the reality.